Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 brill.

com/iij

Te Heads of the Godhead

Te Number of Heads/Faces of Yoginīs
and Bhairavas in Early Śaiva Tantras

Judit Törzsök
Université Charles-de-Gaulle, Lille III

Abstract
Tis paper examines the prescriptions for multi-headed representations of śaiva deities, in
particular of yoginīs and Bhairavas, in early tantric or āgamic literature. Multi-headed deities
appear mostly in the prescriptions of mantra images, usually without any discussion of their
material representation. Te paper shows that the four-faced mantric representation of Śiva,
Bhairava and other divine creatures precedes the five-headed one, as is observable in epic lit-
erature and in art history. Te fifh head is associated with tantric or āgamic śaivism, whose
supreme deity is the five-headed Sadāśiva. As the five-headed mantra image becomes the stan-
dard, texts are rewritten to conform to this norm. Moreover, female deities are also ofen assim-
ilated to this god and can be assigned four or five heads depending on the context. It is sug-
gested as a hypothesis that the four-faced Śiva, or rather Īśvara, was perhaps adopted from
the proto-tantric currents of the Atimārga (or from one particular current), from a represen-
tation whose Eastern or frontal face represented Śiva as half man, half woman (ardhanārīś-
vara).

Keywords
history of śaivism; iconography of Śiva; mantra images; multi-faced Hindu deities; textual
transformations; yoginīs

*) Te first version of this paper was presented at the Tird International Workshop on Early
Tantra (TIWET) in Hamburg, on the 20th of July, 2010. I am grateful to the organizers,
Dominic Goodall and Harunaga Isaacson for having invited me to this workshop and to all
the participants for their comments, suggestions and criticism, especially to Dominic Goodall,
Shaman Hatley and Csaba Kiss. I also thank Csaba Kiss for discussions prior to the work-
shop. Te workshop was organized with the help of the Early Tantra Project, financed by
the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf
(DFG).
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15728536-0000002
134 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

Introduction: Faces, Mantras, and Deities

Te multi-headed representations of Śiva and śaiva deities are among the most
wide-spread and well-known ones.1 Tere are various etiological myths on the
subject, but the original function of the heads looking in different directions—
whether on a liṅga or other images—was perhaps to show the deity as an omni-
present and all-surveying god. It has been demonstrated that among the multi-
headed representations, the four-headed Śiva certainly preceded the five-headed
one, although sometimes the fifh head is said to be present but invisible.2 Tis
should not come as a surprise: such changes through accretions can be univer-
sally seen in the Indian tradition. In addition to the art historical evidence, well-
known textual developments also confirm the direction of change. An early, per-
haps the earliest, etiological explanation of the four heads is to be found in the
Mahābhārata,3 in the episode about goddess Tilottamā: she was so beautiful that
when she circumambulated Śiva, he created additional heads for himself to see
her continuously, in all directions. In śaiva scriptural sources4 and exegesis, the
four heads are commonly interpreted as teaching various branches of non-śaiva
and proto-tantric revelation, while the fifh or upper head is seen as representing
the śaiva scriptures surpassing the others.5
Te iconography of images and the exegetical interpretations of the heads or
faces have been studied and analyzed in detail. In this paper, I would like to
look at some of the earliest (mostly unpublished or not critically edited) tantric
sources and compare the iconography of multi-headed Bhairavas6 and the god-

1) Tis paper is partly an attempt to consider certain aspects and sources of the multi-headed
Śiva figure that are not discussed by Srinivasan, 1997. As Bakker, 1999 observes, ‘[t]he phrase
“the Āgamas” appears throughout the book whenever the author is in need of substantiating
a view, but nowhere in the book do we learn more about this elusive category of texts.’ Let us
note that āgama and tantra are perfect synonyms in this context.
2) See for instance Hanneder, 1998, p. 15, Kreisel, 1986, p. 64 note 202 and Sharma, 1976.

Bakker, 2002 shows, among other things, that the four-headed representation certainly pre-
cedes the five-headed one. Whether a fifh, invisible, head can be assumed to exist when only
four are represented is very questionable, see Bakker, 1999, p. 342.
3) See, among the several versions, Mahābhārata 12.30.20–26. For an analysis of the different

versions, in particular in the context of the history of liṅga worship, see Bakker, 2002.
4) Te earliest occurrence of this idea may well be in the Niśvāsamukha, see in particular

4.131–135.
5) See Hanneder, 1998, pp. 15–23 for a detailed treatment of these correspondences and

other homologizations, and for a summary of Abhinavagupta’s position, who posits a face that
surpasses the fifh.
6) From the art historian’s point of view, it would be necessary to define what is meant by

Bhairava as opposed to other fierce manifestations of Śiva. Tis paper, however, examines only
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 135

desses or yoginīs they describe and prescribe, and the interpretations they provide
to explain the four or five heads. I hope to show that, although the five-headed or
five-faced representation of Bhairava and related deities is thought to be ubiqui-
tous in tantric scriptures, the actual situation is much more complex. Attributing
five faces to Bhairava and some related tantric deities becomes the norm in later
scriptures; but four-faced śaiva deities turn up in various contexts quite ofen and
seem to underlie the earlier iconography in tantric sources too. Furthermore, as
the textual evidence shows, there was a conscious effort to rewrite texts according
to the newer, five-faced iconography.
While some textual passages became reworked in order to correspond to the
five-faced iconography, some others either kept the four-faced form(s) or re-
tained a number of heterogenous prescriptions. Such heterogenous or self-con-
tradicting prescriptions may have come from texts composed over a longer period
or from heterogenous source material. Whatever the case, some scriptures as well
as exegetes are conscious that these contradictory prescriptions exist, and attempt
to explain or to systematize them.
In the course of the following investigations, one must also bear in mind that
these faces were first and foremost not an iconographic feature in tantric texts,
for they conceived of deities primarily as mantras. Te importance of the faces
lies in their ritual use, it seems, and they always appear as mantra syllables that
are to be ritually installed before worship.7
My survey starts with a text which does not deal so much with the question of
four or five faces, but rather, with the question of how many faces yoginīs, forming
a female retinue of Bhairava, are supposed to have. Tis as well as examples from
other sources also shows the ways in which the iconography of Śiva or Bhairava
influenced the iconography of female deities and yoginīs too, perhaps as part of
an attempt to systematize iconography and ritual.

the textual evidence and prescriptions, in which Bhairavas are usually called by this name. In
some other cases, when the deity is named otherwise (Kapālīśa etc), I still categorize him as
a Bhairava, for such manifestations of Śiva represent the supreme deity of Bhairavatantras.
Similarly, if a male deity figures with yoginī-type goddesses, I also take him to be a Bhairava, for
yoginīs are primarily associated with Bhairava. I do so in spite of the fact that such gods may
be called Rudras. Te Rudra terminology seems to have survived from pre- or proto-tantric
usage in Bhairavatantras, without any particular Vedic allusion or implication (in such usages
as Rudraśakti for the Śakti that possesses the practitioner).
7) I cannot treat the relation of body parts and face-mantras in this paper. For some remarks,

see Hanneder, 1998, pp. 11–14.

136 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

Face Mantras and Faces of yoginīs: One or Four?

One of the topics treated in chapter 23 of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata8 is the so-
called face mantras (vaktramantra), used to create heads or faces for deities. Te
text prescribes the same set of mantras for yoginīs and gods. In both cases, one is
to employ a set of four mantras for four faces, which are formed with the semi-
vowels, the letter RA and the Anusvāra: YRAM RRAM LRAM VRAM.
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
Siddhayogeśvarīmata 23.6–11
Ten one should join the Bindu to the four [letters of the] elements [Y, R, L and V],
which must sit on the [letter of the] staff [R];9 and employ these ‘[mantra] faces’ in
the case of all [kinds of deities] formed of mantras. Te twenty-sixth [consonant of the
alphabet] [Y] together with the Bindu and the letter R is the excellent seed-syllable,
†based on the seed-syllable of Indra and having the Bindu as its head[?]†. Tis is the
eastern face of the Great God [Bhairava] as well as of [any of ] the goddesses, O Pārvatī.
Te end of the end of MA [= R] with the Bindu and the letter R, with a frightening
appearance,10 is to be the southern face of the group of gods and goddesses. Ten the
great seed syllable of Indra, the auspicious twenty-eighth [consonant] [L] together with
the Bindu and the letter R is the beautiful/auspicious11 western face. Te excellent seed
syllable of Varuna [V], split with the seed of the Fire [R] and endowed with the Bindu
˙
as its head is known as the northern face. [One should] start with the eastern face, and
end with the northern one, O fair-faced one.12

8) An early śaiva Tantra teaching the cult of yoginīs, dating from around the seventh cen-

tury ce, see Törzsök, 1999 and Törzsök, forthcoming.

