On the use of Human remains in Tibetan ritual objects
by Ayesha Fuentes | 2020 | 86,093 words
The study examines the use of Tibetan ritual objects crafted from human remains highlighting objects such as skulls and bones and instruments such as the 鈥渞kang gling鈥� and the Damaru. This essay further it examines the formalization of Buddhist Tantra through charnel asceticism practices. Methodologies include conservation, iconographic analysis, c...
Go directly to: Footnotes.
K膩p膩lika implements in the formalization of Buddhist Mah膩yoga Tantra
In the same centuries in which the 艢补颈惫补 惫颈诲测腻辫墨峁环补 was expanding across south Asia, the Buddhist tantric and commentarial corpus was similarly defining itself and formalizing its ritual methodologies. There was, however, an established precedent for charnel ascetic methods in Buddhist communities as the contemplative tradition of 补艣耻产丑补产丑腻惫补苍腻, for example, wherein the decomposition of a corpse is visualized or observed as a meditation on the impurities of the body or its impermanence.[1] This practice was demonstrably popular in central and south Asian Buddhist communities in the fourth to seventh centuries, resulting in some of the earliest Buddhist images of the religious use of human remains, as well as some of the oldest references to Buddhist charnel yogins (艣尘补艣腻苍颈办补) (figure 2.23).[2] At the same time, Buddhist monastic restrictions on handling the dead demonstrate that the social and material transgressions of charnel practice were not uncontroversial to these communities.[3]
Figure 2.23: A painting suggesting 补艣耻产丑补产丑腻惫补苍腻 with a human skeleton, from a cave of the monastic community of Tepe Shotor (Afghanistan), 4th-7th centuries. Image courtesy of the Soci茅t茅 Europ茅enne pour l鈥橢tude des Civilisations de l鈥�Himalaya et de l鈥橝sie Centrale, credited to G茅rard Fussman.
After the sixth century, however, competition and exchange with the expanding 艢补颈惫补 ascetic and ritual traditions discussed in the previous section stimulated Buddhist institutions to engage with and develop their own tantric corpus.[4] As this next section will explore, a parallel development in ritualized charnel asceticism is evident in Buddhist tantric texts and iconographic programs formulated during this period, illustrating the circulation of ritual and visual innovations between non-Buddhist and Buddhist practitioners across south and central Asia especially and including the use of 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements.67 In the organization and systemization of these innovations, tantric traditions which prominently incorporated transgressive or volatile materials and practices came to be restricted by Buddhist authors to the most esoteric and specialized methodologies of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra.[5] It is within the formation and transmission of these bodies of religious literature and visual culture that Buddhist methods using charnel implements are most evident and comprehensively contextualized.
There is, however, some evidence for a broader integration of these implements and iconographies where ritualized charnel ascetic methods or materials are occasionally applied to subsidiary practices or figures, particularly in early characterizations of protectors. In the 厂耻产补丑奴辫补谤颈辫峁沜肠丑补, for example, translated into Chinese in the eighth century, a 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 of 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 is established with a corpse at its center and the heruka, who later becomes central to 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra (see below), is included as a local 测补办峁.[6] And in the 厂补谤惫补诲耻谤驳补迟颈辫补谤颈艣辞诲丑补苍补鈥攁lso dated to the eighth century鈥�痴补箩谤补辫腻峁噄 is the central ritual actor who, in one of his 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 in the form of Trailokyavijaya, tramples Bhairava and his consort Bhairavi at the center of an assembly of eight other bhairava and their 尘腻迟峁沰腻 consorts whom the yogin has summoned with a skull full of offerings of meat and alcohol.[7] This 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 is accomplished in order to gain unconditional siddhi, obtain control over the assembly鈥檚 deities, and exert influence on the mundane world as a 惫颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补. Like the contemporaneous 厂补谤惫补迟补迟丑腻驳补迟补迟补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, the 厂补谤惫补诲耻谤驳补迟颈辫补谤颈艣辞诲丑补苍补 is concerned with mortuary practices and rebirth, though its application of charnel materials is limited to this more practically oriented 蝉腻诲丑补苍补 and a destructive homa practice.[8]
Furthermore, in the 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 肠辞谤辫耻蝉鈥攐ne of the oldest sources on Buddhist deity yoga, dating to the eighth century at the latest鈥攖hough the text is described as 惫颈诲测腻惫谤补迟补, or the observance of applied ritual knowledge, the central figure is a form of Vairocana or 痴补箩谤补辫腻峁噄 as Trailokyavijaya and does not involve the explicit use of charnel implements.[9] However, also in the 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 corpus it is Yama, lord of the dead and one of eight worldly protectors of the cardinal directions (Skt. 诲颈办辫腻濒补), who is accompanied by seven 尘腻迟峁沰腻 and a consort in the manner of 艢颈惫补 as Rudra or Bhairava.[10] As guardian of the south, Yama has been represented holding a 诲补峁囜笉补 鈥攁 stick or staff, sometimes but not always topped with a skull or 迟谤颈艣奴濒补 鈥攁nd mounted on a buffalo in south Asian monuments dated as early as the sixth to seventh centuries.[11]
Similarly to Yama, 顿补峁囜笉补辫补峁噄 is shown seated and holding a staff horizontally across his knees at sites dated as early as the seventh century鈥攊ncluding at 艢补颈惫补 and 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 temples in 叠丑耻产补苍别艣惫补谤鈥攖hough his relationship to the eight 诲颈办辫腻濒补 is tangential; he may have once been guardian of the south, like Yama, but after the seventh century he was increasingly associated with the city of Varanasi.[12] As protector of this religious center, 顿补峁囜笉补辫补峁噄鈥檚 identity鈥攍ike Rudra and 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补鈥攂ecame closely related to that of the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 deity 碍腻濒补-叠丑补颈谤补惫补, where both acted as keepers of cosmological order at a site which at that period was a pilgrimage center for charnel ascetics as well as a funerary destination for the broader brahmanical and 艢补颈惫补 community.[13] Moreover, as early as the seventh century, the Chinese Buddhist scholar Xuanzang observed that charnel asceticism and ritual expertise were characteristic of 鈥渉eretical鈥� groups across south Asia and especially in Varanasi where temples of 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 outnumbered Buddhist institutions three to one.[14]
However, in other Buddhist sources dating to the fourth and fifth centuries, it is 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 that is recognized as the guardian of Varanasi.[15] In an eighth century Chinese commentary on 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 by its translator and tantric specialist 艢ubhakarasi峁僪a (d. 735) and his collaborator Yixing (683-727), the authors identify the lord of the charnel ground as the 鈥済reat black deity鈥� (Ch. 饧も繆澶╃ da hei tian shen, Skt. 尘补丑腻办腻濒补) who is leader of the 测补办峁 and 尘腻迟峁沰腻, and whose form Vairocana takes by smearing himself with ash in order to subjugate this volatile retinue and 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补.[16] The eighth century Buddhist scholar Amoghavajra also translated into Chinese a text describing a 鈥済reat black god of the cemetery鈥� who is recognized as an incarnation of 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 and accompanied by seven 尘腻迟峁沰腻.[17]
Figure 2.24: Four-armed 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 holding a skull with upper jaw exposed in the right hand and trident-topped staff, from an illustrated scroll dated to the 11-12th centuries, Dali (Yunnan). Image from Chapin and Soper 1971. Note the double-sided hand drum on the deity鈥檚 left.
