Pur~ic Masculinities and Transgender

Adventures in the Garden of the Goddess

McComas Taylor

The male body has a particularly close connection to culture and to discourse and is one of the main avenues through which culture attempts
to construct masculinity.The male body functions as a kind of tabula
rasa or inscriptive surface for masculinity and for culture, and discourse
is inscribed on that matter, asserting its power through inscription and
reinscription (Reeser 2010: 91).

Introduction
My area of interest lies at the intersection of contemporary critical theory
and Sanskrit literature. Broadly, I focus on the mutual constitution of
power and knowledge in what we might call the Brhma~ical, Sanskritic
thought-world. I use the word Brhma~ical, as most of the sources I
consult are assumed to reflect and to perpetuate the dominant ideologies
and interests of this particular epistemic community. It is Sanskritic
insofar as Sanskrit is the predominant language-of-choice (Pollock 2006)
for the sources on which I draw and which create, express, perpetuate,
and valorize Brhma~ical discourses. I use the term thought-world as
this represents a particular social imaginary (C. Taylor 2004). There is
no doubt that the texts under discussion perpetuate historically significant,
normative social discourses and, in many cases, continue to provide the
bedrock for contemporary social ideals and practices. The extent to which
International Journal of Hindu Studies 17, 2: 153179
2013 Springer
DOI 10.1007/s11407-013-9139-1

154 / McComas Taylor

they reflect actual empirical social practices and realities, either historically or in the present, is increasingly contested (see, for example, Talbot
2001). To suggestions that such an approach is ahistorical, it may be said
that the Brhma~ical thought-world to which I refer is largely transhistorical. It can be identified as the episteme that produced, and is the product of, texts dating back at least as far as the creation of the Sanskrit
epics, that is, to about the start of the current era. It continues to exist as
the basis for a meaningful, empowered, functioning epistemic community
to the present day.
My recent research has focussed on textual strategies and performative
practices that have enabled Sanskrit master texts to function as true
discourse, in the Foucauldian sense, within the Brhma~ical thoughtworld. It has been based on the study of narrative texts in the kath and
Pur~ic traditions. This approach is premised on the idea that the authors
of Pur~ic texts aim to propagate and perpetuate certain sets of discourses,
beliefs and practices, and that they need to attract religious capital in the
form of devotees, practitioners, donors and sponsors, to enable their particular traditions to reproduce themselves.
To achieve these ends, Pur~ic authors adopted a variety of textual strategies to empower and valorize their texts, in order to ensure that these artefacts were accepted as authoritative to readers and especially to hearers.
Put another way, their goal was to guarantee that their texts, both written
and oral, were accepted as true discourse by members of each particular
epistemic community. These strategies were manifold and included the
attribution of great age (millions of years) and glittering lineages of metaauthors (including at the upper end, deities who originated the texts and
passed them down through lineages of divine and semi-divine sages,
until they reached the world of humans). Discourses were often delivered
in an empowered literary place (M.Taylor 2007a). They frequently underwent a process of naturalization in which social constructs were projected
on to the natural world, only then to be recruited back into the realm of
the social as rationalization or valorization of constructed practices (M.
Taylor 2007b). Finally, Pur~ic authors often provided an exposition of
the fruits of hearing a particular text (phalaruti). These were sets of
extravagant claims relating to the protective, prophylactic, and soteriological power and to the efficacy of both the content and the physical
artefact of the text itself. Such claims pertain to the hearing and reading

Pur~ic Masculinities / 155

of the discourse and to the complex ritual action which surrounds the text
and the performance of Pur~ic narrative (M. Taylor 2011, 2012a, 2012b).
The purpose of this paper is to take this research in a novel direction:
to explore the role of masculinity and the male body in Pur~ic discourse.
In many texts, the authors endow their heroes, deities, and sages with
idealized hyper-masculine physical forms. These bodies are the inscriptive surfaces upon which high-value social attributes of martial and
sacerdotal hierarchies are inscribed, namely, physical strength, manliness,
physique, beauty and desirability, but also fertility and ascetic energy, or
tejas. Together, these constitute the hegemonic masculinities of the
Brhma~ical, Sanskritic thought-world. R. W. Connell (2005: 77), who
first theorized this concept, argued that at any given time, particular forms
of masculinity are privileged over others. He defined these hegemonic
masculinities as the configuration of gender practices which embody the
legitimacy of patriarchy and which seek to guarantee the domination of
men over women. He notes that the most visible bearers of hegemonic
masculinity are the most powerful individuals and include exemplars
such as film stars, fantasy figures, and even film characters.
This concept is significant as it seems to characterize accurately a
process at work within the Sanskritic thought-world. The most visible
bearers of hegemonic masculinity are perhaps the heroes, both divine
and human, of epic and Pur~ic narratives (Connell 2005: 77). Connell
further argues that a successful claim to authority, rather than direct violence, is the mark of hegemony. Again, this is of interest in the current
context because the texts under discussion appear to have made successful
claims to authority, as masculinity discourses are created and perpetuated
through them.
Existing Work on Masculinities in Sanskrit Texts
As Leonard Zwilling and Michael J. Sweet pointed out, From the outset,
we see that vedic society was strongly patriarchal in character and placed
an extremely high value on male potency, procreative ability being one
of the means by which a man could achieve high social status (2000: 101,
cited in Brodbeck and Black 2007: 17). This idea has been explored in
depth by Jarrod L. Whitaker in his new book on masculinity in the Vedas.
He writes: The dominant image of Indra is that of a highly glamorized,

156 / McComas Taylor

violent, and powerful ryan male. He is the paradigmatic man, and the
ritual poetry indicates that he, Agni and Somaare exemplary role models
for human men (Whitaker 2011: 3). Males are defined in terms of their
economic standing, and especially in terms of their generosity, which is
linked to their ability to bestow wealth on others, their ritual participation
and their martial prowess. According to Whitaker, the ideal ryan male
possesses wealth and offspring, generosity, hospitality, knowledge, ritual
devotion, liturgical power, a strong physique, and a tough demeanor (50).
Moving forward to a more recent stratum in the Indic textual tradition,
John Powers looked at the depiction of the masculine body in the Buddhist
episteme. He notes that
In contemporary Western popular culture, the Buddha is commonly
portrayed as an androgynous, asexual character, often seated in a
meditation posture and wearing a beatific smile.Buddhist monks,
such as the Dalai Lama, have also become images of normative
Buddhism, which is assumed to valorize celibacy and is often portrayed
as rejecting gender categories (at least in theory) (Powers 2009: 1).
This is, of course, not only true for contemporary Western cultures, but
holds for non-Western cultures and for many pre-modern Buddhist societies as well. In contrast, Powers notes, the image of the Buddha in Indian
Buddhist literature is very different. Here the Buddha is described as the
paragon of masculinity, the ultimate man (puruottama). Many of the
epithets applied to him emphasize his manly qualities, physical beauty,
virility, strength, martial ability, and general attractiveness to women
(Powers 2009: 1). The manly body and masculinity of the Buddha is
frequently conjured up by the many epithets that are used to describe him
in Indian Buddhist texts: ultimate man, great man, manly, leader
of men, best of men, god among men, and possessing manly
strength. Some epithets applied to the Buddha conjure images of regal
power: lord of bipeds, king of kings, king of the dharma, best in
the world, victor in battle, decisive leader in battle, crusher of
enemies, god above all gods, and unsurpassed tamer of men. Others
compare the Buddha to powerful male animals; he is a bull of a man,
fearless lion, lion-hearted man, savage elephant, and stallion
(26).