9) Te fact that this letter is called ‘staff ’ suggests that a Gupta-type R was envisaged, which

indeed has the form of a staff. Tis, however, does not imply that the text comes from the
Gupta period, for at least two reasons. First, the Gupta type script was used well afer Gupta
times, and the shape of some letters does not change radically for several centuries (depending
of course on the region, the scribe, the exact date etc). Second, the names of the letters seem
to be preserved well afer the period in which they correspond in shape; the Trika’s Mālinī
code, for instance, corresponds to the Gupta alphabet (see Vasudeva, 2007), but remains in
use for several centuries, even when the names no longer describe the shapes of the characters
appropriately. It is nevertheless possible that the names indeed described the shapes of the
letters in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, for it is the earliest scripture of the Trika.
10) Tis may be an allusion to the identification of the southern face with the frightening

Aghora, as is the case in later literature. Note that, as Bakker, 2002, p. 399 remarks, this
face is said to be frightening (raudra) already in the Anuśāsanaparvan of the Mahābhārata
(13.128.3–8).
11) Tis could be an allusion to what becomes the Vāmadeva face, but its direction does not

correspond to where Vāmadeva is normally placed.

12) kramād bhūtacatuskam ca dandāsīnam sabindukam / sarvesu mantrarūpesu vaktrāny etāni
˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
yojayet // sadvimśakam param bījam rephayuktam sabindukam / (aindrabījakrtādhāram āha-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
tam bindumastakam?) // pūrvavaktram maheśasya devīnām caiva pārvati / māntāntam ca
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
sabindum ca sarepham bhairavākrtim // daksinam tad bhaved āsyam devadevīganasya tu /
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 137

Tere are two problems or oddities if one is to follow the prescription of

this passage. First of all, if one looks at the descriptions of various yoginīs and
goddesses in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, they have only one face in almost all cases.
Human yoginīs are of course not concerned by this prescription; but various
categories of divine yoginīs and goddesses are, especially mantric ones.
In order to see which yoginīs are meant here, it may be useful to summarize the
three categories of goddesses or divine yoginīs in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata.

1. Major mantra goddesses: Parā, Parāparā and Aparā. Tese mantra goddesses
(vidyā), also called yogeśvarīs or yoginīs, can bestow supernatural powers
themselves or can invoke hordes of yoginīs to help the practitioner. Tey are
present throughout the text and appear in the course of initiation too. When
visualized in various contexts, they are pictured as seated and always have only
one head. However, it must be remarked that according to the lost Trikasāra
as cited by Jayaratha ad Tantrāloka 3.253cd–254ab,13 Parā is four-faced when
she is surrounded by her retinue of twelve yoginīs. No such prescription is
found in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata.
2. Minor mantra goddesses or ad hoc yoginīs. Tey are usually identified with
simple seed syllables, and are said to be seated in a circle. Tey are invoked
to bestow various supernatural effects themselves. In some cases they are also

punar aindram mahābījam astāvimśatimam śubham // sarepham bindusamyuktam paścimam

˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
vadanam śubham / vārunam ca param bījam agnibījena bheditam // bindumastakasamyuktam
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
vadanam cottaram smrtam / pūrvavaktrād samārabhya yāvatsaumyam varānane // For the
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
apparatus to the edition, see Törzsök, forthcoming. Tere are no major variants here that could
change the interpretation. Te only problematic element is that Indra’s seed syllable is pre-
scribed for the first mantra. Indra’s mantra is LĀM according to the text, so perhaps a long Ā
˙
must be understood here. However, this is not mentioned when describing the other mantras.
It must also be noted that these two pādas, which appear redundant as well as confusing, are
missing in the (unattributed) citation of the passage in the Tantrālokaviveka of Jayaratha ad
30.16. Tey may have been added to the text at a later stage, perhaps afer Jayaratha’s time,
or may have been part of the short recension of the text, which is the recension that has come
down to us. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the passage is very corrupt and that the element
Indra or aindra does not refer to the letter or letters used here, but to the fact that Śiva’s east-
ern face is the principal or ruling one, expressing his sovereignty as described in Mahābhārata
13.128.5ab and analyzed in Bakker, 2002 pūrvena vadanenāham indratvam anuśāsmi ha. In
˙ ˙
this case, it may be of interest that the Siddhayogeśvarīmata follows relatively closely this epic
passage, for the western face, qualified as śubham (fair, auspicious) here, is said to be saumyam
(pleasant, auspicious) and to bring happiness to all creatures (sarvaprānisukhāvaham) in the
˙
epic.
13) śrīsāraśāstre cāpyuktam madhya ekāksarām parām // 253 // pūjayed bhairavātmākhyām
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
yoginīdvādaśāvrtām /—sāraśāstre iti śrītrikasāre | yaduktam tatra—“parām tvekāksarām ma-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
dhye śaṅkhakundendusundarām / caturbhujām caturvaktrām yoginīdvādaśāvrtām” iti.
˙ ˙ ˙
138 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

used to invoke hordes of yoginīs. However, contrary to the major mantric

goddesses, they usually figure only once in the text and their visualization is
not described in detail. 25.55cd for instance enjoins only that those in ques-
tion must look like Parāparā,14 which implies that they are one-faced. Chap-
ter 20, which describes the elaborate khecarīcakra listing all the names and
seed-syllables of its numerous yoginīs, remarks simply in verse 64 that they
must look terrifying.15 Tere is only one passage in which such goddesses or
yoginīs are supposed to have four faces, at least temporarily: in chapter 22, a
circle of twelve yoginīs is described as favourable (prasannāh) and charming
˙
(manoramāh) in the first part of the day. Tey have the appearance of young
˙ h) and display four faces (caturvaktrāh).16
girls (kanyārūpā
3. Witch-like flying ˙ yoginīs. Tey are innumerable and˙ must be invoked by
mantra goddesses. When invoked, they appear flying, in contrast with the
usually seated mantra goddesses. Many of them have animal faces, and the
descriptions suggest that each has only one: ‘some are camel- or tiger-faced,
some are donkey-faced.’17

Given that mantra goddesses and yoginīs are usually one-faced in this text, the
general prescription of four mantras for four faces seems somewhat out of place.
But such a prescription may have been motivated by an effort to assimilate yoginīs
to their Bhairava. For the most detailed iconographic description of Bhairava in
the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (20.24 ff.) describes him as having four faces indeed:
‘the black god is decorated with a tiara of skulls and with four faces, he has sixteen
arms and twelve eyes.’18
Now if Bhairava has four faces, the next question is how he has lost his fifh. For
according to śaiva ritual manuals, and also according to most scriptural sources,
major forms of Śiva are supposed to have five faces. Te five faces correspond
to the five Brahma-mantras, which are in turn also homologized with the five
kalās as sections of the hierarchy of the universe. What is missing in the Siddha-
yogeśvarīmata is the equivalent of the fifh face, represented by the letter of
the fifh element (mahābhūta), ether (ākāśa), which is identified with the letter
HA. Tis fifh face would be the upper face, Īśāna, which is associated with the
Mantramārga already in the Niśvāsamukha (4.133–136).19

14) parāparoktarūpena pūjyā dhyeyāś ca sarvadā.

15) ˙
20.64d: sthitāh sarvatra bhīsanāh.
16) 22.26cd, 27cd: muktakeśaiś˙caturvaktrā
˙ ˙ ˙
locanaiś ca tribhis tribhih … caturbhujāh prasannāś
˙ ˙
ca kanyārūpā manoramāh.
˙
17) ustravyāghrānanāh kāścit kāścic caiva kharānanāh. Siddhayogeśvarīmata 13.16cd.
˙˙
18) On ˙ ˙
the Sanskrit passage, see the next section of this paper.
19) On this passage, see Diwakar Acharya in TAK vol. III. pañca vaktrāni.
˙
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 139

None of these homologizations appears to be shared by the Siddhayogeśvarī-

mata. Although the southern face seems to correspond to the terrifying Aghora
face, the others do not represent Sadāśiva’s faces, or in any case such equivalences
are not brought out.
Te lack of homologizations with the Brahma-mantras may be a relatively
archaic feature in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. In this respect, the Siddhayogeśvarī-
mata is close to the Niśvāsa’s Nayasūtra, which does not establish these equiv-
alences either and describes an Ardhanārīśvara face in the East, instead of a
Tatpurusa.20
˙

Changing Four Faces to Five: Assimilating Other Deities to Sadāśiva

From a rather early date onwards, there appears a tendency to assimilate var-
ious tantric forms of Śiva to the five-faced Sadāśiva: there are several icono-
graphic descriptions which were transformed in the course of time to make Śiva
or Bhairava five-faced. In what follows I give three rather striking examples of
textual transformations, whose purpose is clearly to accommodate the five-faced
iconography.

