Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God 

MAH Â K Â LA’S JOURNEY : FROM GA N A TO GOD

i. Introduction
Scholars have long recognized that the Šiva of classical Hinduism is a
composite deity, who owes different facets of his identity to the various
“others” he absorbed in the course of his development.
It has been a greater
challenge to trace with any precision the process by which the classical Šiva
with his celebrated myths came into being. Šaiva purânas like the Šivapurâna
or the well-known Skandapurâna are late medieval texts and offer us the fully
formed Šiva mythology that we also know from medieval sculpture and the
Âgamas that describe the various forms of Šiva.  Šiva is not the major god
of either epic, the Mahâbhârata with the Harivamša or the Râmâyana, and only
a few of the many Šaiva myths that make up the later corpus even seem
known to the epics.  Early Šaiva art can also be tantalizingly mysterious; to
give one example, while scholars want to identify the stocky figures from
Mandhal with heads all over them as Šiva, at best one has to admit that if
these are early sculptures of Šiva, they are forms that were never continued
once the cult was well established.  There are similar problems with the
iconography and identity of some of the earliest lin.gas, the interpretation
of which has been based on late sources that clearly show the hands of the
theologian-systematizer.  Even the identification as Śiva of the figure on
Kushan coins who stands with a bull, sometimes four-armed, sometimes two-
armed, occasionally multi-headed, has recently been called into question. 

. Among the many discussions I would cite the classic study by Ernst Arbman, Rudra: Untersuchungen
zum altindischen Glauben und Kultus, Uppsala,
 and the article by Giuseppe Tucci, Oriental Notes II An
Image of a Devî Discovered in Swat and Some Connected Problems, «East and West»,
.-,
 pp.
-
.
. An excellent survey of these forms and the stories that lie behind them can be found in the articles
by Marguerite Adiceam, published in Arts Asiatiques. For a full bibliography see Stella Kramrisch, The
Presence of Šiva, Princeton, Princeton University Press,

.
. These include parts of the myth I discuss here, the destruction of the triple cities or Tripurântaka
and the destruction of Dak”a’s sacrifice. The destruction of Andhaka is alluded to in the Mahâbhârata,
but the story is not told there. I have written about the gradual development of the corpus of Šaiva
mythology in two earlier papers. The first, “Śiva and his Ganas: Techniques of Narrative Distancing in
Purânic Stories”, delivered at a conference on Pre-Kushan Art at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, ,
and “Saving the Saviour: Śiva and the Vai”nava Avatâras in the Early Skandapurâna”, paper written for
the International Sanskrit Conference, Helsinki, . Both papers are to be published in the proceedings
of the conferences.
. For illustrations see Hans Bakker, The Vâkâøakas, Groningen, Egbert Forsten,
, plates
and .
. See Hans Bakker’s review of Doris Srinivasan, Many Heads, Arms and Eyes, Origin, Meaning and Form
of Multiplicity in Indian Art, Leiden: E. J. Brill, «Artibus Asiae», LVIII /,
, pp. - and my
“Reading Between the Lines: Colliding Attitudes Towards Image Worship in Indian Texts” to be
published in a volume edited by Gilles Tarabout and Gérard Colas.
. Katsumi Tanabe, Oesho: Another Kushan Wind God, «Silk Road Art and Archaeology», 

/

 pp. -
. Frantz Gernet, The Second of Three Encounters Between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism:
Plastic Influences in Bactria and Sogdiana nd-th c. A.D., «Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay»,
 Phyllis Granoff []

There thus seems to be an undeniable gap between the art and purânas of
the medieval period and what came before.
The existence of an earlier version of the Skandapurâna, which I will call
“the early Skandapurâna”, I would argue, allows us to bridge some of this gap.
It transmits many of the standard stories of classical Šaiva mythology, but
in a slightly different form and allows us at least hypothetically to trace the
steps by which some of the individual stories of Šiva came into being. It also
helps us to identify the specific figures who would contribute to the classical
Šiva’s complex personality. Many of these are ganas, devotees of Šiva elevated
to a semi-divine status. I focus in this paper on two particular ganas, Nîla-
lohita, “The blue-and-red-One”, and Mahâkâla/Kâlabhairava. While Mahâkâ-
la is well known as a fierce form of Šiva who was widely worshipped in
medieval India, Nîlalohita seems to have lost his importance and identity at
a relatively early period as he merged with Šiva. In fact, in the particular story
I will study here, the account of Šiva’s cutting off the fifth head of Brahman,
Nîlalohita becomes identified with both Šiva and Mahâkâla. It is this process
of absorption and identification that I try to recover in the discussion that
follows. 

ii. The Decapitation of Brahman

With rare exception, the story of Šiva decapitating Brahman’s fifth head is
associated with a particular holy place. In most cases, this is the tîrtha known
as Kapâlamocana, “Getting rid of the skull”, in Vârânasî.  The story was also
associated with the Mahâkâlavana of Ujjain.
 In the Vâmanapurâna saromâhât-

, Special Issue James Damestater Memorial Lectures, pp. 
-, sees in the god Oesho a synthesis
of the Iranian god of wind and Šiva. The consensus seems to be that while the name given the god on
these coins cannot be derived from any epithet of Śiva, the iconography of the god clearly points to
his identity as Šiva. The best discussion of early Śiva lingas is still Gerd Kreisel, Die Śiva-Bildwerke der
Mathurâ-Kunst: ein Beitrag zur Frühhinduistischen Ikonographie, Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag,
.
. I thank Hans Bakker for making me aware of this text and its importance. The text was edited by
Krsnaprasâda Bhaøøarâî, Katmandu, Mahendrasamskrtavišvavidyâlaya,
. I thank Dr. Albrecht Wezler
for providing me with a copy. A critical edition of the text is being prepared by Dr. Bakker and his group
in Groningen. The first volume was published by Egbert Forsten in
, edited by R. Adriaensen, H.
T. Bakker, and H. Isaacson.
. Heinrich von Stietencron, Bhairava, «Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft»,
,
, pp. -
, has studied several versions of the story that is the subject of this paper. He did not
examine the early Skandapurâna. On the basis of his examination of some of the purânic texts, Stietencron
concludes that the myth of Bhairava as the destroyer of the fifth head of Brahman and the one who
impaled Visnu’s doorkeeper (brahmaśirs.achedaka and kankâlamûrti) developed around the th c. A.D.
and became extremely popular in the

th and
th centuries. I will argue here for a more gradual
development of the story in a process of absorption of gana-like figures into a greater Śiva cult,
something that Stietencron does not discuss in his article, which focuses more on the meaning of the
myth and its importance to the medieval philosophical tradition, topics I do not consider here.
. This is the case for example in the Skandapurâna .
.; .
.
; Vâmanapurâna ; Matsyapurâna
;
Kurmapurâna, .
.

. Skandapurâna .
-.
[] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God 

mya  Brahman’s head falls off because he lusts for his daughter, and it is
Brahman who goes to a holy place, here Sthânu tîrtha, where he worships
Šiva and then leaves the head there to be worshipped. This short passage tells
us that the story of Brahman losing his head was variously told and that it
was not always associated with either Vârânasî or Ujjain. This suggests that
the story may have had a very complex history. The account in the early
Skandapurâna confirms this suspicion and it is worth recounting in some
detail.