The transmission of iconographies associated with these subsidiary integrations of charnel ascetic figures is suggested, for example, in representations of 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 in the Nanzhao and Dali cultures of the southeastern Himalayas (present-day China) where, after the ninth century, the great black deity was venerated鈥攖hough not with charnel materials and implements as in 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 or yogin墨 tantra鈥攁s a local protector.[18] Figure 2.24 is a detail from a twelfth century scroll from this region wherein the deity is illustrated as one of many non-Buddhist figures acting as a guardian, here with four arms and holding a skull and skull-topped staff on the right side鈥攔ather than the left, as in south Asian examples鈥攁nd the characteristically black deity is white with ash.[19]
Surviving images from south Asia which have been identified as 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 exhibit variation in their iconographies: In Figure 2.25, a ninth century four-armed deity from Bihar holds a knife in the front proper right hand and a 迟谤颈艣奴濒补-topped staff to the left; in two eleventh to twelfth century examples from Bihar and Orissa (figs. 2.26 and 2.27) a single skull has been added to this staff and there is a skull in the front left hand, demonstrating an emerging emphasis on visual associations with charnel practice which would remain consistent in later Tibetan iconography (e.g. fig. 2.28). This representation of 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 with skull and skull-topped staff suggests a connection between the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 vow, the deity鈥檚 role as a local guardian and the oath-bound commitment of non-Buddhist figures to act as wrathful dharma protectors (办谤辞诲丑补惫颈驳苍腻苍迟补办补), where the charnel implements illustrate the specific character of their conversion and/or commitment to Buddhism.[20]
Figure 2.25: Four-armed 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 without skull or charnel ornaments, holding a 迟谤颈艣奴濒补-topped staff at left, from Bihar, 9th century and now at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.71.110.3).
These representations also suggest that a distinction between the yama诲补峁囜笉补, or staff of Yama, and 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 (skull-topped staff) can be made dependent on the identity and role of the deity holding it: Where Yama鈥檚 staff in his role as 诲颈办辫腻濒补 does not necessarily include a skull or head, the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 does by definition through its historical association with the 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 observance.[21] At the same time, the deity 惭补丑腻办腻濒补鈥檚 iconography with skull and chopper (kartri, Tbt. gri gug) in the two foremost hands (e.g. figs. 2.27 and 2.28) reinforces historical associations between this figure and 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methods for the preparation of ritually empowered substances (Skt. 谤补蝉补测腻苍补, Tbt. bcud len), where the positioning of the implements in the foremost hands suggests the use of a mortar and pestle and/or the (ritual) action of mixing and compounding.[22]
Figure 2.26: Seated 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 with four-arms holding skull and single skull-topped 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 on the left, also from Bihar, 11-12th centuries, now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1996.465).
Figure 2.27: 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 on a corpse with skull and knife in the front left and right hands, as well as a 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 on the left, Orissa, 12th century and now at the Victoria and Albert Museum (IM.10-1930).
As Buddhist tantric iconography was formalized in the twelfth century in the 厂腻诲丑补苍补尘腻濒补 and 狈颈峁补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨, 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 was described as having a number of forms鈥攚ith two, four, six or sixteen arms鈥攁nd each of these maintain his charnel associations by including amongst the deity鈥檚 implements the skull and knife or chopper, as well as a 诲补峁囜笉补 and a five-skull crown.[23] Moreover, by the thirteenth century, a Buddhist 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 tantric corpus emerges that is primarily concerned with the preparation of substances intended to empower through ingestion and frequently with the use of a skull as vessel.[24] Also by the thirteenth century鈥攁s lord of the pavilion, or 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 笔补帽箩补谤补苍腻迟丑补 (Tbt. Gur gyi mgon po)鈥攖his deity was identified as guardian of both the Hevajra corpus and the Sa skya monastic lineages that had come to dominate central Tibet (see next chapter).[25] The iconography of the thang ka in figure 2.28 reinforces the protector鈥檚 origins as a deity associated with ritualized charnel asceticism through the implements of skull and chopper as well as the corpse on which he stands.
