The Heads of the Godhead:

The Number of Heads/Faces of Yoginīs and Bhairava⒮ in

Early Śaiva Tantras*

Judit Törzsök

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

Key words: history of śaivism, iconography of Śiva, mantra images, multi-faced Hindu deities,
textual transformations, yoginīs.

Faces, mantras, and deities

The multi-headed representations of Śiva and śaiva deities are among the most wide-spread and
well-known ones.¹ There are various etiological myths on the subject, but the original function of
the heads looking in different directions — whether on a liṅga or other images — was perhaps to
show the deity as an omnipresent and all-surveying god. It has been demonstrated that among the
*
The first version of this paper was presented at the Third International Workshop on Early Tantra (TIWET) in
Hamburg, on the 20th of July, 20⒑ I am grateful to the organizers, Dominic Goodall and Harunaga Isaacson for
having invited me to this workshop and to all the participants for their comments, suggestions and criticism, especially
to Dominic Goodall, Shaman Hatley and Csaba Kiss. I also thank Csaba Kiss for discussions prior to the workshop. The
workshop was organized with the help of the Early Tantra Project, financed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(ANR) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinscha (DFG).
¹This paper is partly an attempt to consider certain aspects and sources of the multi-headed Śiva figure that are
not discussed by Srinivasan, 199⒎ As Bakker, 1999 observes, ‘[t]he phrase “the Āgamas” appears throughout the book
whenever the author is in need of substantiating a view, but nowhere in the book do we learn more about this elusive
category of texts.’ Let us note that āgama and tantra are perfect synonyms in this context.

1
multi-headed representations, the four-headed Śiva certainly preceded the five-headed one, although
sometimes the fih head is said to be present but invisible.² This should not come as a surprise: such
changes through accretions can be universally seen in the Indian tradition. In addition to the art
historical evidence, well-known textual developments also confirm the direction of change. An early,
perhaps the earliest, etiological explanation of the four heads is to be found in the Mahābhārata,³
in the episode about goddess Tilottamā: she was so beautiful that when she circumambulated Śiva,
he created additional heads for himself to see her continuously, in all directions. In śaiva scriptural
sources⁴ and exegesis, the four heads are commonly interpreted as teaching various branches of non-
śaiva and proto-tantric revelation, while the fih or upper head is seen as representing the śaiva
scriptures surpassing the others.⁵
The iconography of images and the exegetical interpretations of the heads or faces have been
studied and analyzed in detail. In this paper, I would like to look at some of the earliest (mostly
unpublished or not critically edited) tantric sources and compare the iconography of multi-headed
Bhairavas⁶ and the goddesses or yoginīs they describe and prescribe, and the interpretations they
provide to explain the four or five heads. I hope to show that, although the five-headed or five-faced
representation of Bhairava and related deities is thought to be ubiquitous in tantric scriptures, the
actual situation is much more complex. Attributing five faces to Bhairava and some related tantric
deities becomes the norm in later scriptures; but four-faced śaiva deities turn up in various contexts
quite oen and seem to underlie the earlier iconography in tantric sources too. Furthermore, as
the textual evidence shows, there was a conscious effort to rewrite texts according to the newer,
five-faced iconography.
While some textual passages became reworked in order to correspond to the five-faced iconogra-
phy, some others either kept the four-faced form⒮ or retained a number of heterogenous prescrip-
tions. Such heterogenous or self-contradicting prescriptions may have come om texts composed
over a longer period or om heterogenous source material. Whatever the case, some scriptures as
well as exegetes are conscious that these contradictory prescriptions exist, and attempt to explain or
to systematize them.
In the course of the following investigations, one must also bear in mind that these faces were
first and foremost not an iconographic feature in tantric texts, for they conceived of deities primarily
as mantras. The importance of the faces lies in their ritual use, it seems, and they always appear as
²See for instance Hanneder, 1998, p. 15, Kreisel, 1986, p. 64 note 202 and Sharma, 197⒍ Bakker, 2002 shows, among
other things, that the four-headed representation certainly precedes the five-headed one. Whether a fih, invisible, head
can be assumed to exist when only four are represented is very questionable, see Bakker, 1999, p. 34⒉
³See, among the several versions, Mahābhārata ⒓30.20-2⒍ For an analysis of the different versions, in particular in
the context of the history of liṅga worship, see Bakker, 200⒉
⁴The earliest occurrence of this idea may well be in the Niśvāsamukha, see in particular ⒋131-13⒌
⁵See Hanneder, 1998, pp. 15-23 for a detailed treatment of these correspondences and other homologizations, and
for a summary of Abhinavagupta’s position, who posits a face that surpasses the fih.
⁶From the art historian’s point of view, it would be necessary to define what is meant by Bhairava as opposed to
other fierce manifestations of Śiva. This paper, however, examines only the textual evidence and prescriptions, in which
Bhairavas are usually called by this name. In some other cases, when the deity is named otherwise (Kapālīśa etc), I still
categorize him as a Bhairava, for such manifestations of Śiva represent the supreme deity of Bhairavatantras. Similarly, if
a male deity figures with yoginī-type goddesses, I also take him to be a Bhairava, for yoginīs are primarily associated with
Bhairava. I do so in spite of the fact that such gods may be called Rudras. The Rudra terminology seems to have survived
om pre- or proto-tantric usage in Bhairavatantras, without any particular Vedic allusion or implication (in such usages
as Rudraśakti for the Śakti that possesses the practitioner).

2
mantra syllables that are to be ritually installed before worship.⁷
My survey starts with a text which does not deal so much with the question of four or five
faces, but rather, with the question of how many faces yoginīs, forming a female retinue of Bhairava,
are supposed to have. This as well as examples om other sources also shows the ways in which
the iconography of Śiva or Bhairava influenced the iconography of female deities and yoginīs too,
perhaps as part of an attempt to systematize iconography and ritual.

Face mantras and faces of yoginīs: one or four?

One of the topics treated in chapter 23 of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata⁸ is the so-called face mantras
(vaktramantra), used to create heads or faces for deities. The text prescribes the same set of mantras
for yoginīs and gods. In both cases, one is to employ a set of four mantras for four faces, which are
formed with the semi-vowels, the letter RA and the Anusvāra: YRAṂ RRAṂ LRAṂ VRAṂ.

Siddhayogeśvarīmata 2⒊6-11
Then one should join the Bindu to the four [letters of the] elements [Y, R, L and
V], which must sit on the [letter of the] staff [R];⁹ and employ these ‘[mantra] faces’
in the case of all [kinds of deities] formed of mantras. The twenty-sixth [consonant
of the alphabet] [Y] together with the Bindu and the letter R is the excellent seed-
syllable, †based on the seed-syllable of Indra and having the Bindu as its head[?]†. This
is the eastern face of the Great God [Bhairava] as well as of [any of ] the goddesses,
O Pārvatī. The end of the end of MA [=R] with the Bindu and the letter R, with a
ightening appearance,¹⁰ is to be the southern face of the group of gods and goddesses.
Then the great seed syllable of Indra, the auspicious twenty-eighth [consonant] [L]
together with the Bindu and the letter R is the beautiful/auspicious¹¹ western face. The
excellent seed syllable of Varuṇa [V], split with the seed of the Fire [R] and endowed
with the Bindu as its head is known as the northern face. [One should] start with the
eastern face, and end with the northern one, O fair-faced one.¹²
⁷I cannot treat the relation of body parts and face-mantras in this paper. For some remarks, see Hanneder, 1998, pp.
11-⒕
⁸An early śaiva Tantra teaching the cult of yoginīs, dating om around the seventh century CE, see Törzsök, 1999
and Törzsök, forthcoming.
⁹The fact that this letter is called ‘staff ’ suggests that a Gupta-type R was envisaged, which indeed has the form of
a staff. This, however, does not imply that the text comes om the Gupta period, for at least two reasons. First, the
Gupta type script was used well aer Gupta times, and the shape of some letters does not change radically for several
centuries (depending of course on the region, the scribe, the exact date etc). Second, the names of the letters seem to
be preserved well aer the period in which they correspond in shape; the Trika’s Mālinī code, for instance, corresponds
to the Gupta alphabet (see Vasudeva, 2007), but remains in use for several centuries, even when the names no longer
describe the shapes of the characters appropriately. It is nevertheless possible that the names indeed described the shapes
of the letters in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, for it is the earliest scripture of the Trika.
¹⁰This may be an allusion to the identification of the southern face with the ightening Aghora, as is the case in
later literature. Note that, as Bakker, 2002, p. 399 remarks, this face is said to be ightening (raudra) already in the
Anuśāsanaparvan of the Mahābhārata (⒔12⒏3-8).
¹¹This could be an allusion to what becomes the Vāmadeva face, but its direction does not correspond to where
Vāmadeva is normally placed.
¹²kramād bhūtacatuṣkaṃ ca daṇḍāsīnaṃ sabindukam / sarveṣu mantrarūpeṣu vaktrāṇy etāni yojayet // ṣaḍviṃśakaṃ paraṃ
bījaṃ rephayuktaṃ sabindukam / (aindrabījakṛtādhāram āhataṃ bindumastakam?) // pūrvavaktraṃ maheśasya devīnāṃ caiva

