The Forgotten Consort: The Goddess and Kåmadeva in the Early Worship of

Tripurasundar⁄

Anna A. (Anya) Golovkova

South Asia Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

aag227@cornell.edu

Abstract This article examines continuities between the Hindu Tantric tradition of
Tripurasundar⁄, which later came to be known as Çr⁄vidyå, and the antecedent tradition of
Nityås. A prominent role of Kåmadeva (the god of love) as the consort of the principal
goddess in the antecedent tradition of Nityås provides important clues for later
development of the worship of Tripurasundar⁄. Continuities between the worship of
Tripurå and the Nityå tradition includes a triangle at the heart of the Çr⁄cakra (the
principal ritual diagram), names of subordinate goddesses that clearly demonstrate a
historical connection with Kåmadeva, and elements of iconography of the principal
goddess modeled after visualizations of the god of love. Practices in the antecedent Nityå
tradition, outlined in the Nityåkaula Tantra, and the early tradition of Tripurasundar⁄ in
the Våmakeçvar⁄mata were meant exclusively for a male audience, a stance that was
revised in the later Çr⁄vidyå. Furthermore, propitiation of Tripurasundar⁄ in the ritual
sections of the Våmakeçvar⁄mata served primarily to satisfy desire by means of rituals of
attraction (åkar‚a~a) and subjugation (vaç⁄kara~a). Although Kåmadeva was no longer
propitiated in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, his prominent role in the ritual system of the
antecedent tradition illuminates features that remained at the core of the worship of
Tripurasundar⁄ for more than a millennium.

Keywords Çr⁄vidyå, Tripurasundar⁄, Nityå, Tantra, ritual, Kåmadeva, Çr⁄cakra, Hindu

goddesses, Hindu iconography, Kaulism

Introduction

In early January of 2007, at the invitation of a Telugu-speaking South Indian female

guru, Amma Sri Karunamayi, I attended a Lalitåsahasranåma mahåyajña (the great fire
sacrifice with a thousand names of Lalitå) in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. This
grand celebration, dedicated to the goddess Lalitå Mahåtripurasundar⁄, took place over
five days. Priests performed yajñas (sacrifices), in which oblations were offered into the
fire, and thousands of devotees, mostly women, chanted from memory a hymn consisting
of one thousand names of Lalitå, a popular Purå~ic form of Tripurasundar⁄1 (Tripurå). I
learned that many devotees in South India chant stotras (hymns of praise) dedicated to
Tripurasundar⁄ daily. Among these hymns are the Lalitåsahasranåma from the
Lalitopåkhyåna section of the Brahmå~∂a Purå~a, which was foregrounded in the
Hyderabad festivities, the Saundaryalahar⁄ (The Wave of Beauty), ascribed by tradition
to Çaπkara, the most famous philosopher of Advaita Vedånta, and the Kha∂gamålå (A
Garland of Swords), a hymn consisting of names of a vast retinue of Tripurå’s
subordinate goddesses. Both in the homes of devotees and in temples, these stotras are
chanted and used for a simple arcana (worship, in which an offering of vermillion
powder, flowers, or rice is made after chanting each name of the goddess) or for a more
elaborate p¨jå (ritual worship). One might even hear names of Tripurasundar⁄ blaring
from loudspeakers, as temples stir to life at dawn or after the heat of the afternoon sun
subsides.
Over the course of the past decade and a half, I have visited a number of premodern
goddess temples called the çaktip⁄†has (the seats of the goddess). Tripurasundar⁄ is seen
as the esoteric essence of the local goddesses in the major South Indian Çåkta (or
“belonging to the goddess”) temples in Srngeri (in Karnataka), Kancipuram (in Tamil
Nadu), Srisailam (in Andhra Pradesh), and Madurai (in Tamil Nadu), and the lesser-
known temples of Akhilå~∂eçvar⁄ in Tiruchirappalli in Tamil Nadu and M¨kåmbikå near
Mangalore in Karnataka. Many orthodox Hindu Brahmin leaders of these temples, and
the monastic institutions associated with them, are Çr⁄vidyå2 gurus and adepts. As
Smårtas, orthodox Hindu Brahmins, they view as their legacy çruti and sm®ti, texts
prescriptive for mainstream Hindu society. Yet they also worship Tripurasundar⁄, a
goddess whose ritual uses (non-Vedic) Tantric3 mantras, whose early Tantras and
exegesis demonstrate no connection to the Vedic corpus, and whose worship began as a
transgressive Kaula tradition. In my research, I grapple with understanding the historical
factors that led to this seemingly paradoxical state of affairs.
In this article, I discuss a profound connection of the tradition of Tripurasundar⁄ with
kåma (love and desire). I argue that a connection with Kåmadeva (the god of love), who
was the consort of the principal goddess in the antecedent tradition of Nityå (literally,
eternal) goddesses, formed the backdrop against which the tradition of Tripurasundar⁄
developed. Although Kåmadeva ceased to be propitiated, his prominent role in the
antecedent tradition illuminates features that remained at the core of the worship of
Tripurasundar⁄ for more than a millennium.
The textual contours of the tradition of the goddess Tripurasundar⁄, which later came
to be known as Çr⁄vidyå, have been broadly outlined by previous scholars. A number of
its major scriptural texts were identified by Teun Goudriaan (1981: 58–74), while Alexis
Sanderson (2007: 412–16, 2009: 47–49, 2014: 30–33), in a few pages and footnotes
among his vast body of work, located its early Tantras and commentaries within the
broader context of Çaiva Tantrism. Douglas Renfrew Brooks’s Auspicious Wisdom
(1992) provided the first in-depth investigation of Çr⁄vidyå texts and practices, while
Corinne G. Dempsey’s (2006) anthropological study immersed the reader into the world
of contemporary Çr⁄vidyå at the Sri Rajarajeswari Peetam in Upstate New York. None of
the texts of the antecedent Nityå tradition, however, has been systematically studied until
now,4 and only a handful of texts of the tradition of Tripurasundar⁄/Çr⁄vidyå has been
edited, studied, or translated (Khanna 1986; Brooks 1990, 1992; Padoux 1994, 2013;
Weber 2010; Fisher 2017).
My larger project is a study of the early development of the worship of
Tripurasundar⁄ before it became Çr⁄vidyå as it is known today—that is, a tradition both
Tantric and Vedic in its self-representation. Brooks’s choice of texts explicitly draws on
“the written canon that shapes the agenda of contemporary south Indian practitioners”
(1992: 37). My goal is to fill a scholarly gap by excavating the early sources of this
tradition, which are either not known to today’s adepts or known only by name—in short,
to go beyond the popular hymns and the later commentaries by Lak‚m⁄dhara and
Bhåskararåya and analyze the earliest Tantras and commentaries in context. In my
analysis of the early sources, I ask what factors contributed to the popularity of the
worship of Tripurasundar⁄ and allowed it to blossom into a pan-Indian tradition with a
profound influence on Hindu ritual.