Yet the alchemical techniques associated with 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 are found in 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 ritual methodologies of the 艢补颈惫补 惫颈诲测腻辫墨峁环补 as well, for example in the 闯补测补诲谤补迟丑补测腻尘补濒补 whose central deity is 碍腻濒墨, the female wrathful, charnel counterpart to the deity 碍腻濒补 (a form of Bhairava).[26] Furthermore, using charnel ascetic materials for 谤补蝉补测腻苍补 is also characteristic to practices (肠补谤测腻) of the Buddhist Guhya 肠辞谤辫耻蝉鈥�e.g. 骋耻丑测补蝉补尘腻箩补 tantra鈥攚hich also describes tshogs (Skt. 驳补峁嘺, tantric feast gathering) and ritualized liberatory killing (Tbt. sgrol ba; see more on both below).[27] Here, skulls are used in rituals for the preparation, collection and consumption of impure substances such as human bodily fluids and flesh, alcohol, or animal meat which have been transformed and empowered in order to facilitate immortality, control adversaries and other practical siddhi or 惫颈诲测腻, as well as liberation, initiation and enlightenment.[28]
Figure 2.28: The protector 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 笔补帽箩补谤补苍腻迟丑补 (Gur gyi mgon po), two-armed with skull, chopper and 诲补峁囜笉补, wearing a five-skull crown, central Tibet, 13th century, now at the Rubin Museum of Art (F1996.27.2). Note the ten-armed figure of Hevajra, with 狈补颈谤腻迟尘测补 at top, left of center, as well as the figure in a black hat holding a phur ba in the bottom right.
However, though eighth century Buddhist commentators on the Guhya corpus were familiar with 艢补颈惫补 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methodologies and interpreted the charnel grounds as the domain of 尘腻迟峁沰腻 and an appropriate setting for ritual practice, this tradition鈥檚 observances and iconographies are less explicitly reliant on charnel implements than yogin墨 tantra (see below).[29] Instead, 骋耻丑测补蝉补尘腻箩补 describes visualizations of various deities, 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 and buddhas, and processes of subjugation and oath-binding鈥攕ome of which incorporate charnel materials鈥攖hat, along with those in the similar Guhyagarbha tantra, would flourish after the late ninth century across the Tibetan cultural region, with evidence for its study and transmission preserved in the early eleventh century collections at Dunhuang.[30] Yet as these 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 tantras were increasingly translated from Indian sources and cultivated by Tibetan practitioners, their use of charnel materials also provoked a conservative response from the Guge ruler Ye shes 鈥榦d (947-1040), for example, who objected to these teachings on the grounds that they violated Buddhist monastic vows and led to the mistreatment of corpses.[31]
Nevertheless the ritual and physico-chemical preparation of empowered, ingestible substances refined in 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methodologies of 谤补蝉补测腻苍补 (bcud len) would be further developed and expanded in Tibetan 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 tantra through various traditions of accomplished medicine (sman sgrub) and medicinal offerings (sman mchod) as well as in the purified nectar of bdud rtsi (Skt. 补尘峁泃补) that is frequently ritually integrated into tantric deity yoga (yi dam) as an inner offering (nang mchod) rendered from the impurities of the five meats or nectars (sha lnga, bdud rtsi lnga), or the five sense organs.[32] Any and all of these bcud len practices have been known to incorporate at least one skull vessel (see also chapter 4, section 2).
Alternatively, a small figure wearing a wide-brimmed black hat and holding a sharply-pointed triangular implement on the bottom right of the rendering of 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 笔补帽箩补谤补苍腻迟丑补 in fig. 2.28鈥攋ust above a skull vessel with tripod stand holding offerings to the protector and other deities鈥攆urther suggests the establishment and expansion of Buddhist 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 traditions which incorporated charnel materials and 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methodologies: By the thirteenth century, when this thang ka was likely created, Sa skya tantric scholars like Grags pa rgyal mtshan who were active in the formalization of Tibetan gSar ma teachings also had an expanded knowledge of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 practices on the use of the ritual dagger or stake called phur pa (Skt. 办墨濒补) and associated practices of sgrol ba (often translated as 鈥渓iberation killing鈥�).[33]
Though there is evidence for this practice, its longevity and expansion in Tibetan-language materials preserved in the early eleventh century at Dunhuang, it can be seen that sgrol ba and the use of the phur pa are also present in 艢补颈惫补 sources, for example in Svacchandabhairava practices, as well as the eighth-century Buddhist Guhya corpus.[34] Moreover, the ritual practice and narrative methodology of sgrol ba each reinforce a connection with other charnel ascetic traditions: In phur pa practices preserved at Dunhuang and especially prominent within the rNying ma 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 corpus, charnel materials are instrumental to the description, conversion and subjugation of 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 as Rudra and interpreted as indicative of impurities or negativities transformed through Buddhist ritual action.[35] Also, death as a condition for liberation recalls the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 soteriological model of the self as sacrificial beast and the goal of extinction in union with the deity in the form of Rudra (Skt. 辫补帽肠腻谤迟丑补).[36] Where skulls came to be used as a sacrificial platform or vessel (bandha or bhandha) in sgrol ba practices, they have the capacity to ritually transform and purify the negative associations of the victim.[37]
The central importance of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 ritual methodologies to the formation of the rNying ma tradition can also be seen in the iconography of Guru Rinpoche (a.k.a. Padmasambhava) and its sources.[38] In one of the earliest preserved images of the teacher from Tabo in the western Himalayas (fig. 2.29), a thirteenth century rendering shows Guru Rinpoche with a large hat and holding a 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and skull on the left, paired with a vajra in the right hand raised at center.[39] Yet while older texts describe this figure as a teacher and ritual practitioner, it would be the work of Nyang ral nyi ma 鈥榦d zer (c.1130-1200) that further developed his legacy as the foundations of the rNying ma tantric tradition.[40] Working with texts likely known to his Sa skya contemporaries and demonstrating continuities with materials preserved at Dunhuang, this twelfth century gter ston and his intellectual descendants would reinforce narratives linking the activities of Guru Rinpoche with the subjugation of deities local to the Tibetan plateau and establishment of Buddhist tantra, including connecting the practice of sgrol ba鈥攁nd its further cultivation in the performance of 鈥�chams or ritual dance鈥攚ith the actions of Padmasambhava at bSam yas as well as the death of the ruler gLang dar ma in 842.[41]
Figure 2.29: Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) holding skull and rdo rje (Skt. vajra) with 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 (damaged), from Tabo in the western Himalayas, 13th century. Image by Christian Luczanits.
