Notes

n.1Among the four Tibetan translations included in the Degé Kangyur, only Toh 592 lacks the introductory narrative. It shares this feature with the earliest extant Sanskrit version reported in the Khotanese manuscript and with a number of Tibetan translations preserved among the Dunhuang manuscripts.

n.2In most but not all citations of the spell’s name‍—either as the title of a text or as a reference to the spell within a text‍—the term “name” (nāman; zhes bya ba) immediately follows the compound sarva­tathāgatoṣṇīṣa­sitātapatrā, thereby marking it as the primary title of the deity/spell/text. In a small number of instances the word nāman is omitted altogether, and in rare cases it is shifted to a different point in the title. The instability of the title both across and within the texts contributes to the challenge of interpreting it properly.

n.3Though all Tibetan translations of the title consistently insert “born from,” they are anything but consistent in their use of “all tathāgatas” (sarvatathāgataº; de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad). Many of the Tibetan translations of the title omit “all,” thus reading “the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata,” even when the Sanskrit title provided reads sarvatathāgataº. All Sanskrit sources consulted are unanimous in reading sarvatathāgataº.

n.4A challenge in accurately translating the title of the texts and the spell they contain is the fact that the terms pratyaṅgirā and aparājitā are used in other contexts as names of female deities and their spells. Here the terms aparājitā and pratyaṅgirā are taken as adjectives of māhāvidyārajñī or dhāraṇī , depending on the version of title used in a specific text. The decision to render it in this way is not meant to be definitive.

n.5For a synopsis of these forms, see Porció 2000, pp. 14–16.

n.6The manuscript containing the Sitātapatrā spell discovered by Aurel Stein at Dunhuang is written in a “cursive Gupta script” that Hoernle (1911, pp. 448–49 and 472–77) argues was in use beginning in the sixth century in Central Asia. He has also identified loan words used in the manuscript that would suggest it dates to the eight century. Additionally, a male deity named Sitātapatra is mentioned in The Root Manual of the Rites of Mañjuśrī (Toh 543, Mañjuśrīmūla­kalpa), where he is counted among the eight uṣṇīṣa kings (uṣṇīṣarāja; gtsug tor kyi rgyal po). See Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans. (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020), g.1525. The Root Manual of the Rites of Mañjuśrī can be dated to at least the eight century (see ibid., i.2).

n.7On the circulation of apotropaic Buddhist literature in Inner and Central Asia, see White 2021, pp. 45-84.

n.8About which see below.

n.9Orgyen Lingpa 2001, folio 207.b.

n.10See for example the relatively recent work by Dudjom Jikdral Yeshé Dorjé (bdud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje), the gtsug tor gdugs dkar mo’i rgyun khyer ’bar ba’i thog brtsegs (1997), in which the author incorporates phrases, words, and spell formulas from the canonical material into an otherwise distinctive practice manual.

n.11Chökyi Jungné, dkar chag , folio 149.b.

n.12Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 985 version of this text within vol. 101 or 102 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 985, n.­12, for details.

n.13The colophon reads in full, “This was translated and finalized by the great scholar from Jagaddala [Monastery] in eastern Tibet, who is favored by the illustrious Cakrasaṃvara, by the paṇḍita Vibhūticandra, and by the monk-lotsāwa Sherap Rinchen. It surpasses the earlier versions for being translated in coordination with the commentarial literature and carefully edited by checking it against various manuscripts from Magadha in India.” (Folio 193.a: rgya gar shar phyogs ’dza’ gata ta la’i mkhas pa chen po/ dpal bde mchog gis rjes su bzung ba’i paN+Di ta b+hi b+hu ti tsan+tra dang / lo tsa+tsha ba dge slong shes rab rin chen gyis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa’o/ ’di ni sngar gyi dpe rnams las khyad par du ’grel pa dang bstun zhing bsgyur ba dang / rgya gar yul dbus kyi dpe du ma dang gtugs te/ shin tu dag par byas pa yin no.)

n.14Toh 591, c.­1: paN+Di ta pa ra hi ta b+ha dra dang / lo ts+tsha ba gzu dga’ rdor gyis kha che’i bdud rtsi ’byung gnas kyi gtsug lag khang gi dpe rnying la gtugs nas gtan la phab pa.

n.15’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub pa. Denkarma F.302.a; see also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, pp. 197–98.

