3

Varieties of melaka in the Jayadrathayāmala

Some reflections on the terms haṭha and priya

Olga Serbaeva

Introduction

There exists in the Vidyāpīṭha Tantras a special term denoting all kinds of encounters with yoginīs.¹ The term in question is melaka or melāpa. In the overwhelming majority of cases, such encounters do not pertain to normal, everyday practices, but rather come at the end of a recitation of a mantra and homa. They also invariably take place in desolate and dangerous places, such as a mountaintop, or by a solitary liṅga or tree, or on a cremation ground.² The sādhaka, usually in a state of inebriation, suddenly hears indistinct sounds, enters into a visionary state and then finds himself surrounded by yoginīs. These may be deformed or appear with the faces of animals. On being addressed by these yoginīs in a particular manner, he offers them a bloody argha by piercing one his limbs on the left side, usually his arm. Satisfied by the offering, the yoginīs transform him into a superhuman being possessed of omniscience and the ability to fly, and who is frequently then compared to Bhairava.

This would describe the most frequent pattern of melaka. In the present paper, I intend explore some of the particular instances of it as described in the Jayadrathayāmala (JY).

The Jayadrathayāmala assembles material drawn from all sorts of earlier texts, some of which are now lost in their original forms. It consists of four ṣaṭkas, or parts, each of which is supposed to contain 6,000 verses. If ṣaṭkas 1, 3, and 4 still conform, more or less, to that number, a significant part of ṣaṭka 2 has been lost. The first ṣaṭka is the most archaic and the least Śākta in its language and orientation. It is possible that at least one century separates it from the remaining three. These, on the other hand, are very similar in style and all presuppose the existence of the others, leaving a strong impression of their having been compiled by one and the same person.³

The last three Ṣaṭkas together constitute probably one of the most ‘Śākta’ texts in existence: the deities invoked are almost exclusively female, while Bhairava remains present only as a speaker and rarely appears in the maṇḍala-structures. Yoginīs of various kinds constitute a practitioner’s only means of access to a chosen goddess. It is not rare to find expressions such as ‘the sādhaka will become a yoginī’, or ‘will achieve the state/domain of yoginīs’. The composition as a whole, influenced by the ideas of the Krama and the later Trika, is clearly pre-Abhinavagupta, for he cites the Mādhavakula – itself a semi-independent part of ṣaṭka 4.⁴

But what is the purpose and usefulness of such a study of melaka in the JY? Two texts influenced my approach. The first of these is the Tantrāloka, which divides the varieties of melaka into two clear-cut types, respectively termed priya and haṭha.⁵ Abhinavagupta associates the violent (haṭha) variety with the fact that one should protect the ‘holes’ or chidras. Chidra is a technical term in the Vidyāpīṭha Tantras for vulnerable points through which it is believed that a person could be liable to attack by yoginīs and similar sorts of beings/spirits. The other, priya, is characterised by kāmacāritva, meaning that one might accomplish it in accordance with one’s desire.⁶ In a key passage in chapter 28, Abhinavagupta links this procedure to different mantroddhāras, or mantra-raising codes. He proposes, moreover, an interpretation of the process that is strongly non-dualistic: representing melaka as a union with the total consciousness or samvit, whose oneness, although it appears to be split through the separation of bodies, can nevertheless be grasped. The melaka in the TĀ constitutes a union with one’s own nature: precisely that total consciousness.

The other text pertinent to my approach is the translation of Brahmayāmala 99.10–13 by Shaman Hatley in his PhD thesis.⁷ In this, haṭhamelaka is presented as a practice fraught with great danger for the sādhaka, who, it would appear, might even potentially be killed by the ḍākinīs during the transformative process.

Thus it became my aim to discover whether it would be possible to find the same clear-cut separation into priya and haṭha types in the JY. I also hoped to explore all the meanings of the various types of melaka present and to discover if the JY is ultimately any more explicit about whether the haṭha variety does or does not pose a mortal danger to the sādhaka.

Preliminary linguistic analysis of the collocation of the terms

The haṭhamelaka

Let us begin with a definition of haṭhamelaka. Haṭhamelaka is a practice in which the practitioner risks his life: for, according to BY, should he make the slightest mistake, or should his mental state at a given moment waver, or should some other such disturbance occur, then he will undoubtedly be devoured by the yoginīs, and Rudra himself would not be able to save him.⁸ From a selection of early Śaiva tantric texts mostly belonging to the Vidyāpīṭha or reflecting its influence (ŪK, JY, BY, TST, TĀ, and NT), it would appear that haṭha, in the sense of ‘force’ or ‘violence’, might refer to the following aspects of practice: (1) particularly violent yoginīs, (2) the risk of death for the sādhaka,⁹ or even (3) to the procedure of melaka itself, which in this context has nothing at all to do with sexual union,¹⁰ but rather with the union with another through the consumption of his/her subtle and perhaps in some cases gross body. In relation to passages concerning killing of the paśu and the extraction of his blood, all the texts in question share a particular feature: the practices are related not from the point of view of the sādhaka, who in such a context has a pretty good chance of ending up as the sacrificed paśu, but from the point of view of the ‘aggressor’ – the yoginīs. The procedures for draining blood or prāṇa, extracting and consuming the subtle body, or simply killing the victim all have a similar basis: the manipulation of the channels of the paśu. As I have argued elsewhere, these procedures, often encoded by the same set of mudrās, are used by the Śaiva tantric guru in a successful possession-provoking form of dīkṣā as described in the texts of the Vidyāpīṭha.¹¹

Let us now address the occurrences of melaka – of the haṭha type as well as of and other types – in the JY in more detail, so as to discover which of these three presuppositions is confirmed by the text.

In JY the word melaka and its variants occurs more than 250 times. Melaka or melāpa does not cover all encounters with yoginīs and there are numerous passages describing it without using the term – the linguistic marker in this case will be āyānti yoginyo or āyānti devatā – but the described procedure is the same.

The term haṭhamelaka occurs ten times in total, in ṣaṭkas 2 and 4. In ṣaṭka 2, chapters 10, 11, 15, and 25 are concerned. In ṣaṭka 4, chapter 2 and chapter 30 are the relevant ones.¹² In the last ṣaṭka the term haṭhamelaka also occurs in chapters 52, 69 and 80.

JY 2.10 provides a long list of sādhanas bearing the names of animals (siṃha, mārjara, etc., all of which are animal-faced dūtīs of the main goddess, who is Mantramantreśvarī). The deities appear before the sādhaka after the performance of japa and homa accompanied with the most transgressive offerings. Among them, the mārjara sādhana is related to the haṭhamelaka.¹³ According to this procedure, having repeated the vidyā of the dūtī called Mārjaravaktrā (Cat-faced) for 3 lakhs of times, and having offered a quasi-astronomical number of mice into the fire, the sādhakaobtains siddhis of Mārjarī (what exactly these consist of is not mentioned). Further, he is to proceed to a cremation ground to obtain haṭhamelaka, where he performs the yāga that calls Mārjarī and her companions. The yoginīs appear and ask him for blood offering. Having heard their request, the sādhaka pierces his left limb, whereby the yoginīs grasp the argha and give him the caru, which is meat. In partaking of that substance, the sādhaka’s nature is transformed into that of vīracakreśvara, the heroic leader of the cakra. The account of this particular procedure makes no reference whatsoever to the idea that the sādhaka might be in danger of suffering violence of any form on the part of the yoginīs; and it must be said that the description of melaka here is, as a result, somewhat classical.

Chapter 11 is related to Mahāhuṃkāriṇīcakra in its colophon. The final passage of the chapter explains the haṭhamelaka procedure.¹⁴ The sādhaka, having attracted a human victim to secluded house, drinks his blood and eats his flesh; by which means he worships Mahāhuṃkariṇī, who is characterised in the dhyāna passage as holding a human skeleton. He offers the victim’s flesh in the fire on the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, and after his having made a thousand offerings, the devatās appear and apparently grasp the flesh with terrifying sounds. They surround the practitioner and say again and again: ‘O hero! Lord of the choisest beautiful cakra!’ Having heard that, the sādhaka pierces his left arm and having given the argha, he flies up into the sky. He becomes Bhairava and is worshipped by the multitude of yoginīs. The passage suggests that haṭhamelaka is a particular kind of melaka requiring a human sacrifice if it is to be obtained.

In chapter 15 of the second ṣaṭka we find a long list of those practices that are termed in the form ‘X plus dhvajā’. In this case, dhvajā appears to be a code word for dead body.¹⁵ Siṃhadhvajā is one of these, in which Bhairava explicitly states that he will now explain the horrid haṭhamelaka.¹⁶Having gone to the terrible forest of the pitṛs, the sādhaka draws the six-angled maṇḍala on the ground, in the middle of which he worships Śivā by means of dhūpas made of eyes and teeth and which are placed upon a human head[s], heaps of flesh, and vessels of blood. He himself is inebriated, and, having finished that part of the ritual, he attracts the ‘great paśu’, i.e. a human being, whom he grasps in the manner of Narasiṃha – tearing him apart with his nails, drinking his blood, etc. He laughs a terrible laugh and begins the uccara – the repetition of mantra in a particular way – over the first of the blood-filled vessels. Should that vessel manifest a particular sign, then he has obtained a yoginī from the family which, apparently, corresponds to the direction in which the pot is situated. She appears in front of him, becoming his servant and saying, ‘O vīra, do that yāga,¹⁷ and you will obtain siddhis.’ The sādhaka prostrates himself in front of her, his head on the ground, and further offers her the argha from his own veins. He proceeds, moreover, with the performance of the tāṇḍavamudrā, which attracts the siddhayoginīs, who initiate him to the state of cakreśvara, in which he attains various pleasures. Here once more, haṭha refers ‘only’ to the fact that the sādhaka performs the most repugnant and transgressive acts. The violence involved is perpetrated on the paśu, not the sādhaka.

The last occurence of the term in chapter 25 of ṣaṭka 2, just mentions haṭhamelaka among other siddhis.¹⁸

In the fourth ṣaṭka, chapter 2 deals with more than one hundred mudrās, the majority of which provoke possession-like states and promise either visions of deities or melaka with yoginīs. Only two of these mudrās are related to the haṭhamelaka.¹⁹ The first of these is a hand-lock called kacchapa, which allows the practitioner to control ceṭakas and kiṇkaras, and which is pleasing to all devīs and Bhairava. It fills up all and bestows haṭhamelaka. The second mudrā is called mukula.²⁰ Also a hand-lock, it summons deities in the very instant, because it is an excellent ‘vehicle for the mantras’, and it bestows haṭhamelaka.

