Width

Rudra Yāmala

Śaiva. The Yāmala the Vijñāna Bhairava names as its own source — its place among the sixty-four, the citations that cannot be traced, and the late eastern Śākta work that now carries the title.

No tantra is named more often than this one, and few are harder to lay hands on. The Rudrayāmala is quoted by the greatest authors of the Śaiva tradition, credited as the parent of texts that are themselves famous, and named as the authority behind hundreds of later practices — while the work that now circulates under the title accounts for very little of it. This page is about the title's standing among the seven and the history of its citation; the surviving book has a page of its own.

Where it stands among the sixty-four

The Bhairava stream of the Śaiva revelation is reckoned at sixty-four tantras arranged in eight aṣṭakas of eight, and one of those eight groups is the Yāmala-aṣṭaka. That arrangement is not a modern reconstruction, but neither is it drawn from a surviving scripture read whole: it is known chiefly from the Śrīkaṇṭhīyasaṃhitā, a text preserved principally in the long extract that Jayaratha (active in Kashmir in the first half of the thirteenth century) sets out in his Tantrālokaviveka on the opening chapter of Abhinavagupta's Tantrāloka. The canon of the sixty-four, in other words, reaches us through a commentator quoting a list.

Which eight titles fill the Yāmala group varies between the sources that give it, and the variation is real rather than careless — the rosters recur in shifting combinations, with names dropping out and others taking their place. A Rudrayāmala is on nearly every one of them, and generally near the head. The Subodhinī, the commentary that travels with the Narpati Jayacaryā and supplies the seven names Narapati himself does not, puts Rudra third in its own list, after Brahma and Viṣṇu.

Within the Bhairava stream the Yāmalas belong to the Vidyāpīṭha, the goddess-centred seat. The subdivision of that seat into Yāmala-tantras and Śakti-tantras — the second group holding the Trika and the Kālīkula — rests on the analysis of the surviving Vidyāpīṭha manuscripts carried out by Alexis Sanderson, set out first in his survey "Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions" (1988) and developed at length in later studies, above all "The Śaiva Age" (2009). On that arrangement the Yāmalas are the older half of the goddess-centred revelation and the Trika stands downstream of them, which is precisely the relation the Vijñāna Bhairava's opening verse asserts.

One member of the group survives in something close to its early form and can be used as a control on the rest. The Brahmayāmala, or Picumata, is preserved in a Nepalese palm-leaf codex of 1052 CE, and it is uncompromisingly kāpālika: skull-bowl, cremation ground, the cult of the yoginīs. Whatever the Rudrayāmala known to the Kashmirians was, that is the kind of book it will have been.

The claim at the head of the Vijñāna Bhairava

The Vijñāna Bhairava, the most-read practical scripture of the Trika, opens with the Goddess speaking, and her first words are a claim about where she has been:

She has heard the Trika portion of the Rudrayāmala entire, and it has not settled the question; her next verses ask for the sāra, the essence, and then for the essence of that. The hundred and twelve dhāraṇās that follow are given as the answer. Whatever the historical relation between the surviving texts, the structure of the claim is precise: the Vijñāna Bhairava presents itself as a distillate, and the Rudrayāmala as the reservoir it was distilled from.

The Kashmirian exegetes took the claim seriously enough to build on it. Kṣemarāja (c. 1000–1050), Abhinavagupta's pupil, began an Uddyota on the Vijñāna Bhairava and carried it only through the opening verses; the exegesis was completed long afterwards by Śivopādhyāya, generally placed in the eighteenth century, whose Vivṛti is the commentary most readers now use, and a further commentary by Ānandabhaṭṭa also survives. The text with its commentaries was printed early in the twentieth century in the Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, and it reached a wider readership through Lilian Silburn's French translation of the early 1960s and Jaideva Singh's English one of the 1970s. None of these readers treats the opening verse as a formality. For them the text's authority is precisely that it is an extract, and an extract of the Trika section specifically — which is a claim that the Rudrayāmala contained a Trika section, and therefore that the Trika is older than the lineages that transmit it.

It is not the only text to make that claim. The Parātrīśikā — the short scripture on which Abhinavagupta wrote both a long Parātrīśikāvivaraṇa, one of the densest works in Sanskrit, and a brief Laghuvṛtti — is transmitted as a portion of the Rudrayāmala, and its colophons place it there. A title that stands behind both the Vijñāna Bhairava and the Parātrīśikā is standing behind a very large share of what the Trika actually put into practice.