n.16Toh 593, c.­1: gtsug tor lha yul ma chung ba kha che’i paN+Di ta ma hA dz+nyA na nas rang ’gyur du mzad do. This colophon identifies the translator as Mahājñāna, but this is certainly a reference to the Kashmiri paṇḍita Mahājana, who was active in Tibet in the eleventh century and translated a number of other works. The colophon to the same translation in the Phukdrak Kangyur correctly identifies him as Mahājana. For a synopsis of the life of Mahājana, see Kano 2016, pp. 5–8.

n.17A Catalogue of the Urga Kanjur, p. 280, folio 54.a. The same source also identifies Toh 592 (Urga no. 593) as the version “known as the Uṣṇīṣa of the human realm, or the longer of those of the heavenly realm” (mi yul ma’am lha yul ma che bar grags pa), but the precise meaning of this statement is uncertain, as Toh 592/Urga 593 is slightly shorter than Toh 593/Urga 594. This way of referring to Toh 592 could not be confirmed in any other sources.

n.18See the full citation below.

n.19Sönam Nampar Gyalwa, gtsug gtor gdugs dkar rgyas pa rig sngags kyi rgyal mo chen po, p. 736: gzungs kyi rtog pa ’di la/ rgyas pa rig sngags kyi rgyal mo chen mo zhes bya ba sngon ’gyur byang med pa ’di dang / ’bring po mchog grub mar grags pa zu dga’ ba’i rdo rjes bsgyur ba dang / bsdus pa lha yul ma chung bar grags pa kha che ma hA dza nas bsgyur ba dang gsum du zad kyi/ chung ba gzhan zhig snang ba ni lha yul ma chung bar grags pa’i gleng gzhi dor ba tsam du zad pas zur du bgrang mi ’tshal lo.

n.20Kawagoe 2005, p. 19.

n.21Herrmann-Pfandt (2008, p. 198) also considers it likely that the Sitātapatrā text recorded in the Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) is a version of Toh 592.

n.22Both Mahājana, the translator of Toh 593, and Parahitabhadra, the translator of Toh 591, were from Kashmir. The colophon to Toh 591 also indicates that it was prepared on the basis of a manuscript found in Amṛtabhavana monastery.

n.23Toh 590 may also be linked to Kashmir, as Kashmir is directly referenced in the body of the text. The deity Mahākāla is described as “residing in a great charnel ground in Kashmir” (kha che’i dur khrod chen po na gnas pa). Among the canonical translations, this reference is unique to Toh 590, but it is also attested in the more recent Sanskrit witnesses.

n.24See Hoernle 1911, pp. 448–49.

n.25This manuscript is available digitally from the University of Cambridge Digital Library and has also been edited and published in Hidas 2021.

n.26Three other Nepalese versions of the Sitātapatrā spell were consulted for this translation. Royal Asiatic Society Hodgson 77, dated to 1894, preserves a unique witness of the spell that is generally aligned with Toh 590 but contains a number of variants. It is also the most corrupt of the Nepalese sources consulted. University of Tokyo Library no. 441-01, dated to 1828, is generally similar to Cambridge Add. Ms. 1326 and thus Toh 590. Finally, a version of the spell from an undated Nepalese dhāraṇī­saṅgraha was edited by Ngawang Samten and Janardan Pandey and published in volume 33 of the journal Dhīḥ. It too correlates with Toh 590, perhaps more so than the other Nepalese sources.

n.27Kiliç Cengiz and Turanskaya 2019, p. 20.

n.28About these versions of the spell, see Kiliç Cengiz 2020, and Kiliç Cengiz and Turanskaya 2019 and 2021.

n.29A summary of these texts and conjectures about their relationship to the canonical materials can be found in Lalou 1936 and in Porció 2000, pp. 19–24.

n.30This line, which is unique to Toh 590, appears in transliterated Sanskrit in the Tibetan translation and so has been left as such here. This line can be translated as “Homage to the blessed Uṣṇīṣa, which is pure, pristine, and stainless. Svāhā!”

n.31Skt. śāpāyudhānām (CL1326, RASH 77, UTM 441-01); Tib. dmod pa’i mtshon cha can (D).

n.32There is wide variation in these lines across Sanskrit and Tibetan sources.

n.33Reading legs ldan here and throughout as bhagavat following the Sanskrit. Though most versions of the Tibetan translation include both bcom ldan ’das and legs ldan, both terms translate bhagavat. Thus, this translation follows the Sanskrit texts, as well as F, in omitting bcom ldan ’das.

n.34It is not clear who the “five great mudrās” (mahāpañcamudrā; phyag rgya chen po lnga) are in the context of Nārāyaṇa.