Pur~ic Masculinities / 157

In addition to the work by Whitaker and Powers, several other scholars
have looked at the portrayal of masculinity in the epics. Simon Brodbeck
and Brian Black, for example, note that in the Mahbhrata,
men are virile husbands and fearless warriors.The Mahbhrata
shares this association between masculinity and procreation, characterizing the ideal male as a married householder who has sons. An
attribute that is often put forward as an ideal characteristic of the married
householder is that of raka~a, or protection (of his wife and family)
(2007: 17).
There is also a strong connection between masculinity and fighting: many
characters are repeatedly obliged to demonstrate their manhood through
their participation in battle (Brodbeck and Black 2007: 17). The Mahbhrata characterizes the ideals of heroism, honour and courage as
specifically masculine traits (Black 2007: 53).
In both these cases, the hyper-masculinity of the Vedic ryan male and
of the Buddha create social discourse about what ideal, normative masculinity should be and how it should function. These two bodies are not
only the surfaces upon which normative masculinities are inscribed, but
they also serve to perpetuate those same discourses in society. Moreover,
placing discourse of any sort, in these cases Vedic and Buddhist, in the
mouths of hyper-masculinized figures also effectively serves to empower
and valorize those discourses.
Divine Masculinities in the Pur~as
The fundamental source books for much of the mythology, theology,
cosmogony, and ritual practice of many Hindu traditions are known as
the Pur~as. This name is derived from the Sanskrit word for old and
means either accounts of the ancient days or perhaps ancient accounts.
There are eighteen great Pur~as (mahpur~a), although the precise
membership of this class varies from one source to another. Most Pur~ic
texts are thought to have attained their current form about a millennium
ago. The prevailing Western view of the Pur~as is that they are sprawling
encyclopedic works: each succeeding generation of scribes and transcribers has added their own content. This rather negative assessment has

158 / McComas Taylor

recently been challenged by Elizabeth Rohlman (2002), who sees them
as more integrated literary works, each with a unified religious purpose.
In the following section, I will examine three main male Pur~ic deities,
Brahm, Vi~u and iva in turn. It is well known that these three deities
are characterized as creator, sustainer, and destroyer, respectively. The
novel approach of this paper will be to explore them in terms of masculinities and specifically in terms of masculine bodies as they manifest as
progenitor, warrior, and erotic ascetic. It is my goal to illustrate how the
three deities are presented as hyper-masculine figures, endowed with
high-value valorizing traits which characterize various aspects of hegemonic, Brhma~ical masculinity, something I believe has not been
attempted previously.
One of the goals of Pur~as is to attract and retain devotees to and
resources for particular traditions of practice and to perpetuate particular
sets of discourses in a crowded and competitive marketplace. Vai~ava
texts aim to attract devotees to and resources for Vai~ava traditions,
while aiva texts have the same goals vis--vis iva and his associated
traditions, and so on. I argue that Pur~ic authors sought to create perfect
masculine bodies for their deities as a means of perpetuating true discourse and in order to provide devotees with perfect objects of worship.
Of course it is possible to find counter-examples to the hyper-masculine
forms discussed below; these are not their only manifestations. Vi~u is
sometimes said to have no form at all, to have various feminine forms
and at other times to have four distinct manifestations, some apparent and
some non-apparent. iva also appears in a famous androgynous form,
half male and half female: ardhanr vara. My aim here is, however,
simply to bring to the foreground the typical masculinities with which
they are endowed, while accepting that these alternative forms exist.
Brahm
The deity Brahm, whose roots may be found in the Vedic tradition, is
usually described as the creator deity. In the Pur~ic corpus, at the most
basic level, he is responsible for creating the universe at the beginning of
every cosmic cycle, after which it is maintained by Vi~u, and on reaching
the end of the cycle, the universe is destroyed by iva, only to be created
again by Brahm. At another level, especially in sectarian interpretations
where the glorification of Vi~u or iva is paramount, the creative power

Pur~ic Masculinities / 159

of Brahm is subordinated to those deities.
Viewing Brahm in terms of masculinity and the male body, two traits
are foremost: first, his progenitive, creative powers, especially his power
to emit the universe, sometimes in a quasi-sexual act, and secondly, the
sexual characteristics of his physical body. I will address these two aspects
in turn below. There are many varied accounts of creation in the Pur~as,
but one of the most common images is that of the cosmic egg. A typical
account of this is given in the Pur~a which bears the name of the deitys
egg itself, the Brahm~
a Pur~a:
That Brahm is the primordial creator of beings who existed before
anything else. That four-faced Hira~yagarbha [that is, Brahm] appeared
in the cosmic egg.These seven realms were established in this cosmic
egg, as were the world with the seven continents, the seven oceans, the
great mountains and thousands of rivers. These worlds are situated
within it, as is this entire universe. Everything is established in that
cosmic eggthe moon, the sun and the stars, the planets and the wind,
as well as the Lokloka mountains and everything else (1.1.3.2531).1
A similar account is found in the Padma Pur~a, a Vai~ava text:
That [egg] gradually manifested like a water bubble. In it, Brahm,
whose form is unmanifest, in the visible form of Janrdana, remains in
the form of the Absolute. Mount Meru became the inner membrane of
the fetus of that great-souled one, the (other) mountains were the outer
membrane and the oceans were the amniotic fluid. There in that egg, O
hero, were the continents, oceans, and the whole universe with the
heavenly bodies and with gods, demons, and humans. The egg held
water, fire, air, and ether concealed within it.(1.2.1069).2
In these two accounts and in many others like them, while Brahm is the
creator, the mechanics of creation are predominantly female, centered as
they are on the egg, the womb, and the fetus. In spite of the centrality of
female reproductive images, it is the staunchly male deity that is behind
the creative process. In this branch of the Pur~ic tradition there is no
great female deity driving the creation, although by the time of the Dev<
Pur~as, the situation is quite different. The ultimately masculine nature

