– Elisabeth Benard
The best-known theory of Chinnamastā’s Buddhist or Hindu origin is from B. Bhattacharyya who wrote several articles about the influence of Buddhist Tantra on Hinduism. Editing various meditation manuals on deities, notably the Buddhist Sādhanamālā, he formulated the theory that some Hindu deities must have been originally Buddhist ones, including Tārā, Chinnamāstā, and Mañjughōṣa. Regarding Chinnamāstā, he compared Buddhist and Hindu meditations on her, mantras and iconography from the Buddhist Sadhanamālā (dated 1165 C.E.), the Hindu Chinnamāstākalpa of uncertain origin, and the Hindu Kr̥ṣṇānanda āgamavāgiśa’s Tantrasāra (seventeenth century). He concluded that the Buddhist and Hindu Chinnamāstā were the same goddess and ‘identical in all details’. Indeed she is the same goddess but certain details are different. In the Hindu sādhana, she stands on Rati and Kama who are in reversed sexual union (viparīta) and wears a snake as a sacred cord, but these elements are absent in the Buddhist sādhanas.
He compared the mantras found in the three above-mentioned texts to establish the Buddhist precedence. The Buddhist Sādhanamālā states that the names of the two attendants are prefixed with ‘Vajra’ – Vajravairōcanī and Vajravarṇinī, and the main goddess’ name is Sarvabuddhaḍākinī referring to the severed-head form of Vajrayōginī. The prefix ‘Vajra’ is dropped in the mantra of the Hindu Tantrasāra but the three names, Dākinī, Varṇinī, and Vairōcanī, remain and ‘Sarvabuddha’ becomes ‘Sarvasiddhi’. In the Hindu Chinnamāstākalpa, ‘Sarvabuddha’ changes to ‘Sarvabuddhi’, and the prefix ‘Vajra’ reappears. Bhattacharyya does not note this directly but ‘Vajra’ is a principal adjective in the Buddhist Tantra, also known as the Vajrayāna – the adamantine path. Hindus typically would not want to use the adjective ‘Vajra’ if indeed they incorporated a Buddhist mantra. Moreover, ‘Sarvabuddha’ which means all Buddhas or Awakened Ones would not be acceptable to Hindus; Buddha was replaced with ‘siddhi’ or ‘buddhi’. Bhattacharyya concluded that these words of the mantra are decidedly Buddhist. Thus, by comparing the iconography, the dates of the manuscripts, and the mantras, Bhattacharya concluded that Chinnamāstā is originally Buddhist and this statement has not been disputed by most scholars.
Bhattacharyya claimed that the Buddhist Chinnamāstā, usually known as Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī or Vajrayōginī, was worshipped at least by the seventh century. The Sādhanamālā states that Siddha Sabarapa (variant spelling śabarīpa), a disciple of Siddha Nāgārjuna who flourished in the mid-seventh century, is credited with the introduction of a new cult of Vajrayōginī which Bhattacharyya inferred to be that of Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī. Two Vajrayōginī sādhanas are attributed to Siddha śabara in the Tibetan commentarial canon, Tangyur, but neither of these sādhanas mentions Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī. Moreover, Mahāsiddha śabara’s biography does not state that he either received or transmitted a meditation of Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī.
Though śabara’s connection is not apparent, Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī is associated with other Mahāsiddhas. The biography of Mahāsiddha Kanhapā (Kr̥ṣṇācārya) states that seven days before his death, he taught his disciples the meditation practice of the severed head Vajravārāhī. Two of Kanhapa’s disciples who received teachings of Vajravārāhī from him were the Mahāsiddha sisters, Mēkhalā and Kanakhalā. The Tangyur has one sādhana by these two sisters; it is entitled, ‘The Practice of Instructions of the Three Svastikas (nandyāvartatraya mukhāgama nāma). In this sādhana, one is told to visualize oneself as Chinnamuṇḍā Vajravārāhī, and near the end of the meditation, it is inferred that one visualizes replacing one’s head. Thus, the meditational practice of Chinnamuṇḍā Vajravārāhī was transmitted from Mahāsiddha Kanhapa to the two sisters, Mēkhalā and Kanakhalā.
The Mahāsiddhā, who is the most important in continuing the meditative practice of Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī which began in India and was transmitted to Nepal and Tibet, is Lakṣmīṅkarā, sister of King Indrabhūti. Though neither the biography of Lakṣmīṅkarā nor that of her brother, King Indrabhūti, mentions any connection with Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī, the Tangyur has four sādhanas on Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī written by Lakṣmīṅkarā or her disciples. These are the Vajrayōginī sādhana, Chinnamuṇḍā Vajravārāhī written by śrīmatī (an epithet for Lakṣmīṅkarā), Chinnamuṇḍā sādhana by Birapa (Virūpa), Lakṣmīṅkarā’s disciple, and Chinnamuṇḍā Vajrayōginī sādhana by śāriputra, the disciple of Virūpa. The Blue Annals (late fifteenth century) states that many Tibetan yogis were initiated and practiced the system known as Phag mo gzhung drug (the six topics of Vajravārāhī) bestowed by Lakṣmīṅkarā on her disciple Virūpa who in turn conferred it to the great Avadhūtipa, also known as Paiṇḍapātika. The main link in Nepal was the Newari paṇḍita Varēndraruci, translator of many works in the Tangyur.
Though most scholars accept the Buddhist origin of Chinnamastā, some scholars disagree that she is originally Buddhist and present arguments for a Hindu origin. In the Ten Great Cosmic Powers, S Shankaranarayanan states:
Chinnamastā is the thunderclap and the lightning flash. “Shining like a streak of lightning” (vidyullēkhēva bhāsvarā), says the Upaniṣad. That is why Chinnamastā is known as Vajravairōcanīyā. She is the force of Virōcana, the specially luminous (viśēṣēṇa rōtatē’ti virōcanaḥ). Who is this Virōcana? It is the Supreme himself, the Primordial Prakāśa. Vajra is her power that he wields. We know the Vajra is the weapon of Indra, who is the paramount God in the Veda.
In traditional Hindu fashion, Shankaranarayanan seeks to find Chinnamastā’s source in the Vedas and stresses the importance of the word ‘vajra’ in her mantra as a connection with the Vedic deity, Indra. Admittedly, Indra is a paramount deity in the Vedas and he wields his potent Vajra, but the sādhanas of Chinnamastā do not associate her with Indra nor does she hold a Vajra in her Hindu or Buddhist form. Also, S. Bhattacharji, in her book The Indian Theogony, stresses that the Vedic Goddess Nirr̥ti’s functions have been replaced by her direct descendent – Kālī, Karālī, Chāmuṇḍā, and Chinnamastā. Both these scholars claim that Chinnamastā is connected to Vedic deities, implying Vedic antecedents for her.
In the Hindu literature, Chinnamastā is not mentioned until the Purāṇas such as the Mahādēvībhāgavata Purāṇa and the śākta Mahābhāgavata Purāṇa (950 C.E.). The śākta Mahābhāgavata Purāṇa seems to be the earliest reference to Chinnamastā in Hindu literature.