Chapter 30 of the fourth ṣaṭka contains an important reference, because it plainly states, in the introductory part of the chapter – where the goddess provides a summary of the Tantras already heard by her – that the haṭhamelaka is haṭhavedha, meaning the violent form of provoked possession, literary a ‘violent piercing’.²¹ The term vedha is more often used in the context of śaiva initiation than in that of melaka. The chapter itself does not clarify the issue.

Chapter 52 places the haṭhamelaka in a list of siddhis.²²

While explaining how to obtain melaka with the whole multitude of the mātṛs by the use of a violent method (haṭhāt), Chapter 69 proposes a more esoteric, internal interpretation of the process: the mastery of prāṇa gives rise to a series of psycho-physical signs, such as visions.²³ It is the mastery of prāṇa – blocking it in a particular way by means of what appears to be a mudrā – that opens the way to the higher state, a state free from both niṣṭha and aniṣṭha (stability and instabilty, or perfection and imperfection), and it is this which enables the sādhaka to experience melaka. Haṭhāt here clearly constitutes something quite different from the usual types of melaka. For whereas melaka are commonly orchestrated by the yoginīs, here it is rather the sādhaka’s mastery of the prāṇic flow which allows him to do what he wants with the māṭrs; and do it, moreover, in apparent safety.

In chapter 80, the last clear occurrence of haṭha, it is again a mudrā that bestows haṭhamelaka.²⁴

All these references raise questions about the exact nature of the haṭhamelaka. The main characteristic of the haṭha in the JY lies not in what happens to the sādhaka, nor in the type of yoginīs which appear before him, but rather in the offering of human flesh and blood required for its practice. The occurrences of melaka in the last three ṣaṭkas taken together, however, rather argue against such a presupposition. Violence and references to human sacrifice appear also in the description of melakas not termed haṭha or ghora, for example in JY 2.8.61–65. By the same token, mahāmelakais a term for a procedure related to the offering of human flesh and to the invocation of various kinds of yoginīs.²⁵ To muddle things even further, however, while there are numerous instances where a simple melaka, unqualified by ghora/mahā/haṭha, is described as involving offerings of the most transgressive substances, while in ṣaṭka 3, mahāmelaka is just a usual melaka.²⁶ Thus, before we can begin to form any conclusions about haṭhamelaka, we should briefly look at the occurrences of the priya- variety.

The priyamelaka

There are eight occurrences in ṣaṭkas 2–4. In ṣaṭka 2, Chapters 13, 17 and 26 are the ones concerned; in the first two instances, however, priyamelaka are merely included in lists of siddhis.²⁷

Priyamelaka is one of many siddhis to be obtained by the worship of Īśānakālī. This form of worship requires an offering of human flesh; the only difference from the types previously described consisting in the fact that the goddess herself appears from the fire.²⁸ Kāmamelaka appears to be synonymous with priya-, but again the procedure as it is described is no different from haṭha.²⁹ Only once, at the very end of the second ṣaṭka, in a passage that is in every likelihood an interpolation added to complete a part previously lost, is priyamelaka explicitly sexual and occurs in pātālawith divine women maddened by love – and apparently takes place, moreover, with some regularity (i.e. vīraparvaṇi, the special days of heroes, are mentioned).³⁰

In ṣaṭka 3, chapters 17 and 38 are those concerned. In Chapter 17, a single pada of a particularly long mantra is said to bestow priyamelaka.³¹ Chapter 38 states that knowledge of the secret signs is obligatory for obtaining it.³²

In chapter 2 of the last ṣaṭka, two mudrās bestow priyamelaka.³³ Priyasaṃgama in this context appears to be a synonym of the priyamelaka. It is also mentioned in Chapters 69 and 75. If the first of these constitutes more a yogic procedure, the second is a collective sexual practice attracting deities.³⁴

Thus in conclusion of our survey, of about 250 occurences of melaka only a small minority of them are qualified as priya- or haṭha-. Nowhere in the JY is the haṭha opposed to priya, or compared to it. The potential sexual character of priya-, moreover, is neither confirmed nor contradicted by JY’s descriptions.

Melaka-manual in JY 3.38–39

But drawing conclusions about the relative meanings of the terms priya- and haṭha- is in fact only impossible when taking JY a whole, and when the practices recounted in it are considered without any account being taken of their geographical or chronological origins. There do exist, on the other hand, two chapters in the JY which deal exclusively with technical aspects of melaka. These chapters conclude the third ṣaṭka, and follow directly after a semi-independent part of the text called the Yoginīsaṃcāraprakaraṇa, which itself promises to explain melaka, but in fact fails to do so.

In chapter 38, Bhairava provides a summary of the general rules of melaka; he lists appropriate meeting places; and emphasises the need for secrecy and respect for the rules: warning that the yoginīs protect those who are respectful, but strip the fat and even the life from those who are not. Taking the life of an abuser of the rules is not presented here as a haṭhamelaka.³⁵ Bhairava first, as if following the Tantrasadbhāva 16, provides a classification of the yoginīs in accordance with the mātṛs. He also lists their subclasses, again in close accordance with TST 16, and further remarks that they are uncountable.³⁶ Having, moreover, briefly listed the supernatural capacities of yoginīs, and their practices,³⁷ he then goes on to describe the physical features of the yoginīs of the clans of the mātṛs and the external signs by which they can be identified – including the stories they respond to, their particular methods of extracting blood or killing, and the specific signs they paint on their houses. The entire passage follows the logic of TST 16, and the majority of these yoginīs are dangerous; some indeed are said to extract blood, or even kill, by mere touch.³⁸Further, he explains the chommas: verbal signs that are dependent on the phases of the moon and related to particular families – the whole being encoded as a kālacakra.³⁹ This is followed by the non-verbal signs: the vertical nyāsa that these comprise linking the families of yoginīs to the tattvas, knowledge of which would allow priyamelaka to be obtained, v. 102ab.⁴⁰ Fifty verses list the qualities of sādhakas deserving of melaka.⁴¹ Among other things, these require the ability to swallow anything at all as proof that a non-dual state has been achieved. Verses 151–167 exlain the cillāvrata, a part of which requires that the sādhaka should put on, or visualise (it is unclear), kāpālika attire. He should behave in an antisocial, unpredictable manner and call himself a ‘kāpālika eager to melt with the rays’.⁴² Finally, verses 167cd-190 explain the ‘lunatic observance’, or unmatta vrata, which is obligatory for the obtainment of melaka, but which is extremely difficult to accomplish even for Bhairava.⁴³ Once obtained, however, the sādhaka is able to see the deities within seven days, and gradually, within a month of conversing with yoginīs, he becomes like Kālī herself.⁴⁴ This particular claim, however, is corrected in the very last verses of the chapter, where the final state is said to be that of Bhairava.

The subject continues in the last chapter of the ṣaṭka, called mahāmelāpasiddhi – or the chapter on the supernatural effects arising from the great melāpa. Here, the goddess, worried that the vratas explained in the previous chapter are too difficult for the sādhakas, asks Bhairava to explain a sukhopāya method.⁴⁵ Bhairava agrees and explains the priyamelaka that consists in attraction by means of offerings of transgressive substances to the various animal-faced deities. These deities are likely to share with the practitioner secret knowledge during the resulting intercourse, which knowledge allows the incomparable melaka to be obtained.⁴⁶ Verses 23cd-28 describe the melakas that follow this basic priya, all of which involve a state of trance, termed in this case yoganidrā. It is precisely in this state that the sādhaka is to encounter the yoginīs.⁴⁷

Another variety appears in v. 29–54ab. This includes a ritual arrangement that is smeared with all sorts of transgressive substances obtained from one’s own body and which is considered to constitute particularly potent ‘vehicles for the mantras’; it is decorated with offerings and lamps which are, by the same token, made of a mixture of fish and human fat. The resulting construction is to be worshipped for seven days, after which the lamps will spontaneously light themselves, indicating the success of the ritual. If the lamps start to smoke, by such token the sādhaka will obtain the ability to travel instaneously to any place he wishes close by. He uses this ability to worship the yoginīs in the places where they are most likely to appear, and obtain siddhi from them, including melaka. The second level of achievement is marked the apparition of heat, v. 44, which signifies that the sādhaka will gain the capacity to move through the air a distance of ten yojanas and thus obtain melaka with different classes of yoginīs. By this same melaka he becomes omniscient and obtains the knowledge of the great samvara in the body, and also of invisibility. Verses 48ff. explain what happens when the lamps finally burst into flame. This signifies that the sādhaka’s present life is his last and that he has acquired the ability to move through the entire brahmāṇḍa; becoming like Bhairava himself, able to curse and to bless, to create and to destroy the universe. He is served by thousands of yoginīs, and has a constant supply of caru.⁴⁸

The last verses of the chapter and of the ṣaṭka explain the melaka proper, v. 54cd-80 – its uttama variety beginning at v. 58. The ultimate character of the melaka consists in the fact that it occurs wherever the sādhaka displays the mudrās and repeats the mantra (rather than in the places where the yoginīs fix it, as would usually be the case). The time necessary for each practice is reduced from days to a matter of mere minutes.⁴⁹ The mudrās, taken as complex ritual procedures including a number of elements, such as appropriate body-positions and movements, mantras, shouting, prāṇa control, etc., are a particularity of the JY, and the overwhelming majority of melakas and visions of deities (which are virtually the same thing) are achieved through them. The passage, moreover, allows yet another possible interpretation of haṭha variety of melaka as ‘violent’, this time to the yoginīs, who are ‘forced’ to appear in the places and at the moments chosen by the sādhaka displaying those powerful mudrās, whereas, in the priya- variety, he would be humbly waiting for them in such a place and at such times as they ‘love’ to manifest themselves.