A. The decapitation of Brahman in the early Skandapurâna

The story of cutting off Brahman’s fifth head is told here in the context of
the account of Brahman’s creating the world. This is the usual context for
the story in the purânas. In chapter , we find Brahman busy at his work of
creating creatures. Somehow things are not going well and Brahman resorts
to austerities to gain the strength that he needs to create the world (-). Hara,
Lord of the Gods, Lord of the Bhûtas, is pleased with him, and filling the
world with his blazing splendor, displaying the universe on his body, he
approaches Brahman and offers him a boon. Brahman thinks to himself that
he would like Šambhu to be his son so that he could accomplish his task of
creating the world (). The highest lord divines the wish of Brahman and
thinks him to be a fool (). He tells him,
Since you desire me, your father, to be your son, in accordance with my
command you will have a son who looks exactly like me. ()
Fool, Rudra, the chief of my ganas, having taken on a body and become your
son, will teach you a lesson ().


Brahman then makes a sacrifice, hoping to gain a child, but he is exhausted
and hot, and he wipes his forehead with his hand that held the wood for the
fire. A drop of sweat falls from his forehead into the fire. The text tells us that
this was in fact the tejas, which I take here as the fiery splendour or even the
semen, of Mahešvara that Mahešvara had put into Brahman. At that instant
Maheša remembers what he has promised Brahman and sends the leader of
his ganas, Rudra, who immediately appears there (
). The glowing power
that has come from the drop of sweat touches the fire and turns red; it then
turns dark again. This is why the gana becomes known as Nîlalohita, “the
blue- and- red- one” (
). He has three eyes and ten arms. Brahman praises

. In the critical edition:

âgatam pitaram mâ tvam yasmât putram samîhase/
manmûrtis tanayas tasmâd bhavisyati mamâjñayâ//
sa ca te putratâm yâtvâ madîyo gananâyakah/
rudro vigrahavân bhûtvâ mûàha tvâm vinayisyati//
 Phyllis Granoff []

him with the names of Šiva (Šarva and other names) and as having as his
bodies the various elements, water, etc., just as Šiva is said to have. Brahman
then proceeds to create the world.
This story of the birth seems to conflate two different stories: the Rudra
named Nîlalohita is both born from the seed of Šiva and he is someone other
than Šiva, a gana whom Šiva has sent to chastise Brahman. The lineage of
the birth from Brahman is clear; it reaches back into the Brâhmana stories
of the birth of Rudra from Prajâpati, for example in the Šatapatha Brâhmana,
.
.; the second theme, that the future chastiser of Brahman is not Šiva, but
his gana, I would like to argue is a hallmark of the early Šaiva mythology
represented in the early Skanda Purâna.

The story resumes in chapter , in answer to the question of how the river
Sarasvatî came to flow on earth. The sages who asked this are told by Vâyu
that it is a long story and goes back to the time when Brahman was creating
the world. Brahman had finished his work and was surveying the creatures
he had created with great satisfaction. Indeed, he was so puffed up with pride
that he decided that there was no one his equal in all the universe and
certainly no one who surpassed him ( ). As he is patting himself on the back,
Yajña, or Sacrifice, appears on the scene and chastises him, warning him that
this overweening pride of his will lead to his destruction (). Yajña, however,
seems to suffer from the same flaw and he begins to boast that he is the
creator of the universe. The Vedas then join in the fracas and insist that in
fact both Brahman and Yajña are deluded; it is Rudra, the Omnipresent one,
the Greatest God, who is the creator of the universe (-). When Brahman
still refuses to admit defeat, a huge sound is heard and a circle of light appears
in the heavens. It drops to the earth and then ascends once more, bobbing
between the sky and the earth (-).
 Because he cannot see it when it is

. For an analysis of some of the stories in the Brâhmanas see Joachim Deppert, Rudra’s Geburt:
Untersuchung zum Inzest in der Mythologie des Brâhmanas, Wiesbaden, Fritz Steiner Verlag,
.

. This passage is differently interpreted by the editors of the text in their summary p.. In fact it
closely resembles visionary appearances of gods in the epics. There is a sound and then a mass of light
in the midst of which the form of the god materializes. The apparition descends from heaven onto the
ground. For example, in the Harivamša 
,  Indra appears in the court at Dvârakâ to ask Krsna to kill
Naraka. He appears as a blaze of light which then reveals him riding on his elephant
tatah kilakilâšabdah prabhâjâlâbhisamvrtah/
muhûrtam antarîkse ‘bhût tato bhûmau pratisthitah//
madhye tu tejasas tasya pânàuram gajam âsthitah/
vrto devaganaih sarvair vâsavah pratyadršyata.//
“Then there was heard a sound, accompanied by a vision of light extending everywhere. For a second
it was there in the sky, but then it settled on the ground. In the midst of that light Indra could be seen,
surrounded by all the gods, seated on a white elephant.” The difficulty in the present passage is that the
disk of light, the manàala, is neuter while the pronoun for what is descending is masculine. Nonetheless,
it is clear that in verse  the apparition is referred to in the masculine: caturbhir na viyatstham tam apašyat
sa pitâmahah//
[] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God 

above him, Brahman sprouts a fifth head (). The figure in the light cuts off
this fifth head with the nails of his left hand. Momentarily stunned, Brahman
revives and praises the Great God in that circle of light. Pleased with the
praise, the God gives him divine sight. This enables Brahman to see a mass
of light in a chariot (-). He hears a voice that tells him that it was the Lord
of Ganas, Nîlalohita, who cut off Brahman’s head in obedience to Šiva’s
command (). Brahman insists that he wants the Lord of the World to carry
his head (
), but the Lord of the World (Bhuvanešvara) is equally adamant:
it is Nîlalohita, who looks exactly like him, who will carry the skull. With
that, the God of Gods vanishes ().

In the next chapter, we learn how Nîlalohita carried the skull in obedience
to the command of the Highest Lord (
) and went begging, first to Nârâyana
and then in chapter  to Brahman. He does not kill the door-keeper of Visnu,
as in some of the later versions. By the time we reach chapter , the actor
is no longer Nîlalohita but the Lord of the Universe himself. This reinforces
the suggestion of the editors that much of this chapter is an interpolation.
We shall see as we examine other versions that actors become conflated,
something I take as evidence of the process of absorption and assimilation
that eventually gave rise to the Šiva of medieval religion. In this chapter 
we finally learn how Sarasvatî originated from the sound the Lord made, and
that the Lord eventually deposited the skull on the ground, an act which
caused great consternation to all the beings living nearby. In fact, it roused
a demon Hâlâhala to come rushing to the attack. This Hâlâhala has the form
of a buffalo. The leader of the ganas rallies his troops and they pierce the
demon through with a spear (
-). The text does not specify exactly where
this all took place, beyond noting that the place came to be known both as
the cemetery, šmašâna, and as kašmîra. The main holy place is a lake known
as “Mahâkapâla” , the great skull (
). The editors note that given the close
relationship of this chapter to the Âvantyakhanàa of the later Skandapurâna,
.
-, it may well have been Ujjain.
 At least it seems clear that this passage
in the early Skandapurâna was the source of the story that was later associated
with Ujjain in the fully developed text of that name.


. Vijñaptim brahmanah šrutvâ provâca bhuvanešvarah/

sa eva sutasamjñas te manmûrtir nîlalohitah/
širašchetsyati yajñasya bibhartsyati širašca te//

. Summary, p.  note 
.