Cited more than read

Abhinavagupta (c. 975–1025) quotes a Rudrayāmala. Jayaratha quotes a Rudrayāmala. So does the commentarial and digest literature that follows: Rāghavabhaṭṭa, whose Padārthādarśa on the Śāradātilaka was completed in 1494 and quotes tantras by the hundred, and the great Bengali Śākta compilers of the following century and a half — Kṛṣṇānanda Āgamavāgīśa, whose Bṛhat Tantrasāra became the working handbook of Śākta ritual in the east, Brahmānanda Giri of the Śāktānandataraṅgiṇī, Pūrṇānanda of the Śrītattvacintāmaṇi. Below them runs a long tail of stotra, kavaca and mantra literature down to the printed devotional books of the nineteenth century, much of it carrying colophons that assign a hymn or an armour to the Rudrayāmala.

The difficulty is that the passages so attributed very largely cannot be located in the Uttara Tantra that now circulates under the name — and in many cases the attributions of two different authors cannot be reconciled with each other either. The chain from citation to page is broken, and it broke early. Manuscript catalogues compound the impression rather than resolving it: the great Sanskrit bibliographical surveys, the New Catalogus Catalogorum among them, record numerous separate items under Rudrayāmala titles — a paṭala here, a stotra or a kavaca there — which are plainly not chapters of one book.

What the printed Uttara Tantra actually is

The work that has been printed repeatedly at Calcutta and Varanasi since the later nineteenth century is the Rudrayāmala Uttara Tantra, the "latter" Rudrayāmala, and it is a substantial Śākta compendium in its own right: the extraction of mantras from the syllabary by coded rule, the channels and centres of the subtle body, the raising of kuṇḍalinī, long stretches on yoga and observance, and the goddess in her many forms.

Its affiliations are not those of a tenth-century Kashmirian scripture. Its presiding goddess is Tārā, and its theology is that of the Mahāvidyās, the eastern Śākta cult of the ten great goddesses — a formation of the second millennium which cannot be projected back onto the early Vidyāpīṭha. It carries the well-known story of Vasiṣṭha, who fails to propitiate Tārā by orthodox austerity, is directed to Mahācīna, and finds there a teaching conducted in wine and flesh and the company of women, which he must accept before he can succeed. This cīnācāra episode, the way of Mahācīna, is one of the tradition's own accounts of why a transgressive rite exists at all, and it is largely through this text that the story is known. What geography "Mahācīna" was meant to denote has been argued over since the early twentieth century — Tibet, China and the north-eastern borderlands have all been proposed — and the question is not settled.

The language, the cast of goddesses and the ritual assumptions place the work in eastern India and centuries after the Kashmirian citations. Estimates of its date differ and none is secure; few would put its present shape earlier than the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and portions of it are probably later still. It is a late compilation that took up a prestigious title — not the book Abhinavagupta had in front of him.

The scholarship that established this

The standard statement of the problem is in Teun Goudriaan and Sanjukta Gupta's Hindu Tantric and Śākta Literature (1981), the volume on this material in Jan Gonda's A History of Indian Literature. It sets out at length that the passages ascribed to a Rudrayāmala across the literature very largely cannot be located in the surviving Uttara Tantra, and concludes that the title has to be understood as designating a body of transmitted material rather than one fixed book.

That conclusion sits inside a wider account of how tantric canons work. Mark Dyczkowski's The Canon of the Śaivāgama and the Kubjikā Tantras (1988) collates the scriptural lists themselves — who lists what, in what order, and how the lists diverge — and shows how routinely a title in these canons names a stream of transmission rather than an object on a shelf. Sanderson's work on the Vidyāpīṭha supplies the other half: a classification of what does survive, against which claims about what does not can at least be measured.

The prudent reading that follows from all this is that "Rudrayāmala" names a body of material and a claim of descent. This is not unique — the same is true of several Purāṇa titles, and of more than one Āgama — but it is unusually pronounced here, because the title carried so much prestige that attaching a work to it was worth doing. Attribution in this literature is a claim about lineage and legitimacy before it is a bibliographical statement, and a tradition holding that its scriptures are fragments of an unbounded revelation has no difficulty with the idea that a teaching may be from the Rudrayāmala without being in any particular copy of it.

Why Rudra, and not Bhairava

The choice of name is worth a moment. Bhairava is the god of this stream, and the tantras of the sixty-four are Bhairava tantras; a Bhairavayāmala would have been the obvious title. Rudra is the older and Vedic-facing name — the god of the Ṛgvedic hymns to Rudra and of the Śatarudrīya, the litany of the hundred Rudras in the Taittirīya recension of the Yajurveda: fierce, ambivalent, and prior to the sectarian articulation of Śaivism into streams. A Rudrayāmala presents itself, by its title alone, as the pairing at the root of the Śaiva revelation rather than as one scripture within a division of it.

That is consistent with the way the text is used. Later authors cite it not for a doctrine peculiar to it but as a general authority — the place one appeals to when a practice needs to be shown as old. The name does part of the work the citation is meant to do, and it is doing that work in the Vijñāna Bhairava's opening verse as much as in a sixteenth-century Bengali digest.