Indo-Iranian Journal  () – brill.

nl/iij

Once Again on the Identity of

Candeśvara in Early Śaivism:
˙˙
A rare Candeśvara in the British Museum?*
˙˙

Peter Bisschop
Leiden University
email: p.c.bisschop@hum.leidenuniv.nl

Abstract
The figure of Candeśa (Candeśvara) in early Śaivism has been the subject of two
recent studies by˙ ˙Diwakar˙ Acharya
˙ and Dominic Goodall. The present article
proposes to identify a sculpture in the British Museum, hitherto identified as
Lakulı̄śa, as representing Candeśvara. Attention is drawn to the iconographical
˙˙
similarities to a Śaiva deity depicted on the Cālukya shrines of Mahākūta and
Pattadakal. A passage from the lay Śivadharma proves crucial in understanding ˙ the
˙˙
identity of Candeśvara in early Śaivism, which leads to a renewed consideration of
˙ ˙ in the final line of the Mathurā Pillar Inscription of Candragupta.
the deity invoked
Finally the Śivadharma’s descriptions of two other Ganas, Bhrṅgiriti and Vināyaka
˙
(Ganeśa), are briefly analyzed in the light of the significant ˙fact that
˙ both Ganas
˙
are referred to as ‘son of Rudra’. ˙
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, .

Keywords
Candeśvara; Candeśa; Lakulı̄śa; Rudra-Śiva; iconography; Śaivism; Śaiva Siddhān-
ta; ˙Pāśupata;
˙ ˙˙
Śivadharma; Skandapurāna; British Museum; Mahākūta; Pattadakal;
˙
Mathurā Pillar Inscription of Candragupta; ˙ ˙ ne-
˙˙ Ga
Bhrṅgiriti; Andhaka; Vināyaka;
śa; Ganas ˙ ˙ ˙
˙

*) The present paper was written as part of the research project ‘Early Śaiva Mythology: A

study of the formative period of an integrated religious vision’, a collaboration between Peter
Bisschop and Harunaga Isaacson (Hamburg), kindly funded by a three year grant of the
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG). I would like to thank Hans Bakker and Harunaga Isaacson for their comments upon
an earlier version of this paper.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,  DOI: 10.1163/001972410X517274
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

Introduction
The South Asia collection of the British Museum contains an intriguing
sculpture, which has been identified as an image of Lakulı̄śa (Fig. ).1 The
present paper grew out of an attempt to answer some of the questions
raised by this unique sculpture. My interpretation has been inspired by
a recent illuminating study on the deity Candeśa by Dominic Goodall
(). Candeśa has usually been regarded as ˙a ˙Śaiva Siddhānta deity and
is a famous˙ ˙model-devotee in Tamil Śaivism, but as Goodall shows, the
figure has an earlier non-Saiddhāntika origin. After discussing a number of
images, he concludes that “other sorts of images of Candeśas may well come
to light” (Goodall : ). I tentatively propose to ˙ ˙identify the British
Museum sculpture, which it should be mentioned is different from all of
those discussed by Goodall, as a representation of Candeśa / Candeśvara
‘the Fierce Lord’. This leads me to a reconsideration of the ˙ ˙earliest evidence
˙˙
for the worship and identity of this enigmatic deity. A passage from the lay
Śivadharma is particularly relevant for the interpretation of the sculpture.
I end with a few notes on Vināyaka and Bhrṅgin, two other Gana deities
mentioned in the same passage of the Śivadharma.˙ ˙
The British Museum sculpture’s place of origin is not known, but it most
probably comes from Central / North India, and may be dated to about the
th century on stylistic grounds. It is made of sandstone and shows a male,
two-armed deity, standing upon the back of a reclining figure, who seems to
be female. The iconographic features of the main deity are as follows: he has
a third eye on his forehead, is possessed of extended earlobes with earrings,
has a three-row necklace, wears the sacred thread upon his shoulder, and is
ithyphallic (ūrdhvaretas). In his right hand he has a rosary (aksamālā) and in
˙
his left hand an axe (paraśu / taṅka). The latter attribute is severely broken,
but closer inspection leaves no˙ doubt about its identity. Another significant
attribute is the small dagger placed on the right side of his body. The deity

1) Further photographs and details can be found on the British Museum’s collections

online (www.britishmuseum.org), from which I draw the following information: “Height:

 millimetres; width:  millimetres; depth:  millimetres; estimated weight: 
kilograms (estimated weight). Acquired in , funded by Brooke Sewell Permanent
Fund, purchased from Spink & Son Ltd. Exhibition History:  July– November, :
Barcelona, CaixaForum, L’Escultura en els Temples Indis. L’Art de Devocio; ‘Masterpieces
of Buddhist and Hindu Sculpture from the BM’, Kyoto National Museum / Tobu museum,
Tokyo.  /  / .” I am grateful to Michael Willis (British Museum) for first drawing
my attention to the sculpture.
Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

Fig. , Śaiva deity, British Museum, no. ,..