. Yuko Yokichi, in a paper delivered at the XII International Sanskrit Conference in Helsinki, July,
, “The Relationship Between the Skandapurâna and the Âvantyakhanàa” has carefully traced the
parallels between the two versions for chapter , the chapter that deals with the killing of the demon
and the establishment of the holy site. While her arguments that the Âvantyakhanàa borrowed heavily
in this section from a version of the early Skandapurâna are convincing, I would like to suggest that
chapter  of the early Skandapurâna itself shows evidence that it is most likely borrowing from another
text. There is a well-known story which involves the killing of a demon from whose body more demons

 Phyllis Granoff []

There are many features of this account that one could fruitfully investi-
gate. For the present study there is no question that the most significant
feature is its insistence that the one who cuts off the head of Brahman and
carries it around on his begging rounds is not the Lord of the Universe (whom
we may call Šiva); it is also not Mahâkâla or Kâla or Bhairava or Kâlabhairava
of all the later accounts.
 The main character in the story is rather the chief
of the ganas, a being named Nîlalohita. The term nîlalohita will appear now
and then in later texts as an adjective modifying Šiva; it can also appear as
an adjective referring to a demon.
 The colors blue and red are associated
with Rudra/the Rudras from an early period. In the Taittirîyasamhitâ Rudra
is said to be blue-necked (nîlagrîva) and red (vilohita).
 Atharvaveda .. is
a hymn for victory that mentions both Bhava and Šarva, names elsewhere
associated with Šiva. In this hymn, the petitioner aims to defeat his enemies
by means of the blue- and –red one (nîlalohitena). In the context of the ritual
this refers to a blue and red thread, wound around an Ašvattha branch. The
colors blue and red thus clearly have associations with warding off evil and
sorcery.
Nîlalohita as an independent entity is unfortunately a shadowy figure

emerge, Šiva’s summoning the mothers to eat the body of the demon, and himself assuming a horrific
form to join them and/or to terrify the demon, and finally Brahman’s coming on the scene to sanctify
the site, the basic elements of the early Skandapurâna chapter . This is the story of Šiva’s fight with
the demon Jalandhara, told for example in the Padmapurâna Uttarakhanàa .
. Moreover, Jalandhara is
connected with a celebrated tantric pîøha. I would like to suggest that story of killing a demon and corpse-
eating mothers belongs more naturally in this tantric Kâpâlika environment, where it was told to account
for the sanctity of a holy site. It is somewhat clumsily adapted into the early Skandapurâna chapter ,
leaving some obvious gaps in plot. In the early Skandapurâna, for example, it is not at all clear why Šiva
has a hideous form, since it is his ganas who dispatch the demon hordes; there is also no connection
between the corpse-eating mothers and the skull that would explain their being called the “mothers of
the skull.” I understand these gaps to indicate that the early Skandapurâna is borrowing parts of the story
from elsewhere, but in doing so has left out crucial details that gave the original story its organic unity
as a story. Other examples of Kâpâlika influence would be the Bhairava festival I discuss in the next note.

. This text does know of a holy site associated with Bhairava in its chapter on tîrthas,
.-
. In
addition, some manuscripts contain a section on a festival associated with Bhairava and a goddess born
from Pârvatî that has not yet been published. See the comments of the editors of the critical edition
p. . The section has been excerpted in the
th century Krtyakalpataru of Bhaøøa Laksmîdhara, vol. iii
Niyatakâlakânàa, edited by K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series no. cxi, Baroda, Baroda
Oriental Institute,
, pp. 
-
. In the story Mahâbhairava comes from the sexual desire of Šiva and
Pârvatî. The festival is characterized by licentious behavior and vulgarity. It is worth noting that it is
closest in its nature to another festival described in the same text in a citation from the Brahmapurâna
that begins on p. . This enjoins the worship of Nikumbha. The festival to Nikumbha is described in
some detail in the Nîlamatapurâna, edited by K. De Vreese, Leiden, E.J. Brill
, pp. -. Nikumbha
is said to be the lord of the pišâcas. Like Bhairava, Nikumbha’s retinue possess people until they bathe
(p. , vs. ). Judit Törzsök, in her paper at the Helsinki conference, “Three Chapters of Šaiva material
added to the earliest known recension of the Skandapurâna” discusses the Bhairava festival in the R and
A recensions of the text. As she explains, the R recension exists in a single manuscript dated
, while
the A version exists in four manuscripts of an even later date. Törzsök has shown that some form of
R must have existed before

 A.D. since Laksmîdhara knows the text in his Krtyakalpataru.

. In the Ekâmrapurâna, ., the demon is said to be nîlalohita. The text is edited by Upendra Nath
Dhal, Delhi, Nag Publishers,
.
[] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God


compared to many of the other ganas in the early Skandapurâna, whose

existence is well known from other written sources and from the archaeo-
logical record. He figures among the lists of Rudras in the Mahâbhârata and
some of the purânas. Thus in the Mahâbhârata
.
.
 Nîlalohita is said to
be the foremost of the Rudras, while in the Lingapurâna I.  -
, he is
named in the list of the

Rudras.
There is evidence that already by the time
the text represented by our critical edition of the Mahâbhârata was in exist-
ence, that is, just before the northern and southern recensions diverged from
each other, perhaps in the th century A.D., Nîlalohita was being assimilated
to a god of greater importance, whom we know as the classical Šiva.  This
has clearly taken place by the time of the Anušâsanaparvan. There, in a eulogy
to Šiva attributed to the sage named Tanàin, Šiva is described as the one
whom Brahman chose as his son, the one who was named Nîlalohita. 
In a possibly earlier section of the epic, Nîlalohita appears to be associated
with Šiva but still different from him. In the Dronaparvan VII., Krsna and
Arjuna are taught to use Šiva’s bow and arrow by Nîlalohita. As the chapter
opens, Arjuna is despondent because he has made a vow to kill Jayadratha
by the very next day but fears he will not succeed. Krsna comes to him in
a dream and tells him that he needs to know the Pâšupata weapon. Arjuna
then sees himself ascending into the heavens along with Krsna. On a magic
mountain he finds Šiva practicing austerities; Šiva is with his wife and
surrounded by a host of ganas. He holds a spear (šûla) and a bow and arrow
and has matted locks. His body is covered with a thousand eyes (-).  Šiva
asks Arjuna and Krsna why they have come and in response they praise him.
Among the epithets are the two familiar ones, nîlagrîva and vilohita (
). Šiva
explains to Krsna and Arjuna that his weapons are in a wondrous lake and
they must go there. The two find the lake and first subdue two nâgas there.
As they recite the Šatarudrîya, the nâgas turn into Šiva’s bow and arrow (-
). Arjuna and Krsna then take the magic weapons and bring them to Šiva.

. Taittirîyasamhitâ, ..
, ed. Kâšînâtha Šâstrî et.al, Ânandâšrama Sanskrit Series ,
, p. 

.
. William Dwight Whitney, Atharva-veda Samhitâ, vol. ii, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,
, pp. -
.

. Lingapurâna, ed. J.L. Shastri, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,
.
. On this date see the comments in James W. Laine, Visions of God: Narratives of Theophany in the
Mahâbhârata, Vienna,
 Publications of the De Nobili Research Library vol xvi, p. .
. Anušâsanaparvan xiii.
.
evam prajâpatih pûrvam ârâdhya bahubhih stavaih/
varayâm âsa putratve nîlalohitasamjñitam//
“And Prajâpati in the past worshipped him with many hymns of praise and chose that one, who was
named Nîlalohita, for his son.”
. It is worth noting that this epithet, most often associated with Indra, hints at a close connection
between the stories of Indra and the developing Šaiva mythology. Indra is also associated with the sin
of brahmahatyâ, or slaying a Brahmin, the very sin incurred by Šiva in our stories. Indra’s sin comes form
killing Vrtra. See Mahâbhârata, xii. .

