113bC4l

172 ⁄ siddhas and the religious landscape
human and divine, are associated with specific institutionalized lineages and
not simply free-floating forms. Whether the topic is the gods or the saints of
the systems, they are represented within specific lineages and traditions. When
Buddhist texts are concerned with theological objects, these come into view at
specific locales and under sometimes peculiar circumstances, as shown below in
the case of Heruka. Thus Sanderson properly moves the discussion from a
proposition about religious icons to the analysis of specific religious agents.
Unhappily, Ruegg’s model cannot entirely account for the spectrum of
specifics, based on caste, gender, locale, affiliation, and other variables. It appears
not entirely applicable, especially because of its postulation of a Platonic
plane wherein resides the forms iterated in specific religious systems. His position
seems analogous to Saussure’s langue/parole model, wherein the entire potential
of a language (langue) is never expressed in the particular speech of a person
(parole). 4 Because of their structuralist formulations, neither Saussure’s nor
Ruegg’s models—and this is part of Sanderson’s criticism—can easily take into
account regional variation, incomprehensible idioms, place-specific identity,
and the sudden emergence of a new prototype that overwhelms some parts of a
religious system but not others. 5 Yet Sanderson’s observation of the specificity
of lineages seems also excessively reified, for it would be difficult from his model
to determine whether there were unique local personalities or specific movements
even within these broad heterodox groups.
In an entirely different direction, White postulated that human siddhas appropriated
the designation “siddha” in order to emulate the behavior and to
obtain the powers of their celestial heroes. 6 According to this line of reasoning,
the celestial band lived on mountain peaks, and the earthly siddhas attempted
to secure their services, their females, and—ultimately—their powers.
Again we might wonder if this is not excessively reified. Whatever its applicability
to other traditions, White’s position does not accord well with the primary
data on the Buddhist goal, which seem to speak of supremacy over the
Vidyadharas (sorcerers, human or divine) rather than celestial siddhas. Certainly
for Buddhists, human siddha behavior was not in imitation of the celestial
Perfected, but sought to gain power through decidedly different means.
Since the term does not apply to Buddhist saints until the medieval period,
we might look to non-Buddhist sources for some degree of inspiration, especially
in view of the astonishing variation and vitality of Indian religion during
the ancient and medieval eras. 7 For the present purposes, though, this discussion
is limited to those non-Buddhist systems with an observable clergy or
group identity, rather than unfocused popular movements. Buddhist documents
consistently specify the interaction between Buddhists and others at this