Notes

n.1Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Queen of Incantations: The Great Peahen , Toh 559 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2023).

n.2Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., Great Cool Grove , Toh 562 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2023).

n.3For all four, see bibliography under Dharmachakra (2016) and Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2023).

n.4Sørensen (2006), p 90.

n.5Pathak (1989), p 32. The story comes at the very end of the Bhaiṣajya­vastu (Toh 1 ch. 6); see Yao (2021), 11.217.

n.6Schopen (1989), p 157.

n.7Orzech (2002), p 58.

n.8Lewis (2000), pp 119–164.

n.9Hidas (2007), p 188.

n.10Cone and Peking Kangyurs read tshang bar (“fully”), Degé Kangyur tshangs par (“purely”).

n.11Tib. sha bkra. While the Sanskrit edition reads citra, Negi equates the Tibetan sha bkra with the Sanskrit terms kilāsa, or śvitra, synonyms for “white leprosy,” in which white spots form on the skin. It is quite possible that citra in the Sanskrit edition might be more correctly read as śvitra.

n.12The Tibetan term mchod sdong renders the Sanskrit terms yaṣṭiḥ, stambhaḥ, and yūpaḥ (Negi). The context here suggests yūdaḥ as the correct reading, although it is unattested in the Iwamoto edition, which has tapta instead.

n.13The ṭīka (F.31.b.6–7) glosses the phrase “bound by the five fetters” (bcings pa lnga yis bsdams pa yis) as “being bound by the noose of the five wisdoms” (ye shes lnga’i zhags pas bsdams pa…).

n.14Tib. mi ldan pa. We are unsure of this designation. The Sanskrit edition reads Mātali , which would translate into Tibetan as ma ldan pa, a name that appears below, indicating that mi ldan pa is probably not a scribal error. Negi includes no proper name in his entry for this term. However, Monier-Williams mentions that vikala , one of Negi’s entries, is a possible proper name.

n.15This reading is based on the Sanskrit khaṇḍa, “broken” (Monier-Williams), rather than the Tibetan rno ba (“sharp”).

n.16The verses that follow, 1.­250 down to 1.­265, correspond (with some additional phrases) to a passage in chapter 29 of the Sanskrit Mahāvastu (see bibliography for Sanskrit text and translation in Jones 1949), as well as to the whole of the Pali Ratana-sutta (Khuddakapāṭha 6 and Suttanipāta 2.1). Both texts place the verses in the same narrative context as here, the great epidemic afflicting Vaiśālī, but the Pali commentaries relate that the Buddha instructed Ānanda to recite them in the streets of the city. This verse passage, with the addition of the four and a half stanzas 1.­310 down to and including the first two lines of 1.­314, are reproduced as a standalone text in the section of dedications at the end of the Tantra Collection, Toh 813 (and duplicated in the Compendium of Dhāraṇīs as Toh 1098), with the title stong chen mo rab tu ’joms pa las gsungs pa’i smon lam.

n.17Narthang and Lhasa Kangyurs read mi gnyis (“non-dual”); Degé reads mig gnyis (“two eyes”). The former reading is also supported by the Sanskrit edition, which reads advaya­mārga­darśinā.

n.18Here, the sūtra changes gender from queen to king.

n.19The Sanskrit edition further modifies “jewel vessels” as “filled with scented water, flowers, and fruits” (ratna­bhājanāni gandho­daka­puṣpa­phala­pari­pūrṇāni).

n.20Tib. za ma tog; Skt. samudgaka.

n.21Vajrakarma states in his ṭīka that the “four seals” refers to the sūtra itself (F.82.a.6).

n.22The term kākhorda is rendered by the Tibetan as byad or byad stem (Negi). In indigenous Tibetan literature byad ka is a general term for “malevolent sorcery.” According to Sanderson (2004), pp 290–292, kākhorda is a Mahāyāna Buddhist variant of the word khārkhoda. Sanderson remarks that in the case of Kṣemarāja’s commentary to the Śaiva Netratantra, the term specifically denotes a yantra, or some other “supernatural device employed by an enemy for such effects as killing or expulsion.” The term might also refer, according to Sanderson, to a class of supernatural beings associated with such harmful sorcery. The occurrence of this term with the term vetāḍa , a variant of vetāla, suggests that kākhorda refers here to a class of pernicious spirits.

n.23Yongle and Peking Kangyurs read kyis (instrumental/agentive particle); Degé has kyi (genitive particle).

n.24rkom po. We are unsure of this term’s precise meaning.

n.25The following four and a half stanzas, down to and including the first two lines of 1.­314, are reproduced, preceded by the verses 1.­250 down to 1.­265 (which correspond to the well-known Pali Ratana-sutta, Khuddakapāṭha 6 and Suttanipāta 2.1, see n.­16) as a standalone text in the section of dedications at the end of the Tantra Collection, Toh 813 (and duplicated in the Compendium of Dhāraṇīs as Toh 1098), with the title stong chen mo rab tu ’joms pa las gsungs pa’i smon lam.

n.26In some copies of the Degé Kangyur, including the scanned W22084 on TBRC, folio 83.b appears to have been erroneously inserted from another work and the correct text of this folio side is missing. It can, however, be seen in the dpe bsdur ma (Comparative Edition), vol. 90, pp 225-226.

n.27Cone, Lithang, Narthang, Peking, and Yongle Kangyurs read ma (“mother”); Degé reads mi (“human”).

n.28Lhasa Kangyur reads pha wang (“bat”); Degé reads pha bang (“boulder”). This reading is supported by Negi’s identification of pha wang as an attested translation for the Sanskrit term jatukā, “bat.”

n.29This refers to the sūtra itself.

n.30The ṭīka (F.86.b) glosses “On the eighth lunar day people of the four great kings” as follows: “Worship should be performed in the form of a king.”

n.31The ṭīka (F.87.b) states that this refers to their positive rebirths.

n.32The Sanskrit edition here reads śrāvayiṣyati, “communicate,” rather than “recollect.”

n.33The Tibetan here reads smig bcud, a term unrecorded in Negi, whereas the Sanskrit edition reads rocanā .

n.34Skt. varṇaka.

n.35Tib. reng bu; Skt. vartī. This term can refer to a pill, paste, or medicinal bandage (Monier-Williams). Judging by the context, it seems to refer here to a paste or ointment.

n.36Tib. zas sna lnga; Skt. pañcāmiṣa. The ṭīka (F.89.b.7) here describes the “five kinds of food” as “food that is mixed with meat, which is the very nature of desire and so forth.”

n.37Śrīgupta, as the ṭīka (F.91.a) states, is the name of a previous king of Magadha (the first of the Guptas). However, the story referred to here is no doubt the one related in detail in the Śrī­gupta­sūtra (Toh 217), in which a wealthy householder called Śrīgupta, at the instigation of his Jain teacher, plots to kill the Buddha in a firepit and with a poisoned meal; he fails, repents, and receives teachings. See Liljenberg (2021).