 Phyllis Granoff []

At that point, an ascetic figure emerges from Šiva’s flank; he is described as

yellow-eyed, “the mighty Nîlalohita” . This Nîlalohita takes the bow and
arrow from them and demonstrates their use. He then returns both bow and
arrow to the lake. Šiva is eventually pleased with Arjuna and gives him the
terrible Pâšupata weapon (). No more is said of Nîlalohita. Nîlakanøha adds
a gloss on this passage, saying that Nîlalohita is another form of the Lord
(Nîlalohitah bhagavato ’parâ tanuh).  While this was surely the case long
before Nîlakanøha’s time, it is less clear in this passage. Here at most we can
say that Nîlalohita is a figure produced by Šiva, distinct from him in both
appearance and function. In the standard purânic sources, “Nîlalohita” most
often appears as a name of Šiva. 
As we turn to later versions of the decapitation of Brahman, we need to
keep in mind that the act is attributed in the early Skandapurâna to this
Nîlalohita, about whom we know so little. The early Skandapurâna has Šiva
explicitly deny either that he is the one who cut off the fifth head of Brahman
or that he is the one who carries it around as a begging bowl. That these two
deeds would come to be explicitly associated with particular forms of Šiva
is clear in the subsequent versions.

B. The decapitation of Brahman in the Skandapurâna ..

(Brahmakhanàa, Setumâhâtmya)
In many ways this version may be considered typical of the fully developed
story of the decapitation of Brahman. While the story retains traces of an
earlier version in which the protagonist was Nîlalohita, the action is shifted
to a new figure, Kâlabhairava. The story is also connected with Vârânasî,
where the sin of Brahminicide finally leaves Kâlabhairava and the skull drops
from his hand. Here is a summary of the story.
As the story begins, Brahman and Visnu are arguing over who is greater.
This is clearly a variant of the argument between Brahman and the sacrifice
in the early Skandapurâna; Visnu is frequently identified with the sacrifice (
-


). As in that version, too, the Vedas intervene and proclaim that Šiva is the
greatest god (
-). Neither Brahman nor Visnu accepts this, but then
Brahman sees a mass of light spreading out over the entire universe. In order
to see it better, he sprouts a fifth head and the fifth head blazes up in anger

. Shriman Mahâbhâratam, Part IV VII. Dronaparvan with Bharata Bhawadeepa by Nîlakanøha, edited by
Pandit Ramchandrashastri Kinjawadekar, Poona, Shankar Narhar Joshi,

, p.


on 
.
.
. For example in the Matsya Purāna, .
 (ed. ãnāndāšrama Series, , Poona,

); Vâyu Purâna
uttarārdha, .

(Delhi, Nāg Publishers,
). In Vâyu . nîlalohita is an attribute of one of Brahman’s
sons, abhimânātmakam bhadram. The situation in the early Skanda Purāna is not without its own
complications. In a later section of the text, chapter ., nîlalohita seems to be regarded as a form of
Šiva, a form in which he is capable of being seen.
[] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God


(-
). From within that mass of light appears Nîlalohita, exactly as he had
in the earlier account (). Brahman treats this apparition with contempt,
saying that he knows who he is. He is none other than the Rudra who was
born from Brahman’s forehead.  Mahešvara, hearing these haughty words,
is outraged and sends a creature known as Kâlabhairava (). Kâlabhairava and
Brahman fight for a long time, until Kâlabhairava plucks off Brahman’s fifth
head (). Brahman dies, which accounts for the fact that Kâlabhairava has
incurred brahmahatyâ, or the sin of killing a Brahmin, which he must expiate
by his pilgrimage to Benaras. This is a new motif in the story, as is the
appearance of Kâlabhairava. The death is soon reversed; Mahešvara revives
Brahman, who begs for forgiveness. Mahešvara is pleased with Brahman,
whom the text calls his offspring (born from a part of him svâmšajâya ).
In somewhat of an about face, Mahešvara chastises Kâlabhairava and tells
him that in order to expiate his sin of Brahminicide he must beg with the
skull as his begging bowl. Mahešvara sends a hideous female figure, the
personification of his sin, to follow him as he wanders. He further tells
Kâlabhairava to go to Vârânasî to expiate his sin (). When he is finished with
his speech, Mahešvara/Šiva withdraws to Kailâsa, leaving Kâlabhairava to
wander on his begging round (). Only a part of his sin leaves him in Benaras;
the rest finally withdraws on Mt Gandhamâdana (). Here he meets Šiva,
who further tells him to leave the skull in Benaras. This becomes the tîrtha
known as the Kapâlatîrtha or holy place of the skull (). Kâlabhairava, whose
origins are not described in this account, is said to be born from a part of
Šamkara, Šamkarâmšaja (
).
It seems obvious that this story is a development of the earlier version from
the early Skandapurâna. It retains the vision of Nîlalohita to the squabbling
Visnu and Brahman, but gives Nîlalohita no further role in the story. A new
aggressor has taken his place, Kâlabhairava. Kâlabhairava is clearly different
from Šiva, although he is brought into a close relationship with Šiva when
the text tells us that he was born from a part of Šiva. We shall see that like
Nîlalohita, Kâla or Kâlabhairava also probably had his own independent
existence as a minor figure in Šiva’s retinue. The goal of the story is also
precisely given: the story explains the origins of a holy place in Benaras. The
story is told in a slightly different fashion in the fourth book of the Skan-

. As well shall see below, one of the many strands that contributed to the development of the story
of Brahman’s decapitation is the accounts of the birth of Rudra in the Brâhmanas. For some of these
see Joachim Deppert, Rudras Geburt: Systematische Untersuchungen zum Inzest in der Mythologie der Brâh-
manas, Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag,
. To some extent we may regard the version in the early
Skandapurâna as a rewrite of the stories of Rudra’s birth in the Brâhmanas, making the being who is born
from Brahman not the great god Rudra/Šiva, but the gana Nîlalohita, no more than a minor member
of his retinue. In the present account, the two are beginning to meet. Thus we can explain Mahešvara’s
anger at Brahman’s disparaging comments.

 Phyllis Granoff [
]

dapurâna, the Kâšîkhanàa, and the fifth book, the Âvantyakhanàa. I would like
to consider these next and then return to the questions that all of these
versions raise about the development of the story of someone cutting off
Brahman’s fifth head.

