Just as the practices of Kurukullā have roots in Indian love magic (mohana, vaśīkaraṇa), her attributes reflect the influence of deities associated with the broader Indic tradition. She shares several striking similarities with Kāmadeva, the Hindu god of love, who provokes overpowering lust with his flower-tipped arrow and sugarcane bow strung with bees. His epithets include Puśpadhanvā, ‘holder of the flowered bo’, and Puṣpaśara, or Kusumabāṇa, ‘flower-arrowed god’, as well as Kusumāyudha, ‘possessor of flowery weapons’. The association of the floral bow and arrow with a well-known love deity surely figured in their bestowal on the Buddhist ‘goddess of love’. Kāmadeva’s bowstring made of bees finds resonance in Kurukullā’s arsenal of bees. Interestingly, Kāmadeva, too, is seen as a powerful subjugator, as well as a cupid figure, purveyor of sweet amour. It is telling that several hagiographies of Kurukullā are envisioned as sitting or standing on Kāmadeva, a motif that expresses the superiority of her powers but implicitly recognizes the commonalities between them.
Kurukullā in her four-armed Tantric manifestation bears an intriguing resemblance to Lalitā(or Tripurā and Tripurasundarī), the great goddess (Mahādevī) of the Srīvidyā school of Hindu Tantra. Lalitā is envisioned as red in color, armed with a noose, hook, bow, and arrows. The striking convergence between Kurukullā and Lalitā in their red coloration, handheld attributes, and floral adornments introduces the possibility that the Tantric iconography of Kurukullā was patterned out of her Hindu counterpart. Lalitā is a regal, seated figure, akin to Kurukullā in her Mahāyāna manifestations, whereas the Tantric epiphany of Kurukullā evincing these specific attributes (the noose and goad, along with the bow and arrow) is a dancing ḍākinī. Were the same attributes conferred on Kurukullā in seated form, she would be virtually indistinguishable from Lalitā. Therefore one wonders whether the assimilation of features of Lalitā, goddess supreme for a significant school of Hindu Tantrics, had a role in Kurukullā’s evolution in the Buddhist pantheon. That is, Kurukullā may have been endowed with attributes of Lalitā and at the same time re-envisioned as a dancing Tantric figure in part to introduce a readily apparent difference between the two.
Similarities between the two goddesses do not end here. Like Kurukullā, Lalitā is a captivatingly beautiful goddess, a ‘universal enchantress’ (sarvamohinī), who ‘brings everyone under her spell’ (aśeṣajanamohinī) and ‘wields dominion over all worlds’ (sarvalokavaśaṅkarī). Lalitā, too, is a goddess of ruby radiance, the color of passion, who, ‘overflowing with desire and pleasure’ (kāmakelitaraṅgitā), embodies the fullness of desire (śṛṅgārarasasaṃpūrṇā) and the essence of womanly love (lolākṣī kāmarūpiṇī). Her abode is variously said to be a mountain and a cave. She is ḍākinīśvarīand, most suggestively, has as one of her epithets Kurukullā.
Although Lalitā claims a broad spectrum of qualities, in keeping with her status, these distinctive titles and traits precisely converge with those of Kurukullā. In view of the commonalities between them, in both iconography and persona, it seems likely that attributes of Lalitā left an imprint on conceptions of Kurukullā. Lalitā’s sovereignty in her own pantheon may also have prompted Kurukullā’s ascension in hers, as Kurukullā was infused with the exalted aura of a goddess supreme.
That Lalitā influenced Buddhist iconographers is confirmed by a form of Vajrayoginī that also bears her imprint *.
Kurukullā’s association with love magic and connections with Kāmadeva and especially Lalitā disclose that her character was profoundly shaped by non-Buddhist elements of Indian culture. Thus, Kurukullā was easily reabsorbed into Hindu Tantra after the demise of Buddhism in India.
The etymological derivation of the name Kurukullā is unclear. Indic sources identify it as the name of her mountain-dwelling. Early manuscript paintings depict her within a mountain grotto, and one of these illustrations is accompanied by an inscription identifying her as ‘Kurukullā of Kurukulla Mountain in Lāṭadeśa (i.e., Gujarat). She is elsewhere described as ‘dwelling on Kurukulla mountain’ and as residing in a cave on the said mountain. Although ‘Kurukulla’ does not appear among documented Indic toponyms, the name may formerly have been in usage, and Buddhists may have recognized the peak as a sacred site.
Because the name Kurukullā does not yield to translation, Tibetans often retain the Sanskrit nomen, sometimes modified to Kurukulle. The Tibetan version of her name, Rigjayma, ‘Mistress of Magic’, or ‘Mistress of Knowledge’, is not a literal rendition of the Sanskrit, as would usually be the case. Interestingly, however, a direct Sanskrit rendering of Rigjayma would be Vidyā, an epithet suggestively recalling Lalitā, the supreme goddess of the Srividyā school, who is known as Vidyā, ādividyā (Primordial Knowledge) and Mahāvidyā (Great Knowledge).
* Sanderson has pointed out that the iconographic and mantric form of Guhyavajravilāsinī is close to that of Lalitā Tripurasundarī. Tripurasundarī (also called Kāmeśvarī) is depicted in the main scripture as red, with red garments, garlanded with red flowers, one-faced and four-armed, carrying a noose, hook, a bow and five arrows (the five arrows of the love god), and seated above lower gods on the body of white Sadāśiva. Guhyavajravilāsinī is similar to Lalitā in that she holds a noose, and like her, is red in color, of unparalleled beauty, and seductive by nature. Their names too are similar, as Tripurasundarī’s alternative appellation is Lalitā, which like Vilāsinī is suggestive of the sport of love. Most telling of Tripurasundarī’s influence, however, is Guhyavajravilāsinī’s mantra supplied in the mantroddhāra. This reveals a distinctive five-syllabled mantra (eṃ, nlīṃ, rīṃ, rūṃ, blīṃ), the syllables of which are a calque upon the five ‘arrow’ syllables of Tripurasundarī, as taught in the Vāmakeśvarīmata.
The male consorts in the two traditions are also similar in that both are ‘lords of love’. Tripurasundarī perches upon Kāmeśvara’s left thigh, while Vajravilāsinī makes love with Padmanarteśvara. As a form of Avalokiteśvara, Padmanarteśvara’s connection with the compassionate Vajravilāsinī goddess seems particularly appropriate, and this is borne out on the mythical level by śabara’s association with the practice, discussed earlier. In drawing upon the form of Padmanarteśvara in this way, Sanderson has suggested that the Guhyasamayasādhanamālā may be using material from the lesser-known parts of the Buddhist tradition in order to accommodate new Shaiva based elements within the Buddhist tradition. The name ‘Padmanarteśvara’ itself is, of course, immediately reminiscent of Shiva as ‘Lord of the Dance’, Naṭarāja. – Elizabeth English