A Preliminary Investigation into the Religious Profile of King Jitāmitramalla of Bhaktapur Through his Compositional and Scribal Works

Abstract

This article aims to provide a preliminary investigation into the religious profile of a Malla-era Newar king, namely Jitāmitramalla (r. 1673–1696), by examining his scribal and compositional output. It does this by engaging with largely unstudied sources, chiefly (i) an unpublished poem written by King Jitāmitra known as the Siddhilakṣmīmantrayantroddhārastotra in which the monarch extols the goddess Siddhilakṣmī and lays out methods for her worship and (ii) the colophons of seven liturgical paddhatis copied by this king, which to my knowledge, are still undiscussed and untranslated in secondary literature. In doing so, we gain an insight into the King’s understanding of various aspects of his own religious identity, including his role as a tāntrika and his relationship with his chosen deities. The material studied will also uncover new information on the religious affiliations of the royal Bhaktapuri court and the medieval religious landscape of the Kathmandu Valley generally.

Kings are understood as the pre-eminent patrons of the religious order in the medieval Hindu world. Their religious activities and affiliations are usually gleaned from inscriptional evidence, most often describing acts of patronage and endowment accompanied by elaborate eulogies (praśasti). Such inscriptions are the public image which a king, his descendants, or subordinates wish to project to the outside world. In this article, I hope to present a glimpse into the religious life of a medieval monarch—King Jitāmitramalla of Bhaktapur—that derives from more intimate sources, namely his own compositional and scribal works. These texts—an original composition known as the Siddhilakṣmīmantrayantroddhārastotra and seven works copied by King Jitāmitra’s hand—rather than being preserved in stone or copper plate are found in unpublished manuscripts most likely made for the King’s own consumption or that of his court. As texts frequently interspersed with the first-person voice, they provide an immediacy lacking in much material related to royal history. Moreover, since most of the texts we deal with come from esoteric Tantric cults, their access and comprehensibility may have been restricted to a small community of initiates, distinguishing them from more common sources for the study of courtly religion.

This article aims to present new research not only through unstudied texts but also by focusing on the figure of King Jitāmitramalla himself. Although the religious profile of other Newar monarchs, particularly Jitāmitra’s contemporary, Pratāpamalla (r. 1624–1674), have been explored (see, for instance, Bledsoe, 2004 and Toffin, 2005), Jitāmitra remains a relatively elusive figure despite his celebrated patronage and long reign. This article will be the first step in piecing together this king’s rich and varied religious life and pave the way for a more comprehensive study of this subject. Moreover, by closely examining genres of textual material often overlooked in scholarship on the history of religions (stotras and paddhatis), I hope that the article may also act as a window into 17th century Newar religion more generally, giving us a stronger hold on a highly complex religious environment where forms of deities and their worship were constantly proliferating and shifting.

The cultural and religious context of the Kathmandu valley during Jitāmitra’s reign

Before moving on to our primary sources, it is important to elaborate upon King Jitāmitra’s background and the religious environment of the royal courts of the Kathmandu Valley at the time. Jitāmitra was born into a dynasty known as the Mallas which emerged out of obscurity with the reign of Arimalla (r. 1200–1216). Although known by a single family name, the Mallas who ruled the Valley until 1779, were actually comprised of several distinct lines. Jitāmitramalla was born long after the Kathmandu Valley had split into three states following the death of Yakṣamalla (1482) whose sons had divided the Valley into the Kingdoms of Bhaktapur, Patan, and Kathmandu. Jitāmitra was directly descended from Yakṣamalla’s eldest son, Rāyamalla (r. 1482–1505) who, upon his father’s death, ascended the throne of Bhaktapur, a kingdom which then comprised a little under half of the entire Kathmandu Valley (Regmi 2007, pp.204–207).

Since our article concerns Jitāmitra’s literary output, it is important to note that he viewed himself as a ruler of high culture as witnessed by how he styled himself in his many inscriptions as ‘one who has mastered the knowledge of music and discipline of arms’ (śastraśāstrasaṅgītavidyāparaga) and ‘skilled in the arts of the gandharvas’ (gāndharvavidyānipuṇa)¹. This seems to be no empty boast and is borne out by the fact that Jitāmitra was responsible for several celebrated works, notably his Commentary on the Gītāgovinda and numerous plays in Maithili and Newari (Regmi 2007, pp.850–851 notes 8 compositions while Brinkhaus, 2003, p.75 counts 10 plays²). This literary ability is evident in the Siddhilakṣmī poem we will explore, a work which presupposes a familiarity with the conventions of kāvya. Alongside these literary endeavours, Jitāmitra was also a patron of art and architecture, overseeing the enlargement of the Bhaktapur royal palace, including the construction of the Thantu Rājakula located at its northeastern wing and the repair and beautification of the Mūl and Etā Coks (courtyards). Two important temples in Bhaktapur Dārbar Square—the Vatsalā (Basukala, Gutschow and Kayastha 2014, p.33) and Siddhilakṣmī³ temples—were established by him. He was moreover a celebrated sponsor of civic works, building water conduits, and associated infrastructure while laying down detailed instructions for their use and upkeep (see Regmi 2007, pp.228–233 for a description of these projects as well as Becker-Ritterspach 1996, pp.394, 397 and 402–403). Several more important projects whose foundation remain unrecorded, including the conversion of the famed Dattātreya from a sattal to a temple (Slusser 1974, p.215) and the construction of the Cyāsilin Maṇḍap (see Gutschow and Hagmüller 1991, p.3), were also most likely undertaken under his auspices.

Jitāmitra’s cultural patronage comes as no surprise since this tradition was deeply embedded in the practice of both his royal forebears and contemporaries. Those of particular note amongst Jitāmitra’s forefathers include his great-grandfather Jagajjyotirmalla (1613–1637) and father Jagatprakāśa (1644–1673). The former is ascribed⁴ the authorship of several collections of poems in Sanskrit, various plays in Maithili, and works on erotics, musicology, and Āyurveda (Regmi 2007, pp.215–216, 837, 841–842, and 850). Likewise, Jitāmitra’s father, Jagatprakakāśa also styled himself as a learned king (two of his frequently used epithets include gāndharvavidyāguru and kavīndra) and was renowned for composing songs (Regmi 2007, pp.220–221).

The commitment to the arts in Bhaktapur was matched by Jitāmitra’s contemporaries in the Kingdom of Kathmandu and Patan. This period of Malla history was marked by changing loyalties and skirmishes between the three kingdoms who were constantly attempting to outmanoeuvre their neighbours. The political foment amongst the three related royal lines was channelled into cultural competition which pushed each kingdom to greater artistic heights. Formigatti (2016), for instance, goes as far as characterising this period as a ‘Nepalese Renaissance’, noting that the 17th century was a particularly productive time while others have called it a ‘golden age’ of Newar culture (Bledsoe 2004). Several scholars have undertaken studies of the prolific literary output of the Newar courts in both Sanskrit and vernacular languages during the Malla period⁵.

The kings whose regnal dates significantly coincide with those of Jitāmitra in the kingdom of Kathmandu are Nṛpendramalla (r. 1674–1680), Pārthivendramalla (r. 1680–1687), and Bhūpālendramalla (r. 1687–1700), all of whom were responsible for royal and religious constructions in the city. However, none of the three matched the renown of their predecessor, Pratāpamalla. Much has been written on this king’s patronage of the arts and religion. It suffices to say that his influence was such that the architectural landscape we associate today with historic Kathmandu is largely down to him. Moreover, the longest poetic inscriptions of the Malla period are by his hand. Meanwhile, Jitāmitra’s contemporaries in Patan were Srīnivāsamalla (r. 1681–1684) and Yoganarendramalla (r. 1684–1705). The former is renowned as the great builder of Patan, responsible for the present-day appearance of the royal palace of that city, especially its Sundarī Cok and Taleju temple (Regmi 2007, pp.283–289). Yoganarendramalla meanwhile, also built and endowed many temples and, much like Jitāmitra, styled himself a ‘master of all disciplines and the knowledge of music’ (sakalaśāstrasaṅgītavidyāparaga) (see Regmi 2007, pp.329–330). Thus, from this brief sketch, we see the environment of artistic dynamism and effusive religious devotion which must have informed and motivated Jitāmitra’s own output.