160 / McComas Taylor

of cosmogony is strengthened by this image from Manusmti. Here too
the cosmic egg is important, but it is the product of Brahms semen.
There was once this [universe] made of darkness, unrecognized, undistinguished, undefinable, unknowable, as if completely asleep. Then the
Self-existent Lord, unmanifest, causing this [universe] to become manifest, his energy applied to the great elements and so on, became visible,
that dispeller of darkness.Having thought deeply, wishing to emit
various sorts of creatures from his own body, first he emitted the waters
and then he emitted his semen into them. That [semen] became a golden
egg, as bright as the sun with a thousand rays. In that egg Brahm
himself was born, grandfather of all the worlds (Manusmti 1.59).3
While Manusmti is not a Pur~ic text, it is one of the key documents of
the Sanskritic archive and as such, has exerted a powerful influence on
the Brhma~ical thought-world. With its emphasis on emission and semen,
creation as described here is a singularly masculine process, in contrast
to other possible creation accounts which might emphasize the birth of
the world and are essentially feminine in character.
As the creator, Brahm is known as Prajpati, Lord of Creatures. This
was originally the name of an earlier deity from the Vedic period with
whom Brahm later became conflated. Brahm is also frequently referred
to as Pitmaha, Grandsire, in the Pur~ic traditions in recognition of
his role as the ultimate progenitor. These two epithets highlight both his
masculinity and seniority in the divine patriarchy. In addition, in material
representations as opposed to textual ones, Brahm is usually depicted as
an old, but not elderly, senior male at the peak of his potency and authority. It is noteworthy that each of his four faces has a beard and a moustache. This exclusively male secondary sexual characteristic is singular
among the otherwise clean-shaven deities of the Indic pantheon and
heightens the impression of Brahms mature masculinity. In some texts,
he is also capable of fierce anger and rampant sexual desire.He has
various wives, and his relations with them are often far from cordial.
He produces eight sons, but they are an endless source of frustration to
him, and he always remains aloof from them (Bailey 2009: 499). His
incestuous relationship with his daughter/wife SarasvatA which features
in some Pur~ic texts is an example of Brahms troubled sex life.

Pur~ic Masculinities / 161

We also see Brahms hegemonic masculinity expressed in tropes of
sovereignty. This is most readily observed in the nature of the range of
epithets applied to this deity. While it is true that many of these are also
used in reference to the other Pur~ic deities, they serve to emphasize the
sovereign and procreative aspects of masculinity associated with Brahm:
Lord, Lord of Lords, Lord of the World, Leader of the World, Lord of
the Thirteen (Gods), Lord of the Three Worlds, God of Gods, Lord of
Gods, Master of Gods, Foremost Lord, Lord of All Worlds, and so on
(Bailey 1983: 1011).4
Brahms masculinity in Pur~ic discourse centers around tropes of
creation and procreation, in which he appears as the grandfather of the
universe, hirsute progenitor-in-chief and the ultimate mature patriarch.
Vi~u
Turning now to the second of the three Pur~ic deities under discussion,
we find that as early as the Vedic period, Vi~u is conceived of as a
great warrior and is heralded for his heroic deeds (vrya) against the
asuras (demons) (Couture 2009: 787). In the Pur~as, Vi~u is also
often regarded by author-devotees as the sole source of the universe, the
ultimate driving force behind the creative activities of Brahm. This
deity is described as the all-pervader, the primal person and the first-born
of creation, but he remains active in the three phases of the cosmogonic
process: creation, preservation, and destruction.
Unlike Brahm, who is depicted as a largely grandfatherly progenitor,
Vi~us Vedic origins as a warrior-deity are borne out in the later Pur~ic
traditions by the weapons with which he is usually associated and which
often feature in descriptions of the deity. These include his famous discus,
known as Sudarana Cakra, his mace (gad), and to a lesser extent his
conch, Pcajanya, whose sound terrifies all adversaries. Thus we see the
manifestation of an older Vedic masculinity, that of the strong-armed
manly warrior, similar to that described by Whitaker. Traditional attributes
of Vi~u include a royal circlet (makua, mukua or kira) symbolizing
his role as a cakravartin, or universal sovereign. His weapons also include
a sword (kha
ga) and a bow (dhanu) (Couture 2009: 799). According to
Whitaker (2000), these weapons are made of tejas, or fiery energy.
Vi~u is usually represented as a handsome young man, with a blue
colored body. He has the following identifying marks which underline

162 / McComas Taylor

his warrior nature and, like Brahm, his sovereignty: a whorl of hair
on his chest named rMvasta, a jewel on his breast called Kaustubha,
and sometimes also a wealth-giving gem called Syamantaka. He rides
Garu
a, the giant eagle. Also, as Cornelia Dimmitt and J. A. B. van
Buitenen note: Closely associated with him, often said to be identical
with Vi~u himself, is the cosmic serpent called Ananta, endless, or
ea, remainder (1978: 61). Further emphasizing the sovereign aspects
of Vi~us masculinity is this quote in which his famous devotee Prahlda,
channeling the deity, declares: I am the Supreme Person (Vi~u Pur~a
1.19.86). This epithet, Supreme Person, or para pumn (similar to the
one applied to the Buddha mentioned in an earlier passage), has strongly
masculine connotations and also means the ultimate man. This aspect
of Vi~us masculinity as the paradigmatic male is borne out succinctly
in the following quotation from the Vi~u Pur~a which describes the
deity in relation to his consort, LakmM or rM:
Vi~u, granter of boons, is the bridegroom; the lotus-dwelling goddess
is the bride.What more is there to tell? In summary let it be said that
among gods, beasts, humans and the rest, Hari is known as male and
rM is known as female. There is nothing more beyond these two!
(1.8.3135).5
Vi~u, then, as the maintainer in the Pur~ic trimrti, is filled with
youthful masculine energy and is the irresistibly handsome, divine warriorking and husband.
iva
The third of the male Pur~ic deities under discussion is iva, who almost
by nature defies definition and is, if anything, an ambivalent god of
contrasts (Bisschop 2009: 741). In the Vedas, ivas forerunner Rudra
comes across as a dangerous goda hunter in the wilderness whose
abode is in the mountains in the north, who is clad in animal hide, has
braided hair, and is excluded from the Vedic sacrificial cult (741). ivas
dual personality in the later Pur~ic traditions was famously described by
Wendy Doniger OFlaherty as that of the erotic ascetic (1973). iva is
simultaneously the divine self-controled yogin, the perfect divine lover,
and the disturbing, ithyphallic wild man. He is above all the consum-