In the cultivation of his hagiography and legacy as a Buddhist teacher and tantric master, Guru Rinpoche鈥檚 historical role in ritually subjugating local deities of the Tibetan cultural region promotes the model for a 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 practitioner empowered through the use of 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methods and materials. At the same time, it suggests the central importance of this figure鈥檚 ritual expertise to Tibetan post-imperial religious life and its historiography: This reflects the ways in which the intermediary period of the late ninth to eleventh centuries (bar dar, also known as the time of fragments or sil ba鈥檌 dus) was conditioned by a need to articulate and maintain social well-being and/or control the local environment within an atmosphere of political change and instability.[42]
It is during this time as well that the figure of Heruka becomes increasingly central to the practice of Buddhist tantra: One of the earliest references to this figure is found in the 厂补谤惫补迟补迟丑腻驳补迟补迟补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补鈥攆ormalized and circulated between south and central Asia by the eighth century鈥攚herein the name heruka is used in a mantra for assembling the historically 艢补颈惫补 尘腻迟峁沰腻 to act in the interests of Buddhism.[43] In this same tantra, the primary deity 痴补箩谤补辫腻峁噄 subdues 艢颈惫补-惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 when he takes the form of 惭补丑腻产丑补颈谤补惫补, then 惭补丑腻谤补耻诲谤补 (Rudra), whom he revives from the dead and re-identifies as Buddhist. This yoga tantra鈥檚 description of 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements used or applied by Buddhist deities in order to subdue, transform and liberate adversities (or adversaries) became a widely acknowledged precedent for the adoption of charnel materials and methodologies in the practice of 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补.[44]
Here, as in later 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 tantras, charnel materials are presented as illustrations of impurities or negativities that can be transformed or subdued through Buddhist ritual practice. This is found in some of the oldest sources for the rNying ma tantric corpus, for example, in the Phur pa bcu gnyis which describes Heruka (viz. Karmaheruka) as a Buddhist tantric figure empowered by 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements received from the primary deity Vajra办墨濒补 (or Vajra办墨濒补ya).[45] Moreover, in the earliest surviving evidences for the Tibetan expansion of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and its iconographies鈥攊ncluding material from Dunhuang that predates the eleventh century and includes the ritual methodologies of tshogs and bcud len 鈥擧eruka emerges as a central figure in a 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 of wrathful deities, though with less practical emphasis on his role in deity yoga as in later 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantras.[46]
Figure 2.30: The 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 of Che mchog Heruka from the rNying ma tradition of the Eight Precepts of Accomplishment (sGrub pa bka鈥� brgyad), Guru Rinpoche and his consort Ye shes mtsho rgyal in the top left of the central assembly, central Tibet, 13th century, now in a private collection. Guru Rinpoche appears twice: Once in the 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 (see fig. 2.31) and again, alone, to the top left of the assembly.
Figure 2.31: Detail of fig. 2.30 with Guru Rinpoche and his consort Ye shes mtsho rgyal, offering a skull from his left, within the assembly of the 尘补峁囜笉补濒补.
Nevertheless, there was a developed iconography for Heruka as a central deity empowered by charnel implements within the rNying ma tradition by the twelfth to thirteenth centuries: In figs. 2.30 and 2.31, the six-armed Che mchog Heruka is positioned at the center of a 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 wearing charnel ornaments and holding skulls in his left hands with a consort at his side and surrounded by seven other similar forms of Heruka as well as Guru Rinpoche, holding a bell and rdo rje in the manner of Vajradhara, with his consort Ye shes mtsho rgyal offering a skull vessel from his left.[47] To the top left of this assembly, the siddha and tantric master is represented again with skull in the left hand, paired with rdo rje in the right, and a 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 rather than consort to his left. In this iconographic program derived from the Eight Precepts of Accomplishment (sGrub pa bka鈥� brgyad)鈥攚hich include the refinement and preparation of ritually empowered substances in a skull鈥擯admasambhava is represented similarly and in an equivalent position to the Heruka deities, further reinforcing the teacher鈥檚 fundamental status to rNying ma traditions of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 tantra.[48]
However, it would be in the 厂补峁僾补谤补 corpus and yogin墨 tantra that forms of Heruka came to be prominently and consistently represented as a Buddhist deity defined by the use of 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements and a charnel setting.[49] Thus far this chapter has broadly described evidence for the formation of 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 traditions from their origins in 艣谤补尘补峁嘺 ascetic practices to the adaptation of their observances as yoga tantra, the refinement and popularization of these methods in non-Buddhist kaula traditions, and the foundations of Tibetan 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 tantra. The following examines how Buddhist yogin墨 tantra first took shape in the late seventh to eighth centuries, how it exemplifies the exchange and refinement of methods and materials for ritualized charnel asceticism, and historical evidence for the further, specialized integration of the skull, 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 and charnel ornaments as 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补 visual and material culture.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
C.f. Liz Wilson, Charming Cadavers: Horrifying Figurations of the Feminine in Indian Buddhist Hagiographic Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). On p. 270, Wilson writes that there is a 鈥渟trong affinity鈥� between the practitioners of 补艣耻产丑补产丑腻惫补苍腻 and later, tantric modes of ritualized charnel asceticism.
[2]:
Eric Greene, 鈥淒eath in a cave: Meditation, deathbed ritual, and skeletal imagery at Tape Shotor鈥�, Artibus Asiae 73 no. 2, (2013): 265-294. Greene notes that illustrations of dead bodies were acknowledged by monastic authors as acceptable substitutions for a charnel setting for the practice of 补艣耻产丑补产丑腻惫补苍腻. Wedemeyer finds references to Buddhist 艣尘补艣腻苍颈办补 in the fourth-fifth century Lank膩vat膩ras奴tra, op.cit., 164. See also chapters 3 and 4, section 1 on dismemberment and exposure burial in relation to regional Buddhist charnel practices.
[3]:
Gregory Schopen has elsewhere discussed regulations on contact with the dead for Buddhist monastic communities and notes that concepts of the social and religious impurity of charnel materials were shared with adjacent brahmanical traditions, idem., 鈥淥n avoiding ghosts and social censure: Monastic funerals in the 惭奴濒补蝉补谤惫腻蝉迟颈惫腻诲补-vinaya鈥�, in Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, (Honolulu: University of Hawai鈥檌 Press, 1997 [1992]), 219.