1. Te first example21 comes from the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, whose elaborate

description of the four-faced Bhairava22 referred to above was fully adopted
by the Timirodghātana, an early (pre-tenth century) Kaula text,23 which dates
perhaps from a few ˙ centuries later than the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. In fact, the
Timirodghātana borrows the whole passage24 almost literally, with one excep-
˙ the number of faces from four to five. Since the Timirodghātana
tion: it changes
does not change the number of eyes, it prescribes a somewhat unusual deity˙with
five faces but only twelve eyes.25

20) For the Niśvāsa, probably the earliest śaiva Tantra, see Goodall and Isaacson, 2007. For

Ardhanārīśvara in the East, see Niśvāsa Naya 3.41. Tis is a feature one can see in an early
liṅga from Mathurā, in which it is the frontal image. Cf. Kreisel, 1986, pp. 69–70, 204–205,
Pl. 60a–h. Interestingly, the main Bhairava visualisation in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (analyzed
below) also describes an Ardhanārīśvara.
21) Te order of the examples as presented here does not follow a chronological order, but

questions of chronology shall be taken up in the concluding part of this paper.

22) Tis Bhairava is in fact an Ardhanārīśvara.
23) I am grateful to Somdev Vasudeva for making his transcription available to me. For an

edition of the parallel passages, see Törzsök, forthcoming.

24) Tis is a fairly long borrowing of about ten ślokas from the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (20.23ff.)

in the Timirodghātana (1.6 ff.). I am grateful to Olga Serbaeva and Csaba Kiss, who pointed
˙
out these parallels to me simultaneously by email in December 2009.
25) For a full comparison and apparatus, see Törzsök, forthcoming. Only the relevant lines
140 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

kapālamālābharanam kapālamālinam devam

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
caturvadanaśobhanam pañcavaktrañ ca sevitam
bhujaih sodaśabhir devam bhujasodaśasamyuktam
˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙
kālam dvādaśalocanam kālam dvādaśalocanam
˙ ˙
(Siddhayogeśvarīmata 20.24) (Timirodghātana 1.6cd–7ab)
˙
Other examples of five-faced Bhairavas abound even in the early sources. Te
Brahmayāmala,26 for instance, prescribes five faces for a ten-armed Bhairava
(named here simply devadeva) surrounded with goddesses representing the śaiva
levels of the universe (tattvas, in 88.67), for Rurubhairava (54.5–8), for another
Bhairava (57.51), for a solitary Śiva (23.148 ff.) as well as for its supreme deity,
Kapālīśa.27

2. Te second example shows the way in which the male deity of the Vāma cur-
rent, Tumburu, is transformed. In the Vīnāśikhatantra,28 he has four heads and
˙ in the four directions. Te arrange-
is surrounded by her four sisters (bhaginī)
ment is reminiscent of the mythological story of Śiva referred to above, when he
multiplied his head in the four directions to see the beautiful goddess Tilottamā
while she was doing pradaksinā around him. Here Tumburu needs his four heads
˙ ˙ but, in addition, he also has four bodies and eight
to watch over his four sisters,
29
arms. Te first goddess is said to be similarly four-headed, but the number of
heads is not defined for the others. Again, a few centuries later, the Netratantra30

are cited here, in the edited version of both texts (but only minor corrections have been made
to the manuscript readings).
26) An early text of the yoginī cult dated to between the sixth and the eighth centuries by

Hatley, 2007. I am grateful to Shaman Hatley and Csaba Kiss for sharing their transcriptions of
the text, which I cite here with some orthographic standardization and adding a few tentative
corrections in square brackets, unless indicated otherwise.
27) Interestingly, two passages of chapter 4 describe him as five-faced and four-armed (kapālī-

śam tato nyasya pañcavaktram caturbhujam in 4.456, kapālīsam mahāprājñah pañcavaktram

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
caturbhujam in 4.502), but 19.58 makes his mantric embodiment four-bodied, four-faced and
eight-armed (vidyāmūrtti tato dadyāt kapālīśasya suvrate / caturmūrtticaturvaktram bhujāsta-
˙ ˙˙
kasamanvitam). Tis detail, coupled with some other peculiarities of chapter 4, suggests that
˙
chapter 4, whose main subject is iconometry, is relatively later compared to the bulk of the first,
earlier, half of the text. However, more evidence would be needed to confirm this impression.
28) On the fact that the Vāma current and its scriptures may well belong to the earliest layer

of śaiva Tantras, see Sanderson, 2009, p. 129, note 301.

29) Vīnāśikha 97ab, 99cd: caturvaktram astabhujam catuskāyam trilocanam […] devadevam
˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
sadā dhyāyet sūryakotisamaprabham. Note that the four bodies are paralleled by his caturmū-
˙
rtitva mentioned in Mahābhārata 13.128.4b pointed out in Bakker, 2002, p. 398.
30) For the dating, see Sanderson, 2004, p. 293, who proposes a date between 700 and 850ce,

with the greatest probability between 800 and 850.

 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 141

takes up the visualization of these Vāma deities, with a small difference: Tumburu
becomes five-headed and ten-armed. Te Netratantra is not shy about revealing
why: it explicitly states that Tumburu must have the appearance or body of
Sadāśiva (sādāśivena vapusā). Te assimilation of the four-headed Tumburu to
the five-headed Sadāśiva is˙ thus quite clearly expressed.31

3. Te third example of adding a fifh face comes from the Svacchanda, which
borrows, as usual, from the earliest Tantra, the Niśvāsa.32 Tis passage was
pointed out in Goodall, 2009, showing that the Svacchanda changes the word
naming the eastern face Ardhanārīśa and attempts to assimilate the heads to the
five Brahma-mantras.33
About half a millennium afer the composition of the Niśvāsa, Ksemarāja in
˙
his commentary on the Svacchanda mentions and rejects the reading ardhanārī-
śam as inconsistent with the fact that this form of Śiva has a consort on his
lap˙ according to another passage.34 But ardhanārīśam is also the reading of the
˙
shorter and earlier Nepalese recension of the Svacchanda. 35 Tis in turn shows

that the attempt to eliminate the Ardhanārīśvara face was a secondary develop-
ment within the textual history of the Svacchanda.
Goodall, 2009 also noted that the Niśvāsa prescribes only four faces, while
the Svacchanda makes them five. Here I would like to show some additional
details and the context of this visualization, which may reveal more about how
this change occurred.
Te shif from four to five faces happens at the end of the passage concerned.36
Afer the description of the four faces in the four cardinal directions, the Niśvāsa

31) Netratantra 11.2–3: sarvopadravaśāntyartham astapatre kuśeśaye / pūrvoktamandale devi

˙˙ ˙˙
madhye devam ca tumburum // daśabāhum sureśānam pañcavaktram trilocanam / sādāśivena
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
vapusā vaktrāny asya prakalpayet //
˙
32) For ˙
the tentative dating of the latter, whose core part may have been composed between
450 and 550, see Goodall and Isaacson, 2007.
33) Te Niśvāsa Naya (3.42ab) reads kuṅkumābhārdhanārīśam trinetram tu jatādharam,
˙ ˙ ˙
while the edited version of the Svacchanda (12.125cd) has kuṅkumābham ca nāreśam trine-
˙ ˙
tram tu jatādharam. Te Svacchanda eliminates Ardhanārīśa and makes it possible to under-
˙ ˙
stand the resulting Nāreśa, lit. ‘belonging to the lord of men,’ to mean ‘belonging to Tatpurusa,’
˙
as it is interpreted by Ksemarāja in his commentary (narānām īśvarasyānugrahādikartus tat-
˙ ˙
purusabhattārakasyedam nāreśam).
˙ ˙˙
34) ardhanārīśam ˙
ity apapāthah / bhuvanādhvani—“tasyotsaṅgatā vidyā” (10.1158) ityu-
˙ ˙
ktatvād ardhanārīśvaratāyāh kā saṅgatih?
35) NAK 1-224, NGMPP˙B 28/18. Fol. ˙
255r1 kuṅkumābhārdhanārīśam trinetrañ ca jatā-
˙ ˙
dharam. On this recension, see Sanderson, 2002, p. 21, Törzsök, 1999, p. 198, and Hatley,
2007, p. 149.
36) First, the eastern, southern, western and northern faces are described in verses 42–43,
142 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

has a few lines which appear to describe general features of the visualization
of Śiva. By changing a word, mūrdhni ‘on the head/to begin with’ to ūrdhvam
˙
‘above,’ the Svacchanda transforms the passage into a description of the fifh face,
which is situated ‘above’ the four others. 37

Niśvāsa Naya 3.52–54

sitam mūrdhni sadā dhyāyec chūlahastam jatādharam /
˙ ˙ ˙
vyāghracarmaparīdhānam38 aksasūtrakamandalum //
˙ ˙ ˙˙
vīnādamarukahastam nāgayajñopavītinam /
˙ ˙ ˙
candramūrdhorddhaliṅgam tu dhyāyen nityam maheśvaram //
˙ ˙
īpsitā ca bhavet siddhir vigraham yo ’bhyaset sadā /
˙
anenaiva svadehena sarvajñah kāmarūpavān //
˙
One should always visualize the Great Lord as white at the head.39 He must have a
trident in his hand and matted hair. He is covered with tiger skin and holds a rosary
and an ascetic bowl. He also carries a Vīnā and a Damaru drum in his hands and wears
˙ ˙
a snake instead of the sacred thread. He always has a moon on his head and his penis is
erect. He who always practices [the visualization of ] the body [of Śiva] shall obtain the
supernatural effect desired. With this same body as his own, he shall become omniscient
and be able to take up any form at will.

