Introduction

i.1The Noble Queen of Incantations: The Great Amulet is the third scripture in a series of five works that are widely popular in the Buddhist world for their power to bring about practical and liberative benefit. In addition to The Great Amulet, the other four texts are Destroyer of the Great Trichiliocosm (Mahā­sāhasrapramardanī­sūtra, Toh 558), The Great Peahen (Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī, Toh 559), The Sūtra of the Great Cool Grove (Mahā­śītavatī­sūtra, Toh 562), and Great Upholder of the Secret Mantra (Mahā­mantrānusāriṇī­sūtra, 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 as the gzungs chen grwa lnga, the Five Great Dhāraṇīs.

i.2Tibetan redactors of Kangyur collections have cataloged these five texts together within the Kriyātantra section of the Collected Tantras (rgyud ’bum) division of the canon. Indeed, these scriptures do contain elements that resonate with standard Kriyātantra practice as understood in Tibet: the use of powerful incantations, an emphasis on external ritual hygiene, the pragmatic application of ritual and mantra, and so forth. Yet, nearly absent from the five Pañcarakṣā texts are detailed descriptions of the contemplative visualization exercises, specialized ritual gestures ( mudrā ), elaborate maṇḍala diagrams, and initiation ceremonies typical of full-blown Buddhist tantra. A close perusal of these five texts might then lead the reader to construe them as Mahāyāna texts with a preponderance of elements‍—magical mantra formulas, ritual prescriptions, pragmatic aims, and so forth‍—that developed into a tantric practice tradition with its own unique view, meditation, and conduct. To complicate things further, core features of texts in this collection are rooted in Indian Buddhist traditions that are not specifically esoteric or even explicitly part of the Mahāyāna tradition. The great peahen incantation, for example, appears as a remedy for snakebites in the 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.3The rites and incantations found in the Pañcarakṣā texts have long functioned as important techniques for addressing pragmatic concerns throughout the Mahāyāna-Vajrayāna 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 from India 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 to this day occupies a place of central importance in the Vajrayāna Buddhism practiced by the Newar population of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Newar Buddhist communities 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.

i.4The designation “Five Protectresses” denotes the set of 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 from 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.5The Great Amulet represents what became the most popular scripture throughout the Mahāyāna world prescribing, as its title suggests, the production and use of protective threads and amulets (pratisara). The tradition of using protective threads or amulets for a broad range of goals is most likely rooted in the Atharvaveda and was only later integrated within a specifically Buddhist framework. Eventually, the dispensation of magically potent amulets became a staple component of the Buddhist community’s medicinal and ritual intercessions on behalf of the monastic and lay community. Indeed, The Great Amulet stipulates that it should be painted or written down and worn around the neck or arm of anyone and everyone, regardless of gender or ordination status. The Great Amulet can be attached to flags, interred in stūpas or funeral pyres, or otherwise used in circumstances for which it is deemed to be especially beneficial. The text also outlines the ritual procedures and material protocols that must be followed precisely when writing and affixing the scripture to ensure its efficacy. The effects promised by wearing the scripture include the prevention and alleviation of illnesses and nonhuman interference; the conception and birth of male offspring; the protection of travelers and seafarers; the protection of persons and fields from natural disasters, from unwanted creatures and pests, and from the elements in general; protection against military invasion and corporal punishment; and control over the world of nonhuman spirit entities. Wearing and otherwise coming into physical contact with The Great Amulet is even claimed to protect from the consequences of negative deeds, delivering evildoers from negative rebirths and ensuring their place among the gods. The promise of augmenting merit even extends in one passage to an increase of mindfulness, liberation from saṃsāra, and the attainment of nirvāṇa.