Texts and Chronology

Before analyzing continuities between the traditions of the Nityås and Tripurasundar⁄, I
will provide a brief chronology of relevant textual sources, drawing on Sanderson’s
larger framework. Among other Kaula traditions, the worship of Kåmeçvar⁄ with her
retinue of Nityå goddesses postdates the Trika (the tradition of three goddesses, Parå,
Paråparå, and Aparå) and predates the traditions of Kubjikå and Kål⁄kula/Krama.5 Trika
Tantras do not mention the tradition of the Nityås. The Kubjikåmata and the
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya of the tradition of Kubjikå, however, do refer to the worship
of Nityås. In fact, the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, which I will draw upon here, provides
a detailed account of the Nityå tradition in its classifications of the Kaula doctrines as the
tradition of the Southern transmission. The earliest extant manuscript of the Kubjikåmata
dates from 1037/38 CE (Sanderson 2002: 1). As for Kål⁄kula/Krama, which propitiated
Kål⁄/Kålasaµkar‚a~⁄, the fourth Ía†ka of the Jayadrathayåmala, one of the largest
surviving Tantric scriptures, which was quoted by Abhinavagupta, included a
visualization of Nityåkål⁄, which was probably based on the Nityå tradition.6
Abhinavagupta, an influential Kashmirian polymath, who cited from a variety of sources,
also knew of the said tradition and referred to it in the Tantråloka and
Paråtriµçikåvivara~a.7 Evidence that has come to light so far places the tradition of the
Nityås prior to the early eleventh century at the very latest and likely earlier than that.
Textual sources for the Nityå tradition include three unpublished Tantras: the
Nityåkaula, the only extant text from within the antecedent tradition; the
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya of the Kubjikå tradition mentioned earlier; and the
Siddhakha~ḍa section of the eclectic Manthånabhairava Tantra. Here I draw on the first
two texts, both of which preserve a similar variant of the Nityå tradition.8 In the
Nityåkaula and the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, the principal goddess is accompanied by
Kåmadeva (the god of love, her consort in the Nityå tradition, but not in the tradition of
Tripurasundar⁄) and eleven subordinate Nityå goddesses. In the
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, the principal goddess is named Kåmeçvar⁄ (the ruler of
desire). The only manuscript of the Nityåkaula, which has come down to us damaged and
incomplete, does not provide the name of the principal goddess. Here I read the
Våmakeçvar⁄mata, also referred to as the Nityå‚o∂açikår~ava, against these texts. A
foundational Tantra for the worship of Tripurasundar⁄, the Våmakeçvar⁄mata lays out a
greatly expanded ritual system within the Çr⁄cakra, a distinctive ritual diagram of this
tradition. The vocabulary and metaphysics of the Våmakeçvar⁄mata suggest that the text
was probably redacted before the time of Abhinavagupta (flourished around 975–1025
CE) and K‚emaråja (flourished around 1000–1050),9 or in the early eleventh century at
the latest.10

Continuities Between the Traditions of Nityås and Tripurasundar⁄

Particularly remarkable for a historian of religion is the fact that in the Nityå tradition the
consort of the principal goddess was Kåmadeva and not Çiva, as in the later worship of
Tripurasundar⁄. It is not surprising that Tripurasundar⁄, the supreme goddess, later
referred to as Råjaråjeçvar⁄ (the ruler of kings), came to be aligned with Çiva, exceedingly
powerful and widely worshiped. But even though Kåmadeva ceased to be propitiated, his
association with the principal goddess in the antecedent tradition sheds light on a number
of features preserved in the premodern and contemporary worship of Tripurasundar⁄.
Although Kåmadeva was replaced by Çiva by the time of the composition of the
Våmakeçvar⁄mata, the iconography of the principal goddess, as well as descriptions of
the adept’s appearance for ritual performance, drew on descriptions of the god of love
and, at times, closely followed parallel passages in the Nityåkaula.
Iconographic visualizations of the principal goddess incorporated the four weapons
and red clothing associated with Kåmadeva. These attributes, drawn from descriptions of
the god of love, were also prescribed for the adept, who had to emulate the physical
appearance of the goddess in order to propitiate her. However, while the goddess’s
physical body was described in particular detail, the description of the adept focused
entirely on external attributes: clothing, ornamentation, make-up, etc.
I will not address here the theoretical implications of an intense focus on the female
body in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, the earliest extant text of a tradition, in which the role of
women continues to be in the process of vigorous negotiation and contestation.11 That is a
topic for a future paper. I will, however, make some initial observations about gender
roles and perception of body and sexuality. In doing so, I reference Laura Mulvey’s
(1975) classic essay, in which she theorizes ways of seeing and the pleasure of looking in
the context of film studies. Mulvey’s descriptions of the “magic” of film makes an
analogy with the spectacle of tantric ritual particularly apt:

the extreme contrast between the darkness in the auditorium (which also isolates the
spectators from one another) and the brilliance of the shifting patterns of light and
shade on the screen…give the spectator an illusion of looking in on a private
world.…Here, curiosity and the wish to look intermingle with a fascination with
likeness and recognition: the human face, the human body, the relationship between
the human form and its surroundings, the visible presence of the person in the world
(1975: 10).

Mulvey extends the earlier analysis of the pleasurable aspects of looking to

encompass gender. In the “male gaze,” a term coined by Mulvey, women are depicted
from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that sees them as sexual objects for the
pleasure of the male viewer. In an androcentric society, a woman is cast as an image and
a man the bearer of the look; the pleasure in looking is divided between “active/male and
passive/female” (1975: 11). As we will see, a similar dynamic is at play in the
Nityåkaula, Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, and Våmakeçvar⁄mata. Ritual actors in these
texts are exclusively male. Practices for attraction (åkar‚a~a) and subjugation
(vaç⁄kara~a) of women are among the most common. Furthermore, roles are clearly
distributed between male agents who performed rituals and female objects who served as
targets of rituals and objects to be looked at, described in highly sexualized terms.
In the remainder of the article, I will reflect on continuities between the traditions of
Nityås and Tripurasundar⁄, discussing the following features: triangle as the basic ritual
structure, memories of Kåmadeva in the names of subordinate goddesses in the later
system of worship, Kåmadeva’s weapons and the color red in Tripurasundar⁄’s
iconography and descriptions of a Tantric adept, similarities in rites of attraction, and
sexuality in descriptions of the principal goddess and women targeted in rituals of
attraction.

Triangle as the Basic Ritual Structure

The triad was a vital element in the ritual structure of the early worship of Tripurasundar⁄
adopted from the Trika and Nityå traditions, as I have discussed elsewhere (Golovkova
2019). Similarly, a triangle symbolizing the yoni (female sexual organ) at the heart of the
Çr⁄cakra (the principal ritual diagram) was also adopted from the antecedent tradition,
which in turn drew on the Trika either directly or via the tradition of Kubjikå. In the
Nityåkaula and the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, the goddess emerged from the center of a
triangle. The goddess’s retinue consisting of Kåmadeva and eleven subordinate
goddesses was placed around the inner triangle along the points and intermediate spaces
of a hexagram. In the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, the consort of the principal goddess was no
longer included in the ritual system. The greatly expanded—relative to the Nityå
tradition—retinue of subordinate goddesses was placed within the Çr⁄cakra, the principal
ritual diagram of this tradition, in which the most basic recurring element was the
triangle. While the overall scheme of the Çr⁄cakra is highly complex, in its center the
principal goddess still stands in the middle of a triangle, symbolizing the yoni, just as in
the Nityå tradition.
In the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, Kåmeçvar⁄ arises in the middle of a triangle (see,
for example, 102, 111, 147), representing the yoni. She is described “arising from her
ma~∂ala, a glittering triangle” (sphuracch®µgå†ama~∂alam; 147b), “which contains
within it three aspects of the goddess” (trikabhedåntaram; 147a). Her retinue, consisting
of Kåmadeva and eleven Nityås, is worshiped in “the spokes and the intermediate places”
(arakair antarålaiç ca; 125c) of a hexagon, a six-cornered fire ma~∂ala (‚a†ko~aµ
vahnima~∂alaµ; 125ab). In the Nityåkaula, Kåmadeva and eleven Nityås are also
arranged in a hexagon, which is described, identically, as a six-cornered fire ma~∂ala
(‚a†ko~aµ vahnima~∂alaµ; 2r1).
In the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, the triangle from which Kåmeçvar⁄ arises, is made
up of three p⁄†has (seats of the goddess) (trip⁄†hodbhavamadhyasthå; 102c).12 These are
Jålandhara, P¨r~ap⁄†ha, and U∂∂iyå~a. Kåmar¨pa is the fourth p⁄†ha located in the middle
of the triangle, which is the abode (dhåma) of Kåmeçvar⁄ (Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya
102–104). Similarly, in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata the goddess is said to embody the very
same pڠhas:

I worship Çr⁄ Tripurå, residing in Kåmar¨pa, Jålandhara, P¨r~ap⁄†ha, and

U∂∂iyå~a (çr⁄p⁄†ha), who is the treasure-house of the four commands (åjñås, that
is, teachings) (1.12).13

Images of the threefold emanation of the goddess in the Ciñci~⁄matasārasamuccaya

include a sprout14 and a water-nut,15 both of which are meant to evoke a triangle. This
distinctive imagery is also used in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, which suggests a close
connection between the tradition of Nityās and Tripurasundar⁄.

