Introduction

i.1Destroyer of the Great Trichiliocosm is the first scripture in a series of five; the other four texts are The Great Peahen, Queen of Incantations (Mahā­māyūrī­vidyā­rājñī, Toh 559), The Noble Great Amulet, Queen of Incantations (Mahā­pratisarā­vidyā­rājñī, Toh 561), The Sūtra of Great Cool Grove, (Mahāśītavana, Toh 562), and Great Upholder of the Secret Mantra (Mahā­mantrānudhāraṇi, Toh 563). Together these scriptures have been apotheosized in the Mahāyāna tradition as five goddesses known collectively as the Pañcarakṣā, or the “Five Protectresses.” In the Tibetan tradition this collection is known by the moniker gzungs chen grwa lnga, “The Fivefold Great Dhāraṇī.” In the Degé Kangyur collection these texts constitute 49, 60, 43, 25, and 12 folios respectively, making a total of 189 folios.

i.2Tibetan redactors of Kangyur collections have catalogued this set of five texts together within the final Action (kriyā) tantras section of the “tantra collection” (rgyud ’bum) division. Indeed, these scriptures do contain elements‍—powerful incantations, an emphasis on external ritual hygiene and other material details such as auspicious dates, and so forth‍—that resonate with standard Kriyāyoga practice as understood in Tibet. Yet missing from nearly all these texts is any extensive mention of the contemplative visualization exercises, specialized ritual gestures (mudrā), elaborate maṇḍala diagrams, and initiation ceremonies so typical of full-blown Buddhist tantra. A close perusal of these five texts might then lead the reader to construe them as standard Mahāyāna texts with a preponderance of elements‍—magical mantra formulas, ritual prescriptions, pragmatic aims, and so forth‍—that only later coalesced and developed into a typically tantric practice tradition with its own unique set of view, meditation, and conduct. To complicate things further, the core of the Mahāmāyūrī, for one, is rooted in Indian Buddhist traditions that predate even the rise of Mahāyāna. The Mahāmāyūrī also appears as a remedy for snakebites in the earlier Mūla­sarvāsti­vāda-vinaya­vastu. This accords with Gregory Schopen’s general observation, based on inscriptional evidence, that “dhāraṇī texts were publically known much earlier and more widely than texts we think of as ‘classically’ Mahāyāna”.

i.3Regardless of their bibliographical position in the Tibetan canon, the Five Protectresses have been among the most popular texts used for pragmatic purposes throughout the Mahāyāna-Vajrayāna Buddhist world. While it seems certain that these texts each developed independently and were only later combined into a five-text corpus, their popularity is attested by their eventual spread to Nepal, Tibet, Central Asia, China, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, and Indonesia (Hidas 2007: 189). In East Asia, the textual tradition associated with the Mahāmāyūrī in particular was instrumental in integrating Buddhist and indigenous notions of divine kingship. Moreover, the tradition of all five goddesses and their texts still occupies a place of central importance today in the Vajrayāna Buddhism practiced by the Newar population of the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. Newar Buddhist communities of Kathmandu have even translated the texts of the Five Protectresses into the modern vernacular, based on which they continue to stage a number of annual rites for a broad range of pragmatic purposes. Newars often propitiate the Five Protectresses together by means of a five-section maṇḍala and other tantric elements that do not necessarily feature in the scriptures themselves. This tradition reflects a specifically tantric ritual treatment of the texts, which, judging by the presence of tantric sādhana practices associated with these five texts in the Tibetan Tengyur collections, had already developed by the time the Tibetan translations were executed. This helps account for why Tibetan redactors construed these five texts as belonging to the category of Kriyātantra, and not to the Dhāraṇī or Sūtra sections. Indeed, the Tibetan translation of the Mahāpratisarā reflects a recension of the Sanskrit text, which, Gergely Hidas suggests, “most likely served the better integration of this text into the Vajrayāna, changing the historical locus of the nidāna to a mythical Vajrayānic setting.”

i.4The designation Five Protectresses denotes the set of five texts, the incantations presented therein, and the goddesses presiding over each. It is believed that all these texts, particularly their incantations, provide special protection against a wide range of illnesses and misfortunes for those who memorize, recollect, read, copy, teach, wear, or otherwise come into contact with them. Each text promises protection against specific misfortunes, with considerable overlap witnessed between the texts. Despite the pragmatic thrust of these scriptures, each text also contains numerous allusions to doctrinal notions. The range of effects described therein sometimes, though rarely, extends beyond the pragmatic sphere to include the purification of negative karma, deliverance from the lower realms, and even the attainment of buddhahood.

i.5Destroyer of the Great Trichiliocosm was translated into Tibetan under Tibetan imperial patronage sometime during the early ninth century by a translation team that included the translator-editor Bandé Yeshé Dé (ca. late eighth to early ninth centuries) and the Indian preceptors Śīlendrabodhi, Jñānasiddhi, and Śākyaprabha. The Degé edition, which forms the basis of this English translation, was re-edited several centuries later by Gö Lotsāwa Zhönnu Pal (’gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal, 1392–1481), based on a Sanskrit edition that had been in the possession of Chojé Chaglo (chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal, 1197–1263/64).

i.6The text primarily addresses illnesses caused by spirit entities, collectively referred to as graha or bhūta throughout the text, which are thought to devour the vitality of men, women, children, and animals. The text describes these graha or bhūta as belonging to four different subspecies of beings, each of which is presided over by one of the four great kings, guardians of the world, who hold spiritual sovereignty over the territories and resident spirit beings present throughout the four cardinal directions. According to the cosmology presented in the text, the great king Kubera (who is also called Vaiśravaṇa in some passages) dwells in the north, where he presides over the yakṣa variety of graha. The great king Dhṛtarāṣṭra dwells in the east, where he reigns over the gandharva grahas. The great king Virūḍhaka rules in the south, where his entourage consists of kumbhāṇḍa grahas. And the great king Virūpākṣa reigns in the west, where his entourage is nāga grahas. Each group of grahas, moreover, is responsible for a particular category of illness, with its own unique set of physical symptoms.

i.7The narrative of this sūtra revolves around Buddha Śākyamuni’s gradual dispensation of a series of incantations and rituals centered upon formulas intended to prevent violent grahas from striking, or to heal those already afflicted. These prescriptions unfold in the context of the Buddha’s conversations with the four great kings and the god Brahmā about their mutual concern to control the grahas after their boundless greed has plagued Vaiśālī and its Licchavi people with a natural disaster and an epidemic of cosmic proportions. The text also includes ritual prescriptions for the monastic community to purify their consumption of alms tainted by the “five impure foods.” This refers generally to alms that contain meat, the consumption of which is expressly prohibited for successful implementation of the dhāraṇī incantations. In this final section of the text all five Protectresses are mentioned, suggesting that Destroyer of the Great Trichiliocosm emerged only after the other four scriptures of the group, despite its position as first in the collection.

i.8This English translation is based primarily on the Degé edition, with close consultation of Yutaka Iwamoto’s (1937) edited Sanskrit edition, as obtained electronically through GRETIL: Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages. When encountering variant readings between Tibetan and Sanskrit editions, we tended to select the Tibetan Degé readings and note the variations. This choice was made based on the profusion of variant Sanskrit witnesses that postdate the ninth-century Tibetan translation, and our own ignorance of the witnesses and criteria employed in the creation of Iwamoto’s edited Sanskrit edition.