n.35F omits “Nandikeśvara” (dga’ byed dbang phyug) so that this line addresses simply Mahākāla. F also omits “Kashmir” (kha che).

n.36F and most of Sanskrit versions consulted treat this as a separate object of homage: “Homage to the one accompanied by the horde of mātṛs” (namo mātṛgaṇasahitāya Dh33, CL1326, UTM 441-01; oṁ namo mātṛgaṇavāndena sāhitāya RASH 77). The reading in KT728 does, however, parallel the Tibetan translation.

n.37CL1326, Dh33, KT728, UTM 441-01, and Toh 591, 592, and 593 read gajakula (glang po’i gdung), “elephant family,” instead of rgyal po’i gdung (rājakula), “kingly family,” a reading found in all versions of Toh 590 and supported by RASH 77. Most Tibetan versions of Toh 590 translate nāgakula below with glang po’i gdung (“elephant family”), but F and Toh 591, 592, and 593 read klu’i gdung (“nāga family”), which may be the most plausible interpretation of the Sanskrit nāgakula.

n.38F and all Sanskrit versions consulted omit “ignorance family.”

n.39The Tibetan translation of this name in D and S aligns with the name attested in the Sanskrit sources, which is given here. F aligns with Toh 591, 592, and 593 in reading spyan rgyas pa ut+pa la’i dri’i tog gi rgyal po, which could tentatively be rendered in Sanskrit as Vikasitanetrotpalagandhaketurāja.

n.40Reading prasādana (CL1326, Dh33, UTM 441-01, RASH 77) instead of the Tibetan rab tu sgrub par byed pa, which would translate prasādhana.

n.41It is not clear what the eight kinds of untimely death are.

n.42In this series of verses it is difficult to determine what is a descriptive phrase and what is a proper name. Both the Tibetan and Sanskrit sources are ambiguous in places, and some of the names/descriptive phrases are repeated. Thus, the parsing of this sequence of proper names, epithets, and adjectives that follows is tentative. The Sanskrit sources clarify that all the terms are in the feminine nominative singular, apart from the first few lines, about which see note 42.

n.43This translation follows the Tibetan in rendering this passage in verse. It is in prose in all Sanskrit version consulted apart from KT728, in which the original structure is unclear from the published edition. According to the Sanskrit syntax, each of these descriptive phrases is in the accusative case (apart from KT728), marking them as adjectival phrases that construe with pratyaṅgirām (the “averting [spell]”), which is the object of the statement “I will teach” that begins the prose section above. Beginning with the next verse, the syntax changes to render the epithets in the feminine nominative singular, and the passage is rendered in verse in the Sanskrit as well as the Tibetan sources.

n.44Reading rgyal ba’i rdo rje ’phreng as rgyal ba rdo rje phreng. All Sanskrit versions consulted and the Tibetan translation represented in F report a different verse here. The Sanskrit verse reads, “She is noble Tārā and Bhṛkuṭī, / Victorious and likewise completely victorious. / She is the slayer of Māra / And is famed as Vajramālā (CL1326, Dh33, UTM 441-01, RASH 77). The Tibetan translation in F generally follows the Sanskrit but omits the line “She is the slayer of Māra.”

n.45D: pad+ma’i snang ba rdo rje mtshan; F: pad+ma’i mngon mtshan rdo rje mtshan. The Sanskrit versions read padmā bhavajāchinā, which appears corrupt.

n.46The translation of this line follows the syntax of the Sanskrit versions: mālā caivāparajitā (CL1326, Dh33). The term aparājitā (gzhan gyis mi thub), “invincible,” is frequently used in this text as an adjective describing Sitātapatrā and her spell. Aparājitā is also the proper name of a protective deity, which is how the term seems to be used here.

n.47Tib. rnam sgeg ma, which is the equivalent of the Sanskrit vilāsinī. All Sanskrit versions consulted, except KT728, read viśālī (“vast one”). KT728 reads vajradaṇḍī (em. vajradhaṇḍī), “one with a vajra staff,” which agrees with the Tibetan of Toh 593 (rdo rje mkhar bsnams).

n.48This translation follows the Tibetan in reading zhi ba’i lha rnams kyi mchod pa. Most of the Sanskrit versions consulted read, “Peaceful, she is worshiped by vaidehas” (śāntā vaidehapujitā CL1326, Dh33, UTM 441-01). The Tibetan translation in F agrees with the Sanskrit.

n.49F reads “Of virtuous appearance, she has great majesty” (dge ba’i gzugs can gzi brjid che).