The primal [one], Våmå, has become the sprout of the seed in which all is
swallowed up. [As] Jye‚†hå [she is] the flame, and as Raudr⁄ [she is] the triangle
(or the water-nut), the embodiment of the swallowing of the world. Thus, she
indeed is the only supreme çakti, the supreme goddess (4.9–10).16

In the ritual system of the mature tradition recorded in the first chapter of the
Våmakeçvar⁄mata, a host of subordinate goddesses is arranged within the nine levels of
the Çr⁄cakra, the principal ritual diagram of this tradition. The focal point of the
configuration is Tripurasundar⁄, the principal goddess, located within the bindu (dot) at
the center of the innermost triangle. The Çr⁄cakra, perhaps the most complex and visually
attractive among Tantric ma~∂alas and yantras, consists of a bindu surrounded by nine
intersecting triangles, two circles of eight and sixteen petals, and a rectangular enclosure
modeled on a medieval fortress. The unique structure of the Çr⁄cakra, in which the
triangle is the most basic shape, serves as a ritual aid in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, and in the
later Yogin⁄h®daya,17 as a matrix for internalized yogic practices. Although stories of
Kåmadeva remained in the Hindu lore, the ritual worship of the god of love himself lost
its importance over time. While Çiva’s influence grew in what Sanderson described as the
“Çaiva Age,” Kåmadeva’s name remained preserved in the names of subordinate
goddesses in the Çr⁄cakra.

Kåma in the Names of Subordinate Goddesses

In the section of the Våmakeçvar⁄mata (1.132–168) that outlines the worship of the
Çr⁄cakra, the redactors included names and locations of all subordinate deities to be
propitiated within this ritual configuration. The functions of these ninety-seven
subordinate goddesses were given no explanation. Instead, they were explicitly stated in
the names of the goddesses themselves, each referring to various powers bestowed on the
adept. Given the early provenance of the worship of Tripurasundar⁄, it is not surprising
that many of these names were suggestive of Kåmadeva and kåma. For example, names
of goddesses of attraction (åkar‚a), located in the sixteen outer petals (1.138–143), evoke
all types of attraction—physical, mental, verbal, attraction of the senses, attraction of the
mind and memory, and so forth:

The attraction of desire (kåmåkar‚a~ar¨på), the embodiment of the attraction of

wisdom (buddhyåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄), one who attracts the ego (ahaπkåråkar‚i~⁄), the
embodiment of verbal attraction (çabdåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄), one who creates the
attraction of touch (sparçåkar‚a~ar¨på), one who produces the attraction of form
(r¨påkar‚a~akåri~⁄), the creator of the attraction of taste (rasåkar‚akar⁄), and one
who creates the attraction by smell (gandhåkar‚akar⁄), one whose nature is the
attraction of the mind (cittåkar‚a~ar¨på), one who is the embodiment of
attraction through constancy (dhairyåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄), one who attracts through
memory (sm®tyåkar‚a~ar¨på), and one who produces the attraction of name
(nåmåkar‚a~akåri~⁄), one who attracts by the so-called seed syllables
(b⁄jåkar‚a~ar¨pånyå),18 one whose nature is the attraction of the self
(åtmåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄), one who is the attraction of nectar (am®tasyåkar‚a~⁄), and,
the highest, one who is the bodily attraction (çar⁄råkar‚a~⁄) (Våmakeçvar⁄mata
1.138–141).19

Furthermore, the names of all eight deities in the eight inner petals, which surround
nine intersecting triangles, are connected with Kåmadeva himself, his ornaments and
weapons:

The flower of Anaπga (anaπgakusumåµ) in the east, the ornament of Anaπga

(anaπgamaπgalåm) in the south, the agitation of Anaπga (anaπgamathanåm) in
the west, the lovesick one (madanåturåm) in the north, the love letter
(anaπgalekhåm) in Agni’s [direction, in the southeast], one who abides in Anaπga
(anaπgavåsin⁄m) in [the direction of] Nir®ti [in the southwest], the goad of
Anaπga (anaπgåπkuçåµ) in Våyu’s [direction, in the northwest], [and] the garland
of Anaπga (anaπgamålin⁄m) in Ûçåna’s [direction, in the northeast]
(Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.143–144).20

In addition, the list of fourteen çakti goddesses worshiped in the fourteen spokes of
the fourth cakra (1.145–148ab) also includes several goddesses whose names are
associated with amorous attraction: one who causes all attractions (sarvåkar‚akar⁄), who
delights everyone (sarvåhlådakar⁄), the çakti who pleases all (sarvarañjanaçaktiª), etc.
The names of other subordinate goddesses on this level establish their governance over
siddhis (supernatural powers), which may have been particularly attractive during times
of war: one who puts all to flight, who produces paralysis, etc. The list becomes more
abstract toward the end of this set, including such names as one who accomplishes all
aims (sarvårthasådhak⁄), one who fulfills all hopes (sarvåçåparip¨rak⁄), the goddess who
encompasses all mantras (sarvamantramay⁄dev⁄), and, finally, one who causes the
dissolution of all dichotomies (sarvadvandvak‚ayaπkar⁄) (Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.145–
148ab).21
The most exalted position in the center of the Çr⁄cakra is occupied by goddesses
whose names emphasize sexual connotations of the triangle as the yoni. In the corners of
the innermost triangle is Kåmeçvar⁄ (ruler of desire), familiar as the principal goddess of
the Nityå tradition in the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, Vajreç⁄ (ruler of Vajra, the latter
indicating the male sexual organ), a variant of whose name (that is, Vajreçvar⁄) occurs in
the list of Nityås in the Siddhakha~ḍa of the Manthånabhairava Tantra (186v–231r), and
Bhagamålå (a garland of vulvas), with Tripurasundar⁄ herself in the middle of the
triangle:

In the triangle, which is in the middle of all, one should worship Kåmeçvar⁄ in the
forward triangle [the Western direction], Vajreç⁄ in the Southern [right triangle],
Bhagamålå in the left [Eastern triangle], and Tripurasundar⁄ in the middle, O
goddess. He should worship all of them together with the root vidyå and
separately with their own syllables (Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.161–162).22

Kåmadeva’s Weapons in Iconography

The four weapons of Tripurasundar⁄—that is, the noose, goad, bow, and arrows—are
among the most prominent features of her iconography drawn from visualizations of the
four-armed Kåmadeva. A propensity for imagery in the red part of the spectrum, another
striking feature in the descriptions of the physical form of this goddess, likewise has its
origins in visualizations of the god of love. In the Ûçånaçivagurudevapaddhati,
Kriyåpåda, for example, Kåmadeva is described as follows:

[He is] red, wearing red garments, youthful, with bright earrings, decorated with a
pearl necklace, bracelets on upper arms and wrists, a diadem, rings and toe rings,
and endowed with other divine ornaments, garlands, and fragrances, carrying a
flower bow, arrows, a noose, and goad….Having visualized [him] in this way,
[the adept] should honor Kåma [that is, Kåmadeva] (22.32–33, 35a).23

Already in the Nityåkaula (5.38) the goddess is described as holding the goad, noose,
flower bow, and arrows of flowers in her four hands.24 In the later Våmakeçvar⁄mata,
these attributes are explicitly referred to as the weapons of Kåma, even though Kåmadeva
no longer appears as Tripurasundar⁄’s consort:

In the center of the cakra [surrounding the innermost triangle, in the four cardinal
directions], one should worship the four in order: the arrows of Kåma, the bow,
his noose, and goad, together with the words for crushing, deluding, controlling,
[and] paralyzing, O great goddess (1.159cd–160).25