3
 There are two problems or oddities if one is to follow the prescription of this passage. First
of all, if one looks at the descriptions of various yoginīs and goddesses in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata,
they have only one face in almost all cases. Human yoginīs are of course not concerned by this
prescription; but various categories of divine yoginīs and goddesses are, especially mantric ones.
In order to see which yoginīs are meant here, it may be useful to summarize the three categories
of goddesses or divine yoginīs in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata.
⒈ Major mantra goddesses: Parā, Parāparā and Aparā. These mantra goddesses (vidyā), also
called yogeśvarīs or yoginīs, can bestow supernatural powers themselves or can invoke hordes of
yoginīs to help the practitioner. They are present throughout the text and appear in the course of
initiation too. When visualized in various contexts, they are pictured as seated and always have only
one head. However, it must be remarked that according to the lost Trikasāra as cited by Jayaratha
ad Tantrāloka ⒊253cd-254ab,¹³ Parā is four-faced when she is surrounded by her retinue of twelve
yoginīs. No such prescription is found in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata.
⒉ Minor mantra goddesses or ad hoc yoginīs. They are usually identified with simple seed syl-
lables, and are said to be seated in a circle. They are invoked to bestow various supernatural effects
themselves. In some cases they are also used to invoke hordes of yoginīs. However, contrary to the
major mantric goddesses, they usually figure only once in the text and their visualization is not de-
scribed in detail. 2⒌55cd for instance enjoins only that those in question must look like Parāparā,¹⁴
which implies that they are one-faced. Chapter 20, which describes the elaborate khecarīcakra listing
all the names and seed-syllables of its numerous yoginīs, remarks simply in verse 64 that they must
look terriing.¹⁵ There is only one passage in which such goddesses or yoginīs are supposed to have
four faces, at least temporarily: in chapter 22, a circle of twelve yoginīs is described as favourable
(prasannāḥ) and charming (manoramāḥ) in the first part of the day. They have the appearance of
young girls (kanyārūpāḥ) and display four faces (caturvaktrāḥ).¹⁶
⒊ Witch-like flying yoginīs. They are innumerable and must be invoked by mantra goddesses.
When invoked, they appear flying, in contrast with the usually seated mantra goddesses. Many of
pārvati / māntāntaṃ ca sabinduṃ ca sarephaṃ bhairavākṛtim // dakṣiṇaṃ tad bhaved āsyaṃ devadevīgaṇasya tu / punar
aindraṃ mahābījam aṣṭāviṃśatimaṃ śubham // sarephaṃ bindusaṃyuktaṃ paścimaṃ vadanaṃ śubham / vāruṇaṃ ca paraṃ
bījam agnibījena bheditam // bindumastakasaṃyuktaṃ vadanaṃ cottaraṃ smṛtam / pūrvavaktrād samārabhya yāvatsaumyaṃ
varānane // For the apparatus to the edition, see Törzsök, forthcoming. There are no major variants here that could change
the interpretation. The only problematic element is that Indra’s seed syllable is prescribed for the first mantra. Indra’s
mantra is LĀṂ according to the text, so perhaps a long Ā must be understood here. However, this is not mentioned when
describing the other mantras. It must also be noted that these two pādas, which appear redundant as well as confusing,
are missing in the (unattributed) citation of the passage in the Tantrālokaviveka of Jayaratha ad 30.⒗ They may have
been added to the text at a later stage, perhaps aer Jayaratha’s time, or may have been part of the short recension of the
text, which is the recension that has come down to us. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the passage is very corrupt and
that the element Indra or aindra does not refer to the letter or letters used here, but to the fact that Śiva’s eastern face is
the principal or ruling one, expressing his sovereignty as described in Mahābhārata ⒔12⒏5ab and analyzed in Bakker,
2002 pūrveṇa vadanenāhaṃ indratvam anuśāsmi ha. In this case, it may be of interest that the Siddhayogeśvarīmata follows
relatively closely this epic passage, for the western face, qualified as śubham (fair, auspicious) here, is said to be saumyam
(pleasant, auspicious) and to bring happiness to all creatures (sarvaprāṇisukhāvaham) in the epic.
¹³śrīsāraśāstre cāpyuktaṃ madhya ekākṣarāṃ parām // 253 // pūjayed bhairavātmākhyāṃ yoginīdvādaśāvṛtām / — sāraśāstre
iti śrītrikasāre | yaduktaṃ tatra — “parāṃ tvekākṣarāṃ madhye śaṅkhakundendusundarām / caturbhujāṃ caturvaktrāṃ
yoginīdvādaśāvṛtām” iti.
¹⁴parāparoktarūpeṇa pūjyā dhyeyāś ca sarvadā.
¹⁵⒛64d: sthitāḥ sarvatra bhīṣaṇāḥ.
¹⁶2⒉26cd, 27cd: muktakeśaiś caturvaktrā locanaiś ca tribhis tribhiḥ … caturbhujāḥ prasannāś ca kanyārūpā manoramāḥ.

4
them have animal faces, and the descriptions suggest that each has only one: ‘some are camel- or
tiger-faced, some are donkey-faced.’¹⁷
Given that mantra goddesses and yoginīs are usually one-faced in this text, the general prescrip-
tion of four mantras for four faces seems somewhat out of place. But such a prescription may have
been motivated by an effort to assimilate yoginīs to their Bhairava. For the most detailed icono-
graphic description of Bhairava in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (⒛24ff ) describes him as having four
faces indeed: ‘the black god is decorated with a tiara of skulls and with four faces, he has sixteen
arms and twelve eyes.’¹⁸
Now if Bhairava has four faces, the next question is how he has lost his fih. For according to
śaiva ritual manuals, and also according to most scriptural sources, major forms of Śiva are supposed
to have five faces. The five faces correspond to the five Brahma-mantras, which are in turn also
homologized with the five kalās as sections of the hierarchy of the universe. What is missing in the
Siddhayogeśvarīmata is the equivalent of the fih face, represented by the letter of the fih element
(mahābhūta), ether (ākāśa), which is identified with the letter HA. This fih face would be the upper
face, Īśāna, which is associated with the Mantramārga already in the Niśvāsamukha (⒋133-6).¹⁹
None of these homologizations appears to be shared by the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. Although
the southern face seems to correspond to the terriing Aghora face, the others do not represent
Sadāśiva’s faces, or in any case such equivalences are not brought out.
The lack of homologizations with the Brahma-mantras may be a relatively archaic feature in
the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. In this respect, the Siddhayogeśvarīmata is close to the Niśvāsa’s Nayasūtra,
which does not establish these equivalences either and describes an Ardhanārīśvara face in the East,
instead of a Tatpuruṣa.²⁰

Changing four faces to five: assimilating other deities to Sadāśiva

From a rather early date onwards, there appears a tendency to assimilate various tantric forms of
Śiva to the five-faced Sadāśiva: there are several iconographic descriptions which were transformed
in the course of time to make Śiva or Bhairava five-faced. In what follows I give three rather strik-
ing examples of textual transformations, whose purpose is clearly to accommodate the five-faced
iconography.
⒈ The first example²¹ comes om the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, whose elaborate description of the
four-faced Bhairava²² referred to above was fully adopted by the Timirodghāṭana, an early (pre-tenth
century) Kaula text,²³ which dates perhaps om a few centuries later than the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. In
¹⁷uṣṭravyāghrānanāḥ kāścit kāścic caiva kharānanāḥ. Siddhayogeśvarīmata ⒔16cd.
¹⁸On the Sanskrit passage, see the next section of this paper.
¹⁹On this passage, see Diwakar Acharya in TAK vol. III. pañca vaktrāṇi.
²⁰For the Niśvāsa, probably the earliest śaiva Tantra, see Goodall and Isaacson, 200⒎ For Ardhanārīśvara in the East,
see Niśvāsa Naya ⒊4⒈ This is a feature one can see in an early liṅga om Mathurā, in which it is the ontal image.
Cf. Kreisel, 1986, pp. 69-70, 204-5, Pl. 60a-h. Interestingly, the main Bhairava visualisation in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata
(analyzed below) also describes an Ardhanārīśvara.
²¹The order of the examples as presented here does not follow a chronological order, but questions of chronology shall
be taken up in the concluding part of this paper.
²²This Bhairava is in fact an Ardhanārīśvara.
²³I am grateful to Somdev Vasudeva for making his transcription available to me. For an edition of the parallel passages,
see Törzsök, forthcoming.

5
fact, the Timirodghāṭana borrows the whole passage²⁴ almost literally, with one exception: it changes
the number of faces om four to five. Since the Timirodghāṭana does not change the number of
eyes, it prescribes a somewhat unusual deity with five faces but only twelve eyes.²⁵

kapālamālābharaṇaṃ kapālamālinaṃ devaṃ

caturvadanaśobhanam pañcavaktrañ ca sevitam
bhujaiḥ ṣoḍaśabhir devaṃ bhujaṣoḍaśasaṃyuktaṃ
kālaṃ dvādaśalocanam kālaṃ dvādaśalocanam
(Siddhayogeśvarīmata 20.24) (Timirodghāṭana 1.6cd-7ab)

Other examples of five-faced Bhairavas abound even in the early sources. The Brahmayāmala,²⁶
for instance, prescribes five faces for a ten-armed Bhairava (named here simply devadeva) surrounded
with goddesses representing the śaiva levels of the universe (tattvas, in 8⒏67), for Rurubhairava
(5⒋5-8), for another Bhairava (5⒎51), for a solitary Śiva (2⒊148ff ) as well as for its supreme deity,
Kapālīśa.²⁷
⒉ The second example shows the way in which the male deity of the Vāma current, Tumburu,
is transformed. In the Vīṇāśikhatantra,²⁸ he has four heads and is surrounded by her four sisters
(bhaginī) in the four directions. The arrangement is reminiscent of the mythological story of Śiva
referred to above, when he multiplied his head in the four directions to see the beautiful goddess
Tilottamā while she was doing pradakṣiṇā around him. Here Tumburu needs his four heads to
watch over his four sisters, but, in addition, he also has four bodies and eight arms.²⁹ The first
goddess is said to be similarly four-headed, but the number of heads is not defined for the others.
Again, a few centuries later, the Netratantra³⁰ takes up the visualization of these Vāma deities,
with a small difference: Tumburu becomes five-headed and ten-armed. The Netratantra is not shy
about revealing why: it explicitly states that Tumburu must have the appearance or body of Sadāśiva
(sādāśivena vapuṣā). The assimilation of the four-headed Tumburu to the five-headed Sadāśiva is
²⁴This is a fairly long borrowing of about ten ślokas om the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (⒛23ff ) in the Timirodghāṭana
(⒈6ff ). I am grateful to Olga Serbaeva and Csaba Kiss, who pointed out these parallels to me simultaneously by email in
December 200⒐
²⁵For a full comparison and apparatus, see Törzsök, forthcoming. Only the relevant lines are cited here, in the edited
version of both texts (but only minor corrections have been made to the manuscript readings).
²⁶An early text of the yoginī cult dated to between the sixth and the eighth centuries by Hatley, 200⒎ I am grateful
to Shaman Hatley and Csaba Kiss for sharing their transcriptions of the text, which I cite here with some orthographic
standardization and adding a few tentative corrections in square brackets, unless indicated otherwise.
²⁷Interestingly, two passages of chapter 4 describe him as five-faced and four-armed (kapālīśaṃ tato nyasya pañcavak-
traṃ caturbhujaṃ in ⒋456, kapālīsaṃ mahāprājñaḥ pañcavaktraṃ caturbhujam in ⒋502), but ⒚58 makes his mantric
embodiment four-bodied, four-faced and eight-armed (vidyāmūrtti tato dadyāt kapālīśasya suvrate / caturmūrtticaturvak-
traṃ bhujāṣṭakasamanvitaṃ). This detail, coupled with some other peculiarities of chapter 4, suggests that chapter 4,
whose main subject is iconometry, is relatively later compared to the bulk of the first, earlier, half of the text. However,
more evidence would be needed to confirm this impression.
²⁸On the fact that the Vāma current and its scriptures may well belong to the earliest layer of śaiva Tantras, see
Sanderson, 2009, p. 129, note 30⒈
²⁹Vīṇāśikha 97ab, 99cd: caturvaktram aṣṭabhujaṃ catuṣkāyaṃ trilocanam […] devadevaṃ sadā dhyāyet
sūryakoṭisamaprabham. Note that the four bodies are paralleled by his caturmūrtitva mentioned in Mahābhārata
⒔12⒏4b pointed out in Bakker, 2002, p. 39⒏
³⁰For the dating, see Sanderson, 2004, p. 293, who proposes a date between 700 and 850 CE, with the greatest
probability between 800 and 850.

6
thus quite clearly expressed.³¹
⒊ The third example of adding a fih face comes om the Svacchanda, which borrows, as usual,
om the earliest Tantra, the Niśvāsa.³² This passage was pointed out in Goodall, 2009, showing that
the Svacchanda changes the word naming the eastern face Ardhanārīśa and attempts to assimilate
the heads to the five Brahma-mantras.³³
About half a millennium aer the composition of the Niśvāsa, Kṣemarāja in his commentary on
the Svacchanda mentions and rejects the reading ardhanārīśaṃ as inconsistent with the fact that this
form of Śiva has a consort on his lap according to another passage.³⁴ But ardhanārīśaṃ is also the
reading of the shorter and earlier Nepalese recension of the Svacchanda.³⁵ This in turn shows that
the attempt to eliminate the Ardhanārīśvara face was a secondary development within the textual
history of the Svacchanda.
Goodall, 2009 also noted that the Niśvāsa prescribes only four faces, while the Svacchanda makes
them five. Here I would like to show some additional details and the context of this visualization,
which may reveal more about how this change occurred.
The shi om four to five faces happens at the end of the passage concerned.³⁶ Aer the
description of the four faces in the four cardinal directions, the Niśvāsa has a few lines which appear
to describe general features of the visualization of Śiva. By changing a word, mūrdhni ‘on the head/to
begin with’ to ūrdhvaṃ ‘above,’ the Svacchanda transforms the passage into a description of the fih
face, which is situated ‘above’ the four others.³⁷

Niśvāsa Naya 3.52-54

sitaṃ mūrdhni sadā dhyāyec chūlahastaṃ jaṭādharam /
vyāghracarmaparīdhānaṃ³⁸ akṣasūtrakamaṇḍalum //
vīṇāḍamarukahastaṃ nāgayajñopavītinam /
candramūrdhorddhaliṅgaṃ tu dhyāyen nityaṃ maheśvaram //
³¹Netratantra ⒒2-3: sarvopadravaśāntyartham aṣṭapatre kuśeśaye / pūrvoktamaṇḍale devi madhye devaṃ ca tumburum
// daśabāhuṃ sureśānaṃ pañcavaktraṃ trilocanam / sādāśivena vapuṣā vaktrāṇy asya prakalpayet //
³²For the tentative dating of the latter, whose core part may have been composed between 450 and 550, see Goodall
and Isaacson, 200⒎
³³The Niśvāsa Naya (⒊42ab) reads kuṅkumābhārdhanārīśaṃ trinetraṃ tu jaṭādharam, while the edited version of the
Svacchanda (⒓125cd) has kuṅkumābhaṃ ca nāreśaṃ trinetraṃ tu jaṭādharam. The Svacchanda eliminates Ardhanārīśa
and makes it possible to understand the resulting Nāreśa, lit. ‘belonging to the lord of men,’ to mean ‘belonging to Tatpu-
ruṣa,’ as it is interpreted by Kṣemarāja in his commentary (narāṇām īśvarasyānugrahādikartus tatpuruṣabhaṭṭārakasyedaṃ
nāreśam).
³⁴ardhanārīśam ity apapāṭhaḥ / bhuvanādhvani — “tasyotsaṅgatā vidyā” (10.1158) ityuktatvād ardhanārīśvaratāyāḥ kā
saṅgatiḥ?
³⁵NAK 1-224, NGMPP B 28/⒙ Fol. 255r1 kuṅkumābhārdhanārīśaṃ trinetrañ ca jaṭādharam. On this recension, see
Sanderson, 2002, p. 21, Törzsök, 1999, p. 198, and Hatley, 2007, p.14⒐
³⁶First, the eastern, southern, western and northern faces are described in verses 42-43, 44-47, 48-49 and 50-51
respectively of Niśvāsa Naya ch. ⒊ These are borrowed with some alterations in Svacchanda ⒓125cd-135ab.
³⁷Let us note here that the Nepalese recension of the Svacchanda again seems to retain the original mūrdhni when it
writes sita mūdhni on fol. 255r5-⒍
³⁸This is my conjecture for vyāghrayajñopavītena in the mss. I follow here the parallel in Svacchanda ⒓136a, supported
by the Nepalese ms of the latter on fol. 255r6, but this conjecture has not been accepted by the editors of the Niśvāsa.
One could also assume that the Niśvāsa originally had vyālayajñopavītena, but this information is given in the subsequent
verse. The elements -parīdhāna and -pavītena can look very similar in some North-East Indian scripts and the formulaic
compounds must have contributed to the confusion or the eye-skip.

7
 īpsitā ca bhavet siddhir vigrahaṃ yo ’bhyaset sadā /
anenaiva svadehena sarvajñaḥ kāmarūpavān //
One should always visualize the Great Lord as white at the head.³⁹ He must have a
trident in his hand and matted hair. He is covered with tiger skin and holds a rosary
and an ascetic bowl. He also carries a Vīṇā and a Ḍamaru drum in his hands and
wears a snake instead of the sacred thread. He always has a moon on his head and
his penis is erect. He who always practices [the visualization of ] the body [of Śiva]
shall obtain the supernatural effect desired. With this same body as his own, he shall
become omniscient and be able to take up any form at will.

A cursory reading of the extract could suggest that aer prescribing four faces in the preceding
passage, the text of the Niśvāsa offers a description of the fih face. But this is not the case for a
number of reasons.
⑴ In the description of each of the four faces of the directions, vaktra or a synonym for face
(vadana, āsya) is used,⁴⁰ contrary to the last passage.
⑵ In three cases, the number of eyes is specified,⁴¹ and in one case, for the southern face, other
clearly facial features are mentioned: knitted eye-brows (bhṛkuṭī) and a beard (śmaśrū).⁴² By contrast,
neither does the last passage speci the number of eyes, nor does it mention facial features.
⑶ When the four faces of the four directions are defined, they receive two hand-held attributes
at most. By contrast, the last section lists five hand-held attributes which include two large ones:
the vīṇā and the trident.
⑷ In addition, the tiger-skin garment also seems to be mentioned in the last passage, for the
manuscripts’ reading vyāghrayajñopavītena seems odd and the instrumental also stands out syntac-
tically: it must be corrupt for vyāghracarmaparīdhānaṃ, as it is in the Svacchanda.
⑸ Finally, the last two adjectives in the fih passage also point to the fact that it does not
concern a face. The compound candramūrdha- ‘having the moon on his head’ indicates that we may
deal with something more than the head itself, although this could also be interpreted as ‘topped
with the moon.’ But the last compound ūrdhvaliṅga ‘having his penis erect’ definitely implies more
than a head.
It is the last lines of the fih passage that show what exactly it deals with, for it mentions that
this visualization concerns the full body of Śiva: ‘he who always practices [the visualization of ] the
body [of Śiva] shall obtain the supernatural effect desired.’ Thus, rather than describing the fih
head, this last passage describes a visualization which is separate, independent of the four faces: the
visualization of Maheśvara with his whole body. Judging om the context, this was probably the
body to be given to him when the various faces were visualized.
³⁹The word mūrdhni can be interpreted here in at least three different ways. It may denote the place where the deity
must be visualized as being white: at the head, meaning basically the face (probably because it is covered with ashes). The
word could be interpreted adverbially, in the sense of ‘first of all/principally.’ Finally, the locative could be understood as
standing for the accusative (as a tantric Aiśa linguistic feature), which happens oen in the case of this particular word.
The meaning would be the same then, but the sentence would have better syntax with a double accusative: ‘one should
visualize his head/face white.’
⁴⁰See ⒊42c, 45d, 48a, 48c and 50a.
⁴¹⒊42a trinetra in the East, ⒊48a trinayana in the West, and ⒊50a dvinetra in the North.
⁴²⒊44d-45a.

8
 Now if we look at the Svacchanda’s commentary, the fact that the Svacchanda basically changes
only mūrdhni to ūrdhvaṃ⁴³ puts the commentator, Kṣemarāja, into a difficult situation. He starts
by introducing the passage as the visualization of the upper face.⁴⁴ It is difficult to see how the
upper face could hold a vīṇā and wear a tiger-skin garment, but these are wisely le unglossed in
the commentary. The erect liṅga also becomes problematic and Kṣemarāja understands that the
compound ūrdhvaliṅga denotes rather a liṅga shape on the top of the head (although one could even
understand ‘instead of the head’).⁴⁵ The resulting image is quite unusual, and Kṣemarāja finishes
by admitting that the passage in fact describes a one-faced Maheśvara and not merely a face.⁴⁶
However, it remains unclear then where the description of the upper face should end and where
that of Maheśvara should begin. 136b is perhaps still understood in the Svacchanda or rather, by
Kṣemarāja, as referring to the face, for the Bahuvrīhi is in the accusative neuter qualiing vaktram.⁴⁷
As Kṣemarāja rightly points out at the end of the passage,⁴⁸ this visualization is associated, in
fact in both texts, with the level of the śaiva universe called īśvara tattva and the Lord Īśvara. In the
Niśvāsa it is preceded by other visualizations associated with other levels, and it is the vidyātattva
that precedes it immediately. The close relation of this visualization and Īśvara is further brought
out later in the same chapter. According to verses 59-62, the practitioner is to see his ego as a
warrior on a chariot, drawn by the gross and subtle elements for horses, controlled by the mind as
the charioteer. He must have this vision while Īśvara remains in his heart, know everything to be
made by Īśvara and act with the knowledge of Īśvara in his mind.⁴⁹
In the subsequent lines the text speaks of Sadāśiva’s identification with units of time and his
tenfold visualization with various colours. But in the closing lines of the chapter it mentions again
the Lord as Īśvara, identified with the Bindu and the group of four kalās or energies instead of the
usual five: nivṛtti, pratiṣṭhā, vidyā and śānti.
Considering this context in the Niśvāsa, which seems to agree with the Svacchanda and Kṣe-
marāja’s view in the sense that the latter also associates the multi-faced visualization with Īśvara,
it can be safely concluded that the four-faced visualization is indeed about Īśvara and not Sadāśiva.
⁴³⒓135cd-137ab: sitam ūrdhvaṃ sadā dhyāyec chūlahastaṃ jaṭādharam // vyāghracarmaparīdhānaṃ sākṣasūtraka-
maṇḍalu / vīṇāḍamaruhastaṃ ca nāgayajñopavītakam // candramūrdhordhvaliṅgaṃ ca dhyāyen nityaṃ maheśvaram / Other
differences are minor.
⁴⁴Before ⒓135cd: ūrdhvāsyadhyānam āha.
⁴⁵Aer ⒓137cd: ūrdhvaliṅgam iti maulisthāne liṅgākāram.
⁴⁶maheśvara iti padenaikavaktraṃ maheśvaraṃ dhyāyet, na tu vaktramātram asyetyarthaḥ.
⁴⁷Such details of gender probably were not of great concern for the authors of the original. The Nepalese recension has
the accusative masculine here, but masculine and neuter are fairly interchangeable in Aiśa, and this recension does not yet
change mūrdhni to ūrdhvaṃ. The Nepalese manuscript of the Svacchanda has the following reading (fol. 355r5-355v1):
sita mūdhni sadā dhyāyec chūlahastañ jaṭādharam / vyāghracarmaparīdhānam akṣasūtrakamaṇḍalum / vīnāḍamarukahastaṃ
ca nāgayañjopavītinam / candramūrdhorddhaliṅgan tu dhyāyen nityaṃ maheśvaram / anenaiva tu dehena sarvajñaḥ kāmarū-
pavān.
⁴⁸evam īśvaratattvādhiṣṭhātur īśvarasyākṛtimato dhyānam uktam.
⁴⁹The naves of the wheels are the Sun and the Moon, the guṇas form the warrior’s bow, the organs of the senses are
his arrows and dharma is the deer he chases. The practitioner must also see himself as not being an agent and (therefore)
as being ee om any bonds. He is then promised to be the Lord himself and to be able to do anything he desires,
independently of his merits or sins. somādityau sthitau netre cakre caikarathasya tu / bhūtatanmātra vājīni manas sārathi
coditaḥ // ahaṅkāro bhaved yodhā guṇāś caiva mahādhanuḥ / indriyāṇi śarās tasya mṛgo dharmaḥ prakīrtitaḥ // yady evaṃ
krīḍate nityam īśvaro hṛdi saṃsthitaḥ / puṇyapāpaiḥ pravartanto icchayā parameśvaraḥ // nāhaṃ kartā na me bandho sarvaṃ
ceśvarakāritam / matvā ceśvaravijñānaṃ sarvakarmāṇi kārayet //