Photo courtesy of the British Museum.
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

is flanked by two āyudhapurusas, who both have a third eye as well. The one
˙ his hair bound into a jatāmukuta, while the
to the right side of the deity has
˙ that of
hair of the one to his left is somewhat similar in style to ˙ the central
deity. Their hands are placed in a reverential position (añjalimudrā) and a
trident (triśūla) appears above their heads, marking them as triśūlapurusas.
˙

Similarities: Mahākūta and Pattadakal

˙ ˙˙ ˙
The composition as a whole is unique, but some elements may be fruitfully
compared with other sculptures. Most importantly, the central deity is
clearly related to a similar Śaiva deity appearing on the Cālukya shrines at
Mahākūta and Pattadakal in Karnataka. Fig.  shows the most famous one,
˙ side ˙of
on the south ˙ Saṅgameśvara temple in Pattadakal. This sculpture
˙ the
˙˙ ˙
is usually identified as Lakulı̄śa, for example by Huntington in The Art of
Ancient India:

A Pāśupata sect dedication is suggested by the representation of Lakulı̄śa,

naked and with an erect liṅga, contained in the central niche on the south
side of the sanctuary. (Huntington : ).

Although it is easy to see how this identification could come about, namely
on account of his nudity and the erect liṅga, I have serious doubts, because
the distinctive attribute that the god holds in his left hand is an axe and not
a club, as is the case in the British Museum sculpture.2 On the other hand,
Huntington is probably right when she detects a northern influence:

Standing atop a dwarf, the figure exhibits the grace and quietude that is often
mistakenly said to have died out after the Gupta period. Probably, the style of
the figure reflects northern traditions, as does the form of the temple itself.
(Huntington : ).

2) While Huntington refrains from identifying the attribute in the god’s left hand, Michell
(: ) mistakenly takes it to be a club, allowing him to identify it as Lakulı̄śa. The same
identity is proposed for other, similar sculptures at other temples at Pattadakal (Michell
: , , , , ). It is probably because of such identifications ˙ the image
˙˙ that
features on the front cover of Oberhammer , a book dedicated to the Pāśupata ‘spir-
ituality’ of the Nyāya thinker Bhāsarvajña. Cf. also Parlier-Renault (: –), who
likewise identifies this form as Lakulı̄śa, but who goes so far as to argue that the axe is one
of his characteristic attributes: “Lakulı̄śa ainsi été identifié en raison de sa nudité plus ou
moins complète et de son caractère ithyphallique, absent des autres formes Śivaïtes cālukya.
Le fait qu’il possède seulement deux bras et la présence de la hache dans une de ses mains
constituent des indices d’identification.”
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

Fig. , Śaiva deity, Pattadakal. Photo courtesy of Michael Willis.

˙˙ ˙

This observation is relevant in connection with the sculpture in the

British Museum, because it shows a similar iconography, even though
it is the only known surviving example from North India. The shared
similarities are numerous: the sculpture at Mahākūta is two-armed, has
˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

the third eye, bears the sacred thread, holds the axe in his left hand, is
ithyphallic and stands on top of a crouching dwarfish figure.3 On the other
hand, it does not seem to bear the rosary in his right hand, nor could I
detect a rosary on any of the other images from Mahākūta and Pattadakal,4
while the small dagger is also absent. The main difference ˙ ˙˙ ˙ the
concerns
pair of triśūlapurusas that accompany this axe-bearing deity in the British
Museum. Although ˙ such triśūlapurusas are perhaps slightly rarer than the
familiar āyudhapurusas of Visnu, they ˙ are certainly not unknown.5
˙ ˙˙

The Axe-bearing Candeśvara

˙˙
So who is the central axe-bearing deity? First of all, I think we can dismiss
the identification of Lakulı̄śa, because Lakulı̄śa, as his name already indi-
cates, bears a club (lakula) and not an axe (paraśu / taṅka). That he bears
a strong resemblance to him in his nudity, the erect˙ liṅga and his human
aspect is undeniable and a Pāśupata connection is as such quite conceivable.
The attribute of the axe, however, rather points in the direction of the Śaiva
deity Candeśa / Candeśvara, which has been put into new light recently by
Goodall ˙().
˙ ˙ ˙ of the main findings of his study is that, contrary to
One
what has long been supposed, Candeśa is not exclusively a Śaiva Siddhānta
deity from the Tamil-speaking South ˙ ˙ of India, but has a more complex his-
torical origin, independent from Śaiva Siddhānta and not confined to Tamil
Nadu. This again has a bearing on the interpretation of images of Lakulı̄śa,

3) In contrast to the figure on the British Museum sculpture the figure at the bottom does
not show feminine features.
4) For some published examples, see Parlier-Renault : figures , ,  and . I

could identify a number of such sculptures in a private collection of photographs of the sites
of Pattadakal and Mahākūta kindly shared with me by Dominic Goodall.
˙
5) As˙˙reported by Agrawala ˙ () and Joshi (), a handful of post-Gupta examples
of triśūlapurusas survive from the North. I am grateful to Péter-Daniel Szántó for making
these articles˙available to me. Some of the sculptures reported by Agrawala only hold a
trident in their hand, which does not fully correspond to the āyudhapurusa iconography,
but Agrawala also refers to three examples of āyudhapurusas which instead ˙show the top of
a trident appearing above their head. Agrawala refers to˙ a sculpture at the State Museum
at Lucknow (AC-), one at the Municipal Museum at Allahabad (H-), and a panel
from Khilchipura near Mandasor. All three are dated to the post-Gupta period and are
attendant figures placed alongside a main form of Śiva. To these examples may be added
a th century Harihara sculpture from Kashmir, which intriguingly has the same kind of
small dagger on his right side as the British Museum sculpture (Fisher , pl. ), and a
number of Pallava- and Cālukya-period watchmen which may represent triśūlapurusas as
well. Cf. Goodall : , who refers to Lockwood et al. :  ff. ˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

