Notes

n.1The two goddesses are half-sisters, since Mahādeva is the father of both of them.

n.2The texts belonging to this group are Toh 670, Toh 671, Toh 672, Toh 840, Toh 842, and Toh 1090/1777. While a detailed analysis of the provenance of this group of texts is beyond the scope of this introduction, we may briefly note that none of these works has a translator’s colophon. Therefore, their status as translated texts from Sanskrit cannot be verified. Indeed, this group of texts devoted to Śrīdevī Mahākālī and Rematī likely first began to circulate not in India but rather in late eighth- or early ninth-century Tibet, where they appeared at the nexus of Indian and Tibetan Buddhist traditions, a point of intersection where Indic figures, narratives, and iconography found new expressions within the unfolding Tibetan Buddhist idiom. In addition to the texts in this grouping, there are other Kangyur texts, such as Toh 458, Toh 746, and Toh 1091, in which the name Revatī (nam gru) appears and, in one instance (Toh 458) the name Rematī is also found. However, these instances all refer to a rākṣasī demoness named Revatī and not the protector Rematī, who appears in the above group of texts (this point is also discussed in more detail elsewhere in this introduction).

n.3The origin account of the two protectors is found in Toh 842 (vol. 99 [rnying rgyud, ga], folios 223.b–234.b). The events of this account have also been summarized and discussed first by Giuseppe Tucci (1949, pp. 218–19) and later by Amy Heller (1997, pp. 286–90).

n.4’dod pa’i khams kyi dbang phyug ma/ bdud kyi yum la gshin rje’i lcam gcig ma/ dpal ldan lha mo nag mo re ma ti/ nag mo za byed (vol. 91 [rgyud ’bum, ba], folio 207.a). See also The Sovereign Tantra “Praises to Śrīdevī Kālī,” 1.­81 (translated 2024).

n.5This story is told in Toh 842 (vol. 99 [rnying rgyud, ga], folio 231.a).

n.6For early discussions of Palden Lhamo, see Tucci 1949 (pp. 590–92) and Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956 (pp. 22–37). For a more recent overview of Palden Lhamo, see Heller 2005 (pp. 217–20).

n.7It should also be noted that Śrīdevī Mahākālī, as she appears in these Kangyur texts (see n.­2), is not necessarily identical with the non-Buddhist goddess Kālī, although the two goddesses draw on shared mythological themes.

n.8In Toh 1090 Śrīdevī Mahākālī also holds a spear.

n.9The exceptions to this appear to be Toh 458 and Toh 1091, both discussed below.

n.10Revatī appears as a rākṣasī with an evil influence on children in the Mahābhārata and elsewhere. On this rākṣasī, see Srinivasan 2020, pp. 104–5 and 134–35. Revatī is also one of the constellations in the heavens, personified as a goddess.

n.11However, nam gru can also refer to a group of local female deities and even a male monastic disciple of the Buddha Śākyamuni (in which case nam gru translates the Sanskrit name Revata).

n.12In Praise of the Goddess Revatī (translated 2023).

n.13As discussed in n.­2, the group of texts in the Kangyur devoted to the protector goddesses Śrīdevī Mahākālī and Rematī in the specific forms discussed here appear likely to have first circulated in late eighth- or early ninth-century Tibet. This is not the case for texts, like Toh 746 (and the parts that were extracted from this text into the main body of Toh 1091), that concern the rākṣasī Revatī (nam gru). It therefore appears that the use of the name Rematī (re ma ti) as identical to Revatī (nam gru) in a few Kangyur texts, such as in the homage and colophon of Toh 1091‍—and therefore the link between these two otherwise distinct figures‍—was likely the work of later redactors of the canon.

n.14srin mo nam gru zhes bya ba stobs chen mo/ brtson ’grus chen mo/ ’jig rten gsum na byis pa rnams gsod pa, folio 92.a.

n.15mtshan mo nag mo ’jigs byed ma// gshin rje’i sring mo chen mo, folio 92.a.

n.16Folio 16.b.

n.17Folio 26.a.

n.18This has been suggested by Dorji Wangchuk (2022).