These four weapons became the standard attributes of Tripurasundar⁄ in textual and
visual representations—one of many remarkable examples of the ritual stability of this
tradition.
Red Imagery in Descriptions of the Goddess

An important feature in the iconography of the principal goddess in the Nityåkaula and
the Våmakeçvar⁄mata is the abundance of figurative language evoking the color red. The
use of a particular color is certainly not unusual in descriptions of Hindu deities. The
goddess Sarasvat⁄ is portrayed wearing white, the color of purity, while Lak‚m⁄ is
typically associated with pink and gold, signifying prosperity. Çiva is described as white,
the color of ashes in cremation grounds. In later iconography, he is portrayed as blue-
skinned, stemming from his sobriquet n⁄laka~†ha (a blue-throated one), an epithet based
on the tradition in which Çiva drank the poison churned up from the primordial ocean
during extraction of the nectar of immortality. Neither is the color red unique to
descriptions of Kåmeçvar⁄ and Tripurasundar⁄. Durgå, the demon-slaying goddess of the
Mårka~∂eya Purå~a, is also portrayed wearing red garments. It seems, however, that
descriptions of no other deities contain such bounty of images evoking the color red.
Already in the Nityå tradition, reddish imagery is common. In the section of the
Nityåkaula that includes a visualization of the goddess for prayogas (rituals for mundane
aims), she is described as “red” (raktåµ) and “wearing red garments” (raktåmbaråm)
(5.38ab; Nityåkaula: 11v4). She is also “mounted on a sun-chariot” (år¨∂hå ådityar¨pe
rathe), “endowed with four lions26 of dharma (righteousness), knowledge, etc., [or
power], and dispassion” (dharmajñånådivairågyaµ), and is accompanied by Madana
(that is, Kåmadeva), who “holds a flower bow” (pu‚pacåpaçaravyagrå) and “is standing
in the shooting posture” (pratyål⁄∂håsanasthitå)27 as the charioteer (Nityåkaula 5.39–41).
The goddess “shines like a ruby” (padmarågaprat⁄kåçå)28 and “resembles glittering
lightning” (ta∂ittaralasaµnibhå) (Nityåkaula 5.43). Elsewhere in this text, she is
“resplendent with red flowers, her body red, the mother of desire, reddening this world
with passion,…radiant like a red firefly” (Nityåkaula 2r6, 2v8).29
In the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, the main goddess in the section that describes the
Nityå tradition is referred to as Kåmeçvar⁄, the goddess of desire, whose consort is
Kåmadeva. In this text, she is also described as “full of the radiance of hundreds of newly
risen suns” (bålårkaçatatejå∂hya-)30—or reddish, and “brilliant [like] hundreds of
thousands of lightning bolts” (vidyutko†isamaprabhå) (103, 18r2–3).
Similarly, the Våmakeçvar⁄mata overflows with figurative language evoking the color
red, as, for instance, in this passage:

Then, the goddess, resembling a lotus, reddish as the rays of the young sun, like a
hibiscus or a pomegranate flower, shining like a ruby, like saffron water…whose
red lips resemble copper, coral, and the bimba fruit, who is like nectar…whose
lotus hands are tender like the red lotus flowers (1.113–114ab, 119ab, 121ab).31

While metaphors, similes, and epithets describing the goddess as red had been
common in the Nityå tradition, in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, descriptions of Tripurasundar⁄
are tinted with every shade of the reddish hue found in the natural world.

Red Imagery in Descriptions of the Adept

A related feature, extension of the lavish use of the color red from descriptions of the
goddess to those of the adept, is also found both in the antecedent tradition and the later
worship of Tripurå. In fact, portrayal of the adept’s preparation for ritual is similar
enough in the Nityåkaula and the Våmakeçvar⁄mata to suggest that the redactors of the
latter text drew on the former. Compare, for example, passages marked in bold below.
Both Tantras prescribe that the adept must dress in red clothing, adorn himself with red
substances or ornaments, and apply the fragrance of incense, while making reddish
offerings to the goddess. Thus, in the Nityåkaula, having installed Tripurasundar⁄ in his
own body through nyåsa,32 the adept must envision himself as the goddess, down to her
physical attributes, in order to propitiate her:

The mantrin (one who recites the mantras), clad in red clothing, [adorned with]
garlands of red [flowers], [body smeared with red] unguent, eyes lined with
collyrium, and feet painted red with lac, bearing the (noose) [and] goad, or with
the bow and arrows in his hands, mouth full of betel and spices, perfumed with
fragrance of incense, observing silence… (3.6cd, 3.7–8ab).33

A similar passage is also included in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata:

[The adept,] body red with saffron and adorned with red garments, mouth full of
betel and spices, perfumed with fragrance of incense, body smeared with
camphor powder, adorned with red ornaments, covered with red flowers, and
anointed with red fragrances, observing silence… (1.103–104).34

In both passages cited above from the Nityåkaula and the Våmakeçvar⁄mata, male
noun endings in Sanskrit do not indicate a male or female ritual agent, but point to the
fact that the worship was meant to be performed exclusively by men. The male adept here
is instructed on how to dress in preparation for ritual, emulating the goddess. And yet,
while he puts on her garb, jewelry, and cosmetics in order to propitiate her, he remains an
agent in control of the ritual and his body. The descriptions are factual, providing a list of
items he should wear. His physical body itself is not mentioned; neither is he is presented
as an object of desire. As we will see, this is not the case with descriptions of women.
Women in these texts are displayed as passive objects for the male gaze, their physical
bodies described in erotic detail. They do not act, but are acted upon. They do not
perform rituals, but serve as consorts to be forcibly attracted by ritual means. This was
not the case across all the texts within this tradition. As Hugh B. Urban has remarked in
the context of Assamese Tantra, “the role of women in Tantra is far more complex than a
simple binary of empowerment or exploitation.…Even within a single tradition there are
multiple possible roles for women” (2010: 128). Similarly within the contemporary
Çr⁄vidyå tradition, women have tapped into “the power at the margins,” to use Urban’s
model (26; emphasis in original), as popular gurus, as is the case with Amma Sri
Karunamayi mentioned in the beginning of this article, and as high level initiates, many
of whom I have met with personally. Clearly, at some times and in certain places the
tradition was sufficiently open to women to overlay the originating androcentrism with
some other (more broadly) gendered matrix. But this is not the case in the texts examined
here.

Rituals for Attracting Women

In addition to similarities in the passages describing the adept’s preparation for the
performance of rituals, both the Nityåkaula and the Våmakeçvar⁄mata give significant
attention to rituals for attracting a desired partner, including female inhabitants of the
heavens and underworlds. These two texts provide similar lists of human, divine, and
semidivine women, whom the adept is expected to attract. For example, Nityåkaula 3.14–
16ab reads:
 Engaged in vratas (observances) and mudrås (ritual gestures), the adept will
achieve success of the rite. A daughter of the god, a någa woman, a gåndharva
woman, a yak‚a maiden, vidyådhar⁄, apsaras, and likewise a human woman—
[having performed the observance for] seven, six, five, four, three, two [months],
or one [month], O beloved, by the power of the vratas and mantras, [she] would
become [his] slave after one month [for a human woman, two months for an
apsaras, etc., according to the list above].35

Similarly, Våmakeçvar⁄mata 2.12cd–14 promises the adept success in attracting any

woman he desires:

Having affixed the name of the unseen in the middle of the cakra and having
formed the yonimudrå, he will immediately attract a yak‚a woman, a gandharva
woman, a kinnara woman, or a goddess, a siddha maiden, a någa maiden, a
daughter of a god, a khecara woman, a vidyådhara woman, an apsaras, a
daughter of a sage, or an urvaç⁄.36

As we have seen, close parallels in iconography of the principal goddesses, the

appearance of the ritualist, and descriptions of rituals, which provide similar taxonomies
of female consorts, support the hypothesis that the worship of Tripurasundar⁄ in the
Våmakeçvar⁄mata was heavily indebted to the earlier Nityå tradition. Moreover, both the
Nityåkaula and the Våmakeçvar⁄mata objectified women and were meant exclusively for
a male audience. Attraction, subjugation, etc., were the only contexts in which women
were mentioned in these texts—to serve as objects for the rites performed by male adepts.
And as we will see in the next section, their passive acquiescence was assumed and
unquestioned.