A cursory reading of the extract could suggest that afer prescribing four faces in
the preceding passage, the text of the Niśvāsa offers a description of the fifh face.
But this is not the case for a number of reasons.

44–47, 48–49 and 50–51 respectively of Niśvāsa Naya ch. 3. Tese are borrowed with some
alterations in Svacchanda 12.125cd–135ab.
37) Let us note here that the Nepalese recension of the Svacchanda again seems to retain the

original mūrdhni when it writes sita mūdhni on fol. 255r5–6.

38) Tis is my conjecture for vyāghrayajñopavītena in the mss. I follow here the parallel in

Svacchanda 12.136a, supported by the Nepalese ms of the latter on fol. 255r6, but this con-
jecture has not been accepted by the editors of the Niśvāsa. One could also assume that the
Niśvāsa originally had vyālayajñopavītena, but this information is given in the subsequent
verse. Te elements -parīdhāna and -pavītena can look very similar in some North-East Indian
scripts and the formulaic compounds must have contributed to the confusion or the eye-
skip.
39) Te word mūrdhni can be interpreted here in at least three different ways. It may denote

the place where the deity must be visualized as being white: at the head, meaning basically the
face (probably because it is covered with ashes). Te word could be interpreted adverbially,
in the sense of ‘first of all/principally.’ Finally, the locative could be understood as standing
for the accusative (as a tantric Aiśa linguistic feature), which happens ofen in the case of this
particular word. Te meaning would be the same then, but the sentence would have better
syntax with a double accusative: ‘one should visualize his head/face white.’
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 143

(1) In the description of each of the four faces of the directions, vaktra or a
synonym for face (vadana, āsya) is used,40 contrary to the last passage.
(2) In three cases, the number of eyes is specified,41 and in one case, for the
southern face, other clearly facial features are mentioned: knitted eye-brows
(bhrkutī) and a beard (śmaśrū).42 By contrast, neither does the last passage
˙ ˙ the number of eyes, nor does it mention facial features.
specify
(3) When the four faces of the four directions are defined, they receive two
hand-held attributes at most. By contrast, the last section lists five hand-held
attributes which include two large ones: the vīnā and the trident.
(4) In addition, the tiger-skin garment also seems˙to be mentioned in the last
passage, for the manuscripts’ reading vyāghrayajñopavītena seems odd and
the instrumental also stands out syntactically: it must be corrupt for vyā-
ghracarmaparīdhānam, as it is in the Svacchanda.
˙
(5) Finally, the last two adjectives in the fifh passage also point to the fact that
it does not concern a face. Te compound candramūrdha- ‘having the moon
on his head’ indicates that we may deal with something more than the head
itself, although this could also be interpreted as ‘topped with the moon.’ But
the last compound ūrdhvaliṅga ‘having his penis erect’ definitely implies
more than a head.

It is the last lines of the fifh passage that show what exactly it deals with, for it
mentions that this visualization concerns the full body of Śiva: ‘he who always
practices [the visualization of ] the body [of Śiva] shall obtain the supernatu-
ral effect desired.’ Tus, rather than describing the fifh head, this last passage
describes a visualization which is separate, independent of the four faces: the visu-
alization of Maheśvara with his whole body. Judging from the context, this was
probably the body to be given to him when the various faces were visualized.
Now if we look at the Svacchanda’s commentary, the fact that the Svacchanda
basically changes only mūrdhni to ūrdhvam43 puts the commentator, Ksemarāja,
˙ ˙
into a difficult situation. He starts by introducing the passage as the visualiza-
44
tion of the upper face. It is difficult to see how the upper face could hold a vīnā
and wear a tiger-skin garment, but these are wisely lef unglossed in the com- ˙
mentary. Te erect liṅga also becomes problematic and Ksemarāja understands
˙

40) See 3.42c, 45d, 48a, 48c and 50a.

41) 3.42a trinetra in the East, 3.48a trinayana in the West, and 3.50a dvinetra in the North.
42) 3.44d–45a.
43) 12.135cd–137ab: sitam ūrdhvam sadā dhyāyec chūlahastam jatādharam // vyāghracarma-
˙ ˙ ˙
parīdhānam sāksasūtrakamandalu / vīnādamaruhastam ca nāgayajñopavītakam // candramū-
˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
rdhordhvaliṅgam ca dhyāyen nityam maheśvaram / Other differences are minor.
˙
44) Before 12.135cd: ˙
ūrdhvāsyadhyānam āha.
144 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

that the compound ūrdhvaliṅga denotes rather a liṅga shape on the top of the
head (although one could even understand ‘instead of the head’).45 Te resulting
image is quite unusual, and Ksemarāja finishes by admitting that the passage in
˙
fact describes a one-faced Maheśvara and not merely a face.46 However, it remains
unclear then where the description of the upper face should end and where that
of Maheśvara should begin. 136b is perhaps still understood in the Svacchanda or
rather, by Ksemarāja, as referring to the face, for the Bahuvrīhi is in the accusative
˙
neuter qualifying vaktram.47
As Ksemarāja rightly points out at the end of the passage,48 this visualization
˙
is associated, in fact in both texts, with the level of the śaiva universe called īśvara
tattva and the Lord Īśvara. In the Niśvāsa it is preceded by other visualizations
associated with other levels, and it is the vidyātattva that precedes it immediately.
Te close relation of this visualization and Īśvara is further brought out later in
the same chapter. According to verses 59–62, the practitioner is to see his ego
as a warrior on a chariot, drawn by the gross and subtle elements for horses,
controlled by the mind as the charioteer. He must have this vision while Īśvara
remains in his heart, know everything to be made by Īśvara and act with the
knowledge of Īśvara in his mind.49
In the subsequent lines the text speaks of Sadāśiva’s identification with units of
time and his tenfold visualization with various colours. But in the closing lines
of the chapter it mentions again the Lord as Īśvara, identified with the Bindu
and the group of four kalās or energies instead of the usual five: nivrtti, pratisthā,
vidyā and śānti. ˙ ˙˙

45) Afer 12.137cd: ūrdhvaliṅgam iti maulisthāne liṅgākāram.

46) maheśvara iti padenaikavaktram maheśvaram dhyāyet, na tu vaktramātram asyetyarthah.
47) Such details of gender probably ˙ ˙ ˙
were not of great concern for the authors of the origi-
nal. Te Nepalese recension has the accusative masculine here, but masculine and neuter are
fairly interchangeable in Aiśa, and this recension does not yet change mūrdhni to ūrdhvam.
˙
Te Nepalese manuscript of the Svacchanda has the following reading (fol. 355r5–355v1): sita
mūdhni sadā dhyāyec chūlahastañ jatādharam / vyāghracarmaparīdhānam aksasūtrakamanda-
˙ ˙ ˙˙
lum / vīnādamarukahastam ca nāgayañjopavītinam / candramūrdhorddhaliṅgan tu dhyāyen
˙ ˙
nityam maheśvaram / anenaiva tu dehena sarvajñah kāmarūpavān.
˙
48) evam ˙
īśvaratattvādhisthātur īśvarasyākrtimato dhyānam uktam.
˙˙
49) Te naves of the wheels ˙
are the Sun and the Moon, the gunas form the warrior’s bow, the
˙
organs of the senses are his arrows and dharma is the deer he chases. Te practitioner must
also see himself as not being an agent and (therefore) as being free from any bonds. He is then
promised to be the Lord himself and to be able to do anything he desires, independently of his
merits or sins. somādityau sthitau netre cakre caikarathasya tu / bhūtatanmātra vājīni manas
sārathi coditah // ahaṅkāro bhaved yodhā gunāś caiva mahādhanuh / indriyāni śarās tasya
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
mrgo dharmah prakīrtitah // yady evam krīdate nityam īśvaro hrdi samsthitah / punyapāpaih
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
pravartanto icchayā parameśvarah // nāham kartā na me bandho sarvam ceśvarakāritam / matvā
˙ ˙ ˙
ceśvaravijñānam sarvakarmāni kārayet //
˙ ˙
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 145