The unusual varieties of melāpa

Besides the aforementioned haṭha and priya, other varieties of melaka exist. These appear only in the JY ṣaṭka 4. Chapter 46 mentions rahasyamelaka.⁵⁰ Although the dūtī is needed for the preliminary stages, the melaka itself is more a yogic procedure, in which the yoginīs (rays here) manifest themselves simultaneously inside and outside. Cīllasaṃyogamelaka as a particular kind of melaka is described in chapter 49; it is related to the vidyā of Melāpakālī.⁵¹ Her dhyāna suggests that cillā is a particular kind of bird, whose meat is also to be offered into the fire. The yoginīsalso take the form of birds. In addition to all of this, chapters 75 and 76 present melaka in sexual terms. Collective practice is called vīramelaka.⁵² However, these three unusual terms in no way constitute a viable alternative to the priya- and haṭha- classification that is so limpid in the TĀ.

Conclusion to the analysis of collocation of selected terms

If we are seeking a clear-cut linguistic separation of the priya- and haṭha- varieties, then it must be concluded that the JY, taken as whole, does not provide it. Only a minoritity of occurences are qualified in the text by the terms haṭha or priya. The general procedure, moreover, is essentially similar to both.

As for evidence of the violence allegedly done by yoginīs to the sādhaka, the JY does not confirm with any clarity that such constitutes the norm in haṭhamelaka. While it is true that the yoginīs are generally bloodthirsty and they kill paśus in order to obtain their own siddhis, the prescriptions for the sādhaka, such as respect for the rules, the maintenance of control over the mind, the injunction to cease japa and mudrā following certain particular signs, would appear to amount to no more than advice of a general sort, rather than instructions especially related to haṭhamelaka cases.

Contary to the earlier tantras (SYM, BY, TST), in JY – as its compiler skilfully emphasises – it is rather the sādhaka himself who becomes the main orchestrator of melaka; the new, mudrā-based practice allowing him to obtain melaka in any location (and not in given geographical spots) and at any time (rather than on particular moon-days), and within a very short period of time: days or even minutes – as opposed to a minimum of six months in the earlier texts. Although TST suggests some practices that may allow yoginīs to be placed under one’s control, the approach is different from that encountered in the JY, where it is the sādhaka himself who can choose to force the yoginīs to appear. More specifically it is through a set of particularly powerful, altered-state-provoking mudrās that the sādhaka is able to first gain access and then to obtain mastery over the yoginīs.⁵³These mudrās, which enable the combination of the tantric vidyās with the yogic mastery of the subtle body (one’s own and that of others), constitute a feature peculiar to JY. Inside the JY, however, they coincide with almost every occurrence of melaka.⁵⁴ It is precisely these mudrās that make possible for both the sādhakas and the yoginīs in all texts ranging from TST to JY to extract essences and even jīvas from others.

The fact that the JY links melaka with the mudrās makes it an important step in the process of interiorisation of the melaka: a process already embryonic in the TST, and which goes on to become a self-evident reality in the works of Abhinavagupta. And, once the melaka has been so internalised – most often encoded by kuṇḍalinī-related procedures – even the question of the difference between priya and haṭha becomes irrelevant. In becoming a practice for the expansion of consciousness, the melaka loses its visionary external tantric character and becomes rather a non-dualistic philosophical expression of a quasi-absolute state.

Second reading: melaka as a visible ritual described in the Vidyāpīṭha texts

Thus, finding myself ultimately unable to clearly distinguish linguistically the difference between the haṭha- and the priya- varieties of melaka, I would like to try to approach the problem from a slightly different perspective. I propose here to consider the preparatory phase of the melaka as a visible ritual praxis.

The clue that led me to the possibility of this new interpretation was an association of the priyamelaka with the knowledge of the secret signs.⁵⁵ Let us then for the moment allow the suggestion that the difference between priya and haṭha might lie in the role of these secret signs, which are proper to the former.

Bringing together all the passages expounding these signs (chomma) and the context of their usage,⁵⁶ it becomes apparent that they fall into the following categories: (1) secret signs for the recognition of yoginīs, i.e. when and how one can understand that a woman wearing this or that colour is in fact the one; (2) the means, verbal (secret language) and nonverbal (gestures), by which they may be conversed with; and (3) between the above two is the set of signs allowing knowledge of the ‘family’ of the yoginī. The essential issues for our study of melaka, are the fact that the specific purpose of the secret language is precisely to discuss the time, place and conditions of participation in the melaka, and, even more importantly, the fact that all these yoginīs are human women. If we assemble a glossary of all the words used in the many varieties of the ‘secret language’, it transpires that the melaka itself appears to consist in a collective partaking of meat and alcohol, and probably in a collective pleasure-giving ritual. There exists within that glossary, however, no special term that would designate any special state of consciousness that such a ritual would provoke for its participants. The ritual is, nevertheless, more than likely to culminate in some āveśa-like collective state of ‘bliss’, the vīramelaka.⁵⁷ The description of the collective ritual in the Kulārṇavatantra, moreover, appears to infer the very same idea.⁵⁸

This question of chommas, and of their application to what essentially are ordinary human women, allows us to further advance the definition of the frontier between priya and haṭha types of encounter. Indeed, the sādhaka invoking yoginīs alone in a desolate place is placed in an altogether different ritual context than that of a collective tantric ‘party’. His ability to recognise the yoginīs suddenly manifesting themselves before him is not predicated on the colour they are wearing; but rather on the sign they are unable to cross.⁵⁹ The kind of beings he will encounter, moreover, is essentially different: these are non-human entities, grotesquely deformed, or having animal features, or even wearing the heads or feet of animals.

A further essential difference should be noted: the bloody argha never plays any part in the context of the tantric feast,⁶⁰ whereas it is a sine qua non element of the solitary yoginī-related practice. The feast lacks any tension between the sādhaka and the yoginīs, while the descriptions of the solitary practice are full of it. Such solitary practice is risky, aiming as it does at attaining something which is virtually impossible – his acceptance by the yoginīs as a dominating male figure, the leader of their cakra. This contrasts starkly with what would ‘usually’ transpire should a person find himself surrounded by yoginīs: he would become their victim and be devoured by them. One of the best examples of such an orchestrated shift occurs in the Kubjikāmatatantra 23, where the practitioner declares that he is a samaya-breaker (i.e. the one to be devoured by the ḍākinīs or sākinīs in this sort of literature), he offers the dhātus from his body to ḍākinīs, and expects a quick death.⁶¹ However, as soon as the yoginīs appear, the sādhaka presents himself as Bhairava, their master, not their victim. Such cheating of ḍākinīs is, however, rather exceptional, and the idea generally conveyed in the earlier and more wild and visionary texts remains that found in melaka and especially in its haṭha variety: the practitioner comes in contact with dangerous and savage beings, whom he would be well advised to avoid angering. Of course, one might well imagine that, having become the master of the cakra, the ex-sādhaka would thereafter feast daily in the company of subdued yoginīs, i.e. the priyamelaka. The texts of the Vidyāpīṭha do not, however, elaborate to any extent on the subject.

Table 3.1 below presents in summary form the ritual dimensions of the two varieties of melaka:

Table 3.1  The ritual dimensions of the two varieties of melaka

Priya-	Haṭha-
Knowledge of secret signs	Protection of one’s chidras/marmas
Collective practice, i.e. sādhakas and yoginīs (human)	Sādhaka versus yoginīs
Eating, drinking and enjoyment ending in a collective altered state	Personal transformation in a solitary visionary state
Tentatively, tib. tshogs kyi ‘khor lo, i.e. gaṇacakra, i.e. a party with human yoginīs	Tentatively, tib. gcod, i.e. ritual calling forth the demons and especially the ḍākinīs 62
Rather human yoginīs, at least externally. They are to be found and recognised among human-looking women.	Non-human, i.e. animal headed or deformed beings/spirits by definition
Limited risk: mostly related to one’s status in society	High risk: the position of sādhaka itself means that he will either master the circle or be eaten by the yoginīs
Does not presupposed a shift in nature	Based upon the shift from a potential victim to Bhairava-state
The state of ‘bliss’ or trance does not appear to result in an essential, deep and drastic change of the nature of the practitioner, i.e. men and women stay human beings, can continue their life and participate in other ‘parties’	Yoginīs transform the sādhaka into their equal, i.e. super-human being, possessing various supernatural capacities, or even becoming [like] yoginī himself. Classical expression is, however, to be like a Bhairava
Regular practice	Exceptional and often final practice

Thus, if this proposed distinction of the priya- and the haṭha- varieties is correct, the overwhelming majority of melakas described in the JY (and also in other Vidyāpīṭha texts, except specifically the chomma-passages) are in fact of the haṭha type. The vīramelaka – the only clear description of ‘melaka with secret signs’ in the JY – belongs to a set of at least two chapters, of which the preceding one describes a sexual ritual with a female partner called ādiyāga, while the subsequent one is, to all intents and purposes, the collective extension of the yāga, allowing the inference that it constitutes a regular practice.

The most interesting question, however – what exactly in the sādhaka in the context of wild and solitary practice is transformed by the yoginis? – remains unanswered. What is the essential difference between the human being and Bhairava? And by what means can that difference be erased? Why and how can yoginīs effect such a fundamental shift in no time? Such questions divert us from the subject of melaka proper into the domain of the modification of the sūkṣma by various yogic and tantric methods, and into the realm of vampiric practices and other strange and violent rituals. All these subjects are broad and complex enough that they require articles to be committed to each of them individually.

Concluding remarks consisting in some reflections on haṭhamelaka-related transformation

I wish here to concentrate on the final stage of the melaka, i.e. the transformation of the sādhaka. Let us suggest that the terms priya- and haṭha- might also refer to the manner of the change provoked in the sādhaka by melaka.