9
Although the text does not bring out any homologization, it is remarkable that just as the Lord or
Īśvara has only four kalās in the Niśvāsa, he also has only four faces.
Furthermore, the fact that this visualization is placed at the level of Īśvara may also show,
although this is a mere hypothesis, that it comes om a source that considers Īśvara to be the
highest form of the god. In that case, to push the hypothesis further, the passage may well belong
originally to a Pāśupata or in any case to a pre-tantric source (of the Atimārga), for it is these currents
that are said to have worshipped Īśvara as the highest principle.⁵⁰

Minor or particularly frightening deities with four faces

The above examples in which four faces are transformed into five all concern deities of the core
pantheon, in fact the most central god in the majority of cases. However, some minor deities also
have four faces, and this deserves some attention, at least when it is not Brahmā or deities associated
with him (such as Brāhmī) who are mentioned.
Various Rudras can be four-faced, such as the hundred Rudras,⁵¹ or Śiva of the cremation ground
in Vārāṇasī.⁵² The Brahmayāmala also makes its Gaṇeśa four-headed in 7⒎22ff. Later, Somaśambhu,
for instance, prescribes four heads for Caṇḍeśa (Somaśambhupaddhati ⒈⒌2), the visualized Astra-
mantra (⒊⒈40) and the Bhogāṅgas (⒈⒊89).
In addition to these minor four-faced gods, there is one particular deity who is always described
as four-headed in various sources: Kālāgnirudra, the ightening Rudra situated at the bottom of
the śaiva universe, who emits the all-consuming cosmic fire. This deity is described in three very
similar passages in the Niśvāsa, the Svacchanda and the Tantrasadbhāva,⁵³ all of which appear to be
related.
The original version is certainly that of the Niśvāsa, borrowed by the Svacchanda, om which
in turn the Tantrasadbhāva’s version seems to derive. In all cases, the four faces have four different
colours: white, red, yellow and black. The Niśvāsa makes the deity black with tawny eyebrows and
a beard, emitting fire om his southern mouth. It is suggested that the alternative name Nīlalohita
(‘Black-and-red’) has been given to him due to these features. The Svacchanda describes his body
as red and adds that he has twelve eyes, while the Tantrasadbhāva makes him adorned with fire-
garlands.
⁵⁰See Svacchanda ⒒184 with the commentary and Sanderson, 2006, p. 16⒉
⁵¹Brahmayāmala 3⒉15⒏
⁵²Brahmayāmala ⒊73-⒋
⁵³On the relative dating of this text of the early Trika, see Sanderson, 1988, p. 672, Sanderson, 2009, p. 50 and Törzsök,
2007, pp. 486-⒎

10
 etad yuktaṃ pramāṇaṃ tu
kālāgnir yatra tiṣṭhate /
sitaraktapītakṛṣṇaś
caturvaktro mahābalaḥ //
kṛṣṇāṅgo ’tha karālaś ca
piṅgabhrūśmaśrulocanaḥ /
tasya dakṣiṇato vaktrād
vahni sañjāyate mahān //
jagad dadāha yenāsau
nīlalohitasañjñakaḥ /
(Niśvāsa Guhya ⒋27-29ab)
tiṣṭhate tatra deveśaḥ
kālo dvādaśalocanaḥ /
sitaraktapītakṛṣṇaś
caturvaktro mahābalaḥ //
raktāṅgo ’tha karālaś ca
piṅgabhrūśmaśrulocanaḥ /
(Svacchanda ⒑23-4ab)
tiṣṭhate tatra deveśa
kālo dvādaśalocanaḥ //
caturvaktraṃ mahātejaṃ
jvālāmālopaśobhitam /
sitaraktapītakṛṣṇa
caturvaktro mahābalaḥ //
raktāṅgo ’tha karālaś ca
piṅgabhrūśmaśrulocanaḥ/
(Tantrasadbhāva
⒑25cd-27ab)

Why does Kālāgni have only four heads? The same reason is given both by Abhinavagupta and
Kṣemarāja. In the Tantrāloka, Abhinavagupta says that Kālāgni does not look upwards because he is
aaid of reducing the worlds to ashes. This is interpreted by the commentator, Jayaratha, to imply
that his upper face is not manifest, and thus, he is always said to be only four-faced.⁵⁴ Similarly,
Kṣemarāja remarks in his commentary on the relevant passage of the Svacchanda that the upper
face is not manifest so that the worlds starting with the earth should not be burnt down.⁵⁵ Both
Jayaratha and Kṣemarāja use the word anunmīlita for non-manifest, which may not be accidental.
Similarly to Kālāgnirudra, who is at the bottom of the śaiva universe, Ananta, who is also the
deity representing the direction of ‘below,’ is given four heads in the Brahmayāmala.⁵⁶
The explanation of the exegetes does not need to be accepted; and it appears secondary in any
case. Nevertheless, the coincidence of various Kāla-deities and the four faces is rather conspicuous.
For there is yet another passage in the Niśvāsa Naya, borrowed again by the Svacchanda, which speaks
of a four-faced Kāla-īśvara. This god epitomises the śaiva principle of Time, kālatattva, rather than
the Fire at the end of Time, Kālāgni. Moreover, to create even more of a coincidence, this Kāla-īśvara
is also called Ananta.⁵⁷
Thus, dark deities of time or death (kāla), whether Kālāgnirudra or Kāleśvara, but also Ananta,
appear to have four faces. This is all the more conspicuous since in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, the
four-faced Bhairava is also said to be black, kāla, in the very first śloka, just as Kālāgni is said to
be black, kṛṣṇa; and Bhairava has twelve eyes (three on each face), and is ablaze like fire (jvalantam
iva pāvakam), again just as Kālāgni.⁵⁸ Although I cannot pursue this line of argumentation further,
⁵⁴Tantrāloka ⒏22cd: lokānāṃ bhasmasādbhāvabhayān nordhvaṃ sa vīkṣate. Tantrālokaviveka ad loc: … nordhvaṃ sa
vīkṣate iti, yaduktam — “nordhvaṃ nirīkṣate devo medaṃ bhūd bhasmasāj jagat” iti. ata evāsyordhvavaktram anunmīlitam
— iti caturvaktratvam eva sarvatroktam. yaduktam— “trinetraḥ sa caturvaktro vahnijvālāvalīdharaḥ” iti.
⁵⁵Kṣemarāja ad Svacchanda ⒑23: ūrdhvavaktram asyānunmīlitaṃ bhagavatā darśitaṃ mā bhūd bhūrādilokadāha iti.
⁵⁶Brahmayāmala 2⒏51ab: anantaṃ tatra vinyasya caturvaktraṃ catubhujaṃ.
⁵⁷The passages are almost identical in Niśvāsa Naya ⒊32 and Svacchanda ⒓114cd-115ab, the only difference is that
the former writes tu and the latter ca in the first pāda: trinetraṃ tu (ca in the Svacchanda) caturvaktraṃ kṛṣṇavarṇaṃ
caturbhujam / saṃharantaṃ durādharṣam anantaṃ kālam īśvaram. I understand kāla-m-īśvaram as a compound and the
name of the deity, but these words can also quali the word Ananta, which could be the proper name of this god. Given
the context, I choose the first interpretation.
⁵⁸Siddhayogeśvarīmata ⒛24ff.

11
these parallels seem to amount to more than coincidences. Could there be a four-headed black
Bhairava, causing the conflagration of the universe at the end of the aeons, that may be behind all
these descriptions?

Four and/or five faces for the same deity

In a few instances, texts may prescribe both four and five heads for the same deity, which may or
may not depend on the kind of worship performed. One such passage can be found in a pre-tenth
century Siddhānta scripture, in the Mṛgendra’s Kriyāpāda ⒊⒎ In fact, what seems to be stated here
is that one should create Śiva’s five heads, above and in the four cardinal directions with (or perhaps
including?) Īśāna; and his four lotus faces with the face-mantra(s.)

ūrdhvaprāgdakṣiṇādīni pañceśānena kalpayet /

uttamāṅgāni vaktreṇa vaktrāmbujacatuṣṭayam //

Whether we understand Īśāna to refer to the fih head or to the mantra one must use,⁵⁹ the text
seems to know of both the five-faced or five-headed and the four-faced versions, and to prescribe
both, using uttamāṅga, ‘head,’ for the set of five and vaktra, ‘face,’ for the set of four. Now it seems
that the commentator, Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha is not comfortable with this hybrid prescription and tries
to force the passage into envisaging five faces.