n.50Following the Sanskrit syntax jvālā pāṇḍaravāsinī (CL1326, Dh33, UTM 441-01, RASH 77). The Tibetan reads ’bar ba dang ni gos dkar mo.

n.51There is some variation in this term across witnesses. “Deathless” follows the Tibetan translations, including F, in reading ’chi med. This reading is supported by RASH 77, which attests to amara. CL1326, Dh33, and UTM 441-01 read aparā, which means “other” but is also the name of a prominent goddess in the esoteric Trika pantheon of the Śaiva tradition. Toh 591, 592, and 593 support the reading aparā (gzhan).

n.52Reading the Tibetan rig ’dzin ma as rigs ’dzin ma based on the attested Sanskrit kulandharī.

n.53This translation follows the Sanskrit vajrahastā vajravidyā kāñcanamālikā (CL1326, Dh33, and UTM 441-01). D reads lag na rdo rje’i rdo rje dang / de bzhin rig sngags gser phreng can, which appears to be corrupt. F is more closely aligned with Sanskrit in reading lag na rdo rje rdo rje rigs/ rdo rje gser gyi phreng ba can, but it is unique in reading rdo rje ser gyi phreng ba can (“Vajrakañcanamālika”).

n.54The Tibetan reads le brgan rtsi dang rin chen ma, which could be interpreted as two names/epithets, but it is clear from the Sanskrit that this should be read as the single compound kusumbharatnā .

n.55This and the previous line vary significantly across Sanskrit and Tibetan sources. This interpretation follows Dh33, which reads º vijṛmbhamānikā || vajrā kanakaprabhā locanā º. D reads rnam par bsgyings ma’i phreng ba dang / rdo rje gser ’od lta bu’i spyan. Other interpretations are possible based on variants attested in the Sanskrit and Tibetan sources.

n.56This translation follows the syntax as reported in CL1326, Dh33, UTM 441-01, and F.

n.57CL1326 reads sulocanā ca śvetā ca kamalā kamalekṣaṇā, which could be translated as “She is Sulocanā, and Śvetā, and Kamalā with lotus eyes.”

n.58“Mudrās” (phyag rgya) refers to the forms of Sitātapatrā just listed. Dh33, RASH 77, and F read “May this host of great mudrās and all hordes of mātṛs…” (Skt. ityetā mahāmudrāgaṇāḥ sarvamātṛgaṇāś ca; Tib. phyag rgya dang yum gyi tshogs de dag thams cad kyis).

n.59The Degé version reads prasādhanakarī (pra sA d+ha na ka rI), which has been emended here, as in the prose passage above, to prasādanakarī based on CL1326, Dh33, RASH 77, UTM 441-01, K, F, N, and S.

n.60This can be tentatively translated as “Oṁ, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, praised by the host of ṛṣis, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Crusher, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Paralyzer, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Stupefier, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Devourer of opposing spells, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Disrupter of all spells, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Paralyzer of all evil ones, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Destroyer of all yakṣas, rākṣasas, and grahas, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Destroyer of the eighty-four thousand types of grahas, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Appeaser of the twenty-eight lunar mansions, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Destroyer of the eight great celestial bodies, hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ! Protect, protect me and all sentient beings!”

n.61The syntax of the Sanskrit versions suggest reading “indestructible” (abhedhye) as an adjective of the goddess. The Tibetan is ambiguous. All Tibetan versions are unanimous in reading “with blazing characteristics” (mtshan rtags can), but the Sanskrit versions consulted read jvalitaṭaṅkari (“blazing roar”).

n.62Following the Sanskrit sources as well as F, K, Y, N, and S in reading this term in the vocative. D reads the term in the instrumental.

n.63This translation follows the syntax of the Sanskrit sources, in which this and each of the subsequent phrases are declined in the ablative case.

n.64Here and in the following paragraph the initial supplication, “Grant auspiciousness in the face of danger from...” has been inserted for the sake of clarity in the English translation.

n.65Conjectural reading following F, lus la gnas ma. D and S read lus chags ma, which does not directly correspond to any Sanskrit source or term. The term kaṭa is consistently translated with lus in this text and Toh 591, 592, and 593, and gnas ma is a natural translation of vāsinī.

n.66Tib. re lde ’don pa. Associating this Tibetan term with the attested Sanskrit term kaṭakamālinī is tentative. The Tibetan term re lde (“felt”) is a known equivalent of kaṭa, while ’don pa is used translate mālinī in this text, as attested in the next term in the list, kaṇṭakamālinī (tsher ma ’don pa).