In case of priya-, one can conjecture that the yoginīs’ transformation of the sādhaka takes place in a relatively gentle, even ‘loving’, way – whether with or without any sexual connotation and corresponding practice. I would like, however, to concentrate here on the predominant haṭhavariety of melaka. I would tentatively suggest that haṭha variety of melaka can be defined as that mode of unity of consciousness between two beings in which one is sucked/transported/extracted and absorbed into the other; precisely the varieties of practices referred to in the ŪK 2 and NT 20.⁶³

Although they are not specifically termed haṭhamelaka, the following instances from the JY support this idea. The end of chapter 9 of ṣaṭka 2 – which is concerned with the worship of Kulacakreśvarī – presents melaka as an internal process: the expansion of consciousness provoked by powerful mantras combined with the extraction of the subtle elements from the bodies of others by means of the helādolā procedure and of the same mudrās as those used in the initiation.⁶⁴

The haṭhamelaka, taken to mean what we may call a ‘violent’ or even ‘vampiric’ mode of union, potentially contains at least three different aspects specifically related to that ‘violence’. The first is the imminent danger to the sādhaka, who must scrupulously observe particular precautions and proper reactions when the visual and audible signs begin to be manifested, for he risks his life in these encounters. The principal of these precautions includes perfect control of one’s mental state and respect of the code of behaviour with the yoginīs, the offerings of his own blood, etc.⁶⁵

The second, which, as we have seen previously, links the haṭhamelaka with human sacrifice, would suggest that the yoginīs use the paśu offered by the sādhaka with extreme violence, consuming the victim’s flesh or his subtle essences.⁶⁶ But it is not the physical violence done to the victim that appears to be qualified by haṭha. Rather it is the procedure of melaka itself: i.e. the subtle and gross body of the victim is consumed/absorbed by the yoginīs. This is, of course, exactly the same as what in the Tantras the yoginīs are believed to do all the time; and they can very well do it to the sādhaka too, should he make any mistakes or show disrespect for the rules. The JY permits us to suppose that melaka is not limited to sādhaka–yoginīs relations alone, but might include a victim–yoginīs modality too. This triangle – consisting of yoginīs/victim/sādhaka – potentially casts BY 99 in a different light. Although the material contained in the JY does not provide any other clear statements that the yoginīs may kill the sādhaka in the process of melaka, the idea in itself remains interesting and provocative. The sādhaka experiencing the assault of the yoginīs would certainly be called a victim (paśu), and thus we can reasonably apply those instances of paśuyoga described in the Netra tantra 20 and in JY itself to such cases. Both texts suggest that the paśu – killed/sacrificed and eaten/consumed during such practices – changes his ontological nature and either becomes one with Śiva, or is reincarnated with greater capabilities. Seen in this light, to be killed and devoured by the yoginīs does indeed constitute a melaka, defined in the Vidyāpīṭha Tantras as being a powerful transformative practice.

In addition to this and conversely, however, there is also a whole set of passages demonstrating that it is the sādhaka who extracts the subtle essences or kills in the same manner as yoginīs, and it is he who then inherits those same capabilities precisely after melaka.⁶⁷ While suggesting that it is the sādhaka who extracts the blood of other beings by yogic means, just as yoginīs do, Chapter 23 of the third ṣaṭka does not use the terms priya or haṭha to categorise his multiple melakas.⁶⁸ The chapters at the very end of JY again concern the sādhaka who has the capacities of yoginīs and is able to extract blood and kill paśus, especially the ‘seven-times-born’.⁶⁹

But how should this be understood? Besides the obvious literal interpretation – that the melaka is – in fact – a carefully orchestrated transformation of a human sādhaka into a non-human blood-drinking monster, another option is also possible and latent in the text.

The most interesting and ambiguous occurrences of melaka appear in the last ṣaṭka to Chapter 33, which retranslates melaka as a yogic pervasion and out-of-body experience.⁷⁰ Chapter 34 presents the external places for melaka as being located within the practitioner, thus the body itself becomes a sacred ground, where kuṇḍalinī awakens, and it is, moreover, precisely on the contact points of the channels that the sacred places are situated. In chapter 69, Bhairava is clear on the point that priyamelaka occurs when the thousand-petalled lotus is pierced.⁷¹

Thus and in conclusion we have discovered a gathering of multiple traditions in this one text: from the extremely physical description of human sacrifice performed by a sādhaka who is drunk and probably possessed – suggesting that a kāpālika-like praxis was one source for the JY – to the yogic dhyāna with the yoginīs in which the sacralised places of meeting with them are internalised – which would suggest that some more recent Tantras, clearly non-dualistic and yoga-oriented in their nature, were also a source. The link, within this single text, between the yogic and the ‘tantric’ – in the sense of the most extreme and violent practices – remains unclear and would require an independent research project to explicate. Until such time as this research has been carried out, conclusions about the precise meaning of the terms related to melaka can only remain preliminary and partial.

Notes

1  For the classification of the Śaiva tantric traditions see Sanderson 1988/1990.

2  Serbaeva Saraogi forthcoming a, b.

3  This conclusion is based on the preliminary analysis of the frequency of syllables with the program Sanskrit_Parallels, created by Dmitry Serbaev and the author. Besides this, what holds the last three ṣaṭkas together is a similar structure of the Chapters and Subchapters: the explanation of the exceptional character of the knowledge to be revealed is followed by a coded vidyā and a dhyāna of the goddess; further, the technicalities of the ritual invocation are given: these include the construction of the maṇḍala or offerings; this part ends up with the appearence of the yoginīs, transformation of the sādhaka and the list of siddhis he is supposed to obtain. Within the procedure of invocation, the JY emphasises the importance of the mudrās.

4  TĀ, in chapters 15, 24 and 29; more on this in Sanderson 2007.

5  TĀ.28.371–374ab: yoginīmelako dvedhā haṭhataḥ priyatas tathā / prācye cchidrāṇi saṃrakṣet kāmacāritvam uttare // sa ca dvayo’pi mantroddhṛt prasaṅge darśayiṣyate / yoginīmelakāc caiṣo’vaśyaṃ jñānaṃ prapadyate // tena tatparva tadvac ca svasantānādimelanam / saṃvitsarvātmikā dehabhedād yā saṅkucet tu sā // melake’nyonyasaṅghaṭṭapratibimbādvikasvarā /. The two variants of melaka are provoked by different mantras in TĀ.30.96–98ab. Abhinavagupta names TST as the source of it.

6  The word kāma, or desire, may or may not have sexual connotations. Moreover, the subject and object of ‘desire’ remain unclear in the passage. In TST 16, the priyamelaka is called forth by a vidyā that sexually exites the yoginīs (after v. 359), and it is that state, that apparently keeps them under control, and prevents their desire to harm the practitioner. However, this also appears a common way to deal with them, regardless of the kind of the melaka, see for example TST 16.239, and 329. There is also a similar expression in JY.2.17.410.

7  I am indebted to Shaman Hatley for his comments and suggestions concerning the preliminary version of this article. BY.99.10–13, Hatley 2007: 335 : melāpakās tathānye ye haṭhāf proktā varānane / te tu ḍākinivṛndānāṃ na śuddhānāṃ niyojayet // evaṃ melāpakaṃ prāptāḥ sādhakendrā varānane / prāpnuvantīpsitān kāmān vilomāt tu viparyayam // yathā devīpadaṃ prāptā vilomāḍ ḍākinī bhavet / sādhako ’pi tathā devi tanmadhye paśutāṃ vrajet // kiṃ tu tenaivamārgeṇa śaktivijñānaghātanāt / prabhāvena kulānāṃ tu so ’pi sāmānyatāṃ punaḥ / muktvā deham avāpnoti jātijñas ́ ca prajāyate //

8  BY.14.215cd-220ab, Hatley 2007: 15–16: japet mantro mahāsatvo digvāso dakṣiṇāmukhaṃ // saptarātreṇa yoginyo āgacchanti mahābhayāḥ / raudrarūpā tathāśuddhā sakrodhā māraṇātmikā // tat dṛṣtvā tu na bhetavyaṃ vīrasatvena mantriṇā / arghan tāsāṃ pradātavyaḥ praṇipāte kṛte sati // … pramādā yadi kṣubhyeta satvahīnas tu sādhakaḥ / tatkṣaṇād devi khādanti yoginyo yogadarppitāḥ // na ta rakṣayituṃ śakto rudro’pi svayam āgataḥ /

9  That is precisely the function of the yoginīs as described in the NT.20, TST.16 (translated in Serbaeva Saraogi 2006) and throughout the text. In TST.16 the yoginīs are said to obtain their powers by the list of four means: tapas, yoga, sacrifice of the janmapaśu, and by the vision of theirmantra (i.e. mantrasiddhi, when the deity of the mantra appears in front of the practitioner), v. 170 (ed. A. Sanderson): yogena tapasā vāpi svamantrasya ca darśanāt / yānti yogeśvarīsaṃsthāṃ tathā janmapaśor balāt //. The same text, especially in chapter 7, teaches how to find and recognise such a paśu, while Chapter 27 is a manual of blood-extraction.

10  This is rather a predominant interpretation of melaka that is propounded in the book by David White (2003: 215 and 217), who presents even the haṭhamelaka in sexual terms.

11  Serbaeva Saraogi 2010.

12  Serbaeva Saraogi forthcoming a, b.

13  The JY still awaits its critical edition. I reproduce the manuscript here ‘as is’, with minimal conjectures and corrections. JY.2.10.149–156ab [f. 29v6–30r1, P59rv]: mārjāravaktrā caṇḍogrā jagatsaṃhārakārikā / asyā lakṣatrayaṃ japyaṃ mahāvīraniveśane // mūṣakotthasya sāsasya juhed aṣṭ[-h]a sahasrakam / tadāsau siddhyate tasya mārjārī parameśvarī // paścād gacched vīravaro haṭhamelāpasiddhaye / … // yāvat prakrīḍate vīrā tāvan melapam āpnuyāt / āgatya yoginī sarvā bhūtaṃ bhūtāgrataḥ priye // bravanti sādhakendrasya dehya paś cāru[P: dehya paṃ/yaṃ caru]bhāgakam / evaṃ śrutvā tatas tāsām bhitvā vāmaṅgam ātmanaḥ // hatvārghaṃ ca caruṃ paścād deyaṃ māṃsaṃ surārcite / tāś caruṃ gṛhya vīrendraṃ suddhāsye[']bhyartha yanti hi // tadāsau sādhako vīracakreśvara vibhur bhavet / [mārjārīsādhanam]

14  JY.2.11.82cd-88, [f. 34r9–34v4, P68rv]: haṭhamelāpakāmnāyaṃ śṛṇu pāramparāgatam // prapūjya śūnyaveśmādau mahākaṅkāradhāriṇīm / mahāpaśuṃ tadrajatvāX[cū?/mū?]llayāgavidhānataḥ // pītvā tadrohitaṃ[P: tallohitaṃ] vīro bhakṣayeX[ttu?] mahāmiṣam / śīṣtaṃ gṛhītvā bhūtāhni tiṣya yogotha vā giriḥ // hutāśanaṃ pratarpyeta devīrūpaṃ h[/k?]arāṅkagam / sahasraṃ juhuyād yāvan tavad āyānti devatāḥ // gṛhītvā kalakalārāvaṃ bhītabhītāś ca vihvalāḥ / āvṛtya vīrarājendraṃ bruvanti ca punaḥ punaḥ // ehi vīra sahāsm[/y?]ākaṃ ramacakravareśvara / evaṃ śrutvā tataḥs tāsāṃ bhitvā vāmaṅgam ātmanaḥ // arghaṃ datvā mahorcāsam utpataty avanītalāt / vicared bhairavo bhūtvā devatāgaṇapūjitaḥ //