As for the religion of the court, a brief note is warranted. Although the Licchavi and Malla kings actively patronised Vaiṣṇavism⁶ and Śaivism, it was the latter that came to dominate the devotion of the Malla period, especially its Tantric Śākta form. The inextricable link between kingship and Śaivism is seen in how Paśupati, the premier liṅga of Nepal was considered the rāṣṭradevatā of the Valley since the Licchavi period (see Mirnig’s study (2013) on this subject as well as Lévi 1905–1907, Vol. I, p.360), and hailed as the master of Nepal (nepālādhipati) from the early Malla period onwards (Toffin 2005, Ch.1, para. 23). However, the Śaiva deity with perhaps the most intimate connection to royalty was Taleju. It is her who the inscriptional and anthropological evidence consistently identifies as the goddess revered by the Malla kings of all three kingdoms as their chosen deity (āgādyah or iṣṭadevatā) (see for instance Levy 1990, p.239–240 and Sanderson 2004, pp.372–373, fn. 74). Although her origins are reputedly from outside the Kathmandu Valley, her role in kingship was such that she is the only deity whose temple resides within the palaces of the Malla kings and the reception of whose mantra accorded one the right to rule (Toffin 2005, Ch.1, para. 42–43). We will discuss the identity of this mysterious goddess later but we may remark here that she has strong links with the subject of Jitāmitra’s poem—Siddhilakṣmī.

Siddhilakṣmī is considered, alongside Guhyakālī, to be the presiding deity of the Northern Transmission. These ‘transmissions’ (āmnāyas) which are six in number corresponding to the four compass points and the nadir and zenith⁷ are the system by which the Newars classified the Kaula, a form of Śākta householder Tantrism⁸. The Northern Transmission of Guhyakālī and Siddhilakṣmī and the Western Transmission of Kubjikā were historically the two most prominent traditions seen in how they were the prime objects of patronage by the Kathmandu Valley’s ruling elite with their goddesses being amongst the tutelary deities of the Malla Kings (see, for instance, Sanderson 2004, pp.369–371 and Dyczkowski 2000, p.17 and fn. 38). Numerous ritual liturgies were dedicated to Siddhilakṣmī during the Malla period while the 17th–18th centuries witnessed particularly active royal patronage of this goddess. This is shown by how her two temples in Bhaktapur—the śikhara style Siddhilakṣmī temple in Dārbar square and the towering Nyātāpola—were built at this time, the former by Jitāmitra himself and the latter by his own son, Bhūpatīndramalla (r. 1696–1722). Following this short survey, we may now turn our attention to the Siddhilakṣmīmantrayantroddhārastotra (SMS) itself.

The Siddhilakṣmīmantrayantroddhārastotra

The SMS contains 42 verses in Sragdharā and Vasantatilaka metres dedicated to Siddhilakṣmī. In spite of the prominence of its subject, its royal authorship and polished Sanskrit, the SMS remains unpublished and has not received a study of its own. However, the poem is known to scholars and a few of its verses are cited in Sanderson (2004, pp.370–371), an article which includes a discussion of the Śāktism of the Newars and its royally sponsored cults. In this article, Sanderson makes use of a manuscript in which the stotra is embedded within a paddhati known as the Uttarāmnāyapavitrārohaṇavidhi (ff. 42v7–44r7) for his citation of the text. I have identified two further witnesses of this poem which were also transmitted as parts of larger texts⁹. In the first witness, the SMS is one amongst many such devotional poems, including several on Siddhilakṣmī, compiled in a text known as the Stotrasaṃgraha (ff. 8r7–10r10). The second MS is a paddhati for daily Śākta worship called in the NGMPP Navamātṛkādināṭakasiddhipūjāvidhi (pages unnumbered; exposures 118–123). On account of its rich decoration, perhaps the most ornate out of any unillustrated Newar MS seen by me, the care and beauty of the writing and its use of rare materials (it is bound in deer hide), it is highly likely it would have been used in the palace. Its colophon proclaims Pūrṇasiṃha as the scribe and dates it to NS 815 or 1695 CE, which falls under the reign of Jitāmitramalla. It is therefore probable that this valuable manuscript was one of the original copies in which this hymn was inscribed. It is therefore the reading of this manuscript that we will be recording in our citation of this text. The stotra can be split into roughly three sections: (i) the extolation of Siddhilakṣmī in vv. 1–7; (ii) the instructions for raising her yantra embedded with the mantroddhāras (vv. 8–39); and (iii) the phalaśruti or description of the benefits of the hymn (vv. 40–41). Although I have prepared a critical edition and annotated translation of this stotra for future publication, in this article, we will only focus on the parts of the poem that are revealing of the king’s religious outlook and of underexamined aspects of Newar religion of the time.

The Orthodox Lakṣmī

The poem significantly shows the king to be deft at navigating both the orthodox identity of the goddess and her esoteric Tantric one. In doing so, Jitāmitra accomplishes not only the dual goal of presenting himself both in the mould of a traditional Brahminical king but also a Tantric sādhaka par excellence. Regarding the former, this is achieved by wielding his literary craft to shape an image of Siddhilakṣmī that is far removed from her archetypal terrifying characterisation. In both her literary and artistic portrayals in Medieval Nepal, Siddhilakṣmī is conventionally depicted as a godess who is propitiated with sacrifices, adorned with a garland of chopped heads, astride a corpse and situated in the cremation ground¹⁰. Jitāmitra initially directs her away from this image by harnessing literary tropes that are more common to the Vedic and Purāṇic Śrī-Lakṣmī, a goddess whose identity is quite distinct from Siddhilakṣmī in spite of the commonality in their names. This is perhaps unsurprising given that Śrī has long been regarded as the paradigmatic goddess of sovereignty who bestows the right to rule upon kings that have successfully cultivated her favour. The association between Śrī and royal power is an ancient one and is found extensively in a very early strata of Hindu literature, including the Brāhmaṇas and Mahābhārata (Gonda 1954, pp.188–191 and 220).

Jitāmitra constructs this orthodox image for Siddhilakṣmī in the first eight verses of the poem where her appearance and the boons she grants are described. The poem’s most obvious method is the use of mythological and metaphorical allusions which identify Siddhilakṣmī as none other than Śrī-Lakṣmī. This, for instance, is seen clearly in verse 4 of the poem where Jitāmitra praises her thus¹¹:

I in this world behold Lakṣmī who is to be honoured. She is truly the mother of the three worlds, the consort of Viṣṇu, possessing the rays of a crore of suns, she who is to be kept hidden in the Kaula path, the stream of divine elixir that burns heaps of deprivation, the Most Excellent Daughter of the Ocean.

Although her links with the Kaula are acknowledged, Jitāmitra calls her the consort of Viṣṇu (viṣṇupatnīṃ) rather than that of her more common Tantric partners, the wrathful Bhairava and Narasiṃha. He also describes her as the ‘Most Excellent Daughter of the Ocean’, a reference to the orthodox Lakṣmī’s origin myth which sees her created from the Churning of the Ocean of Milk. This is reinforced by her comparison to a ‘stream of divine elixir’, thereby linking her to the principal product of the samudramanthana. Her description as ‘having the face of the lotus which shares her origins (literally “her co-uterine sibling”)’ in v. 5 (ambujasodarāsyām) similarly locates Siddhilakṣmī’s origins in the birth story of the orthodox Lakṣmī since the lotus alongside this goddess is understood in mythology to be one of the precious byproducts arising from the churning of the seas. In this same verse, the lotus rather than a corpse is described as Siddhilakṣmī’s seat or abode (padmālayām). This is apposite because the Purāṇic Lakṣmī’s association with the lotus is one of the most constant and conspicuous aspects of this goddess’ identity so much as so that she is commonly known as Padmā or Kamalā. Other metaphors more subtly hint at Siddhilakṣmī’s identity with her orthodox counterpart. In v. 3, for instance, she is compared to a wish-fulfilling creeper arisen out of the ocean of compassion (kāruṇyasāgarasamutthitakalpavallīm). This not only highlights her magnanimity but also no doubt refers to the strong link between Śrī-Lakṣmī and vegetative fertility, a feature of Śrī-Lakṣmī which is as old as its appearance in the Vedic Śrīsūkta. Such an upamā is also reminiscent of Lakṣmī’s description as a creeping vine in the Viṣṇupurāṇa (see Kinsley 1986, pp.20–21 and p.29 for both references).