i.6The Great Amulet is structured according to its two dhāraṇīs and four mantra formulas and a series of nine narrative vignettes and two ritual procedures. The narratives are presented as proof of the scripture’s power and efficacy and often provide the background for the ritual preparations described in each episode. The text first unfolds without the dialogic structure of the Buddha responding to the questions of his entourage. Rather, after illuminating the universe with his brilliance, the Buddha simply states his desire to teach the scripture out of his compassion for beings, and without further ado he begins to dispense The Great Amulet. Only later in the text does a certain “great brahmin” emerge as the Buddha’s main interlocutor. Like The Great Peahen but with much less elaboration and specificity, The Great Amulet stipulates the invocation of the pantheon of Indian gods and goddesses, including the profusion of place-deities who dwell throughout the subcontinent. These litanies have the effect of hierarchically ordering the categories of nonhuman entities, rendering them all subordinate to the command of the Buddha and his community. Appeals to the pantheon are framed as methods both to protect against the violence of its members and enlist their protection in confronting other threats.

i.7The popularity of The Great Amulet is attested by the significant number of surviving Sanskrit witnesses, the earliest among which are manuscript fragments discovered in Gilgit that date to approximately the early seventh century. Also among the earliest Sanskrit versions are four manuscript fragments dating to the latter half of the second millennium that were found in East Turkestan. The majority of Sanskrit witnesses comprises manuscripts from eastern India, which can be dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries, and a large number of manuscripts that were scribed in Nepal beginning in the ninth century and continuing into modern times. In addition to manuscript sources, the main Sanskrit incantations from The Great Amulet have been found on amulets, copper plate inscriptions, and bricks that date between the eighth and eleventh centuries. These material applications of the incantations were discovered across a wide geographic range, from Central and East Asia to the Philippines and Indonesia. Comparisons of these surviving Sanskrit versions of The Great Amulet indicate that this text may have gone through two major recensions‍—once in the sixth century and another in the late seventh century‍—before it was grouped with the other four Protectresses in the early eighth century.

i.8The Great Amulet was first translated into Tibetan under Tibetan imperial patronage sometime during the early ninth century by a team that included the translator-editor Bandé Yeshé Dé (ban+de ye shes sde, ca. late eighth–early ninth centuries) and the Indian scholars Jinamitra and Dānaśīla. Their translation is listed in the Denkarma (ldan kar ma) catalog, along with the other Pañcarakṣā texts, under the category “the Five Great Dhāraṇīs” (gzungs chen po lnga). The translation was revised several centuries later by Gö Lotsāwa Shönu Pal (’gos lo tsA ba gzhon nu dpal, 1392–1481), who based his work on a Sanskrit manuscript that had been in the possession of Chak Lotsāwa Chöjé Pal (chag lo tsA ba chos rje dpal, 1197–1263/64). The Stok Palace Kangyur contains another recension of Yeshé Dé’s translation that was revised by Butön Rinchen Drup (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290–1364) based on two Sanskrit manuscripts from India.

i.9The Great Amulet was translated into Chinese twice. The earlier of the two translations is the Foshuo suiqiu jide dazizai tuoluoni shenzhou jing (佛說隨求即得大自在陀羅尼神呪經, Taishō 1154), which was translated by Ratnacinta (Baosiwei 宝思惟, ca. seventh–eighth centuries) in 693. The second, the Pubian guangming qingjing chicheng ruyibao yinxin wunengsheng damingwang dasuiqui tuoluoni jing (普遍光明淸淨熾盛如意寶印心無能勝大明王大隨求陀羅尼經, Taishō 1153), was prepared in the eighth century by Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 705–74). Hidas notes evidence that a third translation was made by Vajrabodhi (Jingang zhi 金刚智, ca. seventh–eight centuries) but is now lost.

i.10This English translation is based primarily on the Degé edition of the Tibetan translation, with close consultation of Gergely Hidas’ Sanskrit editions of the Gilgit fragments and Indian/Nepalese manuscript sources. We have also consulted his English translation and study of the incantation. In addition to these sources, we have relied on the Stok Palace version of the Tibetan translation and on the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) of the Degé Kangyur. Unless otherwise noted, the transcriptions of the Sanskrit incantations and mantras follow those given in the Degé edition. Minor orthographic emendations have not been noted.