[4]:
Davidson has suggested that the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 艢补颈惫补 were the first ascetic community to challenge the dominance of Buddhist religious institutions in south Asia, while at the same time, the political instabilities of the post-Gupta era stimulated the cultivation of ritual methods for empowerment, idem., Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 186. Thomas Donaldson finds evidence of iconographic exchange in images of 尝补办耻濒墨艣补 and representations of the historical Buddha as an ascetic yogin and teacher after the seventh century in Orissa, see idem., Iconography of the Buddhist Sculpture of Orissa (Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 2001), 391-2; see also chapter 3 of this dissertation on early Tibetan images of siddhas.
[5]:
Jacob Dalton has noted that 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 was used to designate the highest category in Indian and Buddhist sources until the tenth century, 鈥淎 crisis of doxography: How Tibetans organized tantra during the 8-12th centuries,鈥� Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1 (2005): 115-181. Alexis Sanderson further suggests that the Buddhist classificatory system was an adaptation of the 艢补颈惫补 尘补苍迟谤补尘腻谤驳补 categories wherein yoga, 箩帽腻苍补 or 惫颈诲测腻 describe the most esoteric and specialized, idem., 鈥淭he 艢补颈惫补 age,鈥� 145-147n337. At the same he notes that the term *anuttarayoga is unknown in Indian sources and a misrepresentation of yoganiruttara or 测辞驳腻苍耻迟迟补谤补 (Tbt. rnal 鈥榖yor bla na med), while 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 is more precisely rendered as yogottara based on the classification system in the bKa鈥� 鈥榞yur, see also idem., 鈥湷詹孤岚共饽宀圆�: Origins and functions鈥�, 97n1. According to the thirteenth century Tibetan scholar Mkhas grub rje, *anuttarayoga tantra was divided into 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra, see below and idem., Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems, trans. F.D. Lessing and Alex Wayman (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1968), 251. Note also that 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 is more clearly distinguished as a doxographical category in Tibet than Indian Buddhist sources who used this term generally to describe a major yoga tantra, while the rNying ma characterizations for the most esoteric practices of tantra as 尘补丑腻测辞驳补, anuyoga and atiyoga are also Tibetan characterizations, see Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur pa from Dunhuang, (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 14-19 as well as idem., 鈥淭he Dunhuang Phur pa corpus: A survey,鈥�, 2.
[6]:
Sanderson,鈥漈he 艢补颈惫补 age鈥�, 148n340. Sanderson finds that the Tibetan translation of heruka as khrag 鈥榯hung, or blood-drinker, has no etymological significance in Sanskrit and resonates instead with the Chinese translation (shi xue 饣濃編) of heruka in the 厂耻产腻丑耻辫补谤颈辫峁沜肠丑补; see also Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 203.
[7]:
Tadeusz Skorpuski, The 厂补谤惫补诲耻谤驳补迟颈辫补谤颈艣辞诲丑补苍补 tantra: Elimination of all Evil Destinies (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983), 59-61. This is referred to as the nine Bhairava 尘补峁囜笉补濒补.
[8]:
ibid., 71. See also Steven Weinberger, 鈥淭he significance of yoga tantra and the Compendium of Principles (罢补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 Tantra) within tantric Buddhism in India and Tibet,鈥� (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2003) 207ff; the author compares these two yoga tantras and their tantric funerary methodologies, which are primarily concerned with the rebirth of the deceased rather than the instrumentation of charnel materials. Trailokyavijaya is also the empowered, wrathful form of 痴补箩谤补辫腻峁噄 in the 厂补谤惫补迟补迟丑腻驳补迟补迟补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补; see Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion, 194 and below on the figure of the heruka.
[9]:
See Wedemeyer, op.cit., 162. The 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 tantra was likely composed in the seventh century by Indian Buddhists but, like the 厂补谤惫补迟补迟丑腻驳补迟补迟补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 and 骋耻丑测补蝉补尘腻箩补 (see below), its earliest datable reference is found in eighth century Chinese translations, see Stephen Hodge, The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya鈥檚 Commentary (New York: Curzon, 2003), 11-12.
[10]:
Hodge, ibid., 116ff (ch. 2).
[11]:
Corinna Wessels-Mevissen, The Gods of the Directions in Ancient India (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 2001), 98-99. Though Yama is consistently shown with a 诲补峁囜笉补, unlike the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 it not always topped with a skull. There are representations of Yama as one of the eight 诲颈办辫腻濒补 and holding a staff or club at sites dated as early as the seventh century near historically active Buddhist sites in Bihar鈥攊ncluding one with a skull鈥攁nd also at 叠丑耻产补苍别艣惫补谤, including at the 艢补颈惫补 site of Para艣ur膩me艣vara (see fig. 2.7, above). In the tenth century 艢尘补艣腻苍补惫颈诲丑颈 (see below) 碍腻濒补 is equated with the protector Yama and described holding a 诲补峁囜笉补 as well as a skull, dark in color (e.g. black, 办腻濒补) and mounted on a buffalo, c.f. Elizabeth English, Vajrayogini: Her Visualizations, Rituals and Forms (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2002), 142nxvi. Note that the deity 驰补尘腻苍迟补办补 (or 驰补尘腻谤颈) is also represented in Buddhist iconographies with a 诲补峁囜笉补, as well as charnel implements and mounted on a buffalo; c.f. de Mallmann, op.cit., 465-469. Interestingly, Vajrabhairava (as 驰补尘腻苍迟补办补) is not described in either the 厂腻诲丑补苍补尘腻濒补 or 狈颈峁补苍苍补测辞驳腻惫补濒墨, except to be trampled by a sixteen-armed form of 惭补丑腻办腻濒补, nor is Vajrabhairava mentioned by mKhas grub rje, who otherwise describes six 尘补峁囜笉补濒补s of the guardian 驰补尘腻苍迟补办补, idem.,op.cit., 119; see also de Mallmann, ibid., 400-1. A buffalo-headed form of 厂补峁僾补谤补 is associated with the Vajrabhairava corpus in Gray, The Cakrasamvara Tantra, 38n114.
[12]:
Wessels-Mevissen, ibid., 107-109.