Just as importantly, we find Jitāmitra adapting Siddhilakṣmī’s appearance away from her awe-inspiring Tantric form towards the beauty and auspiciousness that are the hallmarks of Śrī. His obeisance of her in the first verse of the poem shows this:

I revere the Goddess Siddhilakṣmī whose pair of lovely cheeks flash with a slight smile, her unblemished body bent with the load of full lofty breasts. She is put together with a pleasing form and has a moon-like face, she who is indeed the granter of boons.¹²

As we can see, it is the erotic and aesthetic rather than the frightening qualities of Siddhilakṣmi that are emphasised in this verse. The emphasis upon the physical appeal of Siddhilakṣmī in the first eight verses of the SMS recalls the characterisation of Śrī-Lakṣmī as the sought-after bride of kings so common to classic Sanskrit literature. In both the epics and kāvya, Lakṣmī is frequently portrayed as the fickle lover who embodies fortune, granting a prosperous reign when betrothed to a king but leaving his rule in disarray when she forsakes him for another. Kinsley (1986, pp.24–25) sees the representative example of this trope as the myth of Śrī’s abandonment of the demon Prahlāda in favour of Indra as his wife. Once departed, Śrī not only withdraws Prahlāda’s royal authority but also his glory and moral qualities only to bestow them upon Indra. In kāvya, we find numerous examples of Śrī as the royal bride of victorious kings but a well-known example would be its use in Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṃśa, an epic poem whose central concern is kingship. In Cantos 13 and 14 of this work, for instance, Rāma returns to Ayodhyā to reclaim his kingship which is repeatedly personified as Śrī, his betrothed while Bharata is described as spurning this attractive bride, being ever conscious that she rightfully belongs to his elder brother (see, for instance, vv. 13.65, 13.67, 14.24, 14.63, and 14.86).

It is highly likely that Jitāmitra, steeped as he was in high Sanskrit literary and religious culture, would have been aware of this conjugal imagery surrounding Śrī. We may argue that in our poem, the king implicitly casts Siddhilakṣmī as a desirable lover or bride through descriptions consonant with the way a bride adorns herself for the marriage ceremony. Thus, Siddhilakṣmī, who is described as endowed with fresh youthfulness (navayauvanāḍhyāṃ in v. 2), is depicted with her hair flashing with jasmine (mallīvirājitakacāṃ in v. 2), her body smeared abundantly with sandal paste and fragrant aloe (agurupracuracandanacarcitāṅgīṃ in v.6) and furnished with an unblemished garland of mandāra flowers (mandārapuṣpakalitāmalahāraramyāṃ in v.6) and her head marked by a tilaka of vermilion (sindūrapūratilakāṃ in v.2). We can compare her appearance here to that of the most famous bride in Sanskrit literature—Pārvatī in Kālidāsa’s Kumārasaṃbhava. In that poem, Pārvatī also has white flowers bound to her hair (v. 7.13), aloe paste smeared on her skin (v. 7.15), is adorned with a garland (v. 7.19), and has a tilaka of vermilion applied to her forehead (v. 7.24).

Further confirming Siddhilakṣmī’s role of lover is the description of her doe-like eyes in v. 3 (kuraṅganayanāṃ) which is the most common label ascribed to a nāyikā (the archetypical romantic heroine in Sanskrit drama and literature), indicating the furtive glances she casts at her beloved which are suggestive of both coyness and desire. Although the conjugal metaphor is not openly spelt out, we can argue that by subtly presenting Siddhilakṣmī as a bride, Jitāmitra—the supplicant behind the poem’s first-person voice—implies that he is her rightful bridegroom. Wedded to Śrī-Lakṣmī or in the very least singled out for her favour, he thus occupies the mould of the classical Brahminical king.

Our interpretation of Śrī-Lakṣmī as the King’s bride in this poem is made more solid by the fact that Malla kings of the 16th and 17th centuries often compared their earthly spouses to Lakṣmī while describing themselves as Lakṣmī’s lord or Viṣṇu incarnate. This comparison is found in praśasti inscriptions of Uddhavasiṃha of Patan (1569) and of Pratāpamalla of Kathmandu (1649)¹³. Besides the orthodox validation of kingship, we may add that by propitiating Siddhilakṣmī as Śrī-Lakṣmī, Jitāmitra is also able to solicit conventional boons associated with Śrī from his chosen goddess and not just the black magic powers that are Siddhilakṣmī’s usual domain. He therefore asks Siddhilakṣmī to bless him with steadfast riches in his household and for eloquence to dwell in his mouth (v.8) and sees his composition of the poem as bringing about the boons of sons, wealth, and unrivalled enjoyments (v. 40), all of which are standard blessings expected from the orthodox Śrī-Lakṣmī.

The Tantric Siddhilakṣmī

Having examined the orthodox transformation of Siddhilakṣmī, we can now explore the ways in which Jitāmitra engages with this goddess’ traditional esoteric image. I will argue that, through this engagement, the King portrays himself as an expert Tantric sādhaka, thus providing another basis for his royal legitimacy. He establishes this primarily by hinting at and divulging methods for the utterance of mantras (mantroddhāra) and the raising of the yantra (yantroddhāra) of the goddess. The way he imparts this information is highly coded and would be largely untelligible to me without the assistance of four unpublished Newar Siddhilakṣmī paddhatis, namely the Siddhilakṣmīnityakarmapaddhati, Siddhilakṣmyārātrikavidhi, Siddhilakṣmīkramasthaṇḍilārcanavidhi, and Siddhilakṣmyadhivāsanasthaṇḍilārcanavidhi. Regarding the mantras, there are three instances in the poem (vv. 7, 32, and 37–38) in which Jitāmitra gives us the codes for their utterance, some of which are still undeciphered by me despite the assistance of the mentioned manuals. As Sanderson has noted, Jitāmitra interestingly qualifies the first mantra found in v. 7 (deciphered as oṃ hrīṃ hūṃ hāṃ phreṃ kṣoṃ kroṃ namaḥ) as to be adopted by the Best of Kings (nṛpavara), the only instance Sanderson knows of that such a restriction is imposed on a mantra’s recitation (Sanderson 2004, p.370). We can argue that in displaying his knowledge of the mantras and his qualification to yield them, Jitāmitra is underscoring the common Tantric view that understands mantras as authorising kingship itself.

In a narrative that is ubiquitous in Tantric literature, a king typically receives a secret mantra through the favour of the goddess and passes this mantra down his royal line. His lineage maintains the right to rule for as long as the mantra can be harnessed by the king’s descendants. This is encapsulated, for instance, in the Parātantra, an influential late medieval text in the Kathmandu Valley, which describes the transmission of the mantra of Pratyaṅgirā, another name for Siddhilakṣmī, as being passed down the line of solar kings after being obtained by Rāma to defeat Rāvaṇa¹⁴. Such a tradition is also confirmed, as Toffin (2005, Ch.1, para 42 and 1996, para 25–39) highlights, by the local chronicles which attach the authority to rule to the mantra of Taleju, the possession of which was often the subject of several disputes between the branches of the royal family. The same royal legitimacy also comes with the possession and transmission of the goddess’ yantra¹⁵, the next subject to be examined by us.