n.67The Sanskrit versions confirm that the following sentences are in the first person singular present indicative voice. Additionally, the Tibetan phrase rdo rje phur bus gdab bo suggests that the pinning is done by a vajrakīla (“vajra dagger”), but the Sanskrit texts indicate that the Tibetan phrase is a translation of vajrena kīlayāmi, meaning “to pin (√kīl) with a vajra.”

n.68Tib. skar mda’ gdong. This name is not attested in any of the Sanskrit sources consulted. CL1326, Dh33, RASH 77, and UTM 441-01 all have atharvavaṇa in this position. F reads srid srungs, which is an attested translation of atharvavaṇa. The term atharvavaṇa refers to priests who emphasize the Atharva Veda among the four Vedas and were well known for their use of spells and other forms of ritual magic.

n.69Tib. nam mkha’ lding yang dag pa (F: nam mkha’ lding de nyid). The term “true” (yang dag pa) is interpreted as referring specifically to the garuḍa who serves as Viṣṇu’s (Nārāyaṇa’s) mount. This term does not have an equivalent in any of the Sanskrit sources consulted.

n.70The precise identity of these figures is uncertain, and this translation is conjectural. The Tibetan translation of Toh 590 parses the Sanskrit into four terms: Jayakara (rgyal bar byed pa), Madhukara (sbrang rtsir byed pa), Siddhikara (grub par byed pa), and Sarvārthasādhana (don kun sgrub pa). There is evidence, however, that this should be read as a sequence of three names. The most explicit evidence that this passage identifies three figures is found in Vilāsavajra’s Nāma­mantrārthāva­lokinī, a commentary on the Mañjuśrī­nāmasaṅgīti. There Vilāsavajra refers to three brothers named Jayakara, Madhukara, and Sarvārthasiddhikara (Tribe 2016, p. 226: jayakaramadhukara­sarvārthasiddhikarās trayo bhrātaras). In all available sources the first two names are consistently given as Jayakara and Madhukara, but the third name varies in the Sanskrit witnesses consulted. The oldest, KT728, reads ºsarvārtha(sā)dhanaº; CL1326, Dh33, and UTM 441-01 have ºsiddhikarasarvārtha­sādhanaº; and RASH 77 has ºsarvārthāsiddhi­sādhakaº. This translation of Toh 590 follows Vilāsavajra in reading three names but follows CL1326, Dh33, and UTM 441-01 in rendering it as siddhikarasarvārtha­sādhana. It is possible to interpret the Sanskrit reported in these sources to read “[the spells] of Jayakara, Madhukara, and Siddhikara used to accomplish all aims (sarvārtha­sādhana).”

n.71In Toh 591, 592, and 593 this passage is rendered in transliterated Sanskrit and treated as part of the mantra. Here in Toh 590 it was translated into Tibetan, and so it has been translated into English here as well.

n.72The Sanskrit attested in KT728, CL1326, Dh33, RASH 77, and UTM 441-01, as well as the transliterated Sanskrit in Toh 591, 592, and 593, reads asitānalārkaprabhāsphuṭavikasita­sitātapatre, which could be translated as “White Umbrella ( sitātapatrā ) opened broadly and shining with the white fire of the sun.” D and S omit “White Umbrella,” while F includes a corrupted rendering of sitātapatre in Sanskrit transliteration.

n.73The Tibetan and Sanskrit sources consistently read ºjāmakebhyaḥ, so that reading has been retained. The Tibetan transliteration of the same spell in Toh 591 reads yāmakebhyaḥ, which also aligns with how the term jāmaka is translated into Tibetan (gshin rje) in Toh 591, 1.­22 (folio 215.a), Toh 592, 1.­24 (folio 222.b), and Toh 593, 1.­25 (folio 228.a). Jāmaka /yāmaka does not appear to be translated anywhere here in Toh 590. It is possible that similarities in the sounds of ja- and ya- in Indic vernaculars resulted in the reading of jāmaka º instead of yāmakaº.

n.74Following, CL1326, Dh33, KT728, RASH 77, and UTM 441-01, as well as F. D and S read vajriśṛṅkhalāya mantapratyaṅgirābhyaḥ.

n.75This can be tentatively translated as “Oṁ, blaze, blaze! Burn, burn! Devour, devour! Break, break! Destroy, destroy! Cut, cut! Cleave, cleave! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā! All evil ones, hūṁ drūṃ! To all that are difficult to overcome, phaṭ! To all evil chāyās, phaṭ! To all evil writings, phaṭ! To all directