Introduction

i.1Great Upholder of the Secret Mantra (Mahā­mantrānu­dhāriṇī, Toh 563) is the fifth scripture in a series of five; the other four texts are Destroyer of the Great Trichiliocosm (Mahā­sāhasra­pramardanī, Toh 558), The Great Peahen, Queen of Incantations (Mahā­māyūrī­vidyā­rājñī, Toh 559), The Noble Great Amulet, Queen of Incantations (Mahā­pratisarā­vidyā­rājñī, Toh 561), and The Sūtra of Great Cool Grove, (Mahā­śītavana, Toh 562). 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 by the moniker gzungs chen grwa lnga, the “Fivefold Great Dhāraṇī.” In the Degé Kangyur collection these texts constitute 60, 49, 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.5Great Upholder of the Secret Mantra 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 century) and the Indian scholars Śīlendrabodhi, Jñānasiddhi, and Śākyaprabha. The sūtra promises protection against a range of threats, from illnesses, natural disasters, and dangers while traveling, to warfare, corporal punishment, and theft. This text frames all of these perils as originating from the animosity and ill will of human beings and spirits. The principal focus is threats posed by the capricious spirit world of “non-humans” (mi ma yin), who feed off the life force, vitality, flesh, and blood of humans. The negative impact of these non-humans extends beyond the individual to include homes, villages, towns, cities, regions, and entire countries. The text claims to be efficacious by means of “drawing” or demarcating a “boundary” around those in need of protection, sealing them off from the source of harm and thereby restoring health and internal cohesion. It is through “receiving, holding, reciting, preaching, and mastering” this scripture that such a protective boundary is formed.

i.6The narrative of the sūtra begins with an interchange between the Buddha and the god Brahmā. Brahmā, along with his divine retinue, visits the Blessed One at the Jetavana hermitage and requests that he “guard, protect, look after, and bring peace and well-being” to the entire trichiliocosm of a thousand million worlds, just as the god himself does for the chiliocosm of a thousand worlds under his care. The Buddha acquiesces to his request by remaining silent. He subsequently proceeds to teach the scripture’s dhāraṇī formulas and to extol its many benefits. Much as in the Mahā­māyūrī­vidyā­rājñī, but with less elaboration, the Buddha prescribes the invocation by name of the spirits responsible for personal and communal misfortunes. These litanies, which the Buddha separates into groups based on the locations and activities of these beings, hierarchically arrange the spirits so that they are all subordinate to the Buddha’s command and to the command of his saṅgha. The Buddha states that just “upholding” or intoning these names along with the mantra formula that accompanies each group will urge them to obey members of the saṅgha so that they desist from causing harm and instead serve the pragmatic needs of the saṅgha and surrounding lay communities.

i.7Owing to the absence of a reliable Sanskrit edition that reflects the Tibetan translations, this English translation is based on the Tibetan Degé edition, in consultation with the Pedurma (dpe bsdur ma) comparative edition. Thus, rather than adjudicate on the many variant readings of the dhāraṇī formulas found in the different Tibetan versions of this text, we have chosen to defer this issue for now and record only the Degé version until a Sanskrit edition is produced that might shed further light on the matter.

i.8The Tibetan text translated here is different from the Sanskrit text dedicated to the corresponding rakṣā goddess found in the extant Sanskrit sources (Skilling 1994); even the goddess’s name is not the same‍—in the Sanskrit text (nowadays accepted as ‘standard’ for this rakṣā) this name is given as Mahā­mantrānu­sāriṇī/-aṇī, whereas the name inferred from the array of (possibly back-translated) Sanskrit titles found in the different editions of the Tibetan canon might have been Mahā­mantrānu­dhāriṇī/-aṇī.

i.9In the mini-pantheon of the Pañcarakṣā, the two goddesses perhaps ought to be conflated, but preferably without obliterating the Mahā­mantrānu­dhāriṇī/-aṇī variant altogether, as this form could have been the original one historically, or it would have been excogitated independently from the form Mahā­mantrānu­sāriṇī/-aṇī.

i.10To represent the name’s etymology (traced to anu + √dhṛ) reflected in the Tibetan text, and basing the name’s grammar on the Sanskrit text (the adjectival feminine ending -iṇī/-aṇī), the title reconstructed for this translation is Mahā­mantrānu­dhāriṇī-sūtra. Such a ‘midway’ reconstruction might be justified by the impossibility of reliably reconstructing the original Sanskrit title from the ‘Sanskrit’ versions found in the different editions of the Tibetan text, and by the wide divergence of the possible interpretations thereof. Committing to just one interpretation would be tantamount to redacting the text.

i.11The Sanskrit title given in the main editions of the Tibetan canon comes, basically, in two variants, the masculine/neuter Mahā­mantrānu­dhāri-sūtra, and the (gender open to interpretation) Mahā­mantrānu­dhāraṇi-sūtra, the latter coming close to our reconstructed title.

i.12The meaning of Mahā­mantrānu­sāriṇī/-aṇī, “Great Follower of the Mantra,” is open to interpretation, but suggests a goddess attuned to the mantra path (mantra­naya), or perhaps one that is responsive to her own mantra employed in a rite and compliant with the requests made.

i.13The meaning of Mahā­mantrānu­dhāriṇī, “Great Upholder of the Mantra,” could overlap with the above if -anusāriṇī were interpreted as causative (“one who causes [the others] to follow, or to live in accordance with, the mantra path”). The prefix anu could imply either that her ‘upholding/preserving’ accords (anu) with the mantra path, or that she is favorably (anu) disposed toward this path.

i.14Another variant, Mahā­mantrānu­dhāraṇī (short a in the suffix), would allow for an additional interpretation of its being a dhāraṇī (rather than a goddess per se), i.e. a formulaic ‘container’ or ‘retainer,’ where the ‘containing’ occurs in agreement with (anu), or is triggered by, the mantra.

i.15The name of the rakṣā goddess that appears in the Tibetan translation of the Mahā­sāhasra­pramardanī is gsang sngags rjes su brang ba chen mo, which would most likely render Mahā­mantrānu­sārinī, and suggest an English translation of “Great Upholder/Follower of the Secret Mantra.” This Tibetan translation was edited in the fifteenth century by Gö Lotsawa Zhonnu Pal (’gos lotsAwa gzhon nu dpal) based on a Sanskrit manuscript in the possession of Chak Lotsawa Chöjé Pal (chag lotsAwa chos rje dpal), who was active in the thirteenth century. Thus, this title may very well represent a later stage or different recension of the Sanskrit text and might not provide additional clues into the source text used by the Tibetan imperial period translation team.