C. The decapitation of Brahman in the Kâšîkhanàa, ..

The story begins with the sage Agastya asking about Bhairava who dwells
in Benaras, what he looks like, what his names are, and what he has done
(
-). Skanda replies with an account of how the gods once approached
Brahman and asked him what was the one principle that underlay the world.
Brahman replies that he is the creator and destroyer of all things (-
). When
the Sacrifice, born from a part of Visnu, hears this, he is nonplussed. He insists
he is the best (
-
). When they cannot convince each other, they ask the
Vedas. The answer is a praise of Šiva. When Brahman and the sacrifice refuse
to accept this, a light appears in the space in between them and a human
figure is visible in the blazing light (-). The fifth head of Brahman glows
with anger, asking who dares to come between them. Looking carefully, he
sees the great being Nîlalohita, holding a trident, having an eye on his
forehead and wearing ornaments of snakes (). Brahman insults him, as in
the version in book .The lord is then so angry at Brahman’s pride that he
creates a terrifying being, purusam bhairavâkrtim (
). Šiva tells Bhairava his
other names and promises him lordship over Kâšî. He then orders him to
punish Brahman (
-). Kâlabhairava cuts off Brahman’s fifth head. Brahman
is chastened and he and Visnu both praise Šiva (). At this Šiva then tells
Bhairava, who is called “his other form”, svâm mûrtim aparâm (
), that he
must honor Brahman and the Sacrifice. Addressing him as Nîlalohita, he tells
him to carry around the skull in order to remove the sin of brahmanicide
and teach the world the proper religious rites ().With that, Šiva disappears,
having fashioned a female figure to follow Bhairava on his begging rounds.
While the story continues, this brief summary suffices for the present
study. This version, at the risk of narrative incoherence, clearly identifies
Nîlalohita, Kâlabhairava (also called Mahâkâla, ) and the highest god, Šiva.
Bhairava is said to be another form of Šiva, and when he encounters Visnu,
it is as the highest god that Visnu praises him. If the versions in book 3 had
added Bhairava to the story, leaving Nîlalohita dangling and Bhairava funda-
mentally separate from Šiva, this version brings all three together. In one
form Šiva vanishes, and in another he proceeds on his begging round to
Benaras. Nîlalohita is both the person in the vision of light and Bhairava,
created by Šiva after that vision has taken place. I would argue that these
narrative “gaps” or “incoherencies” signal to us the amalgamation of several
different stories. I believe that we can trace them in the versions I have
[

] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God


discussed thus far: the early Skandapurâna in which the only actor is simply
a figure called Nîlalohita, who is different from Šiva, and there is no Bhairava
or Mahâkâla; Book 3 in which there is both Nîlalohita and Bhairava, with
Bhairava now taking on Nîlalohita’s role as the decapitator of the fifth head
of Brahman. At this stage, Bhairava and Nîlalohita/Šiva are different; Nîla-
lohita retains his role as the figure who appears in the light, but no longer
has any further role to play. In Book , the version just reviewed, all three
figures are brought together. Bhairava is called Nîlalohita and referred to with
epithets reserved for the highest god, from a part of whom he has been
created. Both these later versions center around Benaras and a holy site of
the skull. There is one more version from the Skandapurâna that I would like
to discuss before I comment on the many factors that may have shaped the
development of all these stories. This is the version associated with Ujjain,
in the Âvantyakhanàa, .
-.

D. The Decapitation of Brahman in the Âvantyakhanàa, .-

The version in the Âvantyakhanàa has a number of distinctive features. Most
obviously, like the version in the early Skandapurâna with which I began this
investigation, it has nothing to do with Benaras. Of all the versions, this is
also closest to the early Skandapurâna in its plot and language.  The story
is set at the time of creation. There is nothing in the universe except the god
Mahâkâla (.
-). Mahâkâla eventually makes an embryo and a golden egg.
The egg cracks open and Brahman emerges. Mahâkâla tells him to create the
living beings and disappears (.). When Brahman is unable to create the
world, he praises Mahâkâla, who remaining invisible, asks him to choose a
boon. Brahman asks Mahâkâla to be his son and in response to this audacious
request, the angry Mahâkâla says that a part of him, mamâmšo, Nîlalohita will
be born as his son and will furthermore reduce his splendor/glory (.). It
is noteworthy that as close as the two versions are, here Nîlalohita is not the
leader of ganas as he was in the early text, but a part of Šiva himself. As the
story continues, the gods are quite taken with this Nîlalohita and worship him
over Brahman; Brahman banishes him to the Himâlayas and off Nîlalohita
goes, to “where the Blessed Bhava was.” (.) Consistent with the earlier
version, the text at this point treats Nîlalohita and Šiva as distinct. What
happens now is somewhat different from the other versions reviewed thus
far. Brahman becomes arrogant, and all the other gods are overcome by his
mighty splendor, particularly the splendor of his fifth head. They take refuge
in Šiva and ask him to do something so that their former splendor is restored.

. See my comments above and the reference to Yuko Yokochi, The Relationship Between the Skandapurâ-
na and the Âvantyakhanàa.

 Phyllis Granoff [
]

(.-). Šiva agrees and goes to see Brahman, who mistakes him, I believe,
for Nîlalohita (they look alike, after all). In any case, the text tells us that
“Brahman did not recognize the highest Lord” (). This prompts the Blessed
One with the Moon in his Locks to pluck off the fifth head of Brahman. 
Brahman is furious at this and creates a hideous being to attack Maheša (.
-
). This is clearly a remake of the story of the origin of Nîlalohita; the
difference, of course, is that here the being created from the sweat of
Brahman’s brow is out to destroy Šiva and not Brahman. The story diverges
here and resembles a version in the Padmapurâna
.
; it becomes a story of
the origin of two of the Mahâbhârata heroes, Karna and Arjuna. Our tale
resumes in chapter , when Šiva, bearing the skull, comes to Kušasthalî. He
leaves the skull there. The earth begins to tremble () and the gods are again
thrown into a state of distress. The gods take dîksâ and worship Šiva. He
appears to them and explains that he left the skull there to frighten away a
demon named Drohana (.).
Although the account continues, this is sufficient for our purposes. It is not
difficult to see that this version in the Âvantyakhanàa has greatly developed
the tale in the early Skandapurâna. Nîlalohita’s function is here subsumed by
Mahâkâla and he is regarded as a part of the greater god. There is also no
connection with either the sin of Brahminicide or Benaras.
A possible reconstruction of the development of the story would posit, I
believe, two different trajectories. One is seen here in the displacement of
Nîlalohita by Mahâkâla, and the localization of the events in Ujjain. This
version is associated with the slaying of demons as well as the decapitation
of Brahman and a holy place connected with his skull. A second may be seen
in the connection of the story with Benaras, sin, and Bhairava. I would
suggest that Bhairava and Mahâkâla were originally different. The version in
the Kâšîkhanàa .
.
examined above takes pains to identify Bhairava and
Mahâkâla; I would argue that the effort indicates that it was required: they
were not originally the same. As I close this discussion, I would like to
speculate on who this Mahâkâla might have been before he came to be

. In fact this version most closely resembles a version of the previous life of Mahešvara preserved
in a late Chinese Buddhist text, Taisho . The gods beg Mahešvara to pluck off the head of Brahman
because they cannot stand his splendor and Šiva takes the form of an eagle and snatches the head. The
gods agree to accept the sin. See Hobogirin, vol. , Iyanaga Nobumi, “Daijizaiten”, p. . This is the only
version of the myth that makes sense of the unusual way in which Šiva or Nîlalohita decapitates
Brahman, by plucking off his head with the nails of his hand. The existence of this version raises an
important question about the relationship between the Buddhist Mahâkâla and the Mahâkâla of Šaiva
mythology, a subject that deserves a full length study that is beyond the scope of this paper. It could
well throw some light on the current controversy over the relationship between Šaiva and Buddhist
tantras in which Mahâkâla figures. N. Iyanaga’s study of Mahâkâla, Daikokuten Henso, Kyoto, Hozokan,
, provides an essential starting point for any further work.
[
] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God


identified with Šiva. I will suggest that there is clear evidence that in the
process by which Mahâkâla, probably a local deity, was absorbed into Šaivism,
he was first made a gana of Šiva and then only later became identified with
Šiva and the object of a major cult. I will also propose that the notion of a
holy site associated with a skull may have had its own complicated history.