15  I thank Alexis Sanderson who clarified this point in 2004, pers. comm.

16  JY.2.15.210–219ab [47v5–48r1, P99v-100r]: haṭhamelāpam atyugraṃ śṛṇu vīrendravandite / gatvā pitṛvanaṃ bhīmaṃ vidhānam idam ācaret // ṣaṭkoṇaṃ bhuvanaṃ tatra kṛtvā madhye yajec chivām / naramuṇḍopari sadā dantanetrārghadhūpakaiḥ // … // mahāpaśuṃ śamānīyā pragṛhya narasiṃhavat / vidārya nakharaiḥ pītvā lohitaṃ phūkṣiret punaḥ // hāhārāvaṃ naded ghoraṃ prathamaṃ pātram uccaret / yadā vijṛṃbhat sphūrjeta tadā tadyoginīkulam // āgatya kiṅkaraṃ bhūtvā sādhakasya vaded idam / bho bho vīrendra dehy ekaṃ bhāgam asmāc cat[/r?]ūttamam // stanayāgavidhānotthā tataḥ siddhim avāpsyasi / evaṃ śrutvā śiraḥ pātya tad īyaṃ cārgham ādadet // tāsāṃ puras tu tacchīrṣaṃ vīrarāXi nivedayet / datvā tāsāṃ tadā bhūyo badhvā mudrāṃ sutāṇḍavān // aṣṭadhāpranaded ghoraṃ pratidigbhīmamañjasā / tataḥ stāḥ siddhayoginyau cakreśatve narottamaḥ // niyojayenti deveśi mahābhogabharolbaṇam /

17  This yāga is apparently sexual because it is related to breasts (stana-), etc.

18  JY.2.25.529cd, [f. 121v7–9]: haṭhamelāpasaṃsiddhir anyānoktā mayā hi sā //

19  JY.4.2.98–100ab: ceṭakānāṃ pranāśeyaṃ kiṅkarāṇām tathā priye / priyā ca sarvvadevīnāṃ devadevāḥ priyā sadā // yāgādike ca yaddravyaṃ naraṃ bhavati pārvvati / sarvvaprapūraty eṣā devī nāsyāḥ samā kvacit // vidyate varamudreśī haṭhamelāpasiddhidā /

20  JY.4.2.130–134ab: mukulākhyā mahāmudrā śṛṇu vīrendravatsale / yayā prabandhayā devi mantrakoṭiśatāny api // sādhakobhimukhāḥ sarvva bhavantīha surarcite / [hasta explanation] / mukulākhyā bhavaty eṣā mantrāvāhanasiddhidā // … pūrvvavīryabalenaiva haṭhamelāpasiddhidā /

21  JY.4.30.32–33 [119r1–3]: anyā ca vīram atulā yogamelāpakaratā / anya vai śaṃvarājālā rūpabhedāny anekaśaḥ // haṭhamelāpakāś cānye haṭhavedhap[/y?]asmṛtā / avyāva sṛṣṭiyogena vedhāyantī balāt paśūn //

22  JY.4.52.11cd-16ab [f.152v], esp. v. 15ab:preṣakābhūtasiddhiś ca haṭhamelāpakādikaṃ /

23  JY.4.69.173cd-177ab [f. 194v]: tatrasthaṅ kuṃbhayet prāṇaṃ yāvad ūrddhapadaṃ labhet // [mudrā] // bhāvayed bhāvabodhena svabhāvaṃ īśvarāntagaṃ / tatrastho lakṣayed dhīmā niṣṭāniṣta vicāraṇāt // aśeṣamātṛvṛṃdasya melakaṅ kurute haṭhāt /

24  JY.4.80.92cd-93 [f. 218r]: lelihānā smṛtā mudrā sarvvavīraprakāśitā // anayā bandhamātrāyā haṭhamelāpatā bhavet / plavate gagano bhogaṃ bhairavākāravigrahaḥ //

25  JY.2.15.241–254ab [f. 48v3–49r2, P101v-102v]: śṛṇu [']nyat parameśāni ghoraṃ śakrakṣayaṅkaram / vidhānam adbhutaṃ bhīmām mahāmelāpasiddhidam // gatvā harāsyadaṃ pūjyā mahāmāṃsāsavādibhiḥ / sarvavīropacāreṇa madirānandananditaḥ // [243–245, dhyāna of the terrible goddess, most probably Śivādūtī, 246–251 describe the horrid preparations, 252–254ab a mudrā] tadā gacchati deveśi sarvākravyādamātaraḥ // svaṃcataṃ[/ruṃ?] gṛhya pratyekā kṛtvā kolāhalaṃ mahat / c[P:khr]eṭikāsākinībhiś ca rūpikā gocarīkulam // dikcarī ḍākinīnāṃ ca khecarī bhūcarīkulam / āgatya svaṃ caruṃ tasya prayacchanti na saṃśayaḥ /.

The same can be seen in JY.2.17.209–215 [f. 69r4–8, P148r], where after dhyāna, japa and homa Yogeśvarī appears in the fire, v. 209–210, while melaka with yoginīs happened after that, and it requires the most transgressive things, such as a human heart, and a display of a mudrā.

26  JY.3.9.62–65ab [f. 71v3–5]: mahāmelāpam anvicchet tadā kuryād ayaṃ vidhiḥ / gatvā pitṛvanaṃ bhīmaṃ pragṛhya śavam uttamam // svālaṅkṛtaṃ prasannātmā vedisthaṃ kārayet tadā / tatpṛṣṭhārūḍha evāsau japed vidyām abhītavat // śatoccārād eva devyo samāgacchaṃti suvrate / tāsām arghaṃ pradātavyaṃ bhitvā vāmāmgam ātmanaḥ // tatas tāḥ siddhidāḥ sarvāḥ sadhakāya mahātmane /.

In JY.3.17.131–132 [f. 126r6–7], a single pada of a long mantra bestows the ability to receive knowledge in dreams from gods and goddesses, puts the yoginīs moving in the space, earth and in between under control, and secures mahāmelaka: māsamātraṃ yada devaṃ hṛtpadmāntar jayed yadā / tadā jñānaṃ svapnapade devadevyā dadanti ca // vasagās tasya tiṣṭhanti yoginyā bhurbhūvaḥ khagāḥ / mahāmelāpikāsiddhi devasaukana jāyate //

27  JY.2.13.29ab: mahāvetālasaṃsiddhi priyamelāpasādhanam /

28  JY.2.17.457–475, the offerings at the preliminary state do include human flesh, v. 460ab, 465cd. Priyamelaka belongs to the list of siddhis that is given by the goddess: JY.2.17.471cd-473 [f.76v7–9], esp. v. 471cd: prāsenā vividhāḥ sarvāḥ priyamelāpam uttamam //

29  JY.2.17.486cd-491 [f. 77r7–9, P166rv]: melāpakāma dvau lakṣau japtvā sādhakasattamaḥ // paścād gacched varāvāsaṃ sādhakaḥ kṛtaniścayaḥ /… tadyogaṃ sarvamelāpe smarttavyaṃ sādhakeśvare / … // yadi ghorāṃ daśā[ṃ]rūḍhāṃ smared vidyām ananyadhīḥ / tāvad āyānti yoginyo nānārūpasahasraśaḥ // vāmāṅgam ātmanas tāsāṃ bhitvā[']rghaṃ saṃprakalpayet / tatas tuṣṭāḥ pranṛttyanti sādhakaṃ varayanti hi //

30  JY.2.26.164cd-168ab [131r9-v]: unmādaṃ jāyate tīvraṃ strīṇām madanadīpanam // tataḥ praviṣṭaḥ pātāle tāsāṃ svamī bhaviṣyati / mahabhogabharāśakto bhaved brahmāyur eva saḥ // atha vā śrīmukhāgre[']sau japaṃ tiṣṭhati niścalaḥ / vīraparvaṇi vīrendras tadāgacchati yoṣitaḥ // tāsā saha viśed devi pātālaṃ bhogasāgaram / pūrvavad bhogabhāgīsyā sādhakaḥ sānugobalī // evaṃ pātālasaṃsiddhiḥ priyamelāpam ucyate /.

31  JY.3.17.188cd-189 [128v8–129r1]: priyamelāpam anena sādhakeṃdra labhet sadā // yadā kuṃḍalinīcakre mantram a[/e?]tad udāharet / tadā saṃsādhayet sarvvaṃ trailokye yatpratiṣṭhitam //

32  To be discussed further.

33  Mahāyogeśvarīmudrā, JY.4.2.150ab: baddhayā tatkṣaṇād devi priyamelāpaṃ bhavet /, and vicitramudrā: JY.4.2.372cd-373ab: paradehapraveśārthaṃ bandhaye vārāyogataḥ // helādolāvihāreṇa priyasaṅgamamelake /

34  JY.4.75.60cd-63 [205v-206r]: trikoṇabhagakuṃḍā tal liṃgaśrucyā juhed alaṃ // ādyaṃ tacchukram atulaṃ tarpaṇārthaṃ tato juhet / evaṃ homaṃ samātiṣthed yāvad vai kṣaṇamātrakaṃ // tāvad āviśate dūtiṃ kṛtvā kaṃṭharavaṃ mahat / snehāt kaulikam evaiṣa kathayen nātra saṃśayaḥ // tatkāla eva saṃcāra kramapūrṇṇaiḥ prajāyate / priyamelāpam āyānti devyādevyas tu sādhake //

35  JY.3.38.25–30ab [227r2–6]: sānavaivayāgāti niyataṃ marmavaṃti ca / tatpūjāvaṃdanaṃ nityaṃ kurvati mṛgalocane // prāṇāṃ tepi sureśāni samayāṃ pālayaṃti tāḥ / pādadisparśanaṃ deśe yāgākhyenaiva tāḥ kvacit // deśajñābhesamutpanne hasaṃti ca lalanti ca / mahāmarakavelāyāṃ rudaṃti ca hasaṃti ca // … // devatānimdake mūḍho gurvācāravikalpini / praharaṃti sadā rasmyo haraṃti ca vasāmiśam // śoṣayaṃti śarīraṃ tājīvitaṃ ca haraṃti hi /

36  JY.3.38.34cd-35ab.

37  JY.3.38.42cd-55. These verses imply that the yoginīs in question are rather human, and they have to consume various trangressive substances as a part of their samaya.