Since this yantra is integral to unveiling Jitāmitra’s tāntrika identity and no extended Siddhilakṣmīyantra that I am aware of has been described in secondary literature, I will give its basic composition below. The bare shapes of the yantra are delineated in vv. 9–10ab of the poem in common code words used for numbers¹⁶ while clues about its occupants are provided in subsequent verses. These components, which would have been impossible to ascertain without the paddhatis’ clarification, are from the centre as follows:

• 1) a triangle at whose centre is Siddhilakṣmī and Kṣetreśvara and on the three corners of which are three Mātṛkās paired with Pīṭhas (vv. 33–39).

• 2) hexagon with six goddesses representing the 6-fold nyāsa on its sides and a further six animal-faced deities on its corners (vv. 30–32).

• 3) three circles representing the saviours of the three fires (tāpatraya) (v. 29cd).

• 4) twelve-petalled lotus with both common and obscure yoginīs (vv. 27–29ab).

• 5) eight-petalled lotus containing the Aṣṭamātṛkās coupled with the eight Bhairavas (vv. 19–26).

• 6) square with four corridors on its inner sides occupied by sages, deities, and nāthas and four doors at the cardinal directions guarded by Gaṇapati, Kṣetreśa, Vaṭuka, and Yoginī (vv. 11–17).

An illustration of the maṇḍala from a circa 17th century illuminated manuscript that primarily depicts the pantheon of the Ṣaḍāmnāya is displayed here as Fig. 1. Although this maṇḍala could warrant a study in its own right on account of its many unique and interesting features, let us focus on what the maṇḍala says about Jitāmitra’s esotericism. Firstly, we can see that by locating Siddhilakṣmī in this maṇḍala, he now fully draws her back into her original Tantric fold. Thus, she is no longer paired with Viṣṇu as is the case in v. 4 but with a form of Bhairava known here as Kṣetreśvara. Moreover, she is surrounded by hordes of wild deities beyond the Brahminical pale, such as the theriocephalic, mostly avian-headed, yoginīs in level 2 of the yantra, a classic feature of left-handed Śākta Tantra cults.

Jitāmitra’s own tāntrika knowledge is advertised by means of his subtle references to the sequence of Siddhilakṣmī worship which would be undecipherable to the unitiated. The yantroddhāra is full of these clues but a couple will suffice in making my point. For instance, in the Northern Corridor on the inner side of the final square of the yantra (level 6), Jitāmitra tells us to install a group of siddhas described as ‘ānandanāthasahitān varapakṣamukhyān’ translated literally as siddhas who are ‘headed by Varapakṣa together with Ānandanātha’. At face value, we might be mistaken in taking Ānandanātha as a siddha in his own right but the compound is in fact a reference to the honorifics appended to the names of all the siddhas. According to the Siddhilakṣmyadhivāsanasthaṇḍilārcanavidhi, for instance, they are Pakṣānandanātha, Icchānandanātha, Ajavaktrānandanātha, Bindvānandanātha, and Bodhānandanātha. Thus, he is employing a brief turn of phrase to elaborate a far more extensive system of worship familiar to the adept but beyond the grasp of the layman.

Another similar allusion is the description of the seventh goddess on the 12-petalled lotus (level 4), who is not referred to by her proper name but described as yamasya rasanā kṛtavairibhakṣyā (‘the tasting or tongue of death by whom food is created from (one’s) enemies’). Upon examining the four Siddhilakṣmī paddhatis discussed, we realise that they all call the seventh goddess in this location Yamajihvā, literally ‘Death’s Tongue’. Jitāmitra’s reference is thus a word play upon her name which would be incomprehensible to one unacquainted with the system.

These numerous veiled references in the stotra show that the work was not aimed at a lay audience but one already thoroughly conversant in Tantric procedure. The hints in the poem by which one can construct an elaborate system of worship appear to serve as reminders and suggest that the poem could have been written as a sort of aide-memoire for the king to record in digest form the salient features for worshipping Siddhilakṣmī and her retinue. However, the SMS is also a method for the king to advertise his tāntrika credentials to those in the know, perhaps the elite community of his court.

This possession of Tantric ritual technology was another foundation for royal legitimacy since it marks the king out as one capable of wielding siddhis (supernatural attainments) to protect the kingdom and subjugate foes, two amongst several factors that enabled Tantric Śaivism to gain popularity in the medieval period as Sanderson (2009, pp.233–238) has pointed out. In the same vein, Sebaeva (2022) has shown that the medieval Indic world witnessed a rise in ‘war magic’ associated with Tantric Śaiva goddesses. It is this magic of protection and subjugation which Jitāmitra seems to seek in this poem since its phalaśruti tells us that the stotra will help the King pacify enemies and gain supernatural powers. Jitāmitra’s Tantric endeavours in this respect correspond to those of other Malla kings of the period who saw their supernatural powers as going hand in hand with their kingship. Stories of Pratāpamalla’s engagement with Tantra to subdue enemies—both human and supernatural—and to glorify his kingdom as recorded in his own inscriptions and the vaṃśāvalīs, for instance, are interpreted by Toffin (2005, Ch. 8) to be a core component of his expression of kingship.

In short, what we see in the combination of the SMS’s orthodox and esoteric segments is a concerted attempt to reconcile two types of regal goddesses that have been courted by kings throughout history, one embodying fortune and prosperity (Śrī-Lakṣmī), and the other esoteric power (Siddhilakṣmī). The king, in being the ideal devotee of both aspects of the goddess, shows himself to be a legitimate monarch in Brahminical and Tantric realms and thus a worthy recipient of blessings in these two spheres of kingship.

Manuscripts copied by Jitāmitra

Having shown a few aspects of the king’s religious practice through his composition, we can proceed to our discussion of the colophons of the seven manuscripts copied by Jitāmitra. Although this article is the first translation and extended analysis of such colophons in secondary literature, the fact that Jitāmitra copied manuscripts is known to scholars and was recorded by Regmi (2007, pp.226–227) in his seminal Medieval Nepal, Volume II. He refers to four manuscripts there, three in the Darbar Library Collection (Tārābhaktisudhārṇava copied in 1674; Rāmāyaṇa copied in 1684; and Dakṣiṇāmūrtisaṃhitā copied in 1687) and another (Saṃskṛtapārasikapadaprakāśa copied in 1689) in private hands made known to him by the monthly Sanskrit Sandesha. Regmi, however, does not give us any information on their colophons beyond the dates. Although I have been unable to locate or consult these manuscripts, they nonetheless give us a better indication of the range of works copied by Jitāmitra and their timeframe.

It should further be noted that, to my knowledge, even though the seven manuscripts examined by us are not discussed in any secondary literature, the Muktabodha Digital Library has transcribed, albeit in rather corrupt fashion, the Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati. It does not however note the remarkable identity of this manuscript’s scribe in the catalogue entry. The majority of the seven works examined by us, as is obvious from their titles, are pūjāvidhi or liturgical manuals written in a combination of Newari and Sanskrit (the proportion depends on the manuscript), recording the routine worship of a given deity, instructions for preparing ritual apparatus and offerings and important mantras, dhyānas, and yantras interspersed with a few stotras. A full account of the contents of these manuscripts, which is beyond my capacity, would require its own monograph, I therefore hope to give here only a preliminary survey by focusing on their colophons as well as some content in Sanskrit since I am not qualified to comment on the Newari material. Many more manuscripts copied by Jitāmitra might come to light in the future but from this substantial handful, important patterns and information can already be discerned. These manuscripts are valuable for two main reasons. First, they shed light on why kings might carry out the highly time-consuming task of copying religious works, a rare task for a monarch in the medieval Indic world. Secondly, the works necessarily reflect the religious traditions deemed important enough to be recorded by the king and thus provide a more general window into courtly patronage and the religious landscape of 17th-century Nepal.

The manuscripts under examination are as follows:

1. Śivapūjāpaddhati (NGMPP B 379-23; copied in 1677; 41 folios).