Considering this context in the Niśvāsa, which seems to agree with the Sva-
cchanda and Ksemarāja’s view in the sense that the latter also associates the multi-
˙
faced visualization with Īśvara, it can be safely concluded that the four-faced visu-
alization is indeed about Īśvara and not Sadāśiva. Although the text does not
bring out any homologization, it is remarkable that just as the Lord or Īśvara has
only four kalās in the Niśvāsa, he also has only four faces.
Furthermore, the fact that this visualization is placed at the level of Īśvara
may also show, although this is a mere hypothesis, that it comes from a source
that considers Īśvara to be the highest form of the god. In that case, to push the
hypothesis further, the passage may well belong originally to a Pāśupata or in any
case to a pre-tantric source (of the Atimārga), for it is these currents that are said
to have worshipped Īśvara as the highest principle.50

Minor or Particularly Frightening Deities with Four Faces

Te above examples in which four faces are transformed into five all concern
deities of the core pantheon, in fact the most central god in the majority of
cases. However, some minor deities also have four faces, and this deserves some
attention, at least when it is not Brahmā or deities associated with him (such as
Brāhmī) who are mentioned.
Various Rudras can be four-faced, such as the hundred Rudras,51 or Śiva of
the cremation ground in Vārānasī.52 Te Brahmayāmala also makes its Ganeśa
˙ ˙
four-headed in 77.22 ff. Later, Somaśambhu, for instance, prescribes four heads
for Candeśa (Somaśambhupaddhati 1.5.2), the visualized Astramantra (3.1.40)
˙˙
and the Bhogāṅgas (1.3.89).
In addition to these minor four-faced gods, there is one particular deity who is
always described as four-headed in various sources: Kālāgnirudra, the frightening
Rudra situated at the bottom of the śaiva universe, who emits the all-consuming
cosmic fire. Tis deity is described in three very similar passages in the Niśvāsa,
the Svacchanda and the Tantrasadbhāva,53 all of which appear to be related.
Te original version is certainly that of the Niśvāsa, borrowed by the Sva-
cchanda, from which in turn the Tantrasadbhāva’s version seems to derive. In
all cases, the four faces have four different colours: white, red, yellow and black.
Te Niśvāsa makes the deity black with tawny eyebrows and a beard, emitting
fire from his southern mouth. It is suggested that the alternative name Nīlalohita

50) See Svacchanda 11.184 with the commentary and Sanderson, 2006, p. 162.
51) Brahmayāmala 32.158.
52) Brahmayāmala 3.73–74.
53) On the relative dating of this text of the early Trika, see Sanderson, 1988, p. 672, Sander-

son, 2009, p. 50 and Törzsök, 2007, pp. 486–487.

146 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

(‘Black-and-red’) has been given to him due to these features. Te Svacchanda

describes his body as red and adds that he has twelve eyes, while the Tantrasa-
dbhāva makes him adorned with fire-garlands.
etad yuktam pramānam tu tisthate tatra deveśah tisthate tatra deveśa
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙˙
kālāgnir yatra tisthate / kālo dvādaśalocanah / kālo dvādaśalocanah //
˙˙ ˙ ˙
caturvaktram mahātejam
˙ ˙
jvālāmālopaśobhitam /
sitaraktapītakrsnaś sitaraktapītakrsnaś sitaraktapītakrsna
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ ˙˙˙
caturvaktro mahābalah // caturvaktro mahābalah // caturvaktro mahābalah //
˙ ˙ ˙
krsnāṅgo ’tha karālaś ca raktāṅgo ’tha karālaś ca raktāṅgo ’tha karālaś ca
˙˙˙
piṅgabhrūśmaśrulocanah / piṅgabhrūśmaśrulocanah / piṅgabhrūśmaśrulocanah/
˙ ˙ ˙
tasya daksinato vaktrād (Svacchanda 10.23–24ab) (Tantrasadbhāva 10.25cd–27ab)
˙˙
vahni sañjāyate mahān //
jagad dadāha yenāsau
nīlalohitasañjñakah /
˙
(Niśvāsa Guhya 4.27–29ab)

Why does Kālāgni have only four heads? Te same reason is given both by Abhi-
navagupta and Ksemarāja. In the Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta says that Kālāgni
˙
does not look upwards because he is afraid of reducing the worlds to ashes. Tis
is interpreted by the commentator, Jayaratha, to imply that his upper face is not
manifest, and thus, he is always said to be only four-faced.54 Similarly, Ksemarāja
˙
remarks in his commentary on the relevant passage of the Svacchanda that the
upper face is not manifest so that the worlds starting with the earth should not be
burnt down.55 Both Jayaratha and Ksemarāja use the word anunmīlita for non-
˙
manifest, which may not be accidental.
Similarly to Kālāgnirudra, who is at the bottom of the śaiva universe, Ananta,
who is also the deity representing the direction of ‘below,’ is given four heads in
the Brahmayāmala.56
Te explanation of the exegetes does not need to be accepted; and it appears
secondary in any case. Nevertheless, the coincidence of various Kāla-deities and
the four faces is rather conspicuous. For there is yet another passage in the Niśvāsa
Naya, borrowed again by the Svacchanda, which speaks of a four-faced Kāla-
īśvara. Tis god epitomises the śaiva principle of Time, kālatattva, rather than

54) Tantrāloka 8.22cd: lokānām bhasmasādbhāvabhayān nordhvam sa vīksate. Tantrāloka-

˙ ˙ ˙
viveka ad loc: … nordhvam sa vīksate iti, yaduktam—“nordhvam nirīksate devo medam bhūd
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
bhasmasāj jagat” iti. ata evāsyordhvavaktram anunmīlitam—iti caturvaktratvam eva sarvatro-
ktam. yaduktam—“trinetrah sa caturvaktro vahnijvālāvalīdharah” iti.
55) Ksemarāja ad Svacchanda ˙ ˙
10.23: ūrdhvavaktram asyānunmīlitam bhagavatā darśitam mā
˙ ˙ ˙
bhūd bhūrādilokadāha iti.
56) Brahmayāmala 28.51ab: anantam tatra vinyasya caturvaktram catubhujam.
˙ ˙ ˙
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 147

the Fire at the end of Time, Kālāgni. Moreover, to create even more of a coinci-
dence, this Kāla-īśvara is also called Ananta.57
Tus, dark deities of time or death (kāla), whether Kālāgnirudra or Kāleśvara,
but also Ananta, appear to have four faces. Tis is all the more conspicuous since
in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, the four-faced Bhairava is also said to be black, kāla,
in the very first śloka, just as Kālāgni is said to be black, krsna; and Bhairava has
˙˙˙
twelve eyes (three on each face), and is ablaze like fire (jvalantam iva pāvakam),
again just as Kālāgni.58 Although I cannot pursue this line of argumentation
further, these parallels seem to amount to more than coincidences. Could there
be a four-headed black Bhairava, causing the conflagration of the universe at the
end of the aeons, that may be behind all these descriptions?

Four and/or Five Faces for the Same Deity

In a few instances, texts may prescribe both four and five heads for the same
deity, which may or may not depend on the kind of worship performed. One
such passage can be found in a pre-tenth century Siddhānta scripture, in the
Mrgendra’s Kriyāpāda 3.7. In fact, what seems to be stated here is that one should
˙ Śiva’s five heads, above and in the four cardinal directions with (or perhaps
create
including?) Īśāna; and his four lotus faces with the face-mantra(s.)
ūrdhvaprāgdaksinādīni pañceśānena kalpayet /
˙˙
uttamāṅgāni vaktrena vaktrāmbujacatustayam //
˙ ˙˙
Whether we understand Īśāna to refer to the fifh head or to the mantra one
must use,59 the text seems to know of both the five-faced or five-headed and the
four-faced versions, and to prescribe both, using uttamāṅga, ‘head,’ for the set of
five and vaktra, ‘face,’ for the set of four. Now it seems that the commentator,
Nārāyanakantha, is not comfortable with this hybrid prescription and tries to
˙ ˙˙
force the passage into envisaging five faces.