38  JY.3.38.56–86 [228r8–229r6], thus Brahmī takes away life while singing, v. 60ab: hāsārati sā jīvaṃ X geyāptā nātra saṃśayaḥ /; Māheśvarī is just called ‘greedy for anything’ (sarvalampaṭā) v. 64ab: vasāmiṣādi haraṇī sā śaktā nityam eva ca /; Kaumarī takes away life, v. 66ab: lampaṭā kusumāmodevā cā jīvaṃ haraty asau /; Vaiṣṇavī is constantly pleased by drinking blood and she takes away jīva by touching: 68ab: rakrāpānapriyā nityaṃ sparśaj jīvaṃ haraty asau /; Vārāhī, v. 70cd, extracts some essence from the ‘holes’ and gives numerous diseases: cchidrair āharet sā tu vyādhyādibhir anekadhā //; Aindrī takes away jīva by sniffing, v. 74ab: āghrāṇād harate jīvaṃ krūrādyā nirghṛṇāhi sā /; terrible Yāmī extract soul by looking, 77cd: dṛṣṭipātād harej jīvaṃ paśūnām sā bhayānikā //; fat Cāmuṇḍā takes away soul by kissing, v. 79d: cuṃbanāj jīvam āharet //; while Yogeśi likes dravyas and blood, v. 82cd; sadāmṛtakathāsveva ramate sākṛt advyāthe //.

39  JY.3.38.87–95.

40  JY.3.38.101cd-102ab [230r1–2]: cchommakādi kramaṃ jñeyaṃ tridhā triguṇam eva ca // sādhayet priyamelāpa siddhaye sādhakas sadā /

41  JY.3.38.103cd-150.

42  JY.3.38.163–164 [f.232r6–232v2]: kāpālikosmi kaṃkālī raśmimelāpalolupaḥ / sarvabhakṣo pipaṃcāśī vīracakreśvaro hy aham // evaṃ vādī bhaven nityaṃ vicared dhīrarād sadā / mahāvīryakalārūḍho bhairavācārapālakaḥ //

43  JY.3.38.169–178ab [f. 232v2–233r1]: kṣaṇaṃ haset kṣaṇaṃ gāyet kṣaṇaṃ rodaṃ kṣaṇaṃ radet / kṣaṇaṃ plavet kṣaṇaṃ narttet kṣaṇaṃ dhāvet kṣaṇaṃ lalet // kṣaṇaṃ śāntaṃ kṣaṇaṃ vīraṃ kṣaṇaṃ bhītatsavad bhavet / kṣaṇaṃ raudrarasāvastho kṣaṇam eva bhayānakam // kṣaṇaṃ śṛṃgāriṇaṃ devi kṣaṇaṃ hāsyaikatatparaḥ / kṣaṇam aṅgutasaṃrūḍho kṣaṇaṃ kāruṇyam āsthitaḥ // nānārasasamāviṣṭo nānābhāvasamāsthitaḥ / nānāvilāsasaṃyukto nānāgītaravākulaḥ // … // kṣaṇaṅ kroṣṭukarāvīsyā kṣaṇaṃ cillāravākulaḥ / hayeheṣaravam api kṣaṇaṃ gajaravaṃ vadet // kṣaṇaṃ mārjārarāvīsyāt kṣaṇaṃ sārasavaṃ nadet / gardabhākhyaṅ kṣaṇaṃ rāvaṃ naden nādaṃ ca kesaraṃ // kṣaṇaṃ maṃgacatuṣkeṇa valvajātyaśvavaṃ naraḥ / kāpāliko[']haṃ ca vadeś caṃḍālo[']haṃ vadet punaḥ // raśminātho[']smi matto[']smi kṣudho[']smi pralapāmy aham /

44  JY.3.38.180–185: tadā saptāha mātreṇa devīnāṃ darśanaṃ bhavet / nānārūpaiḥ kurupaiś ca yuktāyuktaṃ vadaṃti tāḥ // tataḥ paraṃ prayacchaṃti siddhadravyāṇi yāni ca / … tadā sa plavate vyomni śaX[mbhu?]ntaṃ yāvad eva hi // mahābhairavanāthena pūjyate sarvakālikam / yathā sā parameśānī kālikā bhairaveśvari // tadvad eva bhaved devi sādhako bahunātra kim / evaṃ vratottamaṃ devi duścaraṃ bhairaveṣv api //

45  JY.3.39.3ab.

46  JY.3.39.13–22ab [233v9–234r6]: saṃtarpyātmānam evātra sadaghūrṇṇitalocanaḥ / vrajed vīragṛhaṃ mantrī śūnyaveśmam athāpi vā // tatrā pūryamukhaṅ khe[sve?]vaṃ padam ekaṃ samuddharet / sphūkirad yāvad evāsau tāvad āyānti devatāḥ // śvanamārjārarūpādyair nānārūpair madotkaṭā / nānābhāṣā vadaṃty etāḥ sādhakāgre ṇa [/na]saṃśayaḥ // tābhis sārddhaṃ tattvateś ca plavate gaganāṃgaṇam / sādhako devadeveśi bhairaveva bhaved ataḥ // athavā tena madyena pītenaiva hi māsa tāḥ / yoginīmelakaṃ jāyet priyākhyaṃ sarvakāmadam // athavā pītamadyas tu paryaṭedāpanāṃ bahūm / yatra rocaṃti bhāsaṃti rudaṃtis tu kadaṃvakāḥ // narttanti vā mahābhāge tatra tadvat samācaret / paravīrye samāyukto paramarmabaloṭkakaḥ // evaṃ vai kurvatas tasya tatra yā yoginīpriye / sopasarpatitasyāśu prīyamānāmudānvitā // yad rahasyaṃ ca tat tasya kathayen mithunena sā / tasyajñānaivalaṃghyā syāt sādhakena vijñānatā // bhāven melāpam atulaṃ yat sureṃdreṣu durlabham /

47  JY.3.39.26–28 [234r9-v3]: yoganidrāṃ tato yāti sādhako[']sau mahābalaḥ / nidrāgatas tadā so vai vīro paśyan mahāmatiḥ // devatāvṛṃdam akhilaṃ nānārūpam anekaśaḥ / tābhis sārddhaṃ māsamātrāt plavate gaganāṃtaram // tatra tābhiḥ pūjyate[']sau yathā bhairavanāyakaḥ / sarvajñaḥ sarvakarttā ca mahāyogeśvareśvaraḥ //

48  JY.3.39.39–53 [234v9–235v3]: śṛṇu krameṇa vakṣyāmi siddhasyāsyaiva lakṣaṇam / dhūmāyitena subhāge śmaśānasthasya tasya ca // gudadeśavyavasthasya khagatis triṇa yojanāt / yaṃyaṃ sthānaṃ viṃciṃtya taṃtaṃ taṃ yāti kṣaṇāntarāt // tatrasthaṃ dravyam ādāya kṣaṇād āyāti vegataḥ / tatrasthā yoginī yā tu bhūcarī khecarī thavā // ḍāmarikā siddhā milate sā na saṃśayaḥ / kramājñānapradā sā tu sādhakasya na saṃśayaḥ // ūsu[/ma?]bhāge śmaś tena śṛṇuyatsivyate priye / mahāvīragṛhāt tasthe khagatir daśayojanāt // t[?bhi]intiraṃdhraiḥ prayaty eṣa sādhako nātra saṃśayaḥ / bhūcarīṇāṃ ca lāmānāṃ sahamelāpabhāg bhavet // yena melāpakenaiva sādhakas sarvavid bhavet / harttākartta yathā rudro bhavaty eva hi sādhakaḥ // antardhānaṃ prayāty eṣa mānuṣāṇāṃ sadā priye / mahāśambaravijñānaṃ dehe cāsya prajāyate // adhunā jvalitasyāsya śṛṇu vakṣyāmi vai bhavet / etad vidulabhataraṃ vāhanedrasya sādhanam // tatrāpi jvalitaṃ prāpya janmanāpaścimena tu / yāti brahmāṇḍam akhilaṃ gatiś cāsya nirudhyate // taṃ vāhanīkṛtaṃ yena sādhakena mahātmanā / sa bhaved bhairavaḥ sākṣīt sarvayogeśvarārcitaḥ // śāpānugrahakṛd vīro sarvamelāpako dhepaḥ / sarvanāthā sarvagatir mahātejā mahābalaḥ // rūpād rūpasahasrāṇi kṣaṇād eva karoty asau / lakṣaṇa yoginīnāṃ ca sevyate[']sau mahābalaḥ // mahācaru bhujo nityaṃ nityaṃ siddhiphalānvitaḥ / śivaśaktiyutaśvāsau bhavaty eva va[na, serb] saṃśayaḥ //

49  JY.3.39, especially v. 57ab: tadā saptāhamātreṇa sādhako melakaṃ labhet /; v. 63ab: tadā saptāhamātreṇa vīro melapabhag bhavet /; 66cd: tadā saptāhamātreṇa sādhako melakaṃ labhet //; 67cd: tatreṣṭhikā yajed agre saptāhān melakaṃ labhet //; 70cd: tadā melāpabhyag īsyāt sādhako ghaṭikādvayāt //.

50  The term rahasyamelaka appeares in JY.4.46.1cd in the question of the goddess. Bhairava explains the sexual character of preparation in JY.4.46.4cd-22ab [145v-146r]: rahasyam amalaṃ guhyadevyāhṛdayam uttamaṃ // rahasyaṃ sthānam āsādya dūtīyukto gurūttamaḥ / madirānaṃdacaitanyaḥ kṛto balividhikramaḥ // prāśya pañcāmṛtaṃ tatsthaṃ tato vidyāṃ samuddharet / [v. 6cd-9ab, code of the vidyā, followed by the mantratarpaṇa and dhyāna of the goddess, v. 9cd-13ab] sarvvavīropacāreṇa paścād vidyāṃ japen Xvai // tallayas tanmano bhūtvā mudrāṃ kāmāturāṃ japet / evaṃ yāvad atikrāntā muhūrttās traya eva hi // vācadrasmikulāṃ caiva vivāse sādhakeśvare / sabāhyāty antaraṃ sarvvaṃ vyaktim eti na saṃśayaḥ // melāpam atra jāyeta rahasyākhyaṃ mahādbhutaṃ / evaṃ sarvvāsvavasthāsu melāpaṃ na vinaśyati // militasyāsya melāpaṃ melāpāmilitas tu saḥ / śivavad raśmimelāpān melāpa iha kīrttitaṃ //, etc.