2. Nānārthagītā (B 286-7; copied in 1678; 18 folios).

3. Dīkṣāvidhi (A 239-8; copied in 1682; 49 folios).

4. Nṛtyeśvarapūjāvidhi (A 619-23; copied in 1685, 61 folios).

5. Brahmāyaṇīnityapūjāvidhi (B 193-13; copied in 1687, 40 folios).

6. Cāmuṇḍāpīṭhapūjāvidhi (A 1245-21; copied in 1687, 8 folios).

7. Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati (B 181/17; copied in 1688, 65 folios).

We can use the example of the Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati as a model for how the colophons in these manuscripts are generally composed. It is to be noted that the Sanskrit of the middle to late Malla dynasty displays certain anomalies that occur so consistently as to be almost standardized¹⁷. In the text below, I have recorded these irregularities with the standard forms and spellings found in brackets in order to facilitate interpretation. With this in mind, the colophon which follows the completion statement of the text (iti śrī 3 kubjikāmūrtiguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhatiḥ samāptaḥ) is as follows:

• śrīśrīśrīkubjikāguhyeśvarī prīṇātu.

• yādṛśaṃ pustakaṃ dṛṣṭvā tādṛśaṃ likhitaṃ mayā|

• yadi śuddham aśuddham vā mama doṣo na dīyate||

• śrīnepālasamvat 809. vikramādi¹⁸samvat 1745. śākasamvat 1901. kalisamvat 4789. āṣāḍhe māse. kṛṣṇapakṣe. aṣṭamiprara(Cod.: para em.)¹⁹navamyāyā (Cod.: navamyāṃ em.) tithau. revatiparāśvinīnakṣatre. śukramayoge (Cod.: sukarmayoge em.)²⁰. yathākaraṇamuhūrtake. ādityavāsare. mithunarāsi(Cod.: rāśi em.)gate savitali(Cod.: savitari em.) mīnaparameṣarāsi(Cod.: rāśi em.)candramaśi(Cod.: candramasi em.). thva kuhnu śrīśrīsumatijayajitāmitramallavarmaṇā svakareṇa likhitaṃ saṃpūrṇaṃ.

• anena karmaṇā sveṣṭā devī prīṇātu siddhidā|

• jñātājñātakṛtaṃ karma kṣantum arsiha(Cod.: arhasi em.) me sadā ||

• jitāmitrasya bhūpasya tvāṃ vinā nāsti me gatiḥ |

• tvadbhaktitatparā śaktir matir bhūyāt kulāmbike ||

• śrīśrīśrīsveṣṭadevatā prīṇātu sarvadā.

Thus ends the blessed Kubjikāmūrtiguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati. May the blessed Kubjikāguhyeśvarī favour me! This book was written by me in the very manner it was beheld. Therefore, whether pure or defective, no fault should attach to me. In the year 809 of the Nepal Era, 1745 of the Vikrama Era, 1901 of the Śāka Era and 4789 of the Kali Epoch, in the month of Āṣāḍha, during the dark fortnight, on the day which was the eighth tithi at sunrise and ninth tithi at sunset (literally ‘the ninth lunar day beyond the eighth’²¹), on the day of the Revatī nakṣatra at sunrise and Aśvinī nakṣatra at sunset, in the Sukarma yoga, at the appropriate karaṇa and muhūrta, on a Sunday, when the sun was in Gemini (the month of June), the day on which the moon was in Pisces at sunrise and Aries at sunset, this was written in entirety by the Blessed and Wise King Jayajitāmitramalla by his own hand. May my chosen goddess, the bestower of magical attainments be pleased with this act. It is apt of you to always forgive me for any (wrongful) act done knowingly or unknowingly. There is no path forward for King Jitāmitra without you. May there be wisdom and strength ever committed to devotion to you, O Clan Goddess. May my blessed chosen deity always favour me!

Although not always in the same order, the seven colophons which all begin after a concluding statement (samāptaḥ) therefore share the following features found in the above excerpt: (i) statement(s) soliciting blessings from the chosen deity of the king ending with prīṇātu; (ii) a declaration that the King was the scribe alongside an exculpation of any scribal faults; (iii) highly detailed dates; and (iv) two verses stating the purpose of copying and extoling the King’s chosen/clan deity.

We should first explore the declaration that the king was the scribe and show how we can be confident that these MSS are by his hand. In the colophons, we see the markers of his kingship in the epithet varman which is commonly placed at the end of the names of monarchs as well as the explicit description of him as King Jitāmitra in the verses of devotion (jitāmitrasya bhūpasya). Jitāmitra also includes the adjective sumati (wise) in his name. We know from his inscriptions and other manuscripts whose colophons date their copying to his reign that this is a commonly used epithet of the king (Regmi 2007, p.225). Perhaps most interestingly though is the addition of the term svakareṇa (‘by the own hand’) appearing in the statement which identifies the scribe in five out of seven manuscripts (the exceptions are the Śivapūjāpaddhati and Cāmuṇḍāpīṭhapūjāvidhi). This is the only occasion I have come across where this qualification has been added to a scribal identification statement since usually simply giving the name of the scribe suffices. The king has clearly added this detail to emphasise that the work was not simply commissioned by him or nominally copied by him but actually written in its entirety by his own hand. This is strongly consolidated by the fact that in the Dīkṣāvidhi, a stanza in Sragdharā metre appears just before the colophon explicitly declaring that the King wrote this work himself. Stanzas of this type which identify the scribe of the manuscript before this information is repeated in prose are not unusual and are often indicative of the fact that the copyist was a person of stature and not a common scribe²². As for the question of authenticity, we can say that the handwriting in all these works is identical. Finally, the dates of copying all fall within the period accepted by historians for the reign of Jitāmitra.

Another remarkable feature of the colophons is the manner in which they record the time for the completion of the copying. This is done with immense detail so that not only is the year, month, and lunar fortnight indicated but also all the features of the traditional pañcāṅga system for specifying the day. Thus, all the colophons include the tithi (phase of the moon), nakṣatra (constellation which the moon is passing through), yoga (the sum of the longitudes of the sun and moon, of which there are 27 in a month), and the vāsara (weekday). The fifth component, the karaṇa (half-moon phase) is included alongside the muhūrtaka (48-minute period) in the colophons but is not specified, being merely said to be ‘appropriate’ (yathākaraṇamuhūrtake). To the pañcāṅga are also added the rāśi (zodiac) of the sun (equal to one solar month) and the moon (equal to around 2.5 days). Interestingly, these manuscripts record the year in four different calendrical systems (Nepāla, Kaliyuga, Vikramāditya, and Śāka Samvats) which is a highly unusual phenomenon for medieval Newar colophons since one and, far less frequently, two calendrical systems are the norm (see Formigatti 2022, p.53 and Petech 1984, p.20 for a discussion of this practice). The only calendrical system missing here is the relatively rare Lakṣmaṇa Samvat. All this goes to show that the king must have believed the completion of his scribal work to be a momentous occasion which should be marked in such a way that the specific date and time of this accomplishment could not be mistaken by future generations. His scribal work therefore was considered an important part of his religious duties.

The colophons also inform us about why the king embarks upon the arduous task of copying manuscripts, the length of some works (for instance, 65 folios for the Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati) being an indication of how long it must have taken him to do so. It seems that the reasons for carrying out scribal works was much the same as the reasons for composing religious works which were explored by us with reference to the SMS. The King uses the act of copying as a display of his devotion, to accrue merit and in turn solicit requests from the goddess. Thus, as per our translation of the colophon of the Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati, we are explicitly told that by means of this act of copying (anena karmaṇā), the King expects his chosen deity to favour him. Since in this solicitation, the goddess is portrayed as the granter of siddhis (siddhidā), we may understand that the boons he had in mind also included supernatural attainments. The more mundane boons of strength and wisdom are included later on in the verse. The king’s devotion to the goddess is underscored in the way he portrays himself as totally dependent upon her. This is conveyed by the statement that he has no way forward without her as well as his request for forgiveness for deeds committed even unknowingly. His humility is further highlighted in the statement exculpating the scribe of any blame. In employing this sentence, he has, for an instant, stepped away from his kingship and placed himself in the position of a normal scribe. Through such an attitude, he thus employs the unreserved humility so common to the bhakti genre.