[īśānena] īśānakalāpañcakena [ūrdhvaprāgdakṣiṇādīni pañca uttamāṅgāni] ūrdhvapūr-

vadakṣiṇapaścimottaraśiraḥpañcakaṃ kalpyam. [vaktreṇa] tatpuruṣakalācatuṣṭayena [vak-
trāmbujacatuṣṭayaṃ] mukhābjacatuṣkam. pañcamasya tv īśānavaktrasyordhvasthitasya śi-
raḥkalpanayaiva niṣpattir boddhavyā, na tu caturvaktratvaṃ parameśvaramūrter jñeyam,
daśabhujatvoktyā pañcavaktratvasyaiveṣṭatvāt. nanu caturvaktratvasya śrutyaiva tāvan niś-
cayaḥ. tataś ca dvibhujatvena diśām aṣṭasaṃkhyālakṣakatvād aṣṭabhujatve saty adoṣaḥ. naivam.
“khaḍgakheṭadhanurbāṇa” ityādinā daśabhujatvam evātra mūrter bhaviṣyati//
By Īśāna the five kalās of the Īśāna mantra are meant. The five heads starting with the
upper, eastern, and southern are these five: the upper, eastern, southern, western and
northern ones that must be fashioned. With the face, i.e. with the four kalās of the
Tatpuruṣa mantra, one must create the four lotus faces. But the creation of the fih,
the upper Īśāna face, must be understood to be performed with the Head mantra. The
Supreme Lord is not to have four faces, for five faces are needed because he is said to
have ten arms. One could object to this by saying that scripture itself confirms that
he is four-faced. And that since he is two-armed [for each face], there is no harm
in his having eight arms, given that there are eight directions. But this is wrong. For
according to the passage starting with the [description of attributes] such as the sword,
shield, bow and arrows, the embodiment of Śiva will have exactly ten arms here.

Thus, Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha is well aware of the four-faced Śiva and uses the argument of the number
of arms to prove that five faces are needed. However, as numerous examples show, there is no strict
⁵⁹Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha (cited below) understands it to refer to the parts (kalās) of the Īśāna mantra. It is, however, also
possible to understand Īśāna as referring to the fih head, situated above, i.e. īśānena to mean ‘including the Īśāna head.’

12
correspondence between the number of faces and arms. Rather, what seems natural is that the five
faces come to represent the five Brahma-mantras and are produced with them, while the four faces
always require the face or vaktra-mantras, which may well be the case also in the combined version
of the Mṛgendra.
While the Mṛgendra does not seem to be particularly concerned with this problem of numbers,
the Brahmayāmala devotes several short discussions to the question of who and when is supposed
to have four or five faces.
In one passage of the chapter on iconography and iconometry (chapter 4), in the section on
divine-type images (divya), the Brahmayāmala prescribes five faces for all male consorts, but one,
three or four faces for the different categories of goddesses of its core pantheon.

Brahmayāmala ⒋171-173ab
guhyakānucarā ye tu kiṅkarīṇāṃ tu kiṅkarāḥ /
yogiṇīpatayaś caiva mātṝṇām patayas tathā //
pañcavaktrā[ḥ] samākhyātā vīrabhadrās⁶⁰ tathaiva ca /
guhyakās tu caturvaktrā[ḥ] kiṅkaryas trimukhāḥ smṛtāḥ //
yoginyas tv ekavaktrās tu caturvaktrās tu mātarā[ḥ] /
Those [males] who serve the Guhyakās, the male servants of Kiṅkarīs, the husbands
of yoginīs and the husbands⁶¹ of Mothers are all five-faced as well as Vīrabhadras. But
Guhyakās are four-faced, and Kiṅkarīs, yoginīs and Mothers have three, one and four
faces respectively.

This distribution of faces suggests that male deities are assimilated to the five-faced Sadāśiva, but
goddesses are not. This male-female distribution is also present to some extent in the Tantrasadb-
hāva, which mentions various attendant women (⒑811) and a Bhairavī (2⒈165) who are four-faced.
Furthermore, a later chapter of the Brahmayāmala confirms the same tendency. This chapter, the
83rd, is probably a relatively later addition⁶² and is to be found in a section which calls itself the
Utphullaka-tantra. The goddesses called devīs and dūtīs are assigned four and three faces respectively.

Brahmayāmala 8⒊162-165ab
rūpakaṃ tu pravakṣyāmi devīnāṃ sādhakasya⁶³ tu /
pūrvoktarūpakaṃ jñeya[ṃ] kapālamuṇḍasaṃyutaṃ //
nāvārūḍhās tu dhyātavyā nāvārūḍhās tu pūjayet /
evaṃ nagnavibhāgena nagnarūpā[ś] caturmukhā[ḥ]//
mahāpretasamārūḍhā devau devyaś ca kīrttitāḥ /
⁶⁰Shaman Hatley’s transcription as corrected in 2009 reads vīrabhakṣyās, but Csaba Kiss’s transcription reads vīrabhak-
tyās. I agree with Csaba Kiss’s reading. In any case, an emendation is required here, for the text most probably had another
category of male deities in the list. This would justi the conjecture vīrabhadrās, or vīrabhadras; but this god appears
only in the tantrāvatāra section of the text (ch. 39).
⁶¹These terms (attendants/servants/lords or anucara/kiṅkara/pati) all denote male partners of female deities, in spite of
their apparently different meanings.
⁶²For the layers of composition of the Brahmayāmala, see Hatley, 2007, p. 200ff.
⁶³This is an emendation suggested by Shaman Hatley. The text reads sādhanasya, which is not idiomatic. All similar
occurrences have sādhakasya tu in the text.

13
 dūtyo vai padmahastās tu trimukhāḥ ṣaṭbhujā[ḥ] smṛtāḥ //
devyas tv aṣṭabhujā jñeyā[ḥ] sādhakena tu dhīmatā /
I shall now teach the forms of Devīs, for the practitioner. They are known to have a
form previously described, [but] with a skull-bowl and a severed head. They must be
visualized and worshipped as mounted on a boat. Thus, in the naked division, they are
naked and four-faced; both the divine couple⁶⁴ and the goddesses are seated on the
‘great transcended’ [i.e. Sadāśiva’s corpse].⁶⁵ The Dūtīs have lotuses in their hands, are
three-faced and six-armed, while the goddesses (Devīs) are to be known as eight-armed
by the wise practitioner.

However, if we go back to chapter 4, another passage contradicts the principle according to which
females should have fewer heads. For according to this passage, Guhyakās, which is a synonym
of the Goddesses or Devīs, and Mātṛs must also have five faces when they are worshipped alone
(177cd-178ab): ekavīravidhāne tu pañcavaktrās tu guhyakāḥ // mātaraś ca tathā caiva karttavyā[ḥ]
sādhakottamaiḥ.
Thus, female deities can be upgraded to having five faces when worshipped separately, on their
own. In addition, male deities can also be downgraded to having only four faces, and this can happen
when they are worshipped with their consorts, in couples. As another passage states:⁶⁶

Brahmayāmala ⒋627cd-629ab
ādivīraṃ tu nyastavyaṃ sadyādyaṃ lāntakaṃ tathā //
anuyugmaṃ sthitā ye tu caturvaktrās tu te smṛtā[ḥ] /
sadyādivarjitāś caiva lāntādibhi[r] vivarjitā[ḥ] //
vinyased anuyugmasthāṃ yoginīnāṃ vṛthā -s- tathā /
The first hero [i.e. the male deity in the centre] must be placed with [the five Brahma-
mantras] starting with Sadyojāta and with [the five face-letters] ending with Ha.⁶⁷ But
⁶⁴Following Csaba Kiss’s suggestion (oral communication), I understand this to refer to the central couple of the
pantheon, Kapālīśa and Caṇḍākāpālinī.
⁶⁵Although the text uses the same past participle (ārūḍha) when saying ‘mounted on a boat’ and ‘seated on the great
transcended,’ two different things must be meant. The elaborate visualization of a deity’s lotus throne involves several
elements, among which the boat (nau/pota) also figures. The earth, the milk ocean and the boat are said to stand for four
of the five elements (the boat representing fire and wind); together with the ādhāraśakti or ‘foundation power,’ they form
the bulb of the lotus (kanda) according to Kṣemarāja ad Netratatra ⒒25, citing also the Mālinīvijayottara. (It may be
noted, nevertheless, that this interpretation of the ocean, the boat etc., which identifies them with the elements, may be
secondary.) On several occasions, however, the main elements mentioned are the lowermost deity (Kālāgni or Ananta),
the milk ocean, the boat and the corpse (śava/preta), on top of which the lotus flower is situated, see e.g. Brahmayāmala
⒚52 (kālāgniṃ caiva kṣīrodaṃ potapretaṃ tathaiva ca / tatropari pratiṣṭhādyā vinyaset mantravit kramāt), and 2⒏51-52
(anantaṃ tatra vinyasya caturvaktraṃ catu[r]bhujaṃ / kṣīrorddhaṃ (Nb: probably for kṣīrodaṃ) cāsya cārddhena tato -m-
anyaṃ tu kalpayet // potaṃ śavaṃs tathā padmaṃ nāḍibhir ṣoḍaṣai[r] yutaṃ / pañcavinsatitatvāni keśareṣu niyojayet). That
the boat and the corpse of Sadāśiva are two different things also seems to be confirmed by Brahmayāmala ⒒208, which
teaches the potamudrā and the śavamudrā as separate hand gestures, reproducing the sequence of the throne visualization.
For yet another passage to disambiguate the two, see Brahmayāmala 7⒈29ab, which places Sadāśiva’s corpse on the boat,
and Bhairava on top of the corpse: nāvārūḍhaṃ mahāpretaṃ tatrārūḍhan tu bhairavaṃ.
⁶⁶Here, the context is that one must place the images (pratimās) of yoginīs with their partners, vīras, on a maṇḍala.
⁶⁷I understand lāntaka as well as lānta to stand for lāntānta, i.e. ‘that which ends with what is at the end of the letter
LA,’ in other words, HA, assuming that the sibilants are omitted. I also assume that by extension, these expressions