57) Te passages are almost identical in Niśvāsa Naya 3.32 and Svacchanda 12.114cd–115ab,
the only difference is that the former writes tu and the latter ca in the first pāda: trinetram tu
˙
(ca in the Svacchanda) caturvaktram krsnavarnam caturbhujam / samharantam durādharsam
˙ ˙˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
anantam kālam īśvaram. I understand kāla-m-īśvaram as a compound and the name of the
˙
deity, but these words can also qualify the word Ananta, which could be the proper name of
this god. Given the context, I choose the first interpretation.
58) Siddhayogeśvarīmata 20.24 ff.
59) Nārāyanakantha (cited below) understands it to refer to the parts (kalās) of the Īśāna
˙ ˙˙
mantra. It is, however, also possible to understand Īśāna as referring to the fifh head, situated
above, i.e. īśānena to mean ‘including the Īśāna head.’
148 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

[īśānena] īśānakalāpañcakena [ūrdhvaprāgdaksinādīni pañca uttamāṅgāni] ūrdhvapū-

˙˙
rvadaksinapaścimottaraśirahpañcakam kalpyam. [vaktrena] tatpurusakalācatustayena
˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙
[vaktrāmbujacatustayam] mukhābjacatuskam. pañcamasya tv īśānavaktrasyordhvasthi-
˙˙ ˙ ˙
tasya śirahkalpanayaiva nispattir boddhavyā, na tu caturvaktratvam parameśvaramūrter
˙ ˙ ˙
jñeyam, daśabhujatvoktyā pañcavaktratvasyaivestatvāt. nanu caturvaktratvasya śrutyaiva
˙˙
tāvan niścayah. tataś ca dvibhujatvena diśām astasamkhyālaksakatvād astabhujatve saty
˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙
adosah. naivam. “khadgakhetadhanurbāna” ityādinā daśabhujatvam evātra mūrter bha-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
visyati.
˙
By Īśāna the five kalās of the Īśāna mantra are meant. Te five heads starting with the
upper, eastern, and southern are these five: the upper, eastern, southern, western and
northern ones that must be fashioned. With the face, i.e. with the four kalās of the
Tatpurusa mantra, one must create the four lotus faces. But the creation of the fifh,
˙
the upper Īśāna face, must be understood to be performed with the Head mantra. Te
Supreme Lord is not to have four faces, for five faces are needed because he is said to
have ten arms. One could object to this by saying that scripture itself confirms that he is
four-faced. And that since he is two-armed [for each face], there is no harm in his having
eight arms, given that there are eight directions. But this is wrong. For according to the
passage starting with the [description of attributes] such as the sword, shield, bow and
arrows, the embodiment of Śiva will have exactly ten arms here.
Tus, Nārāyanakantha is well aware of the four-faced Śiva and uses the argument
˙ ˙˙
of the number of arms to prove that five faces are needed. However, as numerous
examples show, there is no strict correspondence between the number of faces
and arms. Rather, what seems natural is that the five faces come to represent the
five Brahma-mantras and are produced with them, while the four faces always
require the face or vaktra-mantras, which may well be the case also in the com-
bined version of the Mrgendra.
While the Mrgendra ˙ does not seem to be particularly concerned with this
˙
problem of numbers, the Brahmayāmala devotes several short discussions to the
question of who and when is supposed to have four or five faces.
In one passage of the chapter on iconography and iconometry (chapter 4),
in the section on divine-type images (divya), the Brahmayāmala prescribes five
faces for all male consorts, but one, three or four faces for the different categories
of goddesses of its core pantheon.
Brahmayāmala 4.171–173ab
guhyakānucarā ye tu kiṅkarīnām tu kiṅkarāh /
˙ ˙ ˙
yoginīpatayaś caiva māt¯rnām patayas tathā //
˙ ˙˙
pañcavaktrā[h] samākhyātā vīrabhadrās60 tathaiva ca /
˙
guhyakās tu caturvaktrā[h] kiṅkaryas trimukhāh smrtāh //
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
yoginyas tv ekavaktrās tu caturvaktrās tu mātarā[h] /
˙

60) Shaman Hatley’s transcription as corrected in 2009 reads vīrabhaksyās, but Csaba Kiss’s
˙
transcription reads vīrabhaktyās. I agree with Csaba Kiss’s reading. In any case, an emendation
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 149

Tose [males] who serve the Guhyakās, the male servants of Kiṅkarīs, the husbands
of yoginīs and the husbands61 of Mothers are all five-faced as well as Vīrabhadras. But
Guhyakās are four-faced, and Kiṅkarīs, yoginīs and Mothers have three, one and four
faces respectively.
Tis distribution of faces suggests that male deities are assimilated to the five-
faced Sadāśiva, but goddesses are not. Tis male-female distribution is also pres-
ent to some extent in the Tantrasadbhāva, which mentions various attendant
women (10.811) and a Bhairavī (21.165) who are four-faced. Furthermore, a
later chapter of the Brahmayāmala confirms the same tendency. Tis chapter,
the 83rd, is probably a relatively later addition62 and is to be found in a section
which calls itself the Utphullaka-tantra. Te goddesses called devīs and dūtīs are
assigned four and three faces respectively.
Brahmayāmala 83.162–165ab
rūpakam tu pravaksyāmi devīnām sādhakasya63 tu /
˙ ˙ ˙
pūrvoktarūpakam jñeya[m] kapālamundasamyutam //
˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙
nāvārūdhās tu dhyātavyā nāvārūdhās tu pūjayet /
˙ ˙
evam nagnavibhāgena nagnarūpā[ś] caturmukhā[h]//
˙ ˙
mahāpretasamārūdhā devau devyaś ca kīrttitāh /
˙ ˙
dūtyo vai padmahastās tu trimukhāh satbhujā[h] smrtāh //
˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
devyas tv astabhujā jñeyā[h] sādhakena tu dhīmatā /
˙˙ ˙
I shall now teach the forms of Devīs, for the practitioner. Tey are known to have a
form previously described, [but] with a skull-bowl and a severed head. Tey must be
visualized and worshipped as mounted on a boat. Tus, in the naked division, they are
naked and four-faced; both the divine couple64 and the goddesses are seated on the
‘great transcended’ [i.e. Sadāśiva’s corpse].65 Te Dūtīs have lotuses in their hands, are
three-faced and six-armed, while the goddesses (Devīs) are to be known as eight-armed
by the wise practitioner.

is required here, for the text most probably had another category of male deities in the list.
Tis would justify the conjecture vīrabhadrās, or vīrabhadras; but this god appears only in the
tantrāvatāra section of the text (ch. 39).
61) Tese terms (attendants/servants/lords or anucara/kiṅkara/pati) all denote male partners

of female deities, in spite of their apparently different meanings.

62) For the layers of composition of the Brahmayāmala, see Hatley, 2007, p. 200ff.
63) Tis is an emendation suggested by Shaman Hatley. Te text reads sādhanasya, which is

not idiomatic. All similar occurrences have sādhakasya tu in the text.

64) Following Csaba Kiss’s suggestion (oral communication), I understand this to refer to the

central couple of the pantheon, Kapālīśa and Candākāpālinī.

65) Although the text uses the same past participle ˙˙
(ārūdha) when saying ‘mounted on a boat’
˙
and ‘seated on the great transcended,’ two different things must be meant. Te elaborate visu-
alization of a deity’s lotus throne involves several elements, among which the boat (nau/pota)
also figures. Te earth, the milk ocean and the boat are said to stand for four of the five ele-
ments (the boat representing fire and wind); together with the ādhāraśakti or ‘foundation
150 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