iii. Mah Á k Á la
According to the Âvantyakhanàa, Mahâkâla, who is identified with Šiva, the
highest god, the author of creation, was also the local god of Ujjain. That
the Mahâkâla of Ujjain was not in fact always identified with Šiva is clear from
one of the opening stanzas of the Brhatkathâšlokasamgraha in its description
of the city. The text praises the city in these words: 
What more need one say of that city, in which Mahâkâla and the other ganas
choose to reside, having abandoned the city of Šiva.
.
If Šiva is the presiding deity of Ujjain, this verse would lead us to the
conclusion that it is not Šiva as Mahâkâla, but Šiva accompanied by Mahâkâla
who is the patron deity of the city. A reference to Mahâkâla in the commen-
tary on the Pâšupata sûtras by Kaunàinya, dated to sometime between the th
and th centuries, suggests that Mahâkâla was still a gana, rather than the main
deity. He is named along with Nandin, whose role as a gana is well known. 

Similarly, in the Agnipurâna, ., Mahâkâla is named along with Nandîša as
one of the door guardians of the temple.  In the Brahmapurâna, ., a
version of the Parašurâma story, Parašurâma goes to Šiva’s heaven and sees
him there surrounded by his retinue, Kârttikeya, Ganeša, Mahâkâla and
Nandîšvara.  In the Jâlandhara purâna,
.,which is clearly a late text, the
gana Mahâkâla guards the eastern gate of the holy site Jâlandhara.  The
tradition that Mahâkâla was a gana thus leaves its traces well into the period
of the purânas.
There is other evidence from early texts that Mahâkâla was originally a
minor figure, who was taken into the Šaivite pantheon. The Harivamša has
an account of the destruction of the demon Bâna by Krsna. Bâna has the
protection of both Šiva and his son, Kârttikeya (
.). When Krsna is about
to strike him a fatal blow with his discus, Šiva comes to his rescue (

.
).

. Krtam varnanayâ tasyâ yasyâm satatam âsate

mahâkâlaprabhrtayas tyaktvâ šivapuram ganâh
The text is edited by Ram Prakash Poddar, Varanasi: Tara Printing Works,
. According to the
introduction, speculation on the date of the text has ranged from the th to the th century A.D.

. Ed. R. A. Sastri, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series,
. Cited in Marie-Thérèse de Mallmann, Les enseignements iconographiques de l’Agni-purana, Paris,
Presse Universitaires de France,
, p. .
. Ed. Peter Schreiner and Renate Söhnen, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz,
.

 Phyllis Granoff [
]

He explains that he gave Bâna a promise of protection (

.

) Krsna agrees

and withdraws his weapon. Nandin, Šiva’s chief gana, gives Bâna this piece
of advice: “Bâna, Bâna, dance and everything will be fine.” (

.

). Stirred
on by Nandin’s words, his limbs dripping with blood, the terrified Bâna begins
to dance in front of Šiva in an effort to save his own life (

). Šiva takes pity
on him and offers him a boon. The first boon he requests is that he be ageless
and deathless (

.

). It is granted. He is then offered a second boon and asks
that those devotees who dance as he has danced be granted children (

.
).
This too is granted. As a third boon he asks that his wounds be healed. This
boon, too, is granted. As a fourth boon, Bâna requests and is given status as
the chief gana, with the name Mahâkâla (

.
). His final boon is that he
should not have any bodily deformity.
This story suggests that there was a cult to a figure named Mahâkâla and
that he was worshipped with dancing by people who desired children. He is
a converted demon in the story, and one thinks immediately of the host of
demons in the medical texts who are said to cause childhood disease and
miscarriage, or of Skanda and his hordes in the Mahâbhârata,who also afflict
the young and unborn. Malevolent by nature, these beings are propitiated to
grant children and protect them. Like Skanda, the demon Bâna in this story
in the Harivamša is brought into mainstream worship by being incorporated
into the Šaiva fold. In the Harivamša the demon Bâna is brought into Šiva’s
sphere by being made a gana, much as other figures are in the early Skandapurâ-
na.  The story of Bâna becoming Mahâkâla was also known to the texts that
have come to be termed the “Purâna pañcalaksana” texts, and that have been
dated to the th-th centuries.  What is particularly important for the present
study is the subsequent identity as a gana: the demon becomes Mahâkâla.
While we cannot with complete certainty identify this gana named Mahâkâla
with the gana of Ujjain and ultimately the great God of Ujjain, it remains
a working hypothesis that what we see in the story of the decapitation of
Brahman as it progresses from the early Skandapurâna to the Âvantyakhanàa
is the outcome of a process in which the demon-become gana is finally made
the main deity, being identified fully with Šiva. If this argument is correct,

. Jâlandhara purâna, Hindi tr. Prthurâma Šastrî, ed. Sudaršana Vašisøha, Šimalâ, Himâcala Kalâ
Samskrti Bhâsâ Akâdamî, .
. I have written on these figures in my paper on ganas cited earlier and my essay «Images and their
Ritual Use in Medieval India: Hesitations and Contradictions» in Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara,
ed. Images in Asian Religions: Texts and Contexts, Vancouver: University of British Columbia, , pp.
-
.
. Purâna Pañcalaksana, compiled Willibald Kirfel, edited into Devanagari by Dr. Suryakant Shastri,
Varanasi, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office,
, p. 
. On the date of these texts see Hans Bakker,
Construction and Reconstruction of Sacred Space in Vârânasî, «Numen», vol. ,
, p. . The version in
these texts adds that Bâna also came to be like Šiva, sâmyam agamat pinâkinah. While this can mean that
he came to look like Šiva, a common feature of ganas, perhaps in this case it also meant that he came
to have the same status.
[
] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God


then it seems likely that Mahâkâla who ultimately assumed that preeminent
position in Ujjain may well have been some important deity in the Ujjain area,
perhaps associated with the protection of children.
One of the best indications of just when this Mahâkâla might have become
Šiva, and when he was furthermore identified as the one who decapitated
Brahman, is provided by Kâlidâsa’s poetry. Kâlidâsa’s poems tell us that at
least for some people, the Mahâkâla of Ujjain was identified with Šiva by the
th century, the date now generally taken to be the date of Kâlidâsa. The
Meghadûta knows Mahâkâla as the lord of Canàî, the lord of the triple world,
and the lord of the host of ganas.  He dances, which may recall the gana
Mahâkâla from the Harivamša, but he is clearly identified here with the Šiva
we know from the mature mythology of the purânas. In the Raghuvamša,
VI., Mahâkâla is Candramauli, “The one with the Moon in his Locks”, a
standard epithet of Šiva.  But even more telling in the context of this paper
is the Kumârasambhava
.
. This verse describes a Šiva, who if he is not called
Mahâkâla, is identical with the main protagonist of the myth of decapitating
Brahman. The verse belongs to an extended description of Šiva and I quote
it in full, “pânisthitabrahmakapâlapâtram, vaikunøhabhâjâpi nisevyamânam
narâsthikhanàâbhâranam ranântamûlam trišûlam kalayantam uccaih”, “ He held
the skull of Brahman in his hand as his begging bowl, and was adorned with
ornaments made of human bones. He was attended even by Visnu , as he
raised aloft the trident that brought death to his enemies in battle.” This
verse describes for us explicitly the end result of at least one part of the
process I have been trying to trace in this paper. Šiva has become the one
who cut off the head of Brahman and must beg with it as his begging bowl.
Kâlidâsa’s other poems tell us in addition that this Šiva and the Mahâkâla of
Ujjain are one. The elements of the fully developed purânic story are present
in these poems. 
Increasingly the Mahâkâla of Ujjain comes to be seen as the highest god,
the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. The th century Kâdambarî
has an elaborate description of the city of Ujjaiyinî. It is said to be like a
second earth created by the Blessed lord of Pramathas (ganas), who is
responsible for the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe,
and whose name is Mahâkâla.