[13]:
See note 27, above and Eck, op.cit., 189-201 for a discussion of the inter-related identities of 碍腻濒补-叠丑补颈谤补惫补 and Da峁囜笉apani and their respective roles in the city according to pur膩峁噄c literature, particularly the 厂办补苍诲补辫耻谤腻峁嚹�. See also Bakker, op.cit., 258 on the potential influence of yogin墨 tantra on the revision of earlier narratives of 艢颈惫补 and the group of 尘腻迟峁沰腻 in later material from the 厂办补苍诲补辫耻谤腻峁嘺.
[14]:
Xuanzang notes that many of these non-Buddhist practitioners smeared themselves with ash, sometimes wore skulls, and were skilled with applied ritual knowledge, idem., op.cit., 54 and 195ff. He further noted that this was especially true in the eastern region south of Kolkata (i.e. western Bengal and Orissa) where these ascetic ritual specialists outnumbered Buddhists by five to one, ibid., 302.
[15]:
Samuel, Origins of Yoga and Tantra, 151. The 惭补丑腻尘腻测奴谤墨, for example, identifies 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 as a 测补办峁 of Varanasi.
[16]:
Megan Bryson, 鈥湶巡钩竽灏炷灞舨� worship in the Dali kingdom (937-1253): A study and translation of the Dahei tianshen daochang yi鈥� Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 35, no. 1-2 (2012), 9. See also Hodge, ibid., 19-20 on the speculative origins of 艢ubhakarasi峁僪a in Orissa and his Buddhist education in northern India, as well as Chou Yiliang, 鈥�Tantrism in China,鈥� Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8, no. 3/4 (1945), 257n30 on the translator鈥檚 location at Ratnagiri. On the relationship between the 惭补丑腻惫补颈谤辞肠补苍补 corpus and 厂补峁僾补谤补 tantra in the development of yogin墨 tantra, see David B. Gray, 鈥淓ating the heart of the brahmin: Representations of alterity and the formation of identity in Tantric Buddhist discourse鈥� History of Religions 45 no. 1 (2005): 45-69.
[17]:
Bryson, ibid., 23.
[18]:
See Bryson, ibid. This author moreover notes that similar representations with charnel implements are found for 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 and/or 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 in Japanese and central Asian Buddhist sources from the ninth and tenth centuries.
[19]:
This image is introduced in Helen B. Chapin and Alexander Soper, 鈥淎 long roll of Buddhist images IV,鈥� Artibus Asiae 33, no. 1/2 (1971), pl. 45.
[20]:
See Linrothe on the history of 办谤辞诲丑补惫颈驳苍腻苍迟补办补 iconography where many鈥攍ike 惭补丑腻办腻濒补, as well as 痴补箩谤补辫腻峁噄鈥攈ad been historically identified as non-Buddhist figures or 测补办峁 which were integrated into 痴补箩谤补测腻苍补 as guardians, idem., Ruthless Compassion, 24ff. It can be seen that many of these figures are found in Buddhist iconographies previous to their acquisition of charnel implements in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Note also that Granoff identifies the sixth century image of Rudra with a single-skull charnel ornament in the hair and 迟谤颈艣奴濒补 staff in fig. 2.8 as 惭补丑腻办腻濒补, idem., 鈥湶巡钩蟊鹋洷共拱�/惭补丑腻办腻濒补鈥�.
[21]:
Bhattacharya, working from the 厂腻诲丑补苍补尘腻濒补, defines the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単补 as a staff or club topped by a skull with vajra, banner, and/or 迟谤颈艣奴濒补, op.cit., 193. de Mallmann, on the other hand, distinguishes the 办丑补峁璿腻峁単a from the yama诲补峁囜笉补 by the three skulls or heads on the former and a single skull on the latter, op.cit. 17. However, this distinction reflects later Tibetan iconography (e.g. fig. 2.28), rather than its precedents. mKhas grub rje identifies the 诲补峁囜笉补 with the oath of Yama as a dharma protector, op.cit., 115; he also describes the protector 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 (mGon po) with a stick (beng), ibid., 119.
[22]:
This association may be further reinforced by the practice of 谤补蝉补测腻苍补 amongst N膩th yogins, many of whom would become important innovators in Tibetan traditions of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra; see Westin Harris鈥� forthcoming dissertation the legacy of the siddha 痴颈谤奴辫补 from the University of California, Davis. See also Cathy Cantwell, 鈥淩eflections on 谤补蝉补测腻苍补, bcud len and related practices in Nyingma (rNying ma) tantric ritual,鈥� History of Science in South Asia 5, no. 2 (2017): 181-203.
[23]:
C.f. de Mallmann, op.cit., 238-239 and Bhattacharya, op.cit., 120-123. There are eight 蝉腻诲丑补苍补 for 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 (nos. 300-306 and 312), and at least one describes 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 with a retinue of female deities while the six-armed form is surrounded by the 补峁ａ弓补艣尘腻艣补苍补, or eight charnel grounds (see below).
[24]:
This text was known by mKhas grub rje and is included in the bKa鈥� 鈥榞yur though its oldest surviving evidence is from the twelfth century, see William Stablein, 鈥淭he 惭补丑腻办腻濒补tantra: A theory of ritual blessings and tantric medicine,鈥� (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1976). This tantra discusses techniques of bcud len wherein the skull is used as a crucible to prepare substances which confers the benefits of byin brlabs.
[25]:
For the diversification of Tibetan 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 iconography after the twelfth century, see Marilyn Rhie, 鈥�Mahakala: Some tangkas and sculptures from the Rubin Museum of Art,鈥� in Demonic Divine: Himalayan Art and Beyond, ed. Rob Linrothe (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2004), 44-98. See also fig. 4.2.34 for an early thirteenth century image of the protector 惭补丑腻办腻濒补 with skull at Alchi gSum brtsegs.
[26]:
Sanderson, 鈥�Purity and power,鈥� 213. See also White, The Alchemical Body, 148 and passim on the eleventh century 搁补蝉腻谤峁嘺惫补, a technical and alchemical text of the N膩th yoga tradition which was active in Varanasi and across south Asia at this time and also cultivated the use of skulls as ritual vessels.