Pur~ic Masculinities / 163

mate celibate who has mastered control of all his senses and desires, who
with the power won by this tapas, or self-discipline, controls the world
(Dimmitt and van Buitenen 1978: 15051). But there is also ivas
aspect as the li
ga, or phallusever-erect but never expended, never
exhausted and therefore always potent with both physical and spiritual
benefits (151). In addition, iva is the only deity who generates at the
time of the original creation by sexual coupling with his spouse and is
thus identified as the sexual deity.
His wildness, reflecting his theological roots as a hunter beyond the
pale of civilized society who is excluded from the Vedic sacrifice and
who possesses untamed erotic energy, is expressed in physical descriptions of the deitys body:
Crowned with skulls, wearing a handsome shining tilaka, Hara was
radiant, clothed in a lion-skin, his earrings made of snakes as black as
bees, his bracelets bejeweled with serpents, wearing necklaces, armlets
and anklets, with his matted hair piled high, riding on a bull (Vmana
Pur~a 27.67).6
In another vein, iva as an object of erotic desire is well illustrated in the
following passage which describes his wedding procession as it approaches
the palace of Himavat, father of Prvat=, his bride-to-be:
The cloud-bannered one has arrived! cried the townswomen, having
abandoned their housework, intent on seeing him. One lovely woman
holding half a garland in one hand and her hair in the other approached
a
kara. Another wild-eyed woman, one foot reddened with lac, the
other plain, rushed forward to see Hara. Another, with only one eye
darkened with kohl, having heard that the dreaded one had arrived, ran
up to him still carrying her kohl-pencil. Another beautiful woman,
holding her robe and belt in her hand, approached him, naked like a
mad woman, in her eagerness for the sight of Hara. Another slimwaisted girl, slowed by the burden of her breasts, having heard that the
lord had already passed by, angrily cursed her own youth. Causing
confusion among the women of the town in this manner, Hara, mounted
on a bull, approached the heavenly palace of his father-in-law (Vmana
Pur~a 27.2329).7

164 / McComas Taylor

ivas raw and untamed erotic energy lies at the heart of a disturbing story
from the Koirudra of the iva Pur~a, known as iva in the Forest of
Pines (Druvana). The forest was the location of an rama of aiva
ascetics and their wives, whose resolve iva had decided to test. One day
when the sages were away collecting firewood in the forest, iva appeared
with a misshapen body colored blue and red:
Naked, possessed of supreme brilliance, adorned with ashes, he made
lewd gestures, holding his penis in his hand. iva himself, favorable to
his devotees, came to that forest to inspire with his mind favor among
the female denizens of the grove, on account of his affection for them.
Having seen him, the wives of the seers grew most afraid. Some, distressed and amazed, approached him. Others embraced him, while some
held his hand. Then those women sunk in rivalry with one another (iva
Pur~a [Koirudra] 4.12.1013).8
When the sages returned to the rama, they berated the intruder, damning
his behavior and cursing him. Instantly ivas penis dropped off and fell
to the ground, but blazing like fire, it coursed throughout the three worlds
inspiring fear and awe wherever it went. Neither gods nor men were able
to escape its fury. Finally, in desperation, the sages consulted Brahm.
The result of which was that PrvatD took the form of a giant vulva which
was able to accommodate the blazing phallus and cosmic equilibrium
was restored. The li
ga was duly worshiped and the happiness spread
throughout the three worlds (see Dimmitt and van Buitenen 1978: 2036;
Handelman and Shulman 2004).
I will make one final observation on the erotic aspect of masculinity in
relation to iva. The following narrative is contained in the Krma Pur~a:
one day, the two deities Brahm and Vi~u were bickering over which of
them was the actual creator of the universe, when suddenly there appeared
by the illusion of the supreme god a matchless li
ga whose self was iva
displayed for awakening. It was bright as the fire at the end of the eon,
wreathed with garlands of flames, free from growth and decay, without
beginning, middle or end. Brahm said to Vi~u, You go down and Ill
go up and well see how big it is (Krma Pur~a 1.25.76).9 Both traveled
in their respective directions for a hundred years but still found no end to
the giant phallus. This demonstrates, one must presume, that in Pur~ic

Pur~ic Masculinities / 165

discourse size really does matter.
iva as destroyer has a different strain of masculinity from both Brahm
and Vi~u. While often depicted as youthful and handsome like Vi~u,
he is also the wild ithyphallic manly deity, with a violent, fiery unpredictability.
Into the Garden of the Goddess
Having now established that the bodies of the three main male Pur~ic
deities, Brahm, Vi~u and iva, are sites for the inscription of three
aspects of masculinity, namely, the patriarchal progenitor, the universal
warrior-sovereign and the wild, ithyphallic eroticist, respectively, we will
now turn to a Purnic text of a different kind, the Dev Bhgavata Pur~a.
This is the primary, foundational text for traditions and practices centred
on DevE, the Great Mother Goddess. It is not usually enumerated among
the eighteen canonical Mahpur~as by writers in the more orthodox
Vai~ava or aiva traditions, who relegate it to the status of a secondary
or lesser work, an Upapur~a. It is clear that the Dev Bhgavata Pur~a
was compiled in response to, and partly modeled on, the famous Vai~ava
text, the Bhgavata Pur~a, which is central to the K~a bhakti tradition.
As such, the Dev Bhgavata Pur~a must have attained its current form
relatively recently, certainly sometime after the end of the first millennium
CE (Mackenzie Brown 1992; Pintchman 2001; Rocher 1986: 16672).
The Dev Bhgavata Pur~a is, of course, no proto-feminist tract. In
fact, it is generally assumed that the creators and audience of this, and
indeed all Pur~as, were male, as few women if any had access to the
Sanskrit language in pre-modern India.
The third book of the Dev Bhgavata Pur~a contains a narrative in
which the masculinities described above are challenged, subverted, and
appropriated in a novel manner. As this narrative is central to the current
discussion, it is worth dwelling on it at some length. The story is narrated
by Brahm himself. He describes how at a time before the creation of the
universe, the three great deities, Brahm, Vi~u and iva, were loitering
about, unemployed. DevE addressed the three of them saying, Forsake
your laziness and do your respective works of creating, preserving, and
destroying the universe. Brahm continues: Hearing DevEs gentle words,
we said: O Mother, there is no wide earth here; all is one mass of infinite

166 / McComas Taylor

ocean.How can we execute the works of creation and so on? DevC
then said to the gods, O Brahm, Vi~u and iva, mount this carriage
without fear. Today I will show you a wondrous sight. They all boarded
the sky-going chariot, which was decorated with various gems and jewels,
bedecked with pearls, emitting sweet tinkling sounds of bells and resembling an abode of the celestials (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.2.3241).10
Once they were all aboard, the carriage flew into the air. DevC then led
her passengers on a six-stop discovery tour of the various divine realms.
Arriving at their first port of call, Brahm gives the following account:
We saw no ocean where the carriage, fast as thought, had landed, and
we were astonished. There were beautiful trees bearing every kind of
fruit and resounding with the calls of koels and a world with mountains, forests and groves, women and men, beasts, and excellent rivers,
pools, wells, tanks, ponds, and cataracts. Before us stood a pleasant
city, set about with divine ramparts and filled with sacrificial halls and
resplendent with varied palaces. Then we realized, having seen that
city, that this must be Paradise. Who built it? What a great wonder!
(Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.15).11
A moment later the carriage rose into the sky again and brought them to
their second stop, the garden of Mandra, Indras heaven. Here the divine
tourists observed hundreds of yakas, gandharvas, and vidydharas disporting themselves and singing in the garden. They also saw Indra being
borne from his city on a palanquin. Again the chariot took to the air, but
now the sights begin to disturb the travelers:
Then the chariot carrying us instantly came to the divine Brahmaloka
[Brahms realm], honored by all the gods. Vi~u and iva were greatly
bewildered to see [a second] Brahm in that place. All the Vedas and
their ancillary texts and the oceans, rivers, mountains, and serpents were
present in the assembly hall in embodied form. Vi~u and iva asked
me, Who is this eternal four-faced Brahm? I replied, I do not know
who this Brahm is. Who am I and who is he? Why has this perplexity
come over me, O two gods? (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.1418).12
That is to say, Brahm now beheld himself in his own realm and was