for given the potential for confusion between the two, as is convincingly
shown by Goodall,6 some of the images so far identified as Lakulı̄śa may in
fact represent Candeśa instead. A possible Gupta candidate is a loose image
from Nāchnā in ˙Madhya
˙ Pradesh, which Joanna Williams in her The Art
of Gupta India identifies as Lakulı̄śa, but for which, given that his main
attribute is clearly an axe and not a club, an identification of Candeśa may
be more appropriate.7 ˙˙
The identification of the Mahākūta and Pattadakal images with Candeśa
may seem more problematic, because ˙ of Ca ˙ ˙ in
˙˙n˙deśa’s specific function
˙ ˙
temples. He is the one to whom the nirmālya is offered after the worship
of the central Śiva-liṅga and he has a small shrine on his own to the North
East of the central liṅga for this purpose.8 The axe-bearing deities on the
temples of Mahākūta and Pattadakal, by contrast, are located on the south
wall of the main shrine.˙ This ˙
˙˙ discrepancy can be explained, however, by
the fact that Candeśa’s association with the North East was not fixed from
the beginning.9 ˙On ˙ the other hand, the attribute of the axe is an ancient
attribute of Candeśa, mentioned already in the original Skandapurāna and
˙ ˙ and as such one that deserves to be taken seriously.
the Niśvāsamūla, ˙ 10
Additional support for the identification of the British Museum sculp-
ture with Candeśa comes from the attribute of the rosary, which is pre-
˙ ˙ in many four-armed visualisations of Candeśa.11 A pas-
scribed and found
sage in the Pratisthālaksanasārasamuccaya (.) provides a˙description
˙ of
˙˙ ˙ ˙
a two-armed Candeśvara, who bears an axe and a rosary:
˙˙

6) Cf. also Acharya  and af Edholm .

7) Williams : , pl. . For another photograph of the same image, see the Amer-
ican Institute of Indian Studies photo archive online, acc. no. . Bakker (: ),
who discusses the image in connection with an image from Mandhal which he provision-
ally identifies as ‘Ganādhyaksa’ (plates V and VI), also dismisses the Lakulı̄śa identification,
˙
without however considering ˙ the possibility that it might represent Candeśa.
8) Cf. Goodall : –. As a rule he is shown in a seated position ˙˙ in sculptures
from South India. Standing, ithyphallic representations of Candeśa placed to the South
East (rather than the North East) of the central liṅga are known,˙ ˙however, from Nepal: cf.
Goodall : , with plates A–D.
9) Cf. Goodall : –: “No association with any particular direction is evident from

the earliest Siddhānta-tantras, namely the Niśvāsatattvasamhitā, the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṅ-

˙ (which appear not to mention
graha, the -verse and -verse recensions of the Kālottara
Candeśa at all), in the chapters surviving from the Rauravasūtrasaṅgraha, or in the surviving
˙˙
fragments of the Pauskara-Pārameśvaratantra.”
10) Cf. Goodall : ˙ .
11) Cf. Goodall :  ff.
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

śvetas tryakso dvibāhuś ca jatı̄ taṅkāksamālikah|

pracando da ˙ ndadhārı̄ ca kāryaś
˙ ˙ candeśvaro
˙ ˙
mahān||
˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙
“Candeśvara should be made white, three-eyed, two-armed, with matted locks
and ˙bearing
˙ an axe / chisel / dagger (taṅka) and a rosary; and [alternatively] (ca)
[he may be made] big, fierce, wielding˙ a club / stick.” (Goodall : ).12

Candeśvara in the Śivadharma

˙˙
Recently I have come across another description, arguably more important
because it occurs in an early non-Śaiva Siddhānta source, namely the lay
Śivadharmaśāstra. The passage forms part of chapter  of the Śivadharma,
which contains an extensive propitiation (śānti) of a host of divine and
semi-divine beings to counter various kinds of evils. Following the propi-
tiation of respectively Maheśvara, Umā, Kārttikeya, Vināyaka, Mahākāla,
Ambikā Mātr, Mahisāsuramardinı̄ and Bhrṅgiriti, Candeśa is addressed in
the following˙ words:˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙

pracandaganasainyeśo mahātaṅkāksadhārakah|
˙˙ ˙
aksamālārpitakaras tryaksaś˙ candeśvaro
˙ ˙ ||
varah||
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
b °taṅkāksa°] KN, °taksa° C (unmetr.) c °karas] K, °kara NC d tryaksaś candeś-
˙varo] KN,
˙ tryak˙saca˙ndośvaro C ˙ ˙˙
˙ ˙˙
candapāpāpaharano brahmahatyādiśodhanah|
˙ ˙ me mahāyogı̄
karotu ˙ kalyānānām paramparām|| ˙ ||
˙ ˙
a °pāpāpaharano] N, °pāpāpahārano C (unmetr.), °pāpāpraharano K, b brah-
˙
mahatyādiśodhana ˙
h] KN, brahmatyādiśodhanam C (unmetr.) ˙d kalyānānām
˙
paramparām] KN, kalyānamparamampadam C ˙ ˙
˙
The fierce lord of the troops of Ganas, who holds a great shaft(?) of an axe,
˙
whose hand is fixed to the rosary, three-eyed, the eminent Candeśvara, remover
of fierce crimes, who purifies from killing a brahmin and the˙like,˙ let the Great
Yogin prepare a succession of fortunes for me!

These two verses are important for a number of reasons. First of all, the
description of Candeśvara given here closely matches the iconography of
the British Museum ˙ ˙ sculpture: a fierce figure, three-eyed, holding an axe
and a rosary, while the final reference to Candeśvara as a great yogin may
account for the figure’s nudity and the erect ˙liṅga.
˙ The latter attributes are
precisely the two characteristics that have given rise to the, in my opinion,

12) Description accompanying P  in Goodall .

 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

mistaken identification of the figure with Lakulı̄śa, another great yogin.

The Mahāyogin epithet is not known from other sources, but it may well
hint at a possible origin of Candeśa among early Pāśupata groups.13
The first epithet, ‘fierce lord˙ ˙of the troops of Ganas’ (pracandaganasain-
˙
yeśo),14 calls to mind a passage from the original Skandapurā na˙(SP
˙ ˙.),
Bh
˙
where Candeśvara is likewise described as general of Śiva’s army of Ganas:
˙˙ ˙
candeśvaraś candavapur mahātmā jvalatpradı̄ptograkuthārapānih|
˙˙
vyādāya vaktra˙ m
˙ puratah sthito ’bhūd devasya śambho˙h pramathendravı̄ra
˙ ˙ h||
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
“The great-souled, fierce-bodied Candeśvara was standing there in front with
open mouth, a flaming, bright, fierce˙ ˙axe in his hand, the hero-prince of Lord
Śambhu’s hosts.” (Goodall : ).

Alhough Candeśa’s main function in later Śaiva Siddhānta consists in the

˙ ˙ nirmālya, a passage from the Mūlasūtra of the Niśvāsatattva-
receiving of the
samhitā, the earliest of Śaiva tantric scriptures, suggests that his initial role
˙ that of chastiser of transgressions, one of which is eating the nirmālya.15
was
The present passage confirms but also extends this role in that it suggests
that, in a lay environment, Candeśvara was responsible for chastising—here
˙˙
positively conceived of as purifying—crimes in general. This includes such
major crimes as killing a brahmin (brahmahatyā).16

Excursus: The Mathurā Pillar Inscription

The Śivadharma passage may also shed new light on one of the most impor-
tant inscriptions for the history of early Śaivism: the Mathurā Pillar Inscrip-
tion of Candragupta, dated [Gupta] Samvat  = CE .17 As Diwakar
˙
13) Diwakar Acharya has suggested that “Canda was a pre-Lakulı̄śa deity accepted in all
˙˙
schools of the Pāśupatas. Afterwards he was downgraded to a minor deity but remained
in Śaiva temples as one of Śiva’s ganas” (Acharya : ). There is, however, no cor-
˙
roborating evidence for this from Pāśupata scriptures themselves. Cf. also Goodall :
–.
14) Or alternatively: ‘lord of the troops of fierce Ganas’.
15) Cf. Goodall : –. ˙
16) Cf. also the āyatana Drimicandeśvara mentioned in SP ., which, if my identifica-

tion with the site of Drmitı̄rtha in ˙ ˙MBh ..– is correct (Bisschop : ), points
in a similar direction. ˙For the tı̄rtha described in the Mahābhārata is specifically associated
with the purification of sins. See MBh .. tatra snātvārcayitvā ca rudram devaganair
vrtam janmaprabhrti pāpāni krtāni nudate narah|| and MBh .. jitvā yatra˙ mahāprājña˙
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
visnunā prabhavisnunā purā śaucam krtam rājan hatvā daivatakantakān||.
˙˙ Bhandarkar ˙;
17) ˙ Sircar :˙ –.
˙ ˙ ˙˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

Acharya has argued in this journal, the reading dandah conjectured by

˙ ˙ possibly
Bhandarkar in the final line of the inscription should ˙ be read as
candah:
˙˙ ˙
jayati ca bhagavā[ñ candah] rudradando [’]gra[nā]yako nitya[m] 18
˙˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙
And always victorious is Lord Canda, he whose punishment is severe,19 the
foremost leader [of the Ganas]. ˙ ˙
˙
Acharya proposes to identify this deity Canda with our Candeśa. This iden-
˙˙
tification is not without problems, most notably ˙ ˙figure does not
because the
seem to be holding an axe (Candeśa’s characteristic attribute) but a stick.
As Goodall observes, following˙ ˙a suggestion by Hans Bakker, the figure
may be “rather a personified āyudhapurusa representing Rudra’s weapon,
the stick” (Goodall : ). On the other ˙ hand, such an āyudhapurusa
is not known otherwise, and one could counter that the iconography ˙of
Candeśa may not have been fixed at the time. In this connection, it is rel-
˙ ˙ to note that the stick (danda) is in fact included in the iconography
evant
of Candeśa in the passage from˙ ˙the Pratisthālaksanasārasamuccaya (.)
quoted˙ ˙above. Perhaps the Mathurā inscription
˙˙ ˙rather
˙ points to the origin
of Candeśa as a representation of Rudra’s wrath symbolized by the danda.
˙˙
Although the evidence is thus not conclusive, the two verses from˙ ˙the
Śivadharma could lend additional strength to Acharya’s argument, for prior
to the invocation of Canda the Mathurā inscription has the following
warning to possible future˙ ˙desecrators of the memorial object:

yaś ca kı̄rtyabhidroham kuryy[ā]d ya[ś cā]bhilikhita[m upa]rry adho vā [sa]

˙
pamcabhir mah[ā]pātakair upapātakaiś ca samyuktas syāt (ll. –)
˙ ˙
And the one who damages the memorial, and the engraving above or below,
he will be afflicted by the five major and the minor sins.