The King’s chosen Goddess

However, what is possibly most fascinating about the devotional outlook that these colophons paint is the clues they give us into the question of who Jitāmitra considered the chosen or clan deity of the Malla kings. As already discussed, scholars have suggested that the goddess who epitomises the role of chosen deity for the Mallas was Taleju. She is a deity whose true identity remains largely concealed since her form, yantra and mantras are only revealed to the king and his royal chaplains (for instance, see Levy 1990, pp.234–241 for the mystery around her identity). While pointing to the identity of Taleju, our manuscripts also seem to provide a richer picture of the king’s relationship with his chosen deity or deities. This evidence is available because the deity in whose honour the copying is done is said to be the king’s tutelary divinity indicated by the use of the titles sveṣṭā devī/sveṣṭadevatā (chosen goddess or divinity) and kulāmbikā (goddess of the clan) in the various statements of solicitation and devotion in the colophons of many of the manuscripts. Moreover, in these colophons, either before or after the usage of the terms meaning chosen/clan deity, a separate solicitation to a named deity is provided.

Thus, in the Kubjikāguheśvarīpūjāpaddhati colophon as shown above, we are given three statements containing benedictions. First, there is ‘śrīśrīśrīkubjikāguhyeśvarī prīṇātu’ (1). After the statements on the date and identity of the scribe, we then have the two devotional verses to the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā (anena…kulāmbike) (2). The colophon is finally completed with another solicitation, this time addressed to the sveṣṭadevatā (3). We can interpret the appearance of three statements of solicitation and their relationship with the named goddess in a number of ways: (i) the named goddess in the solicitation is one and the same as the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā and sveṣṭadevatā of the king and thus the entire colophon refers to a single deity (the king’s patron deity who is none other than Kubjikāguhyeśvarī); (ii) the named goddess is the same as the sveṣṭā devī and kulāmbikā but different to the sveṣṭā devatā; and (iii) all three—the kulāmbikā, Kubjikāguhyeśvarī and the sveṣṭadevatā—are separate figures, the names of the kulāmbikā and sveṣṭadevatā going unrecorded. At this point, it is worth mentioning that, out of the seven, four manuscript colophons (Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati, Nṛtyeśvarapūjāvidhi, Brahmāyaṇīnityapūjāvidhi, Cāmuṇḍāpīṭhapūjāvidhi) contain all three figures—the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā, sveṣṭadevatā and named divinity; in one manuscripts (Dīkṣāvidhi), we have only two figures (the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā and named divinity) while in the remaining two (Śivapūjāpaddhati and Nānārthagītā), there is only mention of a named divinity.

Setting aside for the time being the relationship between the terms sveṣṭadevatā and sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā, I believe that we should at least consider the possibility that the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā and the named goddess are identical. In my mind, this is indicated through the sequence of the statements of solicitation/obeisance found in all four other manuscripts containing the term kulāmbikā which seemingly align the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā directly with the named goddess. Therefore, in the Dīkṣāvidhi manuscript, for instance, the end of the colophon is as follows:

• jitāmitrasya bhūpasya tvāṃ vinā nāsti me gatiḥ |

• tvadbhaktitatparā śaktir matir bhūyāt kulāmbike || ||

• śrīśrīśrīsiddhilakṣmī prīṇātu

There is no path forward for King Jitāmitra without you. May there be wisdom and strength ever committed to devotion to you, O Clan Goddess. May Blessed Siddhilakṣmī favour me!

This structure is likewise repeated for the colophons of the Cāmuṇḍāpīṭhāpūjāpaddhati and the Brahmāyaṇīnityapūjāvidhi. In all three colophons, the statement of solicitation to the named deity comes immediately after the word kulāmbikā (clan goddess), making it tempting for us to see the clan goddess and the named goddess as the same figure. The only difference found in the two above manuscripts is that the named deities are Cāmuṇḍā and Maheśvarī rather than Siddhilakṣmī. The somewhat more complicated Nṛtyeśvarpūjāvidhi, where the statement with the named goddess does also occur straight after the verse on the kulāmbikā, will be discussed later. Thus, if we are to follow the hypothesis that the named deity and the clan/chosen goddess in the colophons are one and the same, this would mean that the identity of the sveṣṭā devī of the King, and subsequently of Taleju, is polyvalent since the named deities include Kubjikāguhyeśvarī, Siddhilakṣmī, Maheśvarī, and Cāmuṇḍā.

The idea that the colophons potentially indicate that Jitāmitra saw Taleju as a polysemous figure who could take on the identities of multiple Śaiva goddesses fits well with the conclusions regarding the amorphous nature of Taleju drawn by previous scholars through other forms of evidence, especially anthropological and epigraphic. Sanderson for instance argues that in her esoteric form, Taleju is most likely associated with both Kubjikā and Siddhilakṣmī (Sanderson 2004, pp.372–373, fn. 74), two named deities that also appear in conjunction with the title kulāmbikā in Jitāmitra’s colophons. Levy (1990, pp.240–241 and 559–562 and 1987, pp.112–119), meanwhile, has shown that during the festival of Mohanī, Taleju is linked to a plethora of Śaiva goddesses, becoming Kumārī, acting as the empowerment of the Navadurgās and taking the form of Mahiṣāsurmardinī. Likewise, in her study of Pratāpamalla’s inscriptions, Bledsoe (2004) acknowledges the indeterminacy of Taleju’s identity, noting that in Sanskrit inscriptions²³, the names appearing most often in conjunction with Taleju are ‘Kālikā, Kālī, and Bhavānī, also Caṇḍikā, Ambikā, Durgā, Umā and more’. Thus, Bledsoe concludes, ‘no doubt we are to understand that she was any and all of the Śaiva goddess’ many forms’.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that, although I cautiously believe the named goddesses are to be understood as the kulāmbikā, the evidence I have supplied is by no means conclusive. Until firmer evidence comes to light, the reader should remain open to the idea that the named goddesses are perhaps simply those to whose worship the paddhati is dedicated. However, even if this were the case, the very fact that the King undertook the laborious copying of these goddesses’ manuals does show they must have had some special, if not tutelary, relationship to him. Moreover, there is no reason why these goddesses are not both those relevant to the paddhati’s worship and the chosen deity of the King.

After discussing the quandary of the named goddess, we now must account for the appearance of both the terms sveṣṭā devī and sveṣṭadevatā in three of the colophons and the relationship between these two terms. I believe that a closer examination of the colophon of the Nṛtyeśvarapūjāvidhi, the importance and complexity of which was kindly highlighted by the reviewer of this article, may supply us with some tentative answers. In this manuscript, the formula for benediction/obeisance occurs three times after the completion statement (iti śrīśrīśrīnāṭeśvaramahābhairava²⁴pūjāpaddhati samāptaḥ). The first benediction is (1) ‘śrīśrīśrīsveṣṭadevatā prīṇātu sarvadā’. This is then followed by a statement exculpating the scribe of blame, the details of the date and time of copying and the statement that the copying was by Jitāmitra’s own hand. After this comes (2) another statement of benediction as follows:

• anena karmaṇā sveṣṭā devī prīṇātu siddhidā|

• jñātājñātakṛtaṃ karma kṣantum arhasi me sadā ||

• jitāmitrasya bhūpasya tvāṃ vinā nāsti (me)²⁵gatiḥ |

• tvadbhaktitatparā śaktir matir bhūyāt kulāmbike ||

• śrīśrīśrībhavānīśaṃkrarābhyāṃ(Cod.: śaṃkarābhyāṃ em.) namaḥ

This is followed by the Newari colophon and finally the third benediction (3): śrīśrīśrīnāṭeśvara prīṇātu.