51  Cillāsaṃyogamelaka appears in the question of the goddess in JY.4.49.1ab. Bhairava calls it mahāmelaka and explains its nature in v. 21–37 [f.149v-150r]: śṛṇuṣva saṃpravakṣyāmi mahamelāpam uttamaṃ / yena dhītena subhage bhaved vīreśvareśvaraṃ // gatvā harāspadaṃ rātrau tatra vidyā[ṃ, serb] samuddharet / kakāladyarṣitāṅ kṛtva vadhuviti madhyagaḥ // tatoddharen mahāvidyāṃ sarvvayogini[ī, serb]karṣaṇīṃ / [code and dhyāna, v. 23cd-29] evaṃ dhyātvā mahāraudrāṃ pūjayen na[lacuna]dale / pratyagre parameśānīṃ sarvvavīropacārataḥ // cillāmāṃsaṃ juhet tatra[lacuna] snehāktaṃ nareśvaraṃ / paścāc caguhikākāryā cillāsaṅkūcyalūkhale // bālakesara samopetāṃ dhūpārthaṃ vīranāyakaḥ / sahasrāmantritāṃ kṛtvā paścāṅ gacchet pitṛgṛhaṃ // madirānaṃdace[/ai]tanyo darpitaḥ parameśvari / tatra vedi samāśritya mudrāṃ badhvā karaṅkiṇī // dhūpaṃ dāha tataṃ ratrau yāvat sādhakapuṃgavaḥ / tāvad āyānti yoginyaḥ cillārūpā mahābalāh // koṭiśo devadeveśi kṛtvā kālakalāravaṃ / tāsām arghaṃ pradātavyaṃ bhitvā vamāṅgam ātmanaḥ // tatastra varayaṃti tā naiva taṃ bhīṣayaṃti hi / abhīṣṭan tu varaṃ prārthya tāsāṃ gacchet sadaiva ca // yogeśvaravapur bhūtvā krīḍate yatra rocate / evaṃ tava samākhyātaṃ cillāsaṃyogamelakaṃ //

52  The most important parts of Chapter 75 were edited and translated by Alexis Sanderson in 2007: 284–287, notes 176–177.

53  JY.2.19.37–46 [f.91v8–92r3, P199v-200rv], especially v. 39: chinnāgranthivikāśātmā pañcadhāmavikāśakaḥ /, further, hasta is explained ending in a melaka with multiple sorts of yoginīs.

54  An article on mudrās in the JY is now being prepared for the journal Tantric Studies.

55  JY.3.38.101cd-102ab: cchommakādi kramam jñeyam tridhā triguṇām eva ca / sādhayet priyamelāpa[ṃ] siddhaye sādhakas sadā //, most probably a reflection of TST.16.355cd-358ab (ed. A. Sanderson): cchommakaiś ca vicitraiś ca bhairavair aṅgajaiḥ śubhaiḥ // sādhakena tato jñātvā hṛdayena visarjayet / anyathā kupyate devyaś cchidrayanti durāsadāḥ // evaṃ devi mayākhyātā haṭhān melāpakaṃ priye / na kartavyaṃ varārohe pramādāt sādhakena tu // tasmāt kiṃ bahunoktena manasāpi na cintayet /. This passage suggests that one makes priya out of haṭha by satisfying the devīs with the proper protocol (i.e. secret language, proper timing, proper composition of mantras).

56  The subject of secret signs is very well presented in the Vidyāpīṭha texts, as for the BY; the Chapters 53 and 71 (Hatley 56, 74 and 93) are concerned, JY 3.38, and 4.71, SYM 27 provides their classification and insists that these must be transmitted orally and never written down; finally TST, chapter 16 to 19 also provide a lot of information on the subject. The term chomma is not used, but the same is decsribed in the concluding chapter of the SVT (chapter 15).

57  Already discussed, Sanderson 2007.

58  KT.11 throughout.

59  The sign of their ‘family’, i.e. śakti for Kaumārī, etc.; such practices can only be found only in TST 16.

60  Although various transgressive and impure substances might be consumed during such feast.

61  The practice is not called haṭhamelaka, but utkrānti, consisting in a construction of a maṇḍala, in which the ātman of the practitioner is placed in the midst of six terrible yoginīs, who also receive the offerings of his own flesh, blood and other products of the body, and are attracted by this, KMT.23.132–138cd. The practitioner further by means of a particular vidyā invites the ḍākinīs to grasp the offering [v. 140ab-141]. He actually says that he wants to quit, and calls himself a samaya-breaker, v. 141cd-143: gṛhṇantv idaṃ mayā dattam atrājñā pārameśvarī // duḥkhito ‘haṃ virakto ‘haṃ bhraṣṭo ‘haṃ samayojjhitaḥ / gṛhṇan tu devatāḥ kṣipraṃ mayā dattāṃ svakāṃ tanum // ājñā yadi pramāṇo ‘sti pramāṇaṃ yadi cānvayam / tena satyena gṛhṇantu matpradattaṃ marīcayaḥ //. Within seven days the yoginīs appear and offer the siddhis of knowledge, v. 144–146: evaṃ viraktadehas tu yāvat kuryād dine dine / tāvad āyānti yoginyaḥ saptame ‘hani bhāsurāḥ // jñānasiddhiprasiddhasya saptarātrāntakāvadhim / kṣapayanty anyathā naiva śīghraṃ saṃhārayanti tāḥ // atha ced duṣṭakarmāṇāṃ nigrahedaṃ prakārayet / tad ātmāṅgasamudbhūtaṃ kiñcid dravyaṃ na gṛhṇayet //. They apparently can kill him, and that is what they do with the being whose parts have been offered; that is why the sādhaka, if he uses this procedure for destructive magic, should not use his own dravyas. However, it is not a suicide proper, because what we read next is a surprising transformation (the translation of this passage by Goudriaan 1983: 101–106 is misleading). The sādhaka now presents himself not as a victim but as Bhairava, by means of dhyāna (both are ‘surrounded by yoginīs’ in the texts), v. 147–148: brahmaṇālepyamātmānaṃ paścād dhyānaṃ niyojayet / paramātmasvarūpo ‘haṃ bhairavo ‘haṃ mahāprabhuḥ // iti matvā prayuñjīta ṣoḍhānyāsaṃ svake tanau / kṛtvā ṣoḍaśa vārāṇi tato vajratanur bhavet //

62  Chöd Practice Manual and Commentary, 51–69.

63  Detailed discussion of those passages can be found in Serbaeva Saraogi 2010.

64  JY.2.9.49cd-59ab [f. 24v9–25r5, P49v, a folio preceeding that is missing]: saptāhāt pūjanāc cakraṃ hṛdbhavaṃ parameśvari // vikāsamaty asandehāṃ bhrūra śaktiśivātmakaḥ / tad eva melakaṃ subhrur bahir viharaṇānta hi // vikāsadasya cakrasya sarvamelāpakādhipaḥ / bhavaty a vaśyaṃ vīrendro sarvamantrāraṇiḥ svayam //[P starts] evaṃ vidhiṃ mahācakraṃ helādolāvihāravat / saure tv āvāhayogena hṛnmandara[/maṇḍala]vikāśanam // āpivet pūrvavidhinā parādehotthitaṃ priye / ṣaḍgrasāntena santarpyā bhairavī rasalampaṭā // tadā khecaratāṃ yāti saptāhāran mahābalā / pīṭharaṃ saṃpratiṣṭhāpya jyeṣṭhāgraṃ pṛcchac chidritam // mahāmātṛgṛhe kāryaṃ vidhim evaṃ maheśvari / saṃpūjya pūrvavat tatra mahābhairavabhairavī // vidhimet kārukaṃ sarvāṃ helādolāvihāravat / pāśāṅkuśaprayogena cāturdantabalena ca // vivasyākarṣayed [d]ravyaṃ yattasya manasepsitam / vivaraṃ pūritaṃ tena bhavaty asya na saṃśayaḥ // vyayamantraprakarttavyaṃ saṃcayaṃ nātraśasyate / evam eṣā samākhyātā piṇḍadravyarasātmikā // ākṛṣṭir devadeveśi kim anyat kathayāmy aham /, also JY.2.17.606–610: [f. 80v2–9, P174rv]: vāmāṅgottha mahālakṣmī tataḥ khacaratām iyāt / nocen mahācaruḥ sādhyo helāṃdolā vihāravat // amṛtākṛṣṭiyogena purvoktena tu sādhakaḥ / tenāpūrya svakaṃ vaktraṃ punaḥ pātraṃ prapūrayet // taṃ pragṛhya vrajed gauri śmaśānaṃ siddhasevitam / tatra phetkāriṇīṃ badhvā vidyāṃ samyag ihoccaret // saptavārān tato devi svayaṃ devī karaṅkiṇī / samabhyeti pradātavyaṃ carun tasyān nivedayet // taṃ prāśya devadeveśī sādhaka svapūraṃ nayet / atha saṃvāram akhilaṃ prabravīmi tavākhilam //

65  These aspects are described in TST 16, Serbaeva Saraogi 2006.

66  This would explain a good part of the described melakas requiring the offerings of human flesh and blood, or even human sacrifices.

67  JY.2.17.599cd-610, [f. 80v2–9, P174rv]: the first part of the passage describes a usual melaka, ending in the fact that the sādhaka obtains the ability to fly. From 606cd, it is a transformed sādhaka who extracts blood in order to go higher in the hierarchy of the melakas: nocen mahācaruḥ sādhyo helāṃdolā vihāravat // amṛtākṛṣṭiyogena purvoktena tu sādhakaḥ / tenāpūrya svakaṃ vaktraṃ punaḥ pātraṃ prapūrayet // taṃ pragṛhya vrajed gauri śmaśānaṃ siddhasevitam / tatra phetkāriṇīṃ badhvā vidyāṃ samyag ihoccaret // saptavārān tato devi svayaṃ devī karaṅkiṇī / samabhyeti pradātavyaṃ carun tasyān nivedayet // taṃ prāśya devadeveśī sādhaka svapūraṃ nayet / atha saṃvāram akhilaṃ prabravīmi tavākhilam //.

68  JY.3.23.143cd-166ab [f. 167r8–169r6]: melaka gives rise to the vampiric abilities, from v. 148: paścāt pidhāpayec chidram ūrddhasaṃpuṭagaṃ naraḥ / mahāsthināśaṅkunā vā tato dhyānarataḥ priye // tatra tiṣṭhed atidignotac ca dhyānam ihocyate / āhṛtya paśayogenallasvayec caṅkuśāhatam // sravaṇtaṃ śūlasaṃvidvaṃ cimtayet paśuvigraham / heladolāvihāreṇa prāṇaprekhanapāśanaiḥ // āhāradojasarvvakh[/sv?]aṃ tasyāvaX khagasya ca / evaṃ dhyānaratasyāsya hāttakalalaṃ bhavet //. The extraction of the subtle essences of the victim allows the sādhakato find finally the seven-times-born paśu, who, being consumed, bestows the ability to fly: evaṃ paśūnāṃ saptānāṃ bhakṣaṇād amṛtaṃ priye / plavate gaganābhogāṃ yatra devī kṛṣodarī //. Being himself transformed into a flying being, the sādhaka can now get the highest yogic siddhis from the khecarīs: aṇimādyaṣṭakaṃ vātha khecaraṃ vā padottamam / pātālam athavā devi yathāvātasya rocate /, while the caru, which, I believe, is still that seven-times-born being, makes happy all sorts of yoginīs: evaṃ naṃdaṃti tā devyo yoginyo ḍāmarās tathā // ḍāginyaś caiva lāmāś ca mahocchuṣmā cca mātaraḥ / ūrddhaniśvāsikāś cānyā hy adhoniśvāsikā paraḥ // nakracūṣyas tathācānyā yoginyo yāḥ prakīrtitāḥ / yāvaṃtyaḥ śaṃvare taṃtre purāproktā suvistare //. The text refers to a certain Śaṃvaratantra as the full exposition of such practice.

69  JY.4.81.67cd-72ab [220v7–221v3]: mahāpitṛvanaṃ bhīmaṃ mudrābandhasamācaret // tata āyānti tāḥ sarvvāḥ ṣaḍsāhā[s?]ralaṃpaṭāḥ / yoginyā divyavapuṣo bhogamokṣaphalapradāḥ // tāsām arghaṃ pradeyaṃ tadbhagaṃ vāpi carūttamaṃ / evaṃ melāpam ākhyātaṃ pāśuyogān mayā tava // melapārthaṃ bhaved devi paśusaptakabhakṣaṇāt / sarvvajñā jāyate martyaḥ sarvvakarttā maheśvarah // tan nāsti yan na kurute tan nāsti yan na sādhayet / mudrāṃ vā kevalāṃ badhvā puroktavidhinā tataḥ // plavaty evaṃ mahāvīraḥ khecarīcakranāyakaḥ /

70  JY.4.33.21cd-26 [126v]: tāṃ praviśyaprayogena akule śāśvate pade // cittacaitanyayogena mantre saptādaśākṣare / rodhayitvā caddhau spaṃdau layā[/o?]dayavivarjitau // tyajate prākṛtaṃ dehaṃ aham ity evanānyathā / pūrvvapaścimakārmāṇi prakṛtākṣatākṛtā // vighnarūpāṇi te sarvva mohayaṃti balāt priye / na teṣuramate cittaṃ cittaṃ madhye niveśayet // nāham asti na cānyosti kevalaḥ śāntarūpake / kṣaṇam apy atra viśrāmaṃ sahajaṃ yadi bhāvayet // tadā sa khecaro bhūtvā yoginīmelakaṃ bhavet / tanmadhye bhāvanāṃ kṛtvā praviśed dehajān bahun //

71  JY.4.69.128cd-132 [192v-193r]: sahasradalasaṃvedhī priyamelāpakārakaṃ // … / svejasāṃtajalaṃ kṛtvā na kiṃ cid api cintayet // mātrāśatanirodhena paśyate kṣirasāgaraṃ / tadūrmimadhyagaṃ padmaṃ dṛṣṭvā ūrmikalaplutaṃ // tatrasthaṃ baṃdayet saṃdhyāṃ yāvat kṣobhaḥ prajāyate / kṣudhvasya bhavate dṛṣṭiṃ divyāṃ jñānavibhākarīṃ //.

References

Sources

ŪK: Ūrmikaulārṇava tantra. Ed. M.S.G. Dyczkowski. MS 5–5207 (sic. 5–5202); NGMPP: B 115/9; folios 83; Newari script. E-text: Muktabodha, 04.2008.

KMT: The Kubjikāmatatantra. Kulālikāmnāya version. Ed. T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman. Leiden: E.J. Brill (1988). E-text: GRETIL, 2005.

KT: Kulārṇava Tantra. Text with English tr. by Ram Kumar Rai. Varanasi: Prachya Prakashan (1983).

Kulārṇava Tantra. Ed. Taranatha Vidyaratna, M.P. Pandit and Arthur Avalon. Delhi, Patna: Motilal Banarsidass (1975). E-text: Muktabodha, accessed 2006.

JY: Jayadrathayāmala tantra. All four parts are transliterated by O. Serbaeva Saraogi, 2007–2009. The other and older (palmleaf) manuscripts of this text were kindly provided by Dr Diwakar Acharya; these are NGMPP A 995–996 and A 996–991 for ṣaṭka 1, A 996–992 for ṣaṭka 2, B 26–29 for ṣaṭka 3, A 996–993 and A 997–991 for ṣaṭka 4 (all palmleaf mss are marked P).

JY.1 Ṣaṭka 1, NAK 5–4650, NGMPP B122/7, paper, Devanāgarī script.

JY.2 Ṣaṭka 2, NAK 5/4650, NGMPP A153/2, paper, Devanāgarī script.

JY.3 Ṣaṭka 3, NAK 5/1975, NGMPP A152/9, paper, Newari script.

JY.4 Ṣaṭka 4, NAK 1/1468, NGMPP B122/4, paper, Newari script.

Tantrasadbhāva. Paṭala 16. Critically edited from the codex unicus by A.G.J.S. Sanderson, 27.08.2004. MS NAK 5–445, NGMPP A44/2, folios 186, palmleaf, Kuṭila script. Paṭala 16 occupies ff.108r3–118r1.

Tantrasadbhāva, partially and provisionally edited by M.S.G. Dyczkowski, MS K 1–1985 Śaivatantra 1533, NGMPP A 188/22; folios 132; Devanāgarī script. MS Kh: 1–363 Śaivatantra, NGMPP A 44/1; folios 140, Newari. MS G: 5–445 Śaivatantra 185, NGMPP A 44/2, folios 210; Newari. E-text: Muktabodha, in 2005.

The Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta. With Commentary by Rājanaka Jayaratha. Ed. Madhusudan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS 23, 28, 29, 30, 35, 41, 47, 52, 57, 58, 59. Bombay and Srinagar (1918–1938). E-text: Muktabodha, 04.2008.

The Netra Tantram, with Commentary by Kṣemarāja. Ed. Madhusudan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS 46 and 61. Bombay (1926 and 1939). E-text: Muktabodha, in 2005.

Brahmayāmala (Picumata). Ed. A.G.J.S. Sanderson, Oxford, 7 October 2004. Chapters 53–54 and 56. (MS NAK 3–370, NGMPP A42/6, ff.344, palmleaf.)

Hatley, Shaman. The Brahmayāmalatantra and Early Śaiva Cult of Yoginīs. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania (2007). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis with edn of the selected chapters.

Törzsök, J. Siddhayogeśvarīmata. The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits. A Critical Edition of Selected Chapters of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (tantra) with Annotated Translation and Analysis. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis and abstract. Submitted 1999, Merton College, Oxford.

Literature

Dorje, Thekchok and Jamgon Kongtrul Lodo Taye. 2007. Chöd Practice Manual and Commentary. Ithaca, NY and Boulder, CO: Snow Lion Publications.

Goudriaan, T. 1983. “Some Beliefs and Rituals Concerning Time and Death in the Kubjikāmata”. In. Selected Studies on Ritual in the Indian Religions, ed. M. Heerma Van Voss, E.J. Sharpe and R.J.Z. Werblowsky. Leiden: Brill, 92–117.

Sanderson, A.G.J.S. 1990. “Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions”. In The World’s Religions: The Religions of Asia, ed. F. Hardy. London: Routledge, pp. 128–172. First published in 1988 in The World’s Religions, ed. S. Sutherland, L. Houlden, P. Clarke and F. Hardy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 660–704.

Sanderson, A.G.J.S. 2007. “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir”. In Mélanges Tantriques à la Mémoire d’Hélène Brunner/Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner, ed. Dominic Goodall and André Padoux. Pondicherry: Institut français d’Indologie/École française d’Extrême-Orient. Collection Indologie 106, pp. 231–442 and (bibliography) pp. 551–582.

Sanderson, A.G.J.S. www.alexissanderson.com.

Serbaeva Saraogi, O. 2006. ‘Yoginīs in Śaiva Purāṇas and Tantras. Their Role in Transformative Experiences in a Historical and Comparative Perspective’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lausanne.

Serbaeva Saraogi, O. 2010. “When to Kill Means to Liberate: Two Types of Rituals in Vidyāpīṭha Texts”. In Grammars and Morphologies of Ritual Practices in Asia, Section I, ed. Axel Michaels and Anand Mishra. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 65–84.

Serbaeva Saraogi, O. Forthcoming a. Yoga from Yoginīs’ Point of View. (Proceedings of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2006).

Serbaeva Saraogi, O. Forthcoming b. Can Encounters with Yoginīs in the Jayadrathayāmala Be Described as Possession? Forthcoming in the proceedings of the International conference ‘Yogini – History, Polysemy, Ritual’, held at NTNU, Trondheim, 1–2 October 2010.

White, D.G. 2003. Kiss of the Yoginī: ‘Tantric sex’ in Its South Asian Contexts. Illustrated edn. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.