18) Acharya : . It should be mentioned though that, as Hans Bakker has pointed
out, even with this correction, the reading remains doubtful, because it is an unmetrical half-
line of an āryā: a short syllable is needed before rudradando to restore the metre. Moreover
the sandhi is incorrect. The addition of a syllable sa would˙ ˙ be a solution and I follow this
suggestion in the translation above. On the other hand, the assumption that it is an āryā is
not unproblematic: see Goodall : , n. .
19) In Bisschop forthc. I have taken rudradanda as a tatpurusa compound (‘he who is the

rod of Rudra’), but Hans Bakker has convinced ˙ ˙ me that a bahuvrı̄hi

˙ interpretation is more
natural, although I do not think that Acharya’s translation “holder of the terrifying staff”
fully captures the meaning.
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

Now as the Śivadharma passage makes clear, Candeśvara was a chastiser

of crimes, including such major sins as the killing˙of ˙ a brahmin. As such
it would be entirely apposite to invoke him, ‘whose punishment is severe’
(rudradanda), following a warning about the desecration of the memorial,
˙˙
a major offence indeed. Moreover, the second epithet given in the inscrip-
tion, viz. ‘foremost leader’ (agranāyaka), also fits in well with the description
of Candeśvara in the Śivadharma, for there we saw him being invoked as
˙ ˙ lord of the troops of Ganas’ (pracandaganasainyeśa).
‘the fierce
˙ ˙˙ ˙

On Bhrṅgiriti and Vināyaka in the Śivadharma

˙ ˙
The Śivadharma passage is important also because it proves beyond doubt
that Candeśa started off as a non-Saiddhāntika deity before developing into
˙˙
the nirmālya-consuming deity of Śaiva Siddhānta.20 The Śivadharmaśāstra,
the earliest of the texts that make up the lay Śivadharma corpus, has been
dated very early since it shows no tantric influence; R.C. Hazra dates it
“between  and  ” (: ), although this early dating remains
to be confirmed. In this connection, it may be relevant to take a closer
look at the immediate context of the passage. As mentioned earlier, the
description of Candeśa occurs following the invocation of eight other
deities: Maheśvara,˙ Umā,
˙ Kārttikeya, Vināyaka, Mahākāla, Ambikā Mātr,
Mahisāsuramardinı̄ and Bhrṅgiriti. This opening sequence of deities in ˙
˙ ˙ ˙
chapter six of the Śivadharmaśāstra calls to mind the set of eight Ganeśas
in Śaiva Siddhānta scriptures: ˙

Variations in the order and form of the names occur; essentially they appear to
be Śiva’s Paurānika household: his wife (Umā), sons (Gajavaktra and Skanda),
mount (Vrsa), ˙watchmen (Nandin and Mahākāla), and close devotees (Abala /
Bhrṅgin and˙˙ Canda). (Brunner et al. , s.v. ganapati, ganeśa.)
˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙
If we leave out Ambikā Mātr and Mahisāsuramardinı̄, both forms of the
Goddess, and add Vrsa, the Bull˙ identified˙ with Dharma, who is mentioned
after Candeśvara in˙˙the Śivadharma, we have essentially the same set of
˙ ˙ It is quite conceivable that the Śaiva Siddhānta tradition drew
eight deities.
upon a list like this to establish the more rigid set of eight Ganeśas. The
˙

20) Goodall : , n. , notes the occurrence of the name Candeśvara in a half-line
˙˙
at the beginning of the ninth chapter (bhrṅgi-mātr-mahākāla-candeśvara-ga nādhipaih), but
does not discuss the present passage. ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

list is telling because it links Candeśvara to the close circle of Śiva, and this
indicates his prominent position˙ ˙in the early tradition.21
The Śivadharma has important information to add about some of the
other deities as well, in particular about Vināyaka and Bhrṅgin and their
family relation to Śiva. While it comes as no surprise to hear ˙ that Skanda
has “sprung from a portion of the Krttikās, Umā, Agni and Rudra” (ŚiDh
.ac: krttikomāgnirudrāmśasamudbhūta ˙ h), it is more remarkable to find
Vināyaka, ˙ as well as Bhrṅgiri
˙ ti, being referred
˙ to as “son of Rudra” (ŚiDh
˙
.a: rudrasya tanayo, ŚiDh ˙.a: rudrātmajo).
To begin with Vināyaka / Ganeśa, his birth-story is relatively late, and he
is not yet regarded as Śiva and˙ Pārvatı̄’s child in the demonstrably early
Purānas, such as the original Skandapurāna and the Vāyupurāna: “[a]s
˙
numerous studies on Ganeśa have shown, ˙this god is a relative late-comer
˙
˙
in mythology, even if his cult and image may be dated from around the
fourth century of the common era” (Törzsök : ). This is, to the best
of my knowledge, the earliest literary reference to Vināyaka as Śiva’s son.22
As for Bhrṅgiriti / Bhrṅgin, the situation is even less clear. I am not aware
˙ to˙ this ˙Gana before the Skandapurāna.23 There he appears
of any reference
˙ ˙