Firstly, and this also applies to the three other colophons where both the term sveṣṭadevatā and sveṣṭā devī occur, the fact that two distinct terms for ‘chosen deity’ are used, the second consciously referring to a feminine divinity suggests that we are here looking at two chosen deities that are male and female respectively. This is in fact neatly supported by the presence of the above obeisance to the divine couple, Bhavānī and Śaṃkara. Jitāmitra has perhaps added this obeisance to clarify who the sveṣṭadevatā and sveṣṭā devī are. Adopting this view, the sveṣṭā devī should then be Bhavānī, a term that can denote any Śaiva goddess and indeed conforms with our earlier analysis of the multivalence of Taleju. The fact that the Bhavānī of the obeisance is meant to refer to the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā is also supported by the pre-colophon stanza of authorship in the Dīkṣāvidhi where her role as Jitāmitra’s chosen deity is set out in no uncertain terms because the king is described as one ‘whose mind is wholly absorbed in contemplating the soles of the lotus-feet of blessed Bhavānī’ (see fn. 22 for a full transcription of the Sanskrit).

Meanwhile, the sveṣṭadevatā is Śaṃkara/Śiva. That Jitāmitra should have two chosen divinities is not surprising as it is well-known that the Malla kings viewed themselves as ruling jointly by the grace of both Taleju and Paśupati, these kings’ relationship to Paśupati being highlighted earlier in this article. The possible solution I propose may also explain the need for the final solicitation to Nāṭeśvara who is in fact a form of Śiva. What the King perhaps indicates in this colophon is that, by means of the instructions of this manuscript and its copying, he is worshipping his chosen male divinity (Śiva/Paśupati) in his form as the Lord of the Dance (Nāṭeśvara). With this in mind, I tentatively tend towards the second hypothesis outlined at the beginning of this section; that the named goddess may be a form of the sveṣṭā devī/kulāmbikā, although she is to be seen as distinct from the sveṣṭadevatā who is most likely Śiva.

Two Maṇḍalas drawn by the King

Beyond the copying of the text itself, the king appears to be responsible for the drawing of two maṇḍalas at the end of the manuscript titled Dīkṣāvidhi. The writing in the maṇḍala matches the handwriting for the rest of the manuscript so if we are to assume that this text is authentic, this too must apply to the maṇḍalas. As far as I am aware, this is the first time in which a maṇḍala drawn by a South Asian king has been discussed in secondary literature. It thus makes for an interesting discovery. The exact identity of the two maṇḍalas, which are vaguely labelled the gurumaṇḍala and devamaṇḍala under the drawings, has not been ascertained by me while the contents of the Dīkṣāvidhi which I surveyed do not seem to yield any clues. However, several things can be deduced from the writing on the maṇḍalas which is mainly abbreviated labels for the occupants of the diagrams. The maṇḍalas appear at the bottom of the manuscript’s last folio (exposure 37b in the microfilm) and are illustrated as Fig. 2 in this article. Before proceeding to their description, we may briefly discuss the curious shape that separates the two maṇḍalas—a rectangle lined with six triangles each on its two lengthwise sides with a head protruding from the upper side and arms and legs extending from its corners. I tentatively take this figure to be a vetāla. Slusser explains that vetālas are typically worshipped at the threshold of Tantric shrines in the Kathmandu Valley, especially that of Bhairava and Śākta divinities, where they accept the blood offerings made to these deities on their behalf. They are commonly depicted as a supine corpse placed in a rectangular diagram (Slusser 1982, Vol. I, pp.134, 335, and 337), a famous example being the vetāla in front of the Pacalī Bhairava shrine in Kathmandu (Slusser 1982, Vol. II, plate 369). The physical appearance of the figure in our manuscript alongside the presence of multiple fiercesome Tantric goddesses and Bhairavas in the two maṇḍalas mean that the drawing fits this identification.

In the first maṇḍala, we have three layers of rectangles embedded in one another. The orientation of the maṇḍala can be discerned on account of the label pūrva (East) just outside the maṇḍala above the outer rectangle’s top side. I have deciphered the abbreviations to piece together the occupants in each layer from the centre as follows:

• 1) The five faces of Sadāśiva deposited in their associated directions, which are Tatpuruṣa abbreviated as ‘Tatpu’ by Jitāmitra in the East; Aghora (abbr. ‘Agho’) in the South; Sadyojāta (abbr. ‘Sadyo’) in the West; Vāmadeva (abbr. Vāma) in the North; and Īśāna (abbr. Ī) in the Northeast.

• 2) The four goddesses/sisters of Tumburu of the Vāma stream of Tantric Śaivism—Jayā, Vijayā, Ajitā, and Aparājitā—in the East, Southeast, South, and Southwest (the latter three abbreviated as ‘Vi’, ‘Aji’, and ‘Apa’) alongside four siddhis—jṛmbhana or ‘causing to sleep’ (abbr. ‘jṛmbha’), stambhana or paralysis (abbr. ‘stambha’), mohana or delusion (abbr. ‘moha’), and ākarṣaṇa or attraction (abbr. ‘āka’) in the West, Northwest, North, and Northeast²⁶.

• 3) The eight lokapālas in their traditional directions beginning with Indra in the East and ending with Īśāna in the Northeast with the two guardians of the zenith and nadir—Brahmā and Viṣṇu—wedged between Īśāna and Indra and Nirṛti and Varuṇa, respectively.

This maṇḍala is tantalising as it incorporates the four principal goddesses of the Vāma, which Sanderson has hypothesised as ‘one of the earliest, perhaps the earliest of the esoteric Śaiva systems’ (Sanderson 2009, p.129, fn. 301). In this school, a form of Śiva known as Tumburu is worshipped accompanied by his four sisters (Jayā, Vijayā, Ajitā, and Aparājitā). As Sanderson (2009 and 2014) shows, this tradition, of which only one scripture now survives (the Vīṇāśikha), must have dated from at least the middle of the 6th century as dating of its post-scriptural manuscripts and the reference to it by the 6th century Dharmakīrti prove. The Vāma enjoyed widespread patronage in the 8th century in South and Southeast Asia only to face a decline following the 10th century. The survival of the worship of its deities and mantras was mainly due to its inclusion into the pantheon of other Tantric traditions, including the Buddhist Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa.²⁷

However, its appearance in this maṇḍala provides valuable proof that these goddesses, perhaps embedded in a different and wider cultic setting, were still being worshipped by the kings of Nepal well into the 17th century. Moreover, it is likely that the siddhis that appear on the same maṇḍalic level as the four sisters should be understood as the magical powers which these goddesses grant. This is supported by how the existing literature of the Vāma stream suggests that a prime purpose for the worship of the four divine sisters was the attainment of siddhis. Thus, for instance, the sole surviving literature of the exegesis of this cult—a fragment of the Devītantrasadbhāvasāra—states that the Mantras of the four goddesses ‘were made manifest at the beginning of creation so that men could attain supernatural accomplishments and liberation’ (Sanderson 2009, fn. 22, pp.50–51).

As for the second circular maṇḍala, once the abbreviations are deciphered, it is found to comprise the following layers from the centre:

• 1) Four aṅganyāsa locations—the heart, head crest, the shield, and the eyes—deposited in the East, South, West, and North. These are all unnabbreviated except for kavaca written by Jitāmitra as ‘kava’.

• 2) The eight mātṛkās in their associated directions. The identity and nomenclature for these eight can vary from list to list. The list of eight recorded by Jitāmitra which is the one commonly found in Bhaktapur (see Levy 1990, pp.230–231) is as follows: Brahmāṇī (abbr. ‘Brahma’) in the East, Māheśvarī (abbr. ‘Māhe’) in the Southeast, Kaumārī (abbr. ‘Kaumā’) in the South, Vaiṣṇavī (abbr. ‘Vaiṣṇa’) in the Southwest, Vārāhī (abbr. ‘Vārā’) in the West, Indrāṇī (abbr. ‘Indrā’) in Northwest, Cāmuṇḍā (abbr. ‘Cāmu’) in the North, and Mahālakṣmī (abbr. ‘Mahā’) in the Northeast.

