Introduction

i.1The Queen of Incantations: The Great Peahen (Mahā­māyūrī­vidyārājñī, Toh 559) is the second scripture in a series of five, the other four being the Mahā­sāhasra­pramardanī Sūtra (Toh 558), Mahā­pratisarā­vidyārājñī (Toh 561), Mahāśītavatī Sūtra (Toh 562), and Mahā­mantrānusāriṇī Sūtra (Toh 563). Together these five texts 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 as the gzungs chen grwa lnga, the Five Great Dhāraṇīs. Tibetan redactors of Kangyur collections have cataloged this set of five texts together within the final section of the Collected Tantras (rgyud ’bum) division, the Kriyā section. Indeed, these five 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 typical of full-blown Buddhist tantra. A close perusal might then lead the reader to construe these 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 view, meditation, and conduct. To complicate things further, the core of The Great Peahen is rooted in Indian Buddhist traditions that might even predate the rise of Mahāyāna. The Great Peahen also appears as a remedy for snakebites in the early Mūla­sarvāstivāda­vinayavastu. This accords with Gregory Schopen’s general observation, based on inscriptional evidence, that “ Dhāraṇī texts were publically [sic] known much earlier and much more widely than the texts we think of as ‘classically’ Mahāyāna.”

i.2The Five Protectresses have long been among the most popular texts used for pragmatic purposes in the Mahāyāna-Vajrayāna Buddhist world. While it seems certain that these texts 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. In East Asia, the textual tradition associated with The Great Peahen 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, 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 that, 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 Kriyā tantra, and not to the dhāraṇī or sūtra sections.

i.3The designation “Five Protectresses” denotes the set of five texts, the incantations presented therein, and the five goddesses presiding over each. It is believed that all these texts, specifically 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 from 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, extending beyond the pragmatic sphere to include the purification of negative karma, deliverance from the lower realms, and even the attainment of buddhahood.

i.4The Great Peahen’s mention of Dravidian mantra indicates that it may have originated in South India. The text and its mantra formulas, although framed specifically to counteract the deadly effects of poisonous snakebites, appear to address the entire range of possible human ailments and diseases contracted through the interference of animals, nonhuman beings, and humoral and environmental imbalances. It also addresses a range of other misfortunes, such as sorcery, losing one’s way, robbery, natural disaster, and criminal punishment, to name but a few. The Buddha adopts the particular approach in The Great Peahen of stipulating the invocation by name of virtually every deity within the pantheon of South Asian gods and goddesses, including the numerous place deities who dwell throughout the subcontinent. These litanies, which the Buddha separates into groups based on the locations of the spirit entities as above, atop, or below the earth, have the effect of hierarchically ordering the hundreds of nonhuman entities and rendering them subordinate to the command of the Buddha and his saṅgha members. The Buddha stipulates that just “upholding” or intoning these names along with the mantra formula that accompanies each grouping will hasten the deities to the service of saṅgha members administering to the pragmatic medical needs of their own and surrounding communities.

i.5The dhāraṇī’s narrative unfolds in response to Ānanda’s effort to save the life of the young monk Svāti, who has suffered a dangerous snakebite while gathering wood in the forest. In the midst of dispensing the initial healing litanies, supplications, and mantras that commence The Great Peahen, the Buddha Śākyamuni tells Ānanda the narrative precedent for the great peahen’s powers. In one of his previous lifetimes, the Buddha relates, he was a peacock named Suvarṇāvabhāsa who ensured his health and good fortune by regularly chanting the great peahen during the day and night. On one occasion, he forgot to chant the incantation, and the outcome was disastrous. Intoxicated with lust, he took to cavorting throughout the mountains with countless peahens in the pursuit of pleasure. His guard let down, Suvarṇāvabhāsa was captured by a group of ill-intentioned youth‍—that is, until he recollected the dhāraṇī, was miraculously freed from the snare, and safely returned home to his former condition. This story sets the stage for the series of litanies, supplications, and mantras that constitute the bulk of the text.

i.6The Queen of Incantations: The Great Peahen was translated into Tibetan under Tibetan imperial patronage sometime during the first half of the ninth century by the translation team that included the translator and chief editor Bandé Yeshé Dé (ca. eighth–ninth centuries) and the Indian scholars Śīlendrabodhi, Jñānasiddhi, and Śākyaprabha. The early date of the translation is further confirmed by the inclusion of The Great Peahen in both imperial-period catalogs, the Denkarma (ldan kar ma) and Phangthangma (’phang thang ma), where it is listed among the Pañcarakṣā texts. The translation made by Yeshé Dé was revised at an unknown date by an anonymous translator based on consultation with additional Sanskrit manuscripts (rgya dpe). This revised version, which is preserved in the Stok Palace Kangyur (S518), is more closely aligned with the extant Sanskrit witnesses than the unrevised version contained in the Degé and other Kangyurs.

i.7There are multiple translations of The Great Peahen preserved in the Chinese canon. The earliest among them are two works attributed to Śrīmitra: the Da jinse kongque wang zhou jing (大金色孔雀王咒經, Taishō 986), which was likely translated in the late fourth century, and the Fo shuo da jinse kongque wang zhou jing (佛說大金色孔雀王咒經, Taishō 987), which dates to the early fifth century. Also among the early Chinese translations was the Kongque wang zhou jing (孔雀王咒經, Taishō 988), Kumārajīva’s translation that dates to the early fifth century. In the sixth century, Saṅghabhadra prepared a translation with the same title, Kongque wang zhou jing (孔雀王咒經, Taishō 984), which was followed historically by the Fo shuo da kongque zhou wang jing (大孔雀呪王經, Taishō 985), translated by Yijing in 705. Finally, the Chinese canon contains a series of works on The Great Peahen translated or compiled by Amoghavajra in the eighth century. This includes his translation, the Fomu da kongque ming wang jing (佛母大孔雀明王經, Taishō 982), and two appendices, the Fo shuo da kongque ming wang huaxiang tan chang yi gui (佛說大孔雀明王畫像壇場儀軌, Taishō 983a), a compendium of spell formulas, and the Kongque jing zhenyan deng fan ben (孔雀經真言等梵本唐, Taishō 983b), a set of instructions for the rite associated with the text.

i.8This English translation is based primarily on the Degé edition, in consultation with Shūyo Takubo’s Sanskrit edition, the version in the Stok Palace Kangyur, and the Comparative Edition of the Degé Kangyur. Because there is significant variation between the Degé version on the one hand and the Sanskrit and Stok Palace version on the other, only those variants that affected our interpretation of the Degé have been noted. The transliteration of the incantations presented particular difficulties, as there are multiple variations between the Sanskrit edition and the Tibetan versions in nearly every instance. Since the resolution of many of these complexities would require far more time and resources than this project allows, the incantations in this translation generally align with the Degé edition. We have noted the most significant variations between the Degé and the Sanskrit edition, as well as the other Tibetan versions. The incantations were edited only when evidence suggested scribal errors or other inadvertent infelicities. Minor orthographic emendations have not been noted. For interested readers, a translation into French and study of the Chinese versions of the Mahāmāyūrī was conducted by J. F. Marc DesJardins as part of his 2002 doctoral dissertation at McGill University, Montreal.