Desire, Transmission of Knowledge via Sexual Fluids, and Sexuality

Another notable parallel between the traditions of Nityås and Tripurasundar⁄ includes
association of the principal goddesses with sexual fluids, desire, and passion. In the Nityå
tradition, this connection is explicitly expressed. For example, in the
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, Kåmeçvar⁄, whose consort is Kåmadeva, is described as
follows: “She [arises] from desire; desirous and desirable herself, she causes [the world]
to consume desire; thus she is Kåmeçvar⁄ (the ruler of desire)” (103cd–104ab).37
Furthermore, several epithets in this text associate the goddess with transmission of
knowledge via sexual emissions, which serve as power substances in the Kaula
traditions.38 The epithets of the goddess in the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya include
Çukravåhin⁄ (awash with seminal fluids; 112) and Çukradev⁄ (the goddess of seminal
fluids; 115). She arises from “the drenched birth-ma~∂ala” (dråvitaµ janmama~∂alam;
105). The sage who worships her “is flowing with the power of Kåmeçvar⁄” (kåmeçvaryå
prabhåvena dravantaµ bhavate tayå; 117cd), who “has produced the divine transference
of knowledge” (jñånasaπkråma~aµ divyaµkrtvå; 116).39
While the Våmakeçvar⁄mata does not refer to sexual fluids, visualizations of the
goddess in this text contain remarkably sensual and erotic descriptions. For example:

[The goddess, endowed with] high breasts decorated with strings of pearls,
adorned with a waist with three undulating folds40 and a navel resembling a
whirlpool in a river of beauty, with [large and beautiful] hips endowed with a
girdle made from priceless jewels,…with thighs that are delicate like lovely
plantain trunks, adorned by a pair of calves which are equal to plantains in their
 beauty, with her lotus feet scraped by the crest jewels of the bowing
Brahma,…with her body red like vermilion, unrestrained, passionate, like an
elephant, endowed with every variety of seductive garb [and] decorated with all
the ornaments (Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.122–125, 129).41

Examples of a close similarity of themes, imagery, and even parallel passages in the
Nityåkaula, the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, and the Våmakeçvar⁄mata demonstrate a
strong continuity between the antecedent Nityå tradition and the early tradition of
Tripurasundar⁄. Remarkably, a visualization of Tripurasundar⁄ in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata,
which the adept is instructed to perform prior to drawing the Çr⁄cakra, cited above, is
much more sexualized than in the earlier texts. The physical body of the goddess (breasts,
waist, navel, hips, thighs, and calves), which the male adept is meant to visualize prior to
ritual performance, are described in erotic detail. Represented through the male gaze, she
is a sexual object for the pleasure of heterosexual male desire. Propitiation of the goddess
in the Våmakeçvar⁄mata serves primarily to satisfy this desire. This is not the case in the
fourth chapter of this text, in which the redactors describe the goddess performing her
cosmic functions,42 as I discussed elsewhere (Golovkova 2017, 2019). Moreover, this is
far from the case in many other texts on the worship of Tripurasundar⁄, including, for
example, the Yogin⁄h®daya, likely the next Tantra in this tradition chronologically. In the
Våmakeçvar⁄mata, however, practices performed for the purposes of amorous attraction
were more numerous than any other. They are described in sections on mantra repetition
(japa), rites involving ritual diagrams (yantras), and ritual offerings into a consecrated
fire (homa). The Våmakeçvar⁄mata promised in no uncertain terms that as a result of the
prescribed worship the adept would become irresistible to women:

Wherever worship is properly performed by the adept—in the country, in the city,
or in the village—there arises agitation among the people. Women come from
afar like ants [penetrating] the bones,43 with their minds inflamed, pained, and
afflicted by the blazing fire of desire. On seeing him, O great goddess, all the
women have the orbs of their buttocks quivering, their minds confused, and their
hearts infatuated, bewildered by the mantras (2.1–3).44

The passages from the Våmakeçvar⁄mata cited above describe both the goddess to be
propitiated and the women to be attracted by ritual means as objects of desire for the male
gaze. While the goddess is described in the expository section of the fourth chapter as a
cosmic agent, in ritual context she is objectified and sexualized. Furthermore, propitiation
of the goddess in this text was meant primarily to attract and subjugate women closer to
home, a recurring theme in this early Tantra on the worship of Tripurasundar⁄. Clearly, a
mere choice to worship a female deity does not make a tradition feminist.

Conclusion

In this article, I examined previously unstudied and unpublished manuscripts pertaining

to the Nityå tradition, which provide context for study of the early worship of
Tripurasundar⁄. While the Våmakeçvar⁄mata may have been unusual for the tradition of
Tripurasundar⁄ in its overtly sexualized descriptions of women, many features of this text
that stem from the earlier tradition of the Nityås remained ingrained in the ritual system
of the mature tradition. Thus, images evoking red in figurative language, the promise of
success in love, and references to Kåmadeva and kåma embedded in the names of
subordinate goddesses were preserved—memories of the earlier tradition, in which the
goddess’s consort was the god of love. The triangle from which the primary goddess
emerged in the antecedent Nityå tradition was placed at the center of a vastly complex
configuration of the Çr⁄cakra, which included ninety-seven subordinate goddesses
arranged on nine levels. The ritual system, including mantras, mudrås, and the ritual
diagram has remained virtually unchanged from the early eleventh century into the
present time: an extraordinary example of ritual stability. Even though Çiva replaced
Kåmadeva as Tripurasundar⁄’s consort, the goddess continued to wield Kåma’s noose,
goad, bow, and arrows, and not Çiva’s triç¨la (trident), for example.
And so, while Kåmadeva ceased to be ritually important in the mature tradition,
names of subordinate goddesses within the Çr⁄cakra remind us of an earlier connection
with the god of love. These vestiges of the prominent role of Kåmadeva as the goddess’s
consort in the antecedent tradition remained at the core of Tripurasundar⁄’s worship for
more than a millennium. Given the efforts of later South Indian exegetes to distance
themselves from their Kaula roots, as I discuss elsewhere (Golovkova 2017), this
connection to the Tantric worship of Kåmadeva is particularly noteworthy. Moreover, the
profound connection of the tradition of Tripurasundar⁄ with love and desire, stemming
from its provenance in the Nityå tradition, may have been one of the key factors that
contributed to its popularity. Ferocious goddesses with garlands of skulls and ornaments
of bones, relics of cremation grounds inherited from the earlier Çaiva traditions,
continued to be a strong presence in Çåkta traditions in South Asia during the succeeding
centuries. But a very different nature of this goddess, who had been associated with
Kåmadeva, the god of love, presented a desirable and popular alternative.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Lawrence McCrea, Alexis Sanderson, and Somadeva

Vasudeva, with whom I read these texts over the years, for their kind suggestions and
thoughtful advice. I am also indebted to anonymous reviewers for their comments, which
were exceptionally helpful for revising this article. Their questions and suggestions
helped me refine my conceptualization, reorganize the structure of the article, and
improve it in numerous other ways. I have also received suggestions on a much earlier
iteration of this research from James Mallinson, James Benson, and Antonia Ruppel, to
whom I am grateful.