14
 those [male deities] who are in couples are taught to be four-faced. One should place
them in couples without the mantras of Sadyojāta⁶⁸ and without the [five] face mantras
etc. And [these sets of five mantras] are also pointless for yoginīs [in general].

A subsequent passage (⒓172cd-175) discusses the same question in more detail. It explicitly
states that when Heroes, i.e. gods, are accompanied by Śaktis, i.e. female deities, the gods should
not have their fih head, nor should they have the Brahma-mantras, since they then figure in the
pantheon yāga as non-dominant. However, when worshipped on their own, they possess their five
heads again.

tatra vīraṃ nyasen mantrī svamantreṇaiva nānyathā //

vaktrenetrāṅgasaṃyuktaṃ pūrvapatreṇa coditaṃ /
caturvaktraṃ nyaset tatra pañcamaṃ naiva dāpayet //
sadyādī[ṃ] ca na vai dadyā śaktyās caiva na saṃśayaḥ /
apradhānamanti kṛtvā yāge [’]smiṃ bhairavātmake //
svayāgeṣu punaḥ kṛtvā sadyādipañcavaktrakāḥ /
arcayitvā yathānyāyaṃ mudrāś caiva pradāpayet //
The master of mantras should place the Hero (= male deity) there with his mantra,
and not otherwise. He must have his face, eye and body mantras and is enjoined to be
put on the eastern petal [for the first]. He should be placed there with four faces, one
should not give him a fih. And one should not give him the Brahma-mantras starting
with Sadyojāta, nor should [his] Śakti receive those, no doubt, as they [the male gods]
have been made non-dominant in this worship (yāga), which is bhairavic. But when
worshipped in their own yāga, they have those five faces of Sadyojāta etc. And having
worshipped them as prescribed, one should show the mudrās.

What is particularly interesting in this last passage is that the Brahmayāmala clearly associates
the five-faced Śiva of the five Brahma-mantras to yāgas in which male deities are dominant, and
prescribes four-faced gods in yāgas qualified as Bhairavic, in which male deities have a secondary
role. The opposition of five faces and four faces thus also becomes representative of the Saiddhāntika
as opposed to the Bhairavic type of yāga.
can also mean the set of five face letters, which include the four semi-vowels and HA; and that the word lāntādi also
denotes this set of five. This hypothetic interpretation is based on the occurrences of the expressions lāntānta and lāntādi
in their various contexts. It is also possible that lāntaka refers not to the set of face letters here, but to Īśāna himself, who
is the last face mantra. Thus, lāntaka could mean lāntāntaka ‘ending with Ha’ in the sense of ‘ending with Īśāna.’ Then
sadyādya-lāntaka could simply denote the five Brahma-mantras themselves: ‘starting with Sadyojāta, ending with Īśāna’.
This, however, is less likely in the light of the parallel passages given below, in which sadyādi and lāntānta seem to mean
two separate sets of mantras.
⁶⁸It may be noted that when four-faced deities are discussed in the Brahmayāmala, the text almost always remarks
that they must be devoid of the Sadyādi, i.e. the Brahma-mantras starting with Sadyojāta. See e.g. sadyādivarjitaṃ caiva
caturvaktravibhūṣitaṃ 2⒊114ab; sadyādivarjitaṃ caiva dāntilāntāntavarjitāṃ / śivaṃ taṃ kārayen mantrī śaktyāntaṃ ca
na saṃśayaḥ (ch. 4); anenaiva vidhānena kroṣṭhukī vinyased budhaḥ / padmamālābhi saṃyuktaṃ vaktreṇa tu samanvitaṃ /
netrāṅgasaṃyutaṃ caiva sadyādiparivarjitāṃ / lāntādivarjitāṃ caiva śivayuktāṃ tu kārayet (ch. 4).

15
Conclusion
It can be concluded om these investigations that the five-headed mantra-image of Sadāśiva had a
powerful influence. Pretantric and early tantric Śivas or Bhairavas, who were originally four-faced
and also served as models for the mantric constructions of yoginīs, were assimilated to Sadāśiva in
that they came to have five faces, with the addition of the upper face of Īśāna. The process can
already be observed between layers of the Niśvāsa: by the time of the Mukhāgama’s composition,
the fih face was considered the source of śaivism. Nevertheless, it is also noteworthy that most
changes and adoptions occur later,⁶⁹ such as in the Kashmirian recension of the Svacchanda or in
the kaula Timirodghāṭana.
The four-faced Śiva, or rather, Īśvara, as the godhead may have had its origin in the sources of
the Atimārga, at least as far as the tantric scriptures are concerned.⁷⁰ This seems to be suggested
by two facts: the Niśvāsa’s four-faced godhead is called Īśvara, whose realm is supposed to be what
the Atimārga can reach,⁷¹ and the Niśvāsa’s relatively later Mukha section and most subsequent
āgamic traditions attribute the teaching of the Atimārga to the fourth, eastern or ontal, head.
It is also possible that this four-faced Īśvara, which I hypothetically assign to the Atimārga in the
tantric scriptural context, survived also in the visualization of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata: its four-faced
Ardhanārīśvara-Bhairava could correspond to the eastern or ontal face of the Īśvara image, which
the Niśvāsa associates with the Atimārga and which appears as the ontal face in a Mathurā liṅga
of 250-350 CE.
It then seems likely that the Śaiva Siddhānta added the fih face as part of its hallmark in the
formative period (between the composition of the Niśvāsa Mūla and the Mukha), and that is why,
or perhaps simultaneously with this development, the fih face comes to be seen as the source of
tantric śaiva revelation.⁷²
Furthermore, non-saiddhāntika tantric traditions also adopted the five faces and transformed
originally four-faced deities, as the examples of the Timirodghāṭana’s Bhairava (adapted om the
Siddhayogeśvarīmata) and the Netratantra’s Tumburu (adapted om the Vāmatantras) show. Four-
faced deities then oen became secondary; or certain less central but ightening deities were given
four faces: Caṇḍeśa and Kālāgnirudra are typical examples for this. At the same time, there appears
a tendency to attribute five faces to male and four or fewer faces to female deities.
Despite this tendency, four-faced versions of visualizations were retained in particular condi-
tions: the Brahmayāmala uses them when gods are not worshipped alone or as the main objects
of worship. Such is the case when gods and goddesses are worshipped in couples, yāmalas. In this
set-up, it is in fact the relatively subordinate position of male gods that is expressed by the fact that
⁶⁹Perhaps around the eighth and ninth centuries CE, if the tentative dating of the earlier Tantras, such as the Niśvāsa
and the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, is also valid.
⁷⁰The existence of the four-headed Śiva image as such certainly predates the Atimārga, of course, and it was certainly
more generic and wide-spread than the Atimārga.
⁷¹For this, in addition to the passages already cited, see also Svacchanda ⒑1170, ⒒73-4 and 182-4, referring to
Pāśupatas, the Atimārga and those observing the vow of the skull.
⁷²It may be noteworthy in this context that the Niśvāsa Mukha (in chapters 3 and 4) does not count or name the other
four heads when it attributes the teaching of various doctrines and practices to them, it only points out the direction
of the faces (laukika in the West, Veda in the North, Sāṅkhya and Yoga in the South and the Atimārga in the East). It
calls only the last face the fih, pañcama, while also giving its name, Īśāna (pañcamenaiva vaktreṇa īśānena dvijottamāḥ
/mantrākhyaṃ kathayiṣyāmi devyāyā gaditaṃ purā ⒋134).