. Meghadûta, with the commentary of Mallinâtha, ed. Kashinath Bapu Pathak, Poona, Aryabhushan
Press,

, I.-, pp. 
-.
. Raghuvaśa, with commentary of Mallinâtha, ed. Jîvânandavidyâsâgara, Calcutta, Sarasvatîtantra,

, p. .
. Kumârasambhava with commentary of Mallinâtha, ed. Vasudevašarman, Bombay, Nirnaya Sagara
Press,
, p. .
. The Mahâbhârata is less informative about Mahâkâla. The Vanaparvan iii... knows a tîrtha
of Mahâkâla, but says little about it. For the period, Kâlidâsa’s poems give us the most information.



Phyllis Granoff [
]

The references in Kâlidâsa may well be the earliest evidence we have for
the existence of a developed form of the myth of Mahâkâla as Šiva and
therefore as the one who decapitated Brahman. All of this would seem to
contradict the verse cited from the Brhatkathâšlokasamgraha, in which Mahâkâla
is merely a gana of Šiva and not the great god himself. One possible expla-
nation is that between the Brhatkathâšlokasamgraha and Kâlidâsa these chang-
es took place. Given the difficulty of dating the Brhatkathâšlokasamgraha and
the possibility that it is not very far in time from Kâlidâsa, it seems more
prudent to take the different personalities of Mahâkâla in these texts as an
indication that initially Mahâkâla’s change in status may not have been
universally recognized. Some groups may have demurred and continued to
regarded him simply as a gana (the verse of the Brhatkathâšlokasamgraha),
while others, here represented by the poetry of Kâlidâsa, may have champi-
oned his identification with the supreme god. Perhaps they were closer to
Ujjain and its temple, whose status was surely elevated by the elevation of
its god, a supposition that ties in nicely with the traditional association of
Kâlidâsa with Ujjain.

I am able to say even less at this stage of my research about the early
Bhairava. Bhairava could similarly have been a local deity in the region of
Benaras, who displaced the shadowy figure Nîlalohita as the central figure
in the myth. Possibly the earliest inscriptional notice of a cult to Bhairava is
in a th century inscription of a Vâkâøaka king who described himself as a
devotee of the god. A terracotta from Ahicchatra, dated approximately to
the same period, is considered to be among the earliest representations of


. The development of the story of the decapitation of Brahman also raises the issue of what role
the growing popularity of non-purânic groups like the Kâpâlikas may have had on purânic stories. As
is well known, the Kâpâlikas adopted and adapted the penance for killing a Brahmin that appears in the
Dharmašâstras. David Lorenzen, The Kâpâlikas and the Kâlamukhas: Two Lost Šaivite Sects, Berkeley,
University of California Press
, p. , noted that the chronology is not at all clear; it is possible that
the myth developed later than the ritual that it was meant to legitimate. In that case, the changes in the
purânic story that I have tried to document here might be evidence of efforts on the part of such non-
purânic groups to create purânic stories to legitimate their practices. These stories might well have been
tied to particular places and come into the later purânas as part of the mâhâtmyas. A similar case would
be the late story that becomes associated with the tantric pîøha at Jâlandhara. Jâlandhara becomes the
site where Šiva must get rid of his sin of killing the demon Jâlandhara. See Kr. s.n.a-nanda Ša-stri-,
Jâlandhara, Jâlandhara, Bhâratîya Samskrta Bhavan,
, p. . The best review of Kâpâlika scriptures
may be found in Alexis Sanderson, Šaivism and the Tantric Traditions, in Stewart Sutherland ed., The
World’s Religions, London, Routledge,
, pp. -. See also the comments in note
 above on
Jalandhara and the possible influence of the Kâpâlikas on the early Skandapurâna.
. Cited in Bakker, The Vâkâøakas p.
, note . Finally, it is necessary to note that even if Mahâkâla
is considered the god of Ujjain, he is not always connected with this story of the beheading of Brahman.
Thus in the Šivapurâna Koøirudrasamhitâ chapter
, Šiva appears from a hole in the ground to kill the
demon Dûsana. No mention is made of his cutting off the fifth head of Brahman. This may even suggest
that the late Skandapurâna in its discussion of Avanti is actually taking over the story of the beheading
that originally belonged to Benaras.
[
] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God 

the god in art.  Another candidate for an early Bhairava image might well
be the figure from Mandasor built into the Mahâdeva and Sitalamâtâ temple
and dated by Joanna Williams between  and  A.D.  This figure is
particularly intriguing; it seems to be wearing a tiger-tooth, a talisman often
worn by children. Baøuka Bhairava, the child Bhairava, is a familiar figure
from later tantric texts.  The origin of the eight Bhairavas is told in the
Vâmanapurâna in conjunction with the account of the defeat of Andhaka
(.
), in contrast to the stories cited here that connect the appearance of
Bhairava with the decapitation of Brahman. De Mallmann suggested that
Bhairava replaced the early Skanda of the Mahâbhârata, who was associated
with fierce mothers and yoginîs. She also stressed his solar character. The
Visnudharmottarapurâna names Bhairava as one of the five faces of Šiva,
analogous to the better known Aghora, who is named in the five mantras of
the Taittirîya Âranyaka X.-. This suggests the prominence of Bhairava by
the time of this text, which has been variously dated, but may be as late as
the
th c. A.D. In addition, there is a Mahâbhairava named in the Matsya
purâna,

. as one of the hidden holy sites present at Avimuktaka in
Benaras. In his study of Indian esoteric Buddhism, Ronald Davidson noted
several passages in the Kâlikâpurâna. He suggested that Bhairava began his
career as a local ferocious deity. The early cults of both Mahâkâla and
Bhairava remain to be studied.

. For an illustration see Gerd Kreisel, Die Šiva-Bildwerke der Mathurâ-Kunst, Ein Beitrag zur frühhin-
duistischen Ikonographie, Stuttgard, Franz Steiner Verlag,
, plate A .
. Joanna Gottfried Williams, The Art of Gupta India Empire and Province, Princeton, Princeton
University Press,
, figure 
. Williams is cautious in her identification, calling the figure a “Šaiva
figure”. She notes its similarity to gana figures and that it has been identified as Kubera as well (p.

and note
).
. Many of these sâdhanas have been collected and published. See for example Šrî Baøuka Bhairava
Sâdhanâ, of Dr. Rudradeva Tripâøhî, Delhi, Megha Prakâšan,
. It is impossible to date these texts.
. Marie-Thérèse de Mallmann, Les enseignements iconographiques de l’Agni-purana, Paris, Presses
Universitaires de France,
, p.
.
. Kreisel, Die Šiva- Bildwerke, p. , note 
, suggests that the list with Bhairava represents a second
tradition that is being amalgamated to the more familiar list. On the date of the Visnudharmottara see
Gerd Kreisel, Caturmukhalinga and Mahešâmûrti: the cosmic aspects of Šiva, «Tribus», vol. , p.
.
. Matsyapurâna, ed. Pandits of the Ânandâšrama, Pune,

, p. .
. Ronald M. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, New York,
Columbia University Press, , pp. 