Note on Textual Emendations I have recorded emendations by listing the revised

reading first, followed by a lemma sign “]”, and by “corr.” to refer to a simple correction,
“em.” to refer to an emendation, and “conj.” to refer to conjecture. If the emendation is
mine, it is followed only by a colon; if it has been suggested by someone else, the last
name of the person is included before the colon. Finally, I include the original reading,
followed by “Cod.” if it occurs in a manuscript and “Ed.” if it occurs in a printed edition.
I have used round brackets in the transliteration to indicate a conjecture in place of
missing text in the manuscript, the latter recorded in the transcription of the original as
“+”. I used square brackets to supply a word not present in the original, but necessary to
properly render the meaning in English.

Notes

1. Tripurasundar⁄ translates from Sanskrit as a beauty of the three cities. The number
three in the goddess’s name refers to her triadic nature inherited from the earlier Trika
and Nityå traditions. The earliest etymologies describing this goddess as threefold (4.11)
and the mother of the three worlds (4.4) are found in the passage of the Våmakeçvar⁄mata
on her threefold emanation. The Våmakeçvar⁄mata expounds on her triadic nature
extensively, stating that she encompasses the male trim¨rti (Brahmå, Vi‚~u, and Ûça, that
is, Çiva) and the three çaktis (powers)—jñåna, kriyå, and icchå. In this text, her name is
explained as follows: she emits the three worlds; because of that she is called Tripurå.

tripurå trividhå dev⁄ brahmavi‚~v⁄çar¨pi~⁄|

jñånaçaktiª kriyåçaktir icchåçaktyåtmikåpriye\
trailokyaµ saµs®jaty asmåt tripurå parik⁄rtitå\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 4.11–12ab\
Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 104–105.

Lalitå, a popular name for this goddess in the later tradition, means “a playful
one”; and Råjaråjeçvar⁄, another common name, can be translated as “a ruler of
kings.”

2. Çr⁄vidyå refers to a Vedåntized form of worship of the goddess under the names of
Tripurasundar⁄, Lalitå, and Råjaråjeçvar⁄. This compound consists of two parts: çr⁄, an
honorific, which conveys the meaning of auspiciousness, and vidyå. Typically, the word
vidyå is translated as “knowledge,” but I propose that in this context it refers to the
Tantric mantras used to propitiate female deities, and specifically to the root mantra
(vidyå) of this tradition, famous for its unusual length of fifteen syllables. None of the
texts discussed here use the term “Çr⁄vidyå.” Its earliest usage appears to be in
Am®tånanda’s fourteenth-century commentary on the Yogin⁄h®daya, in which it is used in
the context of the m¨la mantra. Am®tånanda’s thirteenth-century South Indian
counterparts, Çivånanda and Vidyånanda, do not use this term in their commentaries on
the Våmakeçvar⁄mata.

3. Tantra in Sanskrit has many meanings. The most relevant here are “framework,”
“system,” and “doctrine.” Hindu Tantric traditions used scriptural texts called Tantras
and Ågamas as their sources of knowledge. These texts were usually framed in Çaiva
(that is, “belonging to Çiva”) and Çåkta (“belonging to the goddess”) Tantrism as a
dialogue between Bhairava and the goddess. Tantras typically included systems of
instruction on the nature of the main deity, subordinate deities, mantras and vidyås
(condensed ritual formulas for male and female divinities, respectively), mudrås (ritual
hand gestures), yantras and ma~∂alas (ritual diagrams), rituals (p¨jå and homa),
visualizations and/or meditative practices, goals of practice, and prescriptions for adepts’
behavior. Although Tantric traditions were often associated with the use of transgressive
rites, which violated rules of ritual purity, they in fact occupied various locations along
the continuum between the heterodox and the orthodox. The most transgressive were
Kaula (belonging to kula, family) traditions, believed by their adherents to occupy the
highest esoteric level of Tantric Çaivism. Some Kaula adepts, sometimes referred to as
“heroes,” rejected the dichotomy between “pure” and “impure,” made “impure” offerings
of fish, wine, etc., and, in some traditions, even bodily excretions, and ritually consumed
them, although the extent to which transgressive practices were used differed according
to time, geographic location, and lineage. The Nityå tradition and the tradition of
Tripurasundar⁄ were classified in extant texts among Kaula traditions. The
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya, on which I draw in this article, described four Kaula
traditions, with the Nityå tradition as the transmission of the Southern order. A later
classification according to the Vå∂avånal⁄ya Tantra elevated the worship of Kåmeç⁄ (or
Kåmeçvar⁄), Lalitå, Bålå, Mahåtripurasundar⁄, and Tripuråbhairav⁄ to the upper tradition,
superseding all other Kaula systems. (The transcription of the relevant portion of
Vå∂avånal⁄ya in Puraçcaryår~ava: 11–17 was kindly provided to me by Alexis
Sanderson in an email correspondence on May 17, 2010.)
4. See also Golovkova 2012, 2017, and 2019.

5. For a detailed account of Kaula Tantras, see Sanderson 2014: 28–32.

6. The description in the Jayadrathayåmala includes epithets which would not be out of
place in Tripurå’s visualizations, while also adding a terrifying flavor, appropriate to
Kål⁄:

dhyåyet triko~amadhyasthåµ låk‚åru~asamaprabhåm|

suk®çåm ekavadanåµ netratretågnisa~nibhåm|
påçåπkuçadharåµ raudråµ çaracåpakarodyatåm| (Ía†ka 4, Nityåkål⁄vidhipa†ala 11c–
12, cited in Sanderson 2010: 48fn97).

7. nityåtantravidaª k®‚~aµ kårtikåc caramaµ dinam\ kulasya nityåcakrasya p¨r~atvaµ

yatra tanmatam| Tantråloka 28.123cd–124ab| Tantråloka 5.171–172.
yathå çr⁄nityåtantre‚u aikåråtmakamohanab⁄japrådhånyahetuª| Paråtriµçikåvivara~a
(Gnoli 1985: 238).

8. I discuss all three Tantras in greater detail in my upcoming monograph entitled A

Goddess for the Second Millennium.

9. For discussion of the dates of Abhinavagupta and K‚emaråja, see Sanderson 2007:
411.

10. See Golovkova 2012 and 2017.

11. See, for example, Dempsey 2006.

12. The same triangle is described in Kumårikåkha~∂a 42–43ab with U∂∂iyå~a,

Jålandhara, and P¨r~ap⁄†ha in the corners and Kåmar¨pa in the front—that is, in the
middle of the triangle (Dyczkowski 2009: 290–91).

13. kåmap¨r~ajakåråkhyaçr⁄p⁄†håntarnivåsin⁄m|
caturåjñåkoçabh¨tåµ naumi çr⁄tripuråm aham\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.12\
Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 15.

14. For example, “having the nature of the sprout of consciousness” (cidaπkur⁄) in
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya 131d and “a divine sprout born from the power of
consciousness” (cicchaktipras¨taµ divyam aπkuraµ) in Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya
143ab.

15. For example, Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya 133b, 147b, and 151d.

16. kaval⁄k®taniªçe‚ab⁄jådyåπkuratåµ gatå|

våmå çikhå tato jye‚†hå ç®πgå†åkåratåµ gatå\
raudr⁄ tu parameçåni jagadgrasanar¨pi~⁄|
evaµ så paramå çaktir ekaiva parameçvar⁄\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 4.9–10\
Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 103–104.

17. The Yogin⁄h®daya was likely redacted after the mid-eleventh century, see Golovkova
2017 and 2019.
18. “Seed syllables” are one-syllabic mantra sounds ending with a nasal, frequently used
in Tantric traditions. The power of the mantra is said to sprout through mantra repetition
by the initiate. Furthermore, the power of Tantric mantras cannot be released without an
initiation by a guru.

19. kåmåkar‚a~ar¨på ca buddhyåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄|

ahaπkåråkar‚i~⁄ ca çabdåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.138\
sparçåkar‚a~ar¨på ca r¨påkar‚a~akåri~⁄|
rasåkar‚akar⁄ dev⁄ gandhåkar‚akar⁄ tathå\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.139\
cittåkar‚a~ar¨på ca dhairyåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄|
sm®tyåkar‚a~ar¨på ca nåmåkar‚a~akåri~⁄\ 1.140\
b⁄jåkar‚a~ar¨pånyå åtmåkar‚asvar¨pi~⁄|
am®tasyåkar‚a~⁄ ca çar⁄råkar‚a~⁄ parå\ 1.141\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 64–65.