Pur~ic Masculinities / 167

overcome by confusion. Was he himself the real Brahm, or was it the
deity he observed in the assembly hall below? The deities confusion
intensified as they arrived at their fourth stop, Mount Kailsa, where they
observed a second iva coming out of his abode, riding on his bull, accompanied by his two sons, Ga~ea and Krtikeya. We were perplexed to
see another iva surrounded by a retinue, and filled with doubt, I sank to
the floor (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.2425).13
Nor was Vi~u to be spared the mental perplexity experienced by his
two fellow travelers. The next stop was his own paradisiacal realm,
Vaiku~ha.
Vi~u was astonished to see that excellent city. In front of the sacrificial
pavilion we saw the four-armed, lotus-eyed Vi~u, the color of the
atas flower, wearing yellow garments, mounted on Garu
a and adorned
with divine ornaments. The goddess LakmC was fanning him with a
wonderful chowry. Having seen this eternal Vi~u, we were all amazed,
and looking at one another, we sat down (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a
3.3.2730).14
The sixth and final stop brought the chariot with its three divine passengers to Ma~idvCpa, or the Island of Jewels, in Sudhsgara, the Sea of
Nectar. Brahm describes the extraordinary vision which met them:
A divine woman was seated on an excellent palanquin, wearing a red
garment and a garland of red cloth, and she was anointed with red
sandal paste. Her eyes were dark red. That beautiful-faced red-lipped
woman blazed forth as brilliantly as ten million bolts of lightning; she
was more splendid than ten million LakmCs; and she shone like the
sun. The glorious BhuvanevarC, the Universal Goddess, holding her
hands in the mdras of granting boons and dispelling fear, while
grasping a noose and a goad, was beauteous and smiled sweetly. Never
before had we seen such a form. Attended by flocks of birds which
were repeating the mantra Hrim, she shone like the rising sun; she was
like mercy embodied; and she appeared as a young woman in the full
bloom of youth (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.3742).15
This passage is followed by much rich description of the scene, the power

168 / McComas Taylor

and beauty of which overwhelm the gods as they ask one another who
the divine goddess could be. Finally, Vi~u realizes that the female figure
must be DevB. Recognizing her as the matriarch of them all, Vi~u proposes that they approach her and worship her feet. There is a problem,
however. The garden is fenced off, and there are guards standing at the
gate. Vi~u has a suggestion: If the guards at the entrance dont let us
in, we will stand at the gateway and chant songs of praise to DevB from
there. What follows constitutes the crux of the narrative and the central
problematic of this article:
When Vi~u had spoken thus, we were highly delighted, and standing
firmly together, we were eager to enter into her presence. Having said
O= to Vi~u, all three of us hurried down from the chariot and went
nervously to the gate. Seeing us standing there, DevB BhagavatB smiled
and instantly transformed us into three females. We had become beautiful young girls, adorned with fine ornaments; thus we were greatly
astonished and went to her (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.4.47).16
That is to say, the three great Pur~ic deities, Brahm, Vi~u and iva,
were stripped of their respective hegemonic masculinities; no longer
patriarchal progenitor, warrior-sovereign and erotic wild man, they were
now excited teenage girls, hurrying to be admitted into the presence of
the Goddess. Having approached DevB, they bowed down to worship her
feet. In an incident reminiscent of similar events in the Bhagavad Gt
and the Bhgavata Pur~a, there they held the entire universe in her
toenail (Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.4.1519). The three eulogized the
Goddess and promptly acknowledged her superiority to themselves and
her role as the true underlying Absolute (Brahman) of the universe. Finally
the Goddess bade them farewell, and leaving the divine presence, they
eventually became males again (te jt puru vayam; Dev Bhgavata
Pur~a 3.6.83) and returned to the sky-going chariot. On reaching the
primeval ocean where Brahm emerged from the lotus, they set about
their respective tasks of creating, preserving and destroying the universe.
Discussion and Conclusion
When authors of Pur~ic discourse set about creating their works, whether

Pur~ic Masculinities / 169

oral or written, they began with a pre-existing set of tropes. Their task
was to appropriate, co-opt, and manipulate those tropes in such a way as
to validate their own particular discourse. For example, there is a common
trope of Brahm, the original creator god, being born from a lotus and
being present in the cosmic egg. This trope was at some later date appropriated by authors wishing to valorize the deity Vi~u. They achieved this
effect by transplanting the lotus from which Brahm was said to have
arisen into the navel of Vi~u. Thus Brahm is shown to be ultimately
dependent on the latter deity. In this way, the Vai~ava authors effectively
appropriated for themselves Brahms procreative proclivities and all his
power, prestige, and authority. Similarly, authors seeking to promote aiva
discourses adopted the tropes of both Brahms lotus and Vi~us navel,
but appropriated the power of both by asserting that all this cosmogony
took place solely at the urging and under the direction of iva himself
and that Brahm and Vi~u were in fact ivas most devout disciples.
Such practice was described by Paul Hacker (1983) as inclusivism
(Inklusivismus), which I would argue differs from Friedrich Max
Mllers (1878) concept of henotheism, in which a polytheistic tradition
evolves towards a monist formulation of the One.
In the first section of this paper we saw how Brahms creative power
is emphasized and how the uniquely masculine function of the emission
of the universe, and especially the role of semen, are attributed to him. I
also drew attention to his masculinized body and his beard and the way
he is portrayed as the ideal, potent, mature male progenitor, and patriarch.
Vi~u as a warrior-deity is the ultimate male, the irresistible, sexualized
bridegroom of unbounded procreative energy. iva is the erotic ascetic,
the ithyphallic wild man, violator of norms, imbued with rampant sexual
energy. In all three cases, the bodies of the deities are the sites of inscription of normative masculinities: the patriarch, the warrior, and the lover.
These are all highly valorized forms of masculinity in the Brhma~ical
thought-world. By being inscribed upon the three deities, these masculinities are validated and perpetuated and may be re-appropriated back
into society as normative discourse.
Furthermore, especially in the cases of Vi~u and iva, the fact that they
possess hyper-masculinized bodies is a strategy to endorse and valorize
the respective discourses associated with those two deities. That is to say,
discourses and practices associated with Vi~u or iva are valorized and