However, if we go back to chapter 4, another passage contradicts the principle

according to which females should have fewer heads. For according to this pas-
sage, Guhyakās, which is a synonym of the Goddesses or Devīs, and Mātrs must
˙
also have five faces when they are worshipped alone (177cd–178ab): ekavīravi-
dhāne tu pañcavaktrās tu guhyakāh // mātaraś ca tathā caiva karttavyā[h] sādha-
kottamaih. ˙ ˙
˙
Tus, female deities can be upgraded to having five faces when worshipped
separately, on their own. In addition, male deities can also be downgraded to
having only four faces, and this can happen when they are worshipped with their
consorts, in couples. As another passage states:66
Brahmayāmala 4.627cd–629ab
ādivīram tu nyastavyam sadyādyam lāntakam tathā //
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
anuyugmam sthitā ye tu caturvaktrās tu te smrtā[h] /
˙ ˙ ˙
sadyādivarjitāś caiva lāntādibhi[r] vivarjitā[h] //
˙
vinyased anuyugmasthām yoginīnām vrthā -s- tathā /
˙ ˙ ˙
Te first hero [i.e. the male deity in the centre] must be placed with [the five Brahma-
mantras] starting with Sadyojāta and with [the five face-letters] ending with Ha.67 But
those [male deities] who are in couples are taught to be four-faced. One should place

power,’ they form the bulb of the lotus (kanda) according to Ksemarāja ad Netratatra 11.25,
˙
citing also the Mālinīvijayottara. (It may be noted, nevertheless, that this interpretation of
the ocean, the boat etc., which identifies them with the elements, may be secondary.) On
several occasions, however, the main elements mentioned are the lowermost deity (Kālāgni
or Ananta), the milk ocean, the boat and the corpse (śava/preta), on top of which the lotus
flower is situated, see e.g. Brahmayāmala 19.52 (kālāgnim caiva ksīrodam potapretam tathaiva
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
ca / tatropari pratisthādyā vinyaset mantravit kramāt), and 28.51–52 (anantam tatra vinyasya
˙˙ ˙
caturvaktram catu[r]bhujam / ksīrorddham (Nb: probably for ksīrodam) cāsya cārddhena tato
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
-m- anyam tu kalpayet // potam śavams tathā padmam nādibhir sodasai[r] yutam / pañcavin-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙
satitatvāni keśaresu niyojayet). Tat the boat and the corpse of Sadāśiva are two different things
˙
also seems to be confirmed by Brahmayāmala 11.208, which teaches the potamudrā and the
śavamudrā as separate hand gestures, reproducing the sequence of the throne visualization.
For yet another passage to disambiguate the two, see Brahmayāmala 71.29ab, which places
Sadāśiva’s corpse on the boat, and Bhairava on top of the corpse: nāvārūdham mahāpretam
˙ ˙ ˙
tatrārūdhan tu bhairavam.
˙ ˙
66) Here, the context is that one must place the images (pratimās) of yoginīs with their part-

ners, vīras, on a mandala.

˙˙
67) I understand lāntaka as well as lānta to stand for lāntānta, i.e. ‘that which ends with what
is at the end of the letter LA,’ in other words, HA, assuming that the sibilants are omitted.
I also assume that by extension, these expressions can also mean the set of five face letters,
which include the four semi-vowels and HA; and that the word lāntādi also denotes this set
of five. Tis hypothetic interpretation is based on the occurrences of the expressions lāntānta
and lāntādi in their various contexts. It is also possible that lāntaka refers not to the set of
face letters here, but to Īśāna himself, who is the last face mantra. Tus, lāntaka could mean
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 151

them in couples without the mantras of Sadyojāta68 etc. and without the [five] face
mantras etc. And [these sets of five mantras] are also pointless for yoginīs [in general].

A subsequent passage (12.172cd–175) discusses the same question in more de-

tail. It explicitly states that when Heroes, i.e. gods, are accompanied by Śaktis, i.e.
female deities, the gods should not have their fifh head, nor should they have the
Brahma-mantras, since they then figure in the pantheon yāga as non-dominant.
However, when worshipped on their own, they possess their five heads again.
tatra vīram nyasen mantrī svamantrenaiva nānyathā //
˙ ˙
vaktrenetrāṅgasamyuktam pūrvapatrena coditam /
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
caturvaktram nyaset tatra pañcamam naiva dāpayet //
˙ ˙
sadyādī[m] ca na vai dadyā śaktyās caiva na samśayah /
˙ ˙ ˙
apradhānamanti krtvā yāge [’]smim bhairavātmake //
˙ ˙
svayāgesu punah krtvā sadyādipañcavaktrakāh /
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
arcayitvā yathānyāyam mudrāś caiva pradāpayet
˙
Te master of mantras should place the Hero (= male deity) there with his mantra,
and not otherwise. He must have his face, eye and body mantras and is enjoined to be
put on the eastern petal [for the first]. He should be placed there with four faces, one
should not give him a fifh. And one should not give him the Brahma-mantras starting
with Sadyojāta, nor should [his] Śakti receive those, no doubt, as they [the male gods]
have been made non-dominant in this worship (yāga), which is bhairavic. But when
worshipped in their own yāga, they have those five faces of Sadyojāta etc. And having
worshipped them as prescribed, one should show the mudrās.

What is particularly interesting in this last passage is that the Brahmayāmala

clearly associates the five-faced Śiva of the five Brahma-mantras to yāgas in which
male deities are dominant, and prescribes four-faced gods in yāgas qualified as
Bhairavic, in which male deities have a secondary role. Te opposition of five
faces and four faces thus also becomes representative of the Saiddhāntika as
opposed to the Bhairavic type of yāga.

lāntāntaka ‘ending with Ha’ in the sense of ‘ending with Īśāna.’ Ten sadyādya-lāntaka could
simply denote the five Brahma-mantras themselves: ‘starting with Sadyojāta, ending with
Īśāna’. Tis, however, is less likely in the light of the parallel passages given below, in which
sadyādi and lāntānta seem to mean two separate sets of mantras.
68) It may be noted that when four-faced deities are discussed in the Brahmayāmala, the text

almost always remarks that they must be devoid of the Sadyādi, i.e. the Brahma-mantras start-
ing with Sadyojāta. See e.g. sadyādivarjitam caiva caturvaktravibhūsitam 23.114ab; sadyādi-
˙ ˙ ˙
varjitam caiva dāntilāntāntavarjitām / śivam tam kārayen mantrī śaktyāntam ca na samśayah
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
(ch. 4); anenaiva vidhānena krosthukī vinyased budhah / padmamālābhi samyuktam vaktrena
˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
tu samanvitam / netrāṅgasamyutam caiva sadyādiparivarjitām / lāntādivarjitām caiva śivayu-
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
ktām tu kārayet (ch. 4).
˙
152 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

Conclusion
It can be concluded from these investigations that the five-headed mantra-image
of Sadāśiva had a powerful influence. Pretantric and early tantric Śivas or Bhaira-
vas, who were originally four-faced and also served as models for the mantric
constructions of yoginīs, were assimilated to Sadāśiva in that they came to have
five faces, with the addition of the upper face of Īśāna. Te process can already
be observed between layers of the Niśvāsa: by the time of the Mukhāgama’s com-
position, the fifh face was considered the source of śaivism. Nevertheless, it is
also noteworthy that most changes and adoptions occur later,69 such as in the
Kashmirian recension of the Svacchanda or in the kaula Timirodghātana.
Te four-faced Śiva, or rather, Īśvara, as the godhead may have had˙its origin in
the sources of the Atimārga, at least as far as the tantric scriptures are concerned.70
Tis seems to be suggested by two facts: the Niśvāsa’s four-faced godhead is called
Īśvara, whose realm is supposed to be what the Atimārga can reach,71 and the
Niśvāsa’s relatively later Mukha section and most subsequent āgamic traditions
attribute the teaching of the Atimārga to the fourth, eastern or frontal, head. It
is also possible that this four-faced Īśvara, which I hypothetically assign to the
Atimārga in the tantric scriptural context, survived also in the visualization of the
Siddhayogeśvarīmata: its four-faced Ardhanārīśvara-Bhairava could correspond
to the eastern or frontal face of the Īśvara image, which the Niśvāsa associates
with the Atimārga and which appears as the frontal face in a Mathurā liṅga of
250–350ce.
It then seems likely that the Śaiva Siddhānta added the fifh face as part of its
hallmark in the formative period (between the composition of the Niśvāsa Mūla
and the Mukha), and that is why, or perhaps simultaneously with this develop-
ment, the fifh face comes to be seen as the source of tantric śaiva revelation.72
Furthermore, non-saiddhāntika tantric traditions also adopted the five faces
and transformed originally four-faced deities, as the examples of the Timirodghā-