20. anaπgakusumåµ p¨rve dak‚i~e ’naπgamaπgalåm|

paçcime ’naπgamathanåm uttare madanåturåm\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.143\
anaπgalekhåm ågneye nair®te ’naπgavåsin⁄m|
anaπgåπkuçåµ våyavya ⁄çåne ’naπgamålin⁄m\ 1.144\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 65–66.
madanåturåm] em. Sanderson: madanottaråm (madanåturåm is recorded in manuscript
ga, Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 66).

21. sarvasaµk‚obhi~⁄ çaktiª sarvavidråva~⁄ tathå|

sarvåkar‚akar⁄ cånyå sarvåhlådakar⁄ tathå\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.145\
sarvasaµmohan⁄ çaktiª sarvastambhanar¨pi~⁄|
sarvajambhanar¨på tu sarvato vaçakåri~⁄\ 1.146\
sarvarañjanaçaktiç ca sarvonmådasvar¨pi~⁄|
sarvårthasådhak⁄ çaktiª sarvåçåparip¨rak⁄\ 1.147\
sarvamantramay⁄ dev⁄ sarvadvandvak‚ayaπkar⁄| 1.148 ab| Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 66.

22. sarvamadhyatriko~e ’pi p¨jayen m¨lavidyayå|

kevalåk‚arabhedena samastavyastayeçvari\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.161\
kåmeçvar⁄m agrako~e vajreç⁄µ dak‚i~e tathå|
våme’pi bhagamålåµ tu madhye tripurasundar⁄m\ 1.162\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 70–71.

23. raktaµ raktåmbaradharaµ yuvånaµ m®‚†aku~∂alam\

hårakey¨raka†akamauliku~∂alan¨puraiª\ Ûçånaçivagurudevapaddhati, Kriyåpåda
22.32\
anyaiç ca divyåbhara~air målyair gandhaiç ca bh¨‚itam|
pu‚pacåpaµ çaråµç cåtha dadhataµ påçam aπkuçam\ 22.33\
evaµ dhyåtvårcayet kåmam…| 22.35a| Ûçånaçivagurudevapaddhati 3.222.
pu‚pacåpaµçaråµç] em. Sanderson: pu‚pacåpaçaråµç Cod.

I am grateful to Alexis Sanderson for providing me with the text of this visualization.

24. på(çåπ)kuçadharå d⁄ptå pu‚pacåpodyatåµ paråµ\

pu‚pabå~adharå dev⁄ caturhastopaçobhitåµ| Nityåkaula 5.38cd–5.39ab| Nityåkaula
11v4–5.
på(çåπ)kuçadharå] conj. Sanderson: + kuçadharå Cod.
While the language of the Våmakeçvar⁄mata is mostly standard, gender and number of
noun endings in the earlier Nityåkaula and the Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya are frequently
ungrammatical. I did not correct such endings here and elsewhere to preserve the flavor
of the so-called Aiça (divine) style of these Tantras.

25. cakramadhye catu‚kaµ tu krame~a parip¨jayet\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.159cd\

kåmabå~ån maheçåni dhanus tatpåçam eva ca|
jambhamohavaçastambhapadaiª sahitam aπkuçam\ 1.160\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 70.

26. The lions were retained in visualizations of the goddess in the mature tradition, but
the chariot was exchanged for a throne.

27. Although the endings in this half-verse are feminine, I read the last two epithets as
referring to Madana, because endings in the Nityåkaula are frequently ungrammatical
(see note 24 above) and because no feminine subject has been introduced. Furthermore,
the goddess had already been described holding the goad, noose, bow, and arrows of
flowers just above (Nityåkaula 5.38cd–39ab), so this would be an unnecessary repetition.

28. Compare to Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.114ab below.

29. + + + + + + + råµ raktapu‚paviråjitåµ\

raktåπgåµ rågajanan⁄µ rañjayant⁄m idaµ jagat\ Nityåkaula 2r6\
…indragopakasaµkåçå…\ 2v8\
raktåπgåµ rågajanan⁄µ] em. Sanderson: raktåπgarågajanan⁄µ Cod.

30. Compare to bålårkakira~åru~åm below in Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.113.

31. tataª padmanibhåµ dev⁄µ bålårkakira~åru~åm|

japåkusumasaπkåçåµ då∂im⁄kusumopamåm\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.113\
padmarågaprat⁄kåçåµ kuπkumodakasaµnibhåm| 1.114ab|
tåµravidrumabimbåbharakto‚†h⁄m am®topamåm\ 1.119ab\
raktotpalasamåkårasukumårakaråmbujåm\ 1.121ab\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 60–61.

32. Nyåsa is a preparatory Tantric ritual, which uses mantras, visualization, and touch to
divinize the body of the adept.

33. raktåmbaradharo mantr⁄ raktamålyånulepanam\ Nityåkaula 3.6cd\

kajjalåñjitanetras tu pådau laktakarañjitau)\
(påçåπ)kuçadharo maun⁄ dhanuªçarakaro ’thavå\ 3.7\
tåmb¨lap¨ritamukho dh¨påmodasudh¨pitaª\ 3.8ab\ Nityåkaula 7r1–7r2.
pådau laktakarañjitau] conj. : pådau vå ra ++ Cod.

This conjecture was suggested to me both by Alex Sanderson and an anonymous

reviewer, who provided a parallel of this verse quarter in Brahmayåmala 21.63b, 21.86b
(edition of Kiss 2015), and 59.94d (unpublished).

(påçåπ)kuçadharo] conj. Sanderson: ++ kuçadharo Cod.

dhanuª°] em. Sanderson: dhanu° Cod.

34. kuπkumåru~adehas tu vastråru~avibh¨‚itaª|

tåmb¨lap¨ritamukho dh¨påmodasugandhitaª\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.103\
karp¨rak‚odadigdhåπgo raktåbhara~ama~∂itaª|
raktapu‚påv®to maun⁄ raktagandhånulepanaª\ 1.104\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 55.

35. vratamudråsamåyuktaµ sådhakaµ siddhibhåg bhavet|

devakanyå tathå någ⁄ gåndharv⁄ yak‚akanyakå\ Nityåkaula 3.14\
vidyådhar⁄m apsarasaµ tathå månu‚ayo‚itaª|
sapta ‚a† pañca catvåris tridvi-ekagu~aµ priye\ 3.15\
vratamantraprabhåvena måsata kiπkar⁄ bhavet| 3.16ab| Nityåkaula 7r8–7v1.
vidyadhar⁄m apsarasaµ] em. : vidyådhar⁄çvar⁄ caiva.

36. ad®‚†åyås tu saµyojya nåma cakrasya madhyagam\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 2.12cd\

viracya yonimudråµ tu tåm åkar‚ayati k‚a~åt|
yak‚i~⁄µ cåtha gandharv⁄µ kinnar⁄µ våsureçvar⁄m\ 2.13\
siddhakanyåµ någakanyåµ devakanyåµ ca khecar⁄m|
vidyådhar⁄m apsarasam ®‚ikanyåm athorvaç⁄m\ 2.14\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 79–80.
saµyojya] em. : saµyojyaµ Ed.

37. kåmataª kåmin⁄ kåmån bhak‚ayant⁄ svakåmin⁄µ|

tasmåt kåmeçvar⁄ dev⁄…\ Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya 103cd–104ab\
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya 18r3–4.
kåmån] em. : kåmå Cod.
bhak‚ayant⁄] em. : bhak‚ayanti Cod.
dev⁄] em. : devi Cod.

38. For consumption of sexual fluids as power substances and the role of sexual
transactions in Kaula ritual, see White 2003: xii–xiii, 94–122.