170 / McComas Taylor

empowered by their association with the perfect masculine forms of
those deities. The case of Brahm is slightly different as that deity is
rarely if ever the direct object of worship in his own right. Rather, his
potency tends to be appropriated or subverted in the cause of either of
the other two main Pur~ic gods. Brahm is the hyper-masculinized progenitor, but this is to the greater glory of either Vi~u or iva, depending
on the text, as Brahm is shown to be their most ardent devotee or most
humble supplicant. Brahms own hyper-masculinity is significant, not
in the valorization of any Brahm-oriented discourse, of which there is
precious little, but in the service of the other deities.
This hermeneutics of masculinism helps us to better understand the roles
of these gods; it brings fresh insight into the subject matter by showing
how these normative masculinities are inscribed on the bodies of the
deities and by suggesting that these masculinities are then re-appropriated
into society both as valorization for the models of masculinity and as a
means of empowering the discourses associated with each deity. Of
course, epithets of hyper-masculinity are not restricted to these three
Pur~ic deities. In these examples I am merely attempting to show how
they might function in relation to the creation of normative discourse and
in the reception of that discourse. Can gods function without invoking the
hermeneutic used here? Yes, indeed they can, but the point of this paper
is to show how they might function when this hermeneutic is applied.
As mentioned previously, the ultimate objective of the authors of the
Dev Bhgavata Pur~a is to magnify the Goddess, in order to legitimize
their tradition. It is likely that practice of Dev6 worship pre-dates the
creation of the Pur~as that bear her name. In fact, the production of the
text may have been a conscious strategy among practitioners to achieve a
level of legitimization for a pre-existing tradition. One can easily imagine
a situation in which the many alternative traditions already boasted of their
own well-established Pur~as, so that a Dev6 Pur~a might have become
a highly desirable and potent legitimizing asset.
Pur~ic authors rarely seek to belittle Brahm,Vi~u or iva, in spite of
their sectarian affiliations. On the contrary, a common textual strategy is
to magnify the powers of deities other than ones own and then seek to
depict the other deities as paradigmatic devotees. For example, in these
Dev6 texts, Brahm creates, Vi~u preserves and iva destroys the universe,
but each performs his respective function as Dev6s supplicant and at her

Pur~ic Masculinities / 171

behest. All their powers are shown to be derived from Dev<, who alone is
the true, ultimate and authentic Absolute. In other words, a strategy of
Pur~ic authors is to acknowledge, confirm and even magnify deities of
other traditions, along with their power and creative ability, and then coopt these characteristics into the validation of their own tradition. Effectively, the authors own particular deity is made to leapfrog over the back
of the co-opted deities, thus empowering their own discourse.
While it is not uncommon for the creators of Dev< discourses to portray
the trimrti, the trinity of Brahm, Vi~u and iva, as supplicants of the
Goddess in, for example, the Dev< Pur~a or the Dev< Mhtmya (Coburn
1984, 1992), the authors of the narrative discussed here have tackled the
problem of Pur~ic leapfrog in a novel way by systematically emasculating the three male deities. When Brahm first saw himself in his heavenly
abode, experiencing an existential crisis, he cried out, Who am I? Who
is this? When Vi~u saw himself in his Vaiku~ha paradise, he slumped
speechless into his chariot seat. Similarly iva fell into confusion on seeing
his doppelganger on Mount Kailsa. The authors of the Dev Bhgavata
Pur~a first stripped the three deities of their senses of self and then
robbed them of their sovereignty. This textual strategy reaches its climax
when the authors deprived the deities of their very masculinity at the
moment of their transformation into young girls, in order that they may
be permitted to enter into the garden of Dev<. The effect is not to demonstrate that women are superior to men, but to elevate the Goddess at the
expense of the Gods. So radically does she outstrip the other deities in
terms of creative power, energy, prestige and puissance, that the three
paradigmatic masculine gods are reduced to the status of maids-in-waiting
in her presence.
What is the significance of the fact that the deities were only admitted
into the presence of the Goddess in female form? The scene presented
above is the divine equivalent of the antapuram, the inner apartments of
a royal palace. These are the living quarters of the royal women, the queens,
consorts and concubines. Here they were attended by female servants,
while men who were not members of the royal family were excluded.
The domesticity of the setting is reinforced with the image Dev< reclining
on a couch, surrounded by finely dressed attendants. It is only in female
form that the three deities can gain access to the Goddess and not as her
equals, but as her inferiors. The authors aim here is not, I believe, a

172 / McComas Taylor

theological point about gender or an attempt to suggest that females in
general have better access to Dev@ or that males are not fitting supplicants
or are karmically ill-disposed towards worship of the Goddess. It is a
sociological point about status: the low status of the deities as maids-inwaiting is contrasted with that of the Goddess. It is simply a literary trope
designed to show her superiority to them.
In his analysis of this narrative, C. Mackenzie Brown notes that the
Goddess in an ultimate, cosmogonic sense transcends gender. The Goddess
says After the creation ends, I am neither a woman, a man, nor a eunuch
(Mackenzie Brown 1992: 209). Yet within her pleasure garden on the
Island of Jewels, there is no doubt about her femininity. The greater nongendered self as manifested in cosmic processes is another dimension of
her being, but does not negate or diminish the significance of her feminine
gender in this narrative and the interplay of gender roles between herself
and the trimrti waiting at the outer gate. In this narrative the proximate
femininity of the Goddess is the key element in understanding her relationship with the other once-masculine deities.
There are several other famous instances of transgender adventures in
Sanskrit literature, including two from the Mahbhrata. In the first of
these, the P~
ava hero Arjuna masquerades for a year as Bhanna
, the
sexually ambiguous dancing instructor in the court of King Vira (Katz
1989); in the second, the jilted bride Amb becomes the male warrior
ikha~
in in order to slay Bh@ma in the great Bhrata war (Custodi 2007).
These two examples differ significantly from the narrative in the Dev
Bhgavata Pur~a. Arjuna takes on the form of Bhanna
to avoid
discovery while the brothers are in exile. Amb is reborn in male form to
exact revenge upon Bh@ma, as it would be impossible for a woman to
fight and defeat a man in battle. Both of these transgender transformations
are neccesitated by the direction of the narratives in which they are
embedded and provide a contrast to the subversion and appropriation of
masculinity as described in the Dev Bhgavata Pur~a narrative discussed here.
We cannot say how seriously devotees took their deities, especially
those deities of lineages other than their own. A Vai~ava devotee may
have chuckled at the discomfort of iva, and vice versa, but we have no
way of knowing what the dynamics of sectarian communities were in
pre-modern times. These Pur~ic texts have been in circulation for well