[27]:
See also Wedemeyer, op.cit., ch. 4 for an historical analysis of the characteristically antinomian consumption practices of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra, particularly in the 骋耻丑测补蝉补尘腻箩补.
[28]:
C.f. Francesca Fremantle, 鈥淎 critical study of the Guhyasamaja tantra,鈥� (PhD diss., SOAS University of London, 1971), 94 and 100 (ch. 14).
[29]:
Wedemeyer, ibid., 163 and Sanderson,鈥漈he 艢补颈惫补 age,鈥� 141-145. Sanderson notes that an eighth century commentary on 骋耻丑测补蝉补尘腻箩补 assumes a knowledge of 艢补颈惫补 methodologies and makes explicit reference to the 尝腻办耻濒补 狈颈艣惫腻蝉补 corpus.
[30]:
Sam Van Schaik has discussed how 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 practices and the Guhya esoteric ritual corpus spread in the Tibetan cultural region after the collapse of its central political institutions in the late ninth century, with evidence from Dunhuang as well, idem., 鈥�Tibetan Buddhism in central Asia: Geopolitics and group dynamics,鈥� in Transfer of Buddhism Across Central Asian Networks (8th-13th Centuries), ed. Carmen Meinert (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 57-85. Elsewhere, the same author has noted that the transgressive methods of this corpus defined the tantric binding between a practitioner and teacher鈥攃alled dam tshig (Skt. samaya)鈥攊n Tibetan 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 after the eighth century and that this oath is treated by many Tibetan scholars as synonymous to sdom pa, or 蝉补峁僾补谤补; idem., 鈥淭he limits of transgression: The samaya vows of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补,鈥� in Esoteric Buddhism at Dunhuang, eds. Sam Van Schaik and Matthew T. Kapstein (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 64.
[31]:
Samten G. Karmay, 鈥淭he ordinance of lHa Bla-ma Ye-shes-鈥榦d, 鈥渋n Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Tibetan Studies Oxford 1979, ed. Michael Aris and Aung Sun Suu Kyi (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1980), 154. In their opposition to the methods of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 and yogin墨 tantra, Ye shes 鈥榦d and his grandson Zhi ba 鈥榦d both promoted efforts for monastic reform, including the translations of Rin chen bzang po (d.1054) and teachings of 础迟颈艣补 (d. 1055), see David Snellgrove, 鈥淩ulers of western Tibet鈥�, in The Tibetan History Reader, ed. Kurtis R. Schaeffer and Gary Tuttle (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 174-175.
[32]:
See Cantwell, 鈥淩eflections on 谤补蝉补测腻苍补鈥�, passim, especially on the cultivation of these practices in the rNying ma tradition. See also Frances Garrett, 鈥淭apping the body鈥檚 nectar: Gastronomy and incorporation in Tibetan literature,鈥� History of Religions 49, no. 3, (2010), 300-326. For a discussion of the further development of bcud len in the Tibetan medical tradition, see Jamyang Oliphant, 鈥淓xtracting the essence: Bcud len in the Tibetan literary tradition,鈥� (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2015).
[33]:
See note 17, above, as well as Cantwell and Mayer, 鈥淭he Dunhuang Phur pa corpus: A survey,鈥� 249-250.
[34]:
For 艢补颈惫补 sources with parallel ritual themes see Olga S. Saraogi, 鈥淲hen to kill means to liberate: Structure and meaning of two types of ritual actions in 惫颈诲测腻辫墨峁环补 texts鈥�, in Grammars and Morphologies of Ritual Practices in Asia (Section I), eds. Axel Michaels and Anand Mishra (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz Verlag, 2010), 65-84. See also Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur pa from Dunhuang, (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 14-19. Though these authors condition their findings on the Dunhuang phur pa materials by noting that it is difficult to be certain about how these fragmentary texts represent earlier practices, it is argued that they nevertheless indicate ritual methodologies which are established within the Tibetan cultural region by the early eleventh century and which represent a local expansion on Indian precedents for the use of the 办墨濒补 between the late ninth and early eleventh centuries. See also idem., 鈥淭he Bon Ka ba nag po and the Rnying ma phur pa tradition鈥�, Journal of the International Association for Bon Research 1, no. 1 (2013): 37-53 for a discussion of the relationship between sources for Bon and rNying ma phur pa practices pre-dating the formation of gSar ma traditions.
[35]:
See Robert Mayer, 鈥淭he figure of 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补/Rudra in the r脩yi峁�-ma-pa tantric tradition,鈥� Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21, no. 2 (1998), 301-2 on the fundamental position of this narrative to the rNying ma corpus as well as Jacob Dalton,The Taming of Demons: Violence and Liberation in Tibetan Buddhism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 165 on evidence for this narrative and ritual connection to Rudra as 鈥渓ord of the charnel grounds鈥� and his description with 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements at Dunhuang. On the longevity and fundamental status of this narrative in Tibetan religious historiography, see also Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, 鈥淓nduring myths: sMrang, rabs and ritual in the Dunhuang texts on Padmasambhava鈥�, in Tibetan Studies in Honor of Samten Karmay, eds. Fran莽oise Pommert and Jean-Luc Achard (Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute, 2009), 289-312 and idem., The 碍墨濒补测补 Nirv膩na Tantra and the Vajra Wrath Tantra: Two Texts from the Ancient Tantra Collection (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007) on the specialization of phur pa practices, including the Buddhist 鈥渘ormalization鈥� of 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 methods, in sources for the rNying ma tradition.
[36]:
This is articulated in a fourth century commentary on the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补s奴tra, for example; Bakker, op.cit.,
[37]:
These methods of subjugation and transformation would become central to the tradition of zhva nag 鈥榗hams and for which the central deity is Vajra办墨濒补ya (rDo rje Phur bu), see Rene de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Tibetan Religious Dances: Tibetan Text and Annotated Translation of the 鈥楥hams yig (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1976), 86; also Cathy Cantwell, 鈥淎 black hat ritual dance,鈥� Bulletin of Tibetology 1 (1992): 12-23 and chapter 4, section 2.