39. dravantaµ corr. : dravanvaµ Cod.

saπkråma~aµ corr. : saπkråmanaµ Cod.
Please note that I am not correcting the endings to preserve the style of this Tantra (see
note 24 above).

40. Translation of compound by Alexis Sanderson.

41. muktåhåralatopetasamunnatapayodharåm|
trival⁄valanåyuktamadhyadeçasuçobhitåm\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 1.122\
låva~yasaridåvartåkåranåbhivibh¨‚itåm|
anargharatnagha†itakåñc⁄yuktanitambin⁄m\ 1.123\
…kadal⁄lalitastambhasukumårorum ⁄çvar⁄m\ 1.124cd\
låva~yakadal⁄tulyajaπghåyugalama~∂itåm|
namadbrahmaçiroratnanirgh®‚†acara~åmbujåm\ 1.125\
mahåm®gamadoddåmakuπkumåru~avigrahåm|
sarvaç®πgåraveçå∂hyåµ sarvålaπkårabh¨‚itåm\ 1.129\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 61–62.
trival⁄valanåyukta°] em. Benson: trival⁄balanåyukta° Ed.
låva~ya°] em. Dviveda: låva~aya° Ed.
°åvartåkåra°] em. : °åvatåkåra° Ed.

42. See, for example, Våmakeçvar⁄mata 4.11–12ab cited in note 1 above.

43. Translation of compound by Alexis Sanderson.

44. yatrånena vidhånena sådhakena prap¨jyate|
deçe vå nagare gråme jagatk‚obhaª prajåyate\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata 2.1\
jvalatkåmågnisantåpapratåpottaptamånasåª|
pip⁄likåsthinyåyena d¨råd åyånti yo‚itaª\ 2.2\
mantrasaµm¨∂hah®dayåª sphurajjaghanama~∂alåª|
taddarçanån mahådevi jåyante sarvayo‚itaª\ 2.3\ Våmakeçvar⁄mata: 78.

References

Brooks, Douglas Renfrew. 1990. The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to
Hindu Çåkta Tantrism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brooks, Douglas Renfrew. 1992. Auspicious Wisdom: The Texts and Traditions of
Çr⁄vidyå Çåkta Tantrism in South India. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ciñci~⁄matasårasamuccaya. NAK MS 1-767, NGMPP Reel No. B157/19: paper, Newari
script, 1754 CE.
Dempsey, Corinne G. 2006. The Goddess Lives in Upstate New York: Breaking
Convention and Making Home at a North American Hindu Temple. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dyczkowski, Mark S. G., ed. and trans. 2009. Manthånabhairavatantram
Kumårikåkha~∂aª: The Section Concerning the Virgin Goddess of the Tantra of the
Churning Bhairava. Volume 1 of 14. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for
the Arts/D.K. Printworld.
Fisher, Elaine M. 2017. Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early
Modern South India. Oakland: University of California Press.
Golovkova, Anna A. 2012. “Çr⁄vidyå.” In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brill’s Encyclopedia of
Hinduism, 4: 815–22. Leiden: Brill.
Golovkova, Anna A. 2017. “A Goddess for the Second Millennium: Transgression and
Transformation in the Hindu Tantric Worship of Tripurasundar⁄,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Golovkova, Anna A. 2019. “From Worldly Powers to J⁄vanmukti: Ritual and Soteriology
in the Early Tantras of the Cult of Tripurasundar⁄,” Journal of Hindu Studies 12, 1:
103–26.
Golovkova, Anna A. Forthcoming. “Kåmeçvar⁄: Visualizing the Goddess of Desire.” In
Michael Slouber, Garland of Forgotten Goddesses: An Anthology of Hindu Goddess
Tales. Oakland: University of California Press.
Goudriaan, Teun. 1981. “Hindu Tantric Literature in Sanskrit.” In Teun Goudriaan and
Sanjukta Gupta, Hindu Tantric and Çåkta Literature, 1–172. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Gnoli, Raniero. 1985. Il commento di Abhinavagupta alla Paråtriµçikå:
Paråtriµçikåtattvavivara~am. Traduzione e testo. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio
ed Estremo Oriente.
Hatley, Shaman. 2018. The Brahmayåmalatantra or Picumata. Volume I: Chapters 1–2,
39–40, and 83. Revelation, Ritual, and Material Culture in an Early Çaiva Tantra.
Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry.
Ûçånaçivagurudevapaddhati. 1920. Ûçånaçivagurudevapaddhati: The Siddhåntasåra of
Ûçånaçivagurudevamiçra (ed. T. Ganapati Shastri). Trivandrum: Superintendent,
Government Press.
Khanna, Madhu. 1986. “The Concept and Liturgy of the Çr⁄cakra based on Çivånanda’s
Trilogy.” Ph.D. dissertation, Wolfson College, Oxford University.
Kiss, Csaba. 2015. The Brahmayåmalatantra or Picumata. Volume II: The Religious
Observances and Sexual Rituals of the Tantric Practitioner: Chapters 3, 21, and 45. A
 Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Pondicherry: Institut français de
Pondichéry.
Lalitåsahasranåma. 2009. Lalitåsahasranåma, Containing “Saubhågyabhåskara”
Sanskrit Commentary of Bhåskara råya (ed. Brahmanand Tripathi). New Delhi:
Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.
Mulvey, Laura. 1975. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16, 3: 6–18.
Nityåkaula. NAK MS 2-226, NGMPP Reel No. B 26/21: palm-leaf.
Nityå‚o∂açikår~ava. 1968. Nityå‚o∂açikår~ava with the Commentaries of Çivånanda
(¸juvimarçin⁄) and Vidyånanda (Artharatnåval⁄) (ed. Vrajavallabha Dvivedi). Yoga
Tantragranthamålå, 1. Varanasi: Sanskrit University.
Padoux, André. 1994. Le coeur de la Yogin⁄: Yogin⁄h®daya, avec le commentaire D⁄pikå
d’Am®tånanda. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.
Padoux, André, trans., with Roger-Orphé Jeanty. 2013. The Heart of the Yogini: The
Yogin⁄h®daya, a Sanskrit Tantric Treatise. New York: Oxford University Press.
Puraçcaryår~ava. 1985. Puraçcaryår~ava (ed. Muralidhar Jha). Vrajajivan
Prachyabharati Granthamala, 10. New Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2002. “Remarks on the Text of the Kubjikåmatatantra.” Indo-Iranian
Journal 45, 1: 1–24.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2007. “The Çaiva Exegesis of Kashmir.” In Dominic Goodall and
André Padoux, eds., Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner / Tantric
Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner, 231–442 and (bibliography) 551–82.
Pondicherry: Institut Français d’Indologie.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2009. “The Çaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Çaivism During
the Early Medieval Period.” In Shingo Einoo, ed., Genesis and Development of
Tantrism, 41–349. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2010. “Çaivism, Society, and the State.” Unpublished article
manuscript.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2014. “The Çaiva Texts.” In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brill’s
Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 6: 10–42. Leiden: Brill.
Tantråloka. 2002. Tantråloka of Abhinavagupta with the Sanskrit Commentary of
Jayaratha and the Hindi Commentary of Rådheçyåma Caturved⁄. Volume 5. Varanasi:
Caukhamba Vidyabhavana.
Våmakeçvar⁄matam. 1945. The Våmakeçvar⁄matam with the Commentary of Råjånaka
Jayaratha (ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri). Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 66.
Srinagar: Mercantile Press.
Weber, Claudia, ed. 2010. Das Paraçuråma-Kalpas¨tra: Sanskrit-Edition mit deutscher
Erstübersetzung, Kommentaren und weiteren Studien. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
White, David Gordon. 2003. Kiss of the Yogin⁄: “Tantric Sex” in its South Asian
Contexts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yogin⁄h®daya. 1988. Yogin⁄h®daya: Am®tånandayogik®tad⁄pikayå Bhå‚ånuvådena ca
Såhitam (ed. Vrajavallabha Dviveda). New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.