Pur~ic Masculinities / 173

over a thousand years, and we may presume that they have been central
in the production and reception of sectarian discourse. How specific traditions fared in relation to one another during the last millennium is largely
unknown. We cannot pin specific Pur~ic texts to particular times, places,
or periods of sectarian interaction. What we can say, based on contemporary observation of how the faithful read and create meaning from similar
Pur~ic texts today, is that these narratives are still recounted and remain
discursively powerful, even if they are not regarded as historically true.
The fact that the trimrti were transgendered into young girls and fell at
the feet of the Goddess remains an affective and empowering trope for
DevB-bhaktas, even if the narrative is not taken literally.
In appropriating the deities masculinity, the authors are not seeking to
score a social or political point, but are manipulating set tropes within the
dominant patriarchal paradigm. Just as the authors of Vai~ava and aiva
texts exploit the hyper-masculinity of those deities to empower and valorize their respective discourses, the creators of the story of the trimrtis
sojourn on the Island of Jewels have successfully appropriated and shaped
the deities masculinity to their own discursive ends, which is ultimately
the glorification of the Mother Goddess.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the many constructive and insightful criticisms of earlier
drafts of this article made by two anonymous reviewers of this Journal.
Notes
1. Brahm~
a Pur~a 1.1.3.2531: dikartt sa bhtn brahmgre
samavarttinm\ hira~yagarbha so ~
e smin prdurbhta caturmukha|
yasminn a~
e ime lok sapta vai sapratihit| pthivB saptabhi
dvBpai samudrai saha saptabhi\ parvatai sumahadbhi ca nadBbhi
ca sahasraa| antasthasya tvime lok antar vivam ida jagat\ candrdityau sanakatrau sagraha saha vyun| lokloka ca yat kicid
a~
e tasmin pratihitam\ All translations from the Sanskrit are my own.
2. Padma Pur~a 1.2.1069: tat krame~a vivtta tu jalabudbudavat
samam\ tatrvyaktasvarpo sau vyaktarpB janrdana| brahmbrahmasvarpe~a svayam eva vyavasthita| merur ulbam abht tasya jaryu ca

174 / McComas Taylor

mahAdhar\ garbhodaka samudr ca tasya sa ca mahtmana|
tatra dvAps samudr ca sajyotir lokasagraha\tasminn a~
e bhavan
vAra sadevsuramanu| vrivahnyanilkair vtair bhtdin bahi\
3. Manusmti 1.59: sAd ida tamobhtam aprajtam alaka~am|
apratarkyam avijeya prasuptam iva sarvata\ tata svayabhr
bhagavn avyakto vyajayann idam| mahbhtdi vttauj prdursAt
tamonuda\ so bhidhyya arArt svt siskur vividh praj| apa
eva sasarjdau tsu vAryam avsjat\ tad a~
am abhavad dhaima sahasrusamaprabham| tasmi jaje svayam brahm sarvalokapitmaha\
4. For example, a, vara, varevara, Jagatprabhu, Jaganntha, Janevara, Tridaea, Tridaevara, Tribhuvanevara, Devadeva, Devevara,
Devea, Devevarena, Paramehin, Paremevara, Prabhu, Vibhu, and
Sarvalokaprabhu.
5. Vi~u Pur~a 1.8.3135: varaprado varo vi~ur vadh padmavanlay| ki ctibahunoktena sakepe~edam ucyate\ deva-tiryamanuydau punnm bhagavn hari| strAnmnA rA ca vijey nnayor
vidyate param\
6. Vmana Pur~a 27.67: mahsthiekharA crurocantikalo hara|
si;hjinA clinAlabhujagaktaku~
ala\ mahhiratnavalayo hrakeyranpura| samunnatajabhro vabhastho virjate\
7. Vmana Pur~a 27.2329: jAmtaketur yta ity eva nagarastriya|
nija karma parityajya daranavyptbhavan\ mlyrddham any cdya
kare~aikena bhminA| keapa dvitAyena akarbhimukhA gat\ any
laktakarg
hya pda ktvkuleka~| analaktakam eka hi hara
draum upgat\ ekenk~jitenaiva rutv bhAmam upgatam| sjan ca praghyny alk suhu dhvati\ any sarasana vsa
p~indya sundarA| unmattevgaman nagn haradaranallas\ anytikrntam Ana rutv stanabharlas| anindata ru bl yauvana
sva kodarA\ itha sa ngarastrA~ kobha sajanayan hara|
jagma vabhru
ho divya vauramandiram\
8. iva Pur~a [Koirudra] 4.12.1013: digambaro titejasvA bhtibha~abhita| sa cem akarot du haste liga vidhrayan\ manas
ca priya te kartu vai vanavsinm| jagma tad vanam prAty bhaktaprAta hara svayam\ ta dv ipatnyas t para trsam upgat\
vihval vismit cnys samjagmus tath puna\ aliligus tath cny
kara dhtv tathpar\ paraspara tu saghart samagns t
striyas tad\

Pur~ic Masculinities / 175

9. Krma Pur~a 1.25.76: tato mm ha bhagavn adho gaccha tvam
u vai| antam asya vijn2va rdhva gacche ham ity aja\
10. Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.2.3241: kje svni kry~i kurudhva
samatandrit\ sisthitiviinitac chrutv vacana tasy peala
sukhada mdu\ abrma tm aakt sma katha kurmas tv im
praj| na mah2 vitat mta sarvatra vitata jalam\ asmin sur
kma viadhva gatasdhvas\ vimne brahmavi~v2 daraymy
adya cdbhtam| ratnama
ite| muktdmasusav2te kiki~2jlaabdite\ surasadmanibhe
11. Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.15: vimna tan manovega yatra
sthnntare gatam| na jalam tatra paymo vismit smo vaya tad\
vk sarvaphal ramy kokilrva-ma~
it| mah2 mah2dhar kma
vanny upavanni ca\ nrya ca puru caiva paava ca saridvar|
vpya kps ta
g ca palvalni ca nirjhar\ purato nagara ramya
divya-prkra-ma~
itam| yajalsamyukta nnharmyavirjitam\
pratyabhij tad jt py asmka prekya tat puram| svargo yam iti
kensau nirmito sti mahdbhtam\
12. Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.1418: vimnasth vaya tccacla
tarasgatam\ brahmaloka tad divya sarvadevanamasktam| tatra
brahm~am lokya vismitau harakeavau\ sabhy tatra ved ca
sarve sg svarpi~a| sgar sarita caiva parvat pannagorag\
mm catu caturvaktra ko yam brahm santana| tvavocam aham
naiva jne sipati patim\ ko ham ko yam kim artha v bhramo
yam mama cevarau|
13. Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.2425: ta v2kya akara cnya
vismits tatra nrada\ mtbhi saayvias tatrha nyavasa mune|
14. Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.2730: visimiye tad vi~ur dv
tatpuram uttamam| sadangre yayau tvad dhari kamalalocana\ atas2kusambhsa p2tavs caturbhuja | dvijarjdhir
ha ca divybhara~abhita\ v2jyamnas tad lakmy kminy cmarai ubhai| ta
v2kya vismit sarve vaya vi~u santanam\ paraspara nir2kata
sthits tasmin varsane|
15. Dev Bhgavata Pur~a 3.3.3742: nnstara~asachanna indracpa-samanvita| paryakapravare tasminn upavi vargan\ raktamlybaradhar raktagandhnulepan| suraktanayan knt vidyutkoisamaprabh\ sucruvadan raktadantacchadavirjit| ramkoyadhik
knty sryabibanibhkhil\ varapkubh2adhar r2bhuvanevar2|