21) Cf. also Sanderson  / : , n. , for two Khmer inscriptions recording Cande-

śvara’s installation alongside, respectively, a Ganeśa, a Liṅga and the Grahas (K. , v.˙ ˙),
and Ganeśa, Nandin and Mahākāla (K. b, vs. ˙ ).
˙ (: , n. ) draws attention to the depiction of Ganeśa accompanied by
22) Törzsök

Śiva and Kumāra in Dunhuang, on the western wall of Mogaoku Cave ˙ , which may be
dated to the beginning of the sixth century. In Yājñavalkyasmrti .ab Ambikā is referred
to as Vināyaka’s mother: vināyakasya jananı̄m upatisthet tato ˙’mbikām (cf. Rocher : ,
with n. ). According to the same text Vināyaka was ˙˙ appointed as leader of the Ganas by
Rudra and Brahmā: vināyakah karmavighnasiddhyartham viniyojitah ganānām ādhipatye ˙ ca
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
rudrena brahmanā tathā|| (Yājñavalkyasmrti .). The date of this part of the text is open
˙
to discussion (cf.˙ Lingat : ). Bāna’s˙ Candı̄śataka (Quackenbos ) contains three
˙
references to Ganeśa. In Candı̄śataka  Gajamukha ˙˙ is listed among Candı̄’s attendants
together with Nandin ˙ ˙˙
and Mahākāla, in vs.  he is addressed by Kārttikeya,˙ ˙while in vs. 
he is mentioned alongside Kārttikeya. The two latter references seem to suggest that he was
regarded as Kārttikeya’s brother by Bāna’s time (th c.), although this is not made explicit
in the text. ˙
23) He is absent in the Niśvāsamūla, the oldest part of the Niśvāsatattvasamhitā corpus,

but significantly his name appears in the later Niśvāsaguhya, where he is listed ˙ alongside
Devı̄, Skanda, Bahurūpa and Vrsabha: dvitı̄ye caiva pañcāṅgair devı̄m skandam tathaiva ca|
[[vi]] … bahurūpam vrsabham bh ˙˙ rṅgim eva ca|| (NiGu .). The ˙missing syllables
˙ in the
˙ ˙˙ hide
unmetrical pāda c perhaps ˙ vināyaka
˙ m; the identity of Bahurūpa is obscure. Two verses
later he appears again in a list of seven ˙Ganas: devı̄ skandañ ca vighneśam nandi kāpālı̄m
eva ca| vrsabham caiva bhrṅgiñ ca saptaite tu˙ prakı̄rtitāh|| (NiGu .). The ˙ latter verse is
˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
also quoted by Goodall : , n. , in connection with the relative lateness of the
Niśvāsaguhya compared to the Niśvāsamūla.
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

in the account of the Tripura battle (SPBh ) as one of the Ganeśas that
˙
fight the Daityas, along with Nandı̄śa, Candeśvara, Vināyaka, Vı̄rabhadra
˙ ˙
and Śaṅkukarna. His fight with the demon lord Vidyutprabha is described
˙ words:
in the following

vivyādha bhrṅgim daśabhih prsatkair vidyutprabhah kopaviraktanetrah|

˙ ˙ śilı̄mukhās
bhrṅgim samāsādya ˙ ˙˙ te nāśaknuvams tasya˙ rujam prakartum|| ˙ ||
˙ ˙
vidyutprabha ˙
m bhrṅgiritis tato ’sau śūlena dı̄ptena jaghāna˙ prsthe|
sa tena śūlena˙ hato˙ jaghūr
˙ na tyaktvā ca bhrṅgim prayayau24 ˙bhayārta
˙˙ h|| ||
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
Vidyutprabha, his eyes reddened with anger, pierced Bhrṅgi with ten arrows.
˙ him. He, Bhrṅgi-
The arrows, [however,] upon hitting Bhrṅgi, could not hurt
˙ ˙
riti, thereupon struck Vidyutprabha in the back with a blazing spear. Struck
˙
by that spear he was shaken and he left in fear, fleeing away from Bhrṅgi.
˙
It is impossible to tell from this passage whether Bhrṅgiriti already has the
hallmark skeleton form which he acquired in later ˙literature
˙ and iconog-
raphy, although it may be significant that it is said that the arrows cannot
break him (due to the hardness of his bones?). The Śivadharmaśāstra again
seems to provide the earliest evidence:

nirmāmsena śarı̄rena snāyvasthisunibandhanah|

˙ ’tivikrāntas
atisūksmo ˙ tryakso bhrngiritir mahān||
˙ ||
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
b °sunibandhanah] CN, °bhrṅganidhvanih K d bhrṅgiritir] KN, bhiṅgiritir C
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
rudrātmajo mahāvı̄ryo rudraikagatamānasah|
˙ ||
so ’pi me śāntabhāvena śāntim āśu prayacchatu||
a °vı̄ryo] K, °vı̄ro CN b rudraikagata°] CK, rudraikāhita° N
He who is fully composed of sinews and bones, with a body without flesh,
very emaciated, very mighty, three-eyed, the great Bhrṅgiriti, the son of Rudra,
of great power, who is singularly devoted to Rudra,˙ may ˙he, with a tranquil
disposition, quickly bestow peace upon me.