[38]:
This is summarized by Beer, op.cit, 249 (see also chapter 1 of this dissertation, note 32). On formative sources for the hagiography of Guru Rinpoche before the twelfth century, see Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 155-161 as well as Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, 鈥淩epresentations of Padmasambhava in early post-Imperial Tibet,鈥� in Tibet after Empire: Culture, Society and Religion between 850-1000, eds. Christoph C眉ppers, Robert Mayer and Michael Walter (Kathmandu: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2013), 19-50 and Jacob Dalton, 鈥淭he early development of the Padmasambhava legend in Tibet: A Study of IOL Tib J 644 and Pelliot tib茅tain 307,鈥� Journal of the American Oriental Society 124, no. 4 (2004), 759-772.
[39]:
My thanks to Christian Luczanits for this image and his advice on its context. On the prominence of Guru Rinpoche鈥檚 hat as a characteristic feature according to sources found at Dunhuang, see Cantwell and Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur pa, 44.
[40]:
On the formative role of this innovative author and treasure revealer in the expansion and formalization of the rNying ma corpus and hagiography of Guru Rinpoche, see Cantwell and Mayer, 鈥淩epresentations of Padmasambhava鈥�, 20ff.
[41]:
See chapter 4, section 2 and Carmen Meinert, 鈥淏etween the profane and the sacred? On the context of the rite of 'liberation' (sgrol ba)鈥�, in Buddhism and Violence, ed. Michael Zimmerman (Lumbini: Lumbini Research Institute, 2006), 102 as well as Jens Schlieter, 鈥淐ompassionate killing or conflict resolution? The murder of king Langdarma according to Tibetan Buddhist sources,鈥� in Buddhism and Violence, ed. Michael Zimmermann, (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2006), 131-157.
[42]:
C.f. Cantwell and Mayer, 鈥淓nduring myths,鈥� 290ff. See also Sam Van Schaik, 鈥淭ibetan Buddhism in central Asia: Geopolitics and group dynamics,鈥� in Transfer of Buddhism across Central Asian Networks (8th-13th centuries), ed. Carmen Meinert (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 57-85.
[43]:
Sanderson, 鈥淭he 艢补颈惫补 age,鈥� 156n357. The same mantra is adopted into the 厂补谤惫补产耻诲诲丑补蝉补尘腻测辞驳补 (see below) as the mantra of its primary deity Heruka. See also Weinberger, op.cit., 173ff on the tantric innovations of the 厂补谤惫补迟补迟丑腻驳补迟补迟补迟迟惫补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, including the pedagogical use of violence sanctioned as 耻辫腻测补, and Buddhist tantric funerary practices.
[44]:
See Mayer, 鈥淭he figure of 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补/Rudra,鈥� 274ff as well as Davidson, 鈥淩eflections on the 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补 subjugation myth鈥�, 200ff.
[45]:
Mayer, ibid., 289-290. The author notes that this exchange frames a version of a Vajra办墨濒补ya root text and soteriological model which is consistent throughout the rNying ma 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 corpus.
[46]:
See Cantwell and Mayer, Early Tibetan Documents on Phur pa, 16ff on the iconographic relationship between Vajra办墨濒补 (or Vajra办墨濒补ya in the Tibetan tradition) and Heruka. See also ibid., 38 and 53 and idem., 鈥淭he Dunhuang phur pa corpus鈥�, 268-269 on the lack of evidence for a Heruka phur pa practice at Dunhuang or in Indian sources and idem., Early Tibetan Documents on Phur pa, 88-94 for a practice with Heruka as the subduer of Rudra at the center of a charnel setting. Further, see these authors鈥� critical translation of the Thabs kyi zhags pa and its commentary preserved at Dunhuang and which describes a multi-limbed Heruka (just as often called khrag 鈥榯hung chen po in the root text) with 办腻辫腻濒颈办补 implements鈥攊ncluding skull and rdo rje in the front two hands (left and right respectively) and garland of skulls, though no charnel ornaments on the head or body鈥攁t the center of a 尘补峁囜笉补濒补 of wrathful deities; though this corpus includes description of the deity with charnel materials it does not have a developed vocabulary or practical emphasis on their use by the practitioner as yogin (see below), idem., A Noble Noose of Methods, The Lotus Garland Synopsis: A Mah膩yoga Tantra and its Commentary (Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), 74-75 and 294.
[47]:
This painting is introduced in Jane Casey Singer, 鈥淎 Tibetan painting of Chemchok Heruka's mandala in the McCormick Collection, revisited鈥� in Dating Tibetan Art, op.cit., 113-132. See also Cathy Cantwell, 鈥淭he Action Phurpa (鈥楶hrin las phur pa) from the Eightfold Buddha Word, Embodying the Sugatas (bK鈥檃 brgyad bDe gshegs 鈥榙us pa), revealed by Nyang-rel Nyima 脰zer (1124-1192, Tib. Myang ral Nying ma 鈥榦d zer)鈥�, BuddhistRoad Paper 7, no. 2 (2020): 3-137 on the historical relationship between Che mchog Heruka and the use of skull vessels in rNying ma suppression practices.
[48]:
Garrett describes this painting鈥檚 relationship to its ritual textual sources which were historically associated with the eighth century Indian teacher Vimalamitra and his transmissions of 尘补丑腻测辞驳补 tantra preserved in the rNying ma 惭腻测腻箩腻濒补 corpus (Sgyu 鈥榩hrul drwa ba), c.f. idem., 鈥淭apping the body鈥檚 nectar鈥�, 214ff. See also Cantwell and Mayer, 鈥淩epresentations of Padmasambhava鈥�, 28ff on the development of a rNying ma cycle of eight Heruka yi dam deities, including the role of twelfth century gter ston Nyang ral nyi ma 鈥榦d zer.
[49]:
Dr. P茅ter-D谩niel Sz谩nt贸 has noted that Heruka deities were increasingly seen after the introduction of Buddhist yogin墨 tantra (i.e. 厂补谤惫补产耻诲诲丑补蝉补尘腻测辞驳补) in the eighth century, Cantwell and Mayer, 鈥淩epresentations of Padmasambhava鈥�, 39n39; see below.