176 / McComas Taylor

adaprv d s sundarU smitabha~\ hrUkrajapaniais tu
pakivndair nievit| aru~ karu~mrti kumrU navayauvan\
16. Dev. Bhgavata Pur~a 3.4.47: ity ukte hari~ vkye suprahau
susasthitau| jtau pramuditau kma nikae gamanya ca\ aum ity
uktv hari sarve vimnt tvarits traya| uttUrya nirgat dvri akamn
manasyalam\ dvrasthn vUkya tn sarvn devU bhagavatU tad| smita
ktv cakru ts trUn strUrpadhri~a\ vayaM yuvatayo jt surp
crubha~| vismaya parama prpt gats tatsanidhi puna\
References Cited
Bailey, Gregory. 1983. The Mythology of Brahm. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, Gregory. 2009. Brahm. In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brills Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 499512. Leiden: Brill.
Bisschop, Peter. 2009. iva. In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brills Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 74154. Leiden: Brill.
Black, Brian. 2007. Eavesdropping on the Epic: Female Listeners in the
Mahbhrata. In Simon Brodbeck and Brian Black, eds., Gender and
Narrative in the Mahbhrata, 5378. London: Routledge.
Brahm~
a Pur~a. 1983. The Brahm~
a-Mahpur~am with English
Introduction, Verse Index and Textual Correction (ed. V. K. Sarma).
Varanasi: Krishnadas Academy.
Brodbeck, Simon and Brian Black. 2007. Introduction. In Simon
Brodbeck and Brian Black, eds., Gender and Narrative in the Mahbhrata, 134. London: Routledge.
Coburn, Thomas B. 1984. Devi-Mhtmya: The Crystallization of the
Goddess Tradition. Delhi: Motital Banarsidass.
Coburn, Thomas B. 1992 [1991]. Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the Dev.-Mhtmya and a Study of Its Interpretation. Delhi:
Satguru Publications.
Connell, R. W. 2005 [1995]. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Couture, Andr. 2009. Vi~u. In Knut A. Jacobsen, ed., Brills Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 787800. Leiden: Brill.
Custodi, Andrea. 2007. Show You are a Man! Transsexuality and
Gender Bending in the Characters of Arjuna/Bhanna
and Amb/

Pur~ic Masculinities / 177

ikha~
in(L). In Simon Brodbeck and Brian Black, eds., Gender and
Narrative in the Mahbhrata, 20829. London: Routledge.
DevL Bhgavata Pur~a. 1980. Dev:bhgavata9 sabh:ka9 samhtmyam (ed. S. rLk~adsa). Bombay: Srivenkatesvara Steam Press.
Dimmitt, Cornelia and J. A. B. van Buitenen. 1978. Classical Hindu
Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Pur~as. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Hacker, Paul. 1983. Inklusivismus. In Gerhard Oberhammer, ed.,
Inklusivismus: Eine indische Denkform, 1128. Vienna: Institut fr die
Indologie der Universitt Wien, Sammlung De Nobili.
Handelman, Don and David Shulman. 2004. iva in the Forest of Pines:
An Essay on Sorcery and Self-knowledge. Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Katz, Ruth Cecily. 1989. Arjuna in the Mahabharata: Where Krishna Is,
There Is Victory. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Krma Pur~a. 1971. The Krma Pur~a (ed. A. S. Gupta). Varanasi:
All India Kashiraj Trust.
Mackenzie Brown, C. 1992 [1990]. The Triumph of the Goddess: The
Canonical Models and Theological Visions of the Dev:-Bhgavata
Pur~a. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Manusmti. 1983. Manusmti with the Sanskrit Commentary of Manvartha-Muktval: of Kullka Bhaa (ed. J. L. Shastri). Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Max Mller, F. 1878. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As
Illustrated by the Religions of India. London: Longmans, Green and
Co.
OFlaherty, Wendy Doniger. 1973. Asceticism and Eroticism in the
Mythology of iva. London: Oxford University Press.
Padma Pur~a. 1984. The Padmamahpur~am (ed. Crudeva stri).
Delhi: Nag Publishers.
Pintchman, Tracy. 2001. Seeking Mahdev:: Constructing the Identities
of the Hindu Great Goddess. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men:
Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Powers, John. 2009. A Bull of a Man: Images of Masculinity, Sex, and

178 / McComas Taylor

the Body in Indian Buddhism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Reeser, Todd W. 2010. Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rocher, Ludo. 1986. The Pur~as. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Rohlman, Elizabeth. 2002. Textual Authority, Accretion, and Auspicion:
The Legacy of Horace Hayman Wilson in Western Studies of the
Pur~as. Journal of the Oriental Institute 52, 12: 5570.
iva Pur~a. 1986. r5ivamahpur~am (ed. Nag Sharan Singh). Delhi:
Nag Publishers.
Talbot, Cynthia. 2001. Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region,
and Identity in Medieval Andhra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Charles. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.
Taylor, McComas. 2007a. Perfumed by Golden Lotuses: Literary Place
and Textual Authority in the Brahma- and Bhgavatapur~as. Acta
Orientalia Vilnensia 8, 1: 6981.
Taylor, McComas. 2007b. The Fall of the Indigo Jackal: The Discourse
of Division and Pnabhadras Pacatantra. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Taylor, McComas. 2011. Village Deity and Sacred Text: Power Relations
and Cultural Synthesis at an Oral Performance of the Bhgavatapur~a
in a Garhwal Community. Asian Ethnology 70, 2: 197221.
Taylor, McComas. 2012a. Rdhe, Rdhe!: Continuity and Change in the
Contemporary Oral Performance of the Bhgavatapur~a. Religions
of South Asia 6, 1: 83101.
Taylor, McComas. 2012b. Empowering the Sacred: The Function of the
Sanskrit Text in a Contemporary Exposition of the Bhgavatapur~a.
In Elizabeth Minchin, ed., Orality, Literary and Performance in the
Ancient World, 12950. Leiden: Brill.
Vmana Pur~a. 1968. The Vmana Pur~a with English Translation
(ed. A. S. Gupta). Varanasi: All India Kashiraj Trust.
Vi~u Pur~a. 1985. The Vi~umahpur~am (ed. R. N. Sharma). Delhi:
Nag Publishers.
Whitaker, Jarrod L. 2000. Divine Weapons and Tejas in the Two Indian
Epics. Indo-Iranian Journal, 43, 2: 87113.
Whitaker, Jarrod L. 2011. Strong Arms and Drinking Strength: Masculinity, Violence, and the Body in Ancient India. New York: Oxford

Pur~ic Masculinities / 179

University Press.
Zwilling, Leonard and Michael J. Sweet. 2000. The Evolution of ThirdSex Constructs in Ancient India: A Study in Ambiguity. In Julia Leslie
and Mary McGee, eds, Invented Identities: The Interplay of Gender,
Religion and Politics in India, 99132. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

McCOMAS TAYLOR is head of the South Asia Program and senior

lecturer in the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National
University, Canberra.
<McComas.Taylor@anu.edu.au>