The Skandapurāna contains no account of his birth, but according to the

Vāmanapurāna ˙Bhrṅgin is indeed Śiva’s ‘son’, for Bhrṅgin is none other
than the demon ˙
˙ Andhaka, who turns into a Gana, after ˙he has been dried up
˙ and has become all skin
by the fire of Bhairava for a thousand divine years
and bone (VmP ., .). Andhaka, as the Skandapurāna also narrates,
˙
was produced when Pārvatı̄ covered Śiva’s eyes in jest. Although Andhaka
is not called Bhrṅgin in the Skandapurāna, in this text also Andhaka is
˙ ˙
24) Bhattarāı̄ reads prayayayau (typo).
˙˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

granted Gana-hood, after he has sung a hymn of praise to Śiva-Bhairava.

˙
The words introducing this hymn are telling, for Andhaka is said to have
been reduced to sinews and bones (snāyvasthiśesa), the same words used in
˙ body.25
the Śivadharma to describe Bhrṅgiriti’s emaciated
˙ ˙
In Vidyākara’s Subhāsitaratnakośa we encounter a very different expla-
nation for Bhrṅgiriti’s ˙emaciated body. In the words of the Pāla poet
˙ rendering
Yogeśvara, in the ˙ by Daniel H.H. Ingalls (: ):

“If he is naked what need then has he of the bow?

If armed with bow then why the holy ashes?
If smeared with ashes what needs he with a woman?
Or if with her, then how can he hate Love?”
Poor Bhrṅgin, seeing his master’s contradictions,
˙ his body till there’s nothing left
has worried
but the hard bones
knotted with tough sinew.

Conclusion
The development of the figure of Bhrṅgiriti within Śaivism requires a
more substantial treatment than I can˙ offer˙ at the moment, so to con-
clude I return to the British Museum sculpture. Is it a representation of
Candeśvara? To go by the description given of Candeśvara in the Śivadhar-
ma,˙ there
˙ can be little doubt, although one should˙ be ˙ careful to distinguish
between this early Candeśvara and the later Śaiva Siddhānta Candeśa, who
has a clearly identified˙role, ˙˙
˙ iconography and place in Śaiva Siddhānta tem-
ple ritual. One potential problem remains, however, namely that the deity
is flanked by two triśūlāyudhapurusas. Their presence suggests that we are
˙
in fact looking at a form of Śiva himself. Phyllis Granoff has shown in a
series of recent studies that it is not always clear in early Śaivism whether
we are dealing with Śiva or with a Gana of his, and some Ganas have under-
gone a process of identification with ˙Śiva, whereby in the end˙ Śiva takes on
attributes, characteristics and stories originally associated with other charac-

25) SPBh .cd: snāyvasthiśesas tustāva devam candrārdhamaulinam|. Cf. also Haracarita-
cintāmani .cd–ab: iti var ˙ sasahasrānte
˙˙ śu˙ skasnāyvasthibandhanāt|
˙ andhakād vacanam
˙ ˙ ˙
śrutvā prasannah śambhur abravı̄t|. In the next chapter of the HCC the Gana Bhrṅgiriti, the ˙
former Andhaka, ˙ fails to pay respect to his mother Pārvatı̄, only considering˙ Śiva
˙ to ˙be his
master. For a general study of the relation between Andhaka and Bhrṅgin, see Handelman
& Shulman . ˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

ters.26 The British Museum sculpture in a way confronts us with this ambi-
guity, suggesting that Candeśa is in fact Śiva or, as some Śaiva Siddhānta
texts have it, the wrathful˙form
˙ of the Lord.27

References
Acharya, Diwakar () ‘The Role of Canda in the Early History of the Pāśupata
Cult and the Image on the Mathurā Pillar ˙ ˙ dated Gupta Year ’, Indo-Iranian
Journal : –.
Agrawala, R.C. () ‘Triśūla Purusa in Indian Sculpture’, Indian Historical
Quarterly : –. ˙
Bhandarkar, D.R. () ‘Mathura Pillar Inscription of Chandragupta II: G.E.
’, Epigraphia Indica XXI: –.
Bisschop, Peter (forthc.) ‘Śaivism in the Gupta-Vākātaka Age’, submitted to Jour-
nal of the Royal Asiatic Society. ˙
Brunner, H., G. Oberhammer, and A. Padoux (eds.) () Tāntrikābhidhānakośa
II. Dictionaire des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique. Beiträge
zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens . Wien.
af Edholm, Erik () ‘The Lakulı̄śa of Arittapatti’, in: Peter Schalk (ed.), “Being
˙˙ in˙˙Religious Iconography and Iconol-
Religious and Living through the Eyes”. Studies
ogy. A Celebratory Publication in Honour of Professor Jan Bergman (Uppsala),
pp. –.
Fisher, Robert E. () ‘Later Stone Sculpture (ninth-twelfth centuries)’, in: Prat-
apaditya Pal (ed.), Art and Architecture of Ancient Kashmir (Bombay), pp. –
.
Goodall, Dominic () ‘Who is Candeśa?’, in: Shingo Einoo (ed.), Genesis and
Development of Tantrism (Tokyo), pp. ˙ ˙ –.
Granoff, Phyllis () ‘Mahākāla’s Journey: From Gana to God’, Rivista degli
Studi Orientalia LXXVII: –. ˙
———, () ‘Śiva and his Ganas: Techniques of Narrative Distancing in Purānic
˙
Stories’, in: Madhusudan Mishra, Raghunath Panda (eds.), Voice of the Orient. ˙
A Tribute to Prof. Upendranath Dahl (Delhi), pp. –.
Handelman, Don, and David Shulman () God Inside Out. Śiva’s Game of Dice.
Oxford / New York.
Haracaritacintāmani ((HCC)) The Haracaritacintāmani by Rājānaka Jayaratha,
˙ and Kāśı̄nāth Pāndurang Parab.˙ Kāvyamālā . Bombay
edit. by Śivadatta
. ˙˙
Hazra, R.C. () ‘The Śiva-dharmottara’, Purāna : –. [= Journal of the
Ganganatha Jha Research Institute  (–): ˙ –.]
———, () ‘The Śiva-dharma’, Purāna : –. [= Journal of the Gan-
˙
ganatha Jha Research Institute  (–): –.