16
they lose one head, so to speak. Since male deities do not represent the ultimate godhead in these
yāgas, they have fewer heads, and this comes to be seen as a particular feature of Bhairavāgamic
worship, as opposed to the saiddhāntika yāga.
In a somewhat paradoxical way, the Brahmayāmala, at least in its Bhairavāgamic worship, thus
returns to a historically earlier iconography of Śiva, which may be associated with the ightening
form of the god, with Bhairava as well as with Kālāgnirudra, by this time. And, again somewhat
paradoxically, it adopts the mantric construction of a male deity, the five-headed Sadāśiva, even for
female deities when they are worshipped alone. In doing so, the Brahmayāmala, although showing
some hesitation as to the overall assimilation to Sadāśiva, seems already to pave the way to the general
adoption of Sadāśiva’s five heads everywhere.

Judit Törzsök
Maître de conférences (Associate Professor)
Université Charles-de-Gaulle—Lille III.
UMR 7528 Mondes iranien et indien (CNRS–EPHE–INaLCO–Sorbonne Novelle/Paris III.)
email: torzsokjudit@hotmail.com

17
Bibliography
Abbreviations
Gretil = Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages and related Indological mate-
rials om Central and Southeast Asia. Texts available at http://fiindolo.sub.uni-goettingen.de

IFI/IFP = Institut Français de Pondichéry

KSTS = Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies

MIRI = Muktabodha Indological Research Institute. Texts available at http://www.muktabodhalib.org

NAK = National Archives, Kathmandu

NGMPP = Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project

TAK III = Tāntrikābhidhānakośa. Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique
vol. III. ed. D. Goodall and M. Rastelli. Wien: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie des Wis-
senschaen. 20⒓

Sanskrit works cited (manuscripts, printed and electronic texts)

Tantrasadbhāva NAK 5-1985 and NAK 5-445, unpublished edition of chapter 4 by Somdev Va-
sudeva, unpublished edition of chapters 16 and 25 by Judit Törzsök. Complete etext established
under the supervision of Mark Dyczkowski. Accessible on MIRI.

Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta, with a commentary -viveka by Jayaratha. 8 vols. Ed. with an introduc-
tion R.C. Dwivedi and N. Rastogi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 198⒎ (Reprint of KSTS 1918-1938)
Etext MIRI.

Timirodghāṭana NGMPP A35/3 typed in “as is” by Somadeva Vasudeva. Unpublished etext. I am
grateful to Somadeva Vasudeva for making this etext available to me.

Niśvāsa(tattvasaṃhitā) NAK 1-277; London, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, San-
skrit MS Indic delta 4⒈ Etext by Dominic Goodall, Peter Bisschop, Diwakar Acharya, and Nirajan
Kafle. Mūla(sūtra), Naya(sūtra) and Uttara(sūtra) edited by D. Goodall and A. Sanderson. Preceded
by the Mukhāgama and followed by the Guhya(sūtra). See also Goodall and Isaacson 200⒎ Unpub-
lished etext. I am grateful to the editors for making this etext available to me.

Netratantra, with a commentary (-uddyota) by Kṣemarāja. Ed. V.V. Dvivedi. Delhi: Parimal Publi-
cations, 198⒌ Etext based on the KSTS edition, MIRI.

Brahmayāmala NAK Ms. No. 3-370. Typed in, with numerous editorial remarks, by Shaman Hat-

18
ley, revised by Csaba Kiss. Dra edition of the first 49 chapters by Csaba Kiss. Unpublished etexts.
I am grateful to the editors for making their etexts available to me.

Mahābhārata ed. V.S. Sukthankar (1927-43) and S.K. Belvalkar (om 1943) with Shrimant Bal-
asaheb Pant Pratinidhi, R.N. Dandekar, S.K. De, F. Edgerton, A.B. Gajendragadkar, P.V. Kane,
R.D. Karmakar, V.G. Paranjpe, Raghu Vira, V.K. Rajavade, N.B. Utgikar, P.L. Vaidya, V.P. Vaidya,
H.D. Velankar, M. Winternitz, R. Zimmerman et al. 19 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, 1927-195⒐ Etext based on Muneo Tokunaga’s version, revised by John D. Smith, available
on Gretil.

Mālinīvijayottaratantra ed. Acharya Krishnanand Sagar. Varanasi: Krishnānand Sāgar, 198⒌ (1st
ed. Madhusūdan Kaul, Bombay, 192⒉ KSTS n. 37) Etext by Somdev Vasudeva available on Gretil
and MIRI.

Mṛgendrāgama Kriyāpāda et Caryāpāda avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. Ed. N.R.

Bhatt. Publication de l’IFI No. 2⒊ Pondichéry: IFI, 196⒉ Etext by Dominic Goodall.

Vīṇāśikha. Vīṇāśikhatantra: A Śaiva Tantra of the Left Current Ed. and trsl. T. Goudriaan. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 198⒌ Etext of the edited Sanskrit text by Somdev Vasudeva available on Gretil.

Siddhayogeśvarīmata edition based on NAK Ms.No.5-2403 and on ms 5465 (G) of the Asiatic So-
ciety of Bengal, Calcutta. See Törzsök, 1999 and Törzsök, forthcoming.

Somaśambhupaddhati vols 1 and ⒊ ed. H. Brunner. Pondicherry: IFI, 1963, 197⒎

Svacchanda : Svacchandatantra, with the commentary -uddyota by Kṣemarāja. 2 vols. Ed. Dvivedi,
V.V. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 198⒌ Etext based on the original KSTS edition, MIRI.

Secondary literature
Bakker, H. (1999). “Review of Doris Meth Srinivasan. Many Heads, Arms and Eyes. Origin, Mean-
ing and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art. E.J. Brill, Leiden/ New York/ Köln 199⒎” Artibus Asiae
5⒏3-4 (1999): 339-4⒊

Bakker, H. (2002). “Sources for reconstructing ancient forms of Śiva worship” In: Les sources et
le temps Ed. F. Grimal. Pondicherry: IFI. pp. 397-4⒚

Goodall, D. (2009). Lectures on the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā at the École Pratique des Hautes Études,
Paris. (Unpublished.)

Goodall, D. and Isaacson, H. (2007). “Workshop on the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā: the Earliest Sur-
viving Śaiva Tantra?” Newsletter of the NGMCP 3 (Jan-Febr. 2007): 4-⒍

Hanneder, J. (1998). Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Revelation Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

19
Hatley, S. (2007). The Brahmayāmala and Early Śaiva Cult of Yoginīs Unpublished thesis. Uni-
versity of Pennsylania, Philadelphia.

Kreisel, G. (1986). Die Śiva-Bildwerke der Mathurā-Kunst Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Sanderson, A. (1988). “Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions” In: The World’s Religions Ed. S. Suther-
land, L. Houlden, P. Clarke and F. Hardy. London: Routledge. pp. 660-70⒋

Sanderson, A. (2002). “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarā-
tra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras” Les sources et le temps Ed. F. Grimal. Pondicherry: IFI. pp. 1-4⒎

Sanderson, A. (2004). “Religion and the State : Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the Brahmanical
Royal Chaplain (with an appendix on the provenance and date of the Netratantra)” Indo-Iranian
Journal 47 (2004): 229-300.

Sanderson, A. (2006). “The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between Pāñcārthika
Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism” Indian Philosphical Annual 24 (2006): 143-2⒘

Sanderson, A. (2009). “The Śaiva Age — The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early
Medieval Period” In: Genesis and Development of Tantrism Ed. S. Einoo. Tokyo: Institute of Orien-
tal Culture, University of Tokyo. pp. 8-34⒐

Sharma, B. N. (1976). Iconography of Sadāśiva New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.

Srinivasan, D. M. (1997). Many Heads, Arms and Eyes. Origin, Meaning and Form of Multiplic-
ity in Indian Art Leiden/ New York/ Köln: E.J. Brill.

Törzsök, J. (1999). The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits — A critical edition of selected chapters of
the Siddhayogeśvarīmata(tantra) with annotated translation and analysis. Unpublished DPhil thesis,
University of Oxford.

Törzsök, J. (2007). “Search in the śaiva scriptures for meaning in tantric ritual” In: Mélanges
tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner Ed. D. Goodall and A. Padoux. Pondicherry: IFP pp.
485-5⒗

Törzsök, J. forthcoming. The Teaching of Yoginīs. A critical edition of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata with an
introduction and annotated translation.

20