• 3) The eight Bhairavas who are sometimes paired with these eight Mātṛkās, some of whose names are abbreviated. These are Asitāṅga (abbr. ‘Asi’), Ruru, Caṇḍa, Krodha, Unmatta (abbr. ‘Unma’), Kapāla (abbr. ‘Kapā’), Bhīṣaṇa (abbr. ‘Bhīṣa’), and Saṃhāra (abbr. ‘Samhā’) from the East to Northeast.

Due to the aṅganyāsa locations which are more conventionally six in number, we can suppose that the function of this yantra is protective²⁸. The fact that the king drew these yantras himself supplements our analysis of his religious profile from the SMS. There, he advertised himself to be a Tantric expert through his knowledge of the arcane mantras and yantras of Siddhilakṣmī. The Dīkṣāvidhi manuscript, however, proves that he was not only theoretically able to render a Tantric maṇḍala but was capable of putting theory to practice by drawing them. This allows us to see his involvement in Tantric practice as even deeper than originally imagined.

The identity of Guhyeśvarī

Although the contents of the seven manuscripts contain much of interest for the historian of religion, we cannot delve into all the important insights they reveal. However, for the sake of demonstrating the value of just one manuscript for the study of medieval Nepali religion, let us return to the Kubjikāguhyeśvarīpūjāpaddhati. I will argue that this paddhati shows us how Jitāmitra conceived of the goddess Guhyeśvarī, answering some queries posed by scholars about her identity and links to other cults. Guhyeśvarī has long been a deity of prime importance in the Kathmandu Valley, leading some scholars, such as Lévi (1905–1907, Vol. I, p.376), to even identify her as the state goddess of Nepal. Michaels (2008), whose work on this goddess and her temple is quite comprehensive, refrains from giving her this title but does note that ‘Guhyeśvarī is from the earliest records linked with royalty’ (p.134).

He also remarks upon her ancient pairing with Paśupati, who is indeed an indisputable rāṣṭradevatā of Nepal, as shown by her role as his consort in texts such as the pre-12th century Niśisaṃcāratantra. We can at least be sure, as Sanderson states, that her association with Nepal predated the 13th century given her appearance in Vimalaprabodha’s early 13th century Kālīkulakramārcana as part of the cycle of worship of the 64 pīṭhas where she is hailed the resident goddess of the Nepālapīṭha²⁹. Her significance is also confirmed by the current site of her temple adjacent to Paśupati which was established in its present form by Pratāpamalla in 1654 as well as the continous patronage of royalty attested by inscriptions up until the Rāṇā period. Even today, this temple is still considered the Valley’s pre-eminent śaktipīṭha.

In spite of her antiquity and importance, Guhyeśvarī’s identity remains amorphous. Michaels (1996, pp.303–343 and 2008, pp.138–143) summarises the confusion over her identity by showing how it can be Purāṇic, Tantric, Buddhist, or even folk depending on the group or text approached for information. Even within the Śaiva Tantric fold, scholars have debated who exactly she is, seeing her as Guhyakālī, Kubjikā, Caṇḍikā, Durgā or Taleju (Michaels 2008, p.140). Our paddhati is significant in that it gives us clear proof of the way the Bhaktapuri royal court engaged with this deity. Firstly, it shows us that Jitāmitra did indeed view Guhyeśvarī as the consort of the rāṣṭradevatā, Paśupati. In a manner very similar to the verse linking Guhyeśvarī to Paśupati in the Niśisaṃcāratantra³⁰, the paddhati twice extols her as follows (Exposure 3b, l. 2-3 and 28b, l. 6):

• guhyeśvarī mahābhāge nityaṃ paśupatiyutā |

• nepāle saṁsthitā devī guhyeśvarī namo’ stu te ||

Guhyeśvarī, the Highly Eminent is forever joined to Paśupati, dwelling in Nepal. Obeisance to you, Goddess Guhyeśvarī!

Evidence already exists in the form of his 1654 inscription on the erection of the Guhyeśvarī temple which indicates that King Pratāpamalla viewed Guhyeśvarī as the consort of Paśupati (see Michaels 2008, p.135). Our manuscript by Jitāmitra confirms that this view of the goddess was not only restricted to the city state of Kathmandu but shared by the entire Valley.

More importantly, the paddhati unequivocally aligns Guhyeśvarī with Kubjikā. Beyond the self-evident proof found in the name of the paddhati itself, this link is made obvious in the mantras in the course of worship. For instance, the mantra for the offering of bali to the central deities of the paddhati—the divine couple, Paśupati and Guhyeśvarī—is as follows (Exposure 20b, l. 5–6): aiṃ 5 hskṣmlvryūṃ paśupati kṣetrapālāya shkṣmlvryīṁ śrīguhyeśvarīdevī-ambāśrīpādukāṃ. What we see here is Guhyeśvarī taking on the nine-syllabled seed mantra of Kubjikā (shkṣmlvryīṁ) and Paśupati adopting that of Navātman (hskṣmlvryūṃ)³¹. Interestingly, this proves that it is not only Guhyeśvarī who has a hidden Tantric identity in the eyes of the Bhaktapuri court but also the largely vegetarian and orthodox Paśupati.

Furthermore, the name of this paddhati is not due to its worship of two separate deities—Kubjikā and Guhyeśvarī—but one composite deity as shown by the colophon where the request for favour from the goddess is expressed in the imperative third person singular and not dual (prīṇātu). This evidence does not preclude Guhyeśvarī from possessing multiple other identities besides that of Kubjikā but since our liturgy was important enough to be copied by the king himself, it seems that the association of Kubjikā with Guhyeśvarī was a core part of courtly religion in 17th century Bhaktapur. It also appears to support Gellner’s view that Kubjikā is one of the prime candidates for Guhyeśvarī’s identity. He states in his 1992 work (p.80), ‘Sanjukta Gupta has inspected some of the inscriptions inside the Guhyeśvarī temple and informs me that they are addressed to Kubjikā’. Such an identification is further bolstered by Regmi’s citation of a manuscript of the Kubjikāmaya dated 1573 giving Guhyeśvarī as the epithet of Kubjikā (Regmi 2007, p.585). It should be added that our royal paddhati contains much more fascinating information on the state of Kubjikā’s cult including dhyānas of myriad forms of the central divine pair and her ancillaries, giving us an idea of the exact iconic types that were propitiated by the king. Without delving into this, however, we can argue that the paddhati proves that the cult of Kubjikā was alive and well among royal circles even in the late 17th century.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is hoped that this brief examination of the unpublished works of King Jitāmitra provides us with precious information on the devotional profile of a Newar king as well as the religious engagement of his court. We have seen how poetic compositions enable the king to craft an intimate relationship with his patron goddess that legitimises his rule, both as orthodox kṣatriya and esoteric tāntrika. Our analysis of the manuscripts copied by him also shows how the identity of this patron goddess may be open-ended while the very cursory look at the contents beyond their colophons give us a privileged view into the cults patronised by the court, including the king’s view of the mysterious Guhyeśvarī. The colophons show why the king undertook the role of scribe and, as with the Stotra, show Newar kings to be heavily involved with Tantric ritual far beyond that of a financial patron. In short, as documents which were written at a definite point in time and from the perspective of a particular individual—in fact, the most important individual in the land—these royal works give us a specificity and rootedness hard to come by in many other forms of textual evidence from the Kathmandu Valley. However, we have only scratched the surface of this literature in our article and far more of these important manuscripts’ contents remain undiscussed, awaiting further attention from both philologists and historians.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Professor Diwakar Acharya with whom he read much of the primary material for this article and who helped clarify problematic philological points. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their incisive comments and attention to detail. My appreciation goes out to Dr. Charles Li for his efforts in reading and astutely commenting upon an earlier version of this article.

References

Footnotes