26) Cf. Granoff  and .

27) For this interpretation, see Goodall : –.
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () –

Huntington, Susan () The Art of Ancient India. Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, with
contributions by John C. Huntington. New York / Tokyo.
Ingalls, Daniel H.H. () Sanskrit Poetry from Vidyākara’s “Treasury”. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts.
Joshi, N.P. () ‘A Note on Triśūla-Purusha’, Journal of the U.P. Historical Society
VIII, part II: –.
Lingat, Robert () Les sources du droit dans le système traditionnel de l’Inde. Paris.
Lockwood, Michael, et al. () Pallava Art. Madras.
Mahābhārata ((MBh)) The Mahābhārata. For the first time critically edited by
V.S. Sukthankar and others. Poona –.  vols.
Michell, George () Pattadakal, with photographs by Jeffery Gorbeck. New
Delhi.
Niśvāsatattvasamhitā Transcription of the Niśvāsatattvasamhitā, from the palm-leaf
Nepalese MS ˙ No. –, NGMPP A  /  supplemented ˙ with readings from
its Kathmandu apograph MS No. –, NGMPP A  / , by Dominic
Goodall. [Includes the Niśvāsamukha, Niśvāsamūla, Niśvāsottara, Niśvāsanaya
and Niśvāsaguhya].
Oberhammer, Gerhard () Wahrheit und Transzendenz. Ein Beiträg zur Spiri-
tualität des Nyāya. Wien.
Parlier-Renault, Édith () Temples de l’Inde méridionale (vie–viiie siècles). La mise
en scène des mythes. Paris.
Quackenbos, George Payn () The Sanskrit Poems of Mayūra. Edited with a
Translation and Notes and an Introduction together with the Text and Translation
of Bāna’s Candı̄śataka. New York.
Rocher,˙Ludo ˙()˙ ‘Ganeśa’s Rise to Prominence’, in: Robert L. Brown (ed.),
Ganesh. Studies of an Asian ˙ God (New York), pp. –.
Sanderson, Alexis ( / ) ‘The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers’, Bulletin de
l'École Française d’Extr^eme-Orient –, pp. –.
Śivadharma Paśupatimatam Śivadharmamahāśāstram Paśupatināthadarśanam. ed.
Yogin Naraharinātha. Kathmandu  (samvat ). [N]
———, Śivadharma. Cambridge University Library, ˙ MS Add. . Palm-leaf, early
Newari script. Dated [Newari] samvat  (= CE ). [C]
———, Śivadharma. National Archives, ˙ Kathmandu, NGMPP B  / . Palm-leaf,
early Newari script. [K]
Skandapurāna ((SP IIA)) The Skandapurāna. Volume IIA. Adhyāyas –.. The
Vārānası̄˙ Cycle. Critical Edition with an˙ Introduction, English Synopsis & Philo-
logical˙ and Historical Commentary by Hans T. Bakker & Harunaga Isaacson.
Supplement to Groningen Oriental Studies. Groningen .
———, (SPBh) Skandapurānasya Ambikākhandah, sampādakah Krsnaprasāda Bhat-
˙
tarāı̄. Mahendraratnagranthamālā ˙˙ ˙
. Kathmandu ˙ . ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙
˙
Sircar, Dines Chandra () Select Inscriptions bearing on Indian History and
Civilization. Volume . From the Sixth Century bc to the Sixth Century A.D.
Calcutta.
Törzsök, Judit () ‘Three Chapters of Śaiva Material Added to the Earliest
Known Recension of the Skandapurāna’, in: Hans T. Bakker (ed.), Origin and
˙
 Peter Bisschop / Indo-Iranian Journal  () – 

Growth of the Purānic Text Corpus. With Special Reference to the Skandapurāna.
Papers of the th ˙World Sanskrit Conference Vol. .. Delhi, pp. –. ˙
Vāmanapurāna ((VmP)) The Vāmana Purāna. Critically edited by Anand Swarup
˙
Gupta. All-India ˙ .
Kashiraj Trust. Varanasi
Williams, Joanna () The Art of Gupta India. Empire and Province. Princeton.
Yājñavalkyasmrti ((YājS)) Yājñavalkyasmrti [with the] Tı̄kā [of ] Aparārka, [edit.
˙
by] Hari Nārāya ˙
na Āpte. Ananda Ashrama ˙
Sanskrit Series . [Poona] .
˙ ˙