69) Perhaps around the eighth and ninth centuries ce, if the tentative dating of the earlier
Tantras, such as the Niśvāsa and the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, is also valid.
70) Te existence of the four-headed Śiva image as such certainly predates the Atimārga, of

course, and it was certainly more generic and wide-spread than the Atimārga.
71) For this, in addition to the passages already cited, see also Svacchanda 10.1170, 11.73–74

and 182–184, referring to Pāśupatas, the Atimārga and those observing the vow of the skull.
72) It may be noteworthy in this context that the Niśvāsa Mukha (in chapters 3 and 4) does

not count or name the other four heads when it attributes the teaching of various doctrines
and practices to them, it only points out the direction of the faces (laukika in the West, Veda
in the North, Sāṅkhya and Yoga in the South and the Atimārga in the East). It calls only the
last face the fifh, pañcama, while also giving its name, Īśāna (pañcamenaiva vaktrena īśānena
˙
dvijottamāh /mantrākhyam kathayisyāmi devyāyā gaditam purā 4.134).
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 153

tana’s Bhairava (adapted from the Siddhayogeśvarīmata) and the Netratantra’s

˙Tumburu (adapted from the Vāmatantras) show. Four-faced deities then ofen
became secondary; or certain less central but frightening deities were given four
faces: Candeśa and Kālāgnirudra are typical examples for this. At the same time,
˙˙
there appears a tendency to attribute five faces to male and four or fewer faces to
female deities.
Despite this tendency, four-faced versions of visualizations were retained in
particular conditions: the Brahmayāmala uses them when gods are not wor-
shipped alone or as the main objects of worship. Such is the case when gods and
goddesses are worshipped in couples, yāmalas. In this set-up, it is in fact the rela-
tively subordinate position of male gods that is expressed by the fact that they lose
one head, so to speak. Since male deities do not represent the ultimate godhead
in these yāgas, they have fewer heads, and this comes to be seen as a particular
feature of Bhairavāgamic worship, as opposed to the saiddhāntika yāga.
In a somewhat paradoxical way, the Brahmayāmala, at least in its Bhairavāga-
mic worship, thus returns to a historically earlier iconography of Śiva, which may
be associated with the frightening form of the god, with Bhairava as well as with
Kālāgnirudra, by this time. And, again somewhat paradoxically, it adopts the
mantric construction of a male deity, the five-headed Sadāśiva, even for female
deities when they are worshipped alone. In doing so, the Brahmayāmala, al-
though showing some hesitation as to the overall assimilation to Sadāśiva, seems
already to pave the way to the general adoption of Sadāśiva’s five heads every-
where.

Abbreviations
Gretil Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages and
related Indological materials from Central and Southeast Asia.
Texts available at http://fiindolo.sub.uni-goettingen.de
IFI/IFP Institut Français de Pondichéry
KSTS Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies
MIRI Muktabodha Indological Research Institute. Texts available at
http://www.muktabodhalib.org
NAK National Archives, Kathmandu
NGMPP Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project
TAK III Tāntrikābhidhānakośa. Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la lit-
térature hindoue tantrique vol. III. ed. D. Goodall and M. Rastelli.
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschafen.
2012.
154 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155

References
Primary Sanskrit Sources
Tantrasadbhāva NAK 5-1985 and NAK 5-445, unpublished edition of chapter 4 by Somdev
Vasudeva, unpublished edition of chapters 16 and 25 by Judit Törzsök. Complete etext
established under the supervision of Mark Dyczkowski. Accessible on MIRI.
Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta, with a commentary -viveka by Jayaratha. 8 vols. Ed. with an
introduction R.C. Dwivedi and N. Rastogi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987. (Reprint of
KSTS 1918–1938) Etext MIRI.
Timirodghātana NGMPP A35/3 typed in “as is” by Somadeva Vasudeva. Unpublished etext.
˙
I am grateful to Somadeva Vasudeva for making this etext available to me.
Niśvāsa(tattvasamhitā) NAK 1-277; London, Wellcome Institute for the History of Med-
˙
icine, Sanskrit MS Indic delta 41. Etext by Dominic Goodall, Peter Bisschop, Diwakar
Acharya, and Nirajan Kafle. Mūla(sūtra), Naya(sūtra) and Uttara(sūtra) edited by D.
Goodall and A. Sanderson. Preceded by the Mukhāgama and followed by the Guhya(sūtra).
See also Goodall and Isaacson 2007. Unpublished etext. I am grateful to the editors for
making this etext available to me.
Netratantra, with a commentary (-uddyota) by Ksemarāja. Ed. V.V. Dvivedi. Delhi: Parimal
˙
Publications, 1985. Etext based on the KSTS edition, MIRI.
Brahmayāmala NAK Ms. No. 3-370. Typed in, with numerous editorial remarks, by Shaman
Hatley, revised by Csaba Kiss. Draf edition of the first 49 chapters by Csaba Kiss. Unpub-
lished etexts. I am grateful to the editors for making their etexts available to me.
Mahābhārata ed. V.S. Sukthankar (1927–1943) and S.K. Belvalkar (from 1943) with Shri-
mant Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi, R.N. Dandekar, S.K. De, F. Edgerton, A.B. Gajendragad-
kar, P.V. Kane, R.D. Karmakar, V.G. Paranjpe, Raghu Vira, V.K. Rajavade, N.B. Utgikar,
P.L. Vaidya, V.P. Vaidya, H.D. Velankar, M. Winternitz, R. Zimmerman et al. 19 vols.
Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1927–1959. Etext based on Muneo Toku-
naga’s version, revised by John D. Smith, available on Gretil.
Mālinīvijayottaratantra ed. Acharya Krishnanand Sagar. Varanasi: Krishnānand Sāgar, 1985.
(1st ed. Madhusūdan Kaul, Bombay, 1922. KSTS n. 37) Etext by Somdev Vasudeva avail-
able on Gretil and MIRI.
Mrgendrāgama Kriyāpāda et Caryāpāda avec le commentaire de Bhatta Nārāyanakantha. Ed.
˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙˙
N.R. Bhatt. Publication de l’IFI No. 23. Pondichéry: IFI, 1962. Etext by Dominic Goodall.
Vīnāśikha. Vīnāśikhatantra: A Śaiva Tantra of the Lef Current Ed. and trsl. T. Goudriaan.
˙ ˙
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985. Etext of the edited Sanskrit text by Somdev Vasudeva
available on Gretil.
Siddhayogeśvarīmata edition based on NAK Ms. No. 5-2403 and on ms 5465 (G) of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. See Törzsök, 1999 and Törzsök, forthcoming.
Somaśambhupaddhati vols 1 and 3. ed. H. Brunner. Pondicherry: IFI, 1963, 1977.
Svacchanda: Svacchandatantra, with the commentary -uddyota by Ksemarāja. 2 vols. Ed. Dvi-
˙
vedi, V.V. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1985. Etext based on the original KSTS edition,
MIRI.
 Judit Törzsök / Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (2013) 133–155 155

Secondary Sources
Bakker, H. (1999). “Review of Doris Meth Srinivasan. Many Heads, Arms and Eyes. Origin,
Meaning and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art. E.J. Brill, Leiden/ New York/ Köln 1997.”
Artibus Asiae 58.3–4 (1999): 339–343.
Bakker, H. (2002). “Sources for reconstructing ancient forms of Śiva worship” In: Les sources
et le temps Ed. F. Grimal. Pondicherry: IFI. pp. 397–419.
Goodall, D. (2009). Lectures on the Niśvāsatattvasamhitā at the École Pratique des Hautes
˙
Études, Paris. (Unpublished.)
Goodall, D. and Isaacson, H. (2007). “Workshop on the Niśvāsatattvasamhitā: the Earliest
˙
Surviving Śaiva Tantra?” Newsletter of the NGMCP 3 ( Jan-Febr. 2007): 4–6.
Hanneder, J. (1998). Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Revelation Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
Hatley, S. (2007). Te Brahmayāmala and Early Śaiva Cult of Yoginīs Unpublished thesis.
University of Pennsylania, Philadelphia.
Kreisel, G. (1986). Die Śiva-Bildwerke der Mathurā-Kunst Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Sanderson, A. (1988). “Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions” In: Te World’s Religions Ed.
S. Sutherland, L. Houlden, P. Clarke and F. Hardy. London: Routledge. pp. 660–704.
Sanderson, A. (2002). “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañ-
carātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras” Les sources et le temps Ed. F. Grimal. Pondicherry:
IFI. pp. 1–47.
Sanderson, A. (2004). “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the Brah-
manical Royal Chaplain (with an appendix on the provenance and date of the Netratantra)”
Indo-Iranian Journal 47 (2004): 229–300.
Sanderson, A. (2006). “Te Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between Pāñcār-
thika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism” Indian Philosphical Annual 24 (2006): 143–217.
Sanderson, A. (2009). “Te Śaiva Age—Te Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early
Medieval Period” In: Genesis and Development of Tantrism Ed. S. Einoo. Tokyo: Institute
of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo. pp. 8–349.
Sharma, B.N. (1976). Iconography of Sadāśiva New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
Srinivasan, D.M. (1997). Many Heads, Arms and Eyes. Origin, Meaning and Form of Multi-
plicity in Indian Art Leiden/ New York/ Köln: E.J. Brill.
Törzsök, J. (1999). Te Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits—A critical edition of selected chapters
of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata(tantra) with annotated translation and analysis. Unpublished
DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
Törzsök, J. (2007). “Search in the śaiva scriptures for meaning in tantric ritual” In: Mélanges
tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner Ed. D. Goodall and A. Padoux. Pondicherry: IFP
pp. 485–516.
Törzsök, J. forthcoming. Te Teaching of Yoginīs. A critical edition of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata
with an introduction and annotated translation.