n.19The relevant section in Toh 671 in the Degé Kangyur is located in vol. 91 (rgyud ’bum, ba), folios 208.a–208.b (see 2024 translation The Sovereign Tantra “Praises to Śrīdevī Kālī,” 1.­100–1.­104). While the content of the praise in Toh 671 is identical to the extracted texts, the verse structure is different in several places, especially toward the end of the praise, and some passages seem to read more clearly in Toh 671 than in the extracted standalone texts.

n.20Denkarma, folio 304.a.4. See also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, p. 265, no. 462. Hence, we know that the misunderstanding regarding Vararuci had already occurred by then. Notably, Toh 671 is not listed in the Denkarma catalog, which makes dating it difficult.

n.21In the origin account presented in Toh 842, Vararuci also appears in a longer passage as an important Buddhist teacher who instructs Śrīdevī Mahākālī and Rematī in the practice centered on the protector Ekajaṭī.

n.22Praising the Lady Who Rules Disease is one of only twelve texts in the Compendium of Dhāraṇīs section of the Degé Kangyur (and the other Kangyurs that include such a section) that, unlike the other 235 works in the Compendium, do not also appear in duplicate in other sections of the Kangyur.

n.23The opening lines of the table of contents (dkar chag) of an independent dhāraṇī collection printed in Beijing in 1731, found in the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest and transcribed by Orosz, identify the source of all such dhāraṇī collections as the extracanonical collection edited by Tāranātha (Orosz 2010, pp. 67 and 100). This mention is also noted by Hidas 2021, p. 7, n. 56.

n.24See J. Dalton 2016 and J. Dalton and van Schaik 2006 on the dhāraṇī­saṃgraha collections preserved at Dunhuang, which contain praises and prayers as well as dhāraṇīs. See Hidas 2021 for the catalogs of eighteen dhāraṇī­saṃgraha collections surviving in Sanskrit, many of which also contain praises.

n.25This text, Toh 1090, and all those contained in this same volume (gzungs ’dus, waM), are listed as being located in volume 101 of the Degé Kangyur by the Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC). However, several other Kangyur databases‍—including the eKangyur that supplies the digital input version displayed by the 84000 Reading Room‍—list this work as being located in volume 102. This discrepancy is partly due to the fact that the two volumes of the gzungs ’dus section are an added supplement not mentioned in the original catalog, and it also hinges on the fact that the compilers of the Tōhoku catalog placed another text‍—which forms a whole, very large volume‍—the Vimala­prabhā­nāma­kāla­cakra­tantraṭīkā (dus ’khor ’grel bshad dri med ’od, Toh 845), before the present volume, numbering it as vol. 100 although it is almost certainly intended to come right at the end of the Degé Kangyur as volume 102; indeed its fifth and final chapter is often carried over and wrapped in the same volume as the Kangyur dkar chag (catalog). Please note this discrepancy when using the eKangyur viewer in this translation.

n.26The Tengyur recension of the text (Toh 1777) contains the homage “Homage to Glorious Vajrapāṇi,” which is absent in the Kangyur recension (Toh 1090).

n.27Toh 671: mtshan mo (“at night”).

n.28We have emended lha mo khyod nyid kyis to lha mo khyod nyid kyi.

n.29Toh 671: khyod nyid yin par shes/ ral pas bdag nyid mdzas par brgyan te (“We know it is you, beautifully adorned with matted locks”).

n.30Following Toh 1090: kyi. Toh 1777: kyis.

n.31Following Toh 1777: mi lus. Toh 1090: mi rus (“human bones”).

n.32Following Toh 1090: rnal ’byor grub pa’i spyod yul can. Toh 1777: rnal ’byor grub pa’i rnal ’byor can.

n.33Following Toh 1090: g.yo can. Toh 1777: g.yo byed (“what moves”). Toh 671 reads g.yog bcas (“together with your servant”). This seems to be a more plausible reading, since it refers to the relationship between Śrīdevī Mahākālī as “the Lady” and Rematī as “the Servant.” This whole sentence in Toh 671 reads khyod ni g.yog bcas mya ngan med cing ’chi ba’i ’jigs pa med par dril bu’i sgra yang sgrogs (“You, together with your servant, are free from anguish and have no fear of death, as the sound of your bell rings out”).

n.34Following Toh 1090: ’jigs sel zhi la. In support of this are the Peking and Narthang recensions of Toh 1777: ’jigs pa gsal zhing zhi la. Degé recension of Toh 1777: ’jigs pa bsal zhing (“clear fears and”).