-
.
. Some important efforts to retrieve the early history of the Bhairava cult include Alexis Sanderson,
Šaivism and the Tantric Traditions, in S. Sutherland, The World’s Religions, London,
, pp. -. Hans
Bakker has also written on the subject, “Somašarman,Somavamša and Somasiddhânta”, in Harânandala-
harî : Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Ryutaro Tsuchida and
Albrecht Wezler, Reinbek, Verlag für Orientalische Fachpublikationen, . He has also identified a
possible early image of Kankâla at Tala, “Tala Revisited”, South Asian Archaeology , ed. Maurizio Taddei
and Giuseppe De Marco, Rome, 
, vol. iii pp.

-

.



 Phyllis Granoff [
]

v. Conclusions
I have attempted to show in the analysis here that the stories of Šiva grew
gradually and that in some cases it may even be possible to trace that
development. These accounts of the decapitation of Brahman allow us to see
how a story associated with a figure who was very minor in the later
pantheon, Nîlalohita, comes to be linked to two other deities, who are
themselves assimilated to Šiva. It is only at this stage, I would argue, when
that identity was widely established, that the stories come to be represented
in art, in depictions of Šiva Bhiksâtana and Kankâlamûrti; this was probably
not much before the th century.

The development of the mythology of Šiva in this case required not only
the complex process of integration of other deities and their stories that I
have tried to trace here. In the purânic texts, our stories are all associated with
a particular place as well as with particular gods. I would like to suggest that
just as many gods and their stories eventually came together to form classical
Šaiva mythology, so perhaps did many cult sites and their legends. The
Mahâbhârata and the Vâmanapurâna both know of a story of a sage Rahodara,
who gets in the way when Râma is killing demons. The head of one of the
decapitated demons sticks to his leg and he cannot get it off. He is told to
go to a certain tîrtha and bathe there. The holy place where he gets rid of
the skull comes to be known as Kapâlamocana. 
Another story of a tîrtha associated with a head occurs in the Vâmanapurâ-
na saromâhâtmya and has been mentioned above. In this story we learn that
Brahman’s head fell off because he lusted for his daughter. He goes to the
Sthânutîrtha on the banks of the Sarasvatî. There he worships Sthânu, a
common name for Šiva. He deposits the head at this site, and it seems to
become an object of worship. It is probably worth recalling that the story
in the early Skandapurâna of the decapitation of Brahman was told in
conjunction with a story about the origin of the river Sarasvatî. It may well
be that the original complex of the skull, the holy site, and Brahman’s false
step at the time of creation, was associated with the river Sarasvatî.
The story of the creator’s incestuous longing and his punishment by Rudra
reaches back into the Brâhmanas.  The versions in the Vâmanapurâna and the
early Skandapurâna suggest that it was reworked as the cult of pilgrimage sites
developed and associated initially with the river Sarasvatî. In a later stage,


. For an excellent survey of these iconographic forms see Marguerite E. Adiceam, Les Images de
Šiva dans l’Inde du Sud, II. Bhairava, «Arts Asiatiques»,
, pp. -; III. Bhiksâtana IV Kankâlamûrti, «Arts
Asiatiques»,
,
, pp. -

.,
. Vâmanapurâna Saromatîmâhâtmya,
.
-
, ed. Anand Swarup Gupta, Varanasi, All-India Kashiraj
Trust,
, and Mahâbhârata ..-.
. For a summary of these stories see Kramrisch, The Presence of Šiva, chapter ix.
[
] Mahâkâla’s Journey: from Gana to God 

represented by the early Skandapurâna, the motive for Rudra’s chastisement

of the creator god is changed. Brahman’s fault is not his incestuous lust for his
daughter as it was in the Brâhmanas, but his failure to recognize the greatness
of Šiva. In the processs of development, to the stories of the decapitated head
of Brahman being the focus of a holy place at the river Sarasvatî were added
overtones from the Mahâbhârata story of the sage Rahodara, who cannot rid
himself of the unwanted head of the demon. Thus in some versions of the
story, Bhairava/Mahâkâla cannot rid himself of Brahman’s head, which is
stuck to his hand, or of the unwanted sin, who follows him in the form of a
woman.  A further factor that I suspect motivated the development of the
story is influence from the Kâpâlikas. I have postulated that the extension of
the story of Brahman’s decapitation in the early Skandapurâna, in which the
skull stirs up a demon whom the ganas kill, and in which the terrifying
mothers appear, may show Kâpâlika influence.
I have not discussed the pre-purânic history of the story of the birth of
Rudra, which forms part of the larger story of the decapitation of Brahman’s
fifth head. It is older than the purânas and epics and appears in several
Brâhmanas.  It is only in the purânas and the Mahâbhârata, (however, that the
Rudra who is born from the creator god is specified by the name of Nîlalohita.
I suspect that this reflects the growing importance of Nîlalohita to the circles
in which the epic and purânic accounts were told; the Mahâbhârata as noted
above calls Nîlalohita the chief among the Rudras. We entered the compli-
cated history of this story in the early Skandapurâna with the preeminence
of Nîlalohita being challenged by a new cult. As the worship of Šiva was
expanding and being systematized, his cult drew in other figures with their
stories. This is what we see in the early Skandapurâna, which incorporates
the story of Nîlalohita decapitating Brahman. Nîlalohita appears here as an
independent actor, but in other places in the text is also identified with Šiva.
As we traced the fate of Nîlalohita in the later versions, we saw Nîlalohita
eventually not only identified with Šiva, but also displaced by other newcom-
ers to the Šaiva circle. Nîlalohita was displaced by Mahâkâla and Bhairava.
These are not the only changes to this remarkable myth; the vision of
Nîlalohita in the blaze of light eventually becomes the more familiar story
of the descent of Šiva’s linga, with Visnu and Brahman fighting to find its
top and bottom. This was frequently represented in art as the Lingodbha-
vamûrti. At the same time, the story of Šiva the beggar atoning for his sin
became the story of the seducer of the wives of the sages in the Daruvana. 

. For example in the Skandapurâna .
..

. It occurs in the Kaušitakî .
ff. and Šatapathabrâhmana .
.
.; .
..
.
. See Jean Filliozat, Les Images de Šiva dans l’Inde du Sud I l’Image de l’origine du linga (lingodbha-
vamûrti), «Arts Asiatiques», ,

, pp. -.



Phyllis Granoff []

Both of these myths are efforts to account for the worship of the linga. The
Devadaru myth occurs only in some manuscripts of the early Skandapurâna,
which may in fact record the earliest version of this myth that we have.  The
early Skandapurâna may well prove here too to offer us invaluable insights into
the growth and development of early Šaiva mythology.
Phyllis Granoff

. The story of the Devadaruvana is summarized in a few verses in chapter
 on the holy sites,
vs. -. See Peter Biscchop, Šiva’s âyatanas in the various recensions of Skandapurâna , paper presented
to the
th World Sanskrit Conference, Helsinki . Bisschop notes that one of the manuscripts of the
early Skandapurâna includes a more developed version, indicating the growing importance of the story.