n.35Following Toh 1090: nad dang ’chi ba. Toh 1777: nad chen ’chi ba (“the great illness that is death”).

n.36Here “nāga lord” could also be plural. In some manifestations of Śrīdevī her belt consists of several snakes.

n.37Following Toh 1777: chen po. Toh 1090: sar pas (“fresh”).

n.38Following Toh 1777: dral. Toh 1090: dril (“wrapped”).

n.39The translation of this sentence follows Toh 1777. An alternative translation, based on Toh 1090, would be as follows: “You are wrapped in a fresh hide, and a wide garment is your shawl‍—half-open and bound with a belt of braided straw.”

n.40Following Toh 1777: ’khrol. Toh 1090: ’dril (“wield”).

n.41Following Toh 1777: khrag dang zhag la sogs pa’i thig les. Toh 1090: khrag dang zhag mang ’dzag pa’i thig les (“many drops of blood and fat that have dropped down”).

n.42Following Toh 1777: mi yi sha. Toh 1090: mi ro’i sha (“human corpse flesh”).

n.43In Toh 671 it is clear that this praise is spoken by Yama. We therefore read rshin rje nyid as “I, Yama.”

n.44Following Toh 1777: mjug brtul ba. Toh 1090: mjug brtul bas (“because you bring to an end”).

n.45In Toh 1090, the first line in this verse has nineteen syllables, whereas the other three lines in the verse only have seventeen syllables. However, in Toh 1777 all four lines have nineteen syllables, suggesting that Toh 1090 may have lost two syllables in the last three verse lines over the course of the text’s transmission.

n.46Following Toh 1090. Toh 1777: rna ba ya gcig la/ brang gis ’gro ba ’go bo’i gdengs ka stong dang ldan pa rgyab nas rgyan du byas nas gnas, yet reading ’go bo’i as mgo bo’i (following Toh 1090) (“At one ear is an uraga whose thousand-headed hood adorns you from behind”).

n.47Following Toh 1777: ma lus. Toh 1090 omits this.

n.48Following Toh 1777: khyod kyi lte ba’i thad ka’i phyogs su gzhags. Toh 1090: khyod kyis lte ba’i phyogs so bzhag (“you have placed at the position of your navel”).

n.49“Expanse of the ocean” translates the Tibetan rgya mtsho’i klong, which in turn is attested as a translation of the Sanskrit vaḍabāmukha. Vaḍabāmukha, which means “the mare’s mouth,” is the name for a mythological underwater cavity at the bottom of the sea that contains a fire known as vaḍabāgni (“the mare’s fire”). At some point this fire will erupt and consume the entire world. Some texts, such as The Sovereign Ritual of Amoghapāśa (Amogha­pāśa­kalpa­rāja, Toh 686, 2.128), personify “the mare’s mouth” as the deity Vaḍabāmukha, who is sometimes identified with Śiva, possibly in his role as the final destroyer of the universe.

n.50Following Toh 1090: zhi mdzad phyir. Toh 1777: zhi bya’i phyir (“in order to pacify”).

n.51Following Toh 1090: bzhugs. Toh 1777: bzhag (“placed”).

n.52Our translation of this line is tentative. In Toh 671 this phrase reads lha chen sku dang ’tsham par bzhugs (“You appear similar to Mahādeva’s form”).

n.53Following Toh 1777: de ni ’jigs pa med par mdzod. Toh 1090: de la ’jigs pa med par ’gyur (“you cause any fear of these to disappear”).

n.54Following Toh 1777: ’dod khams dbang phyug ma la bstod. Toh 1090: ’dod pa’i khams kyi dbang phyug ma. Toh 1777 includes these two final lines as part of the praise, whereas in Toh 1090 these same two lines‍—although matching the meter of the preceding lines‍—instead seem to form part of the text’s colophon.

n.55The translation of this colophon follows Toh 1777. As mentioned in the previous note, the structure of the final lines in Toh 1090 is rather different and the colophon there includes the two preceding lines. The translation of the colophon in Toh 1090 reads: “Yama’s Sister, the Wife of the Demon, the Sovereign Goddess of the Desire Realm‍, the Lady Who Rules All Disease‍—she is the Great Goddess who is praised in eight verses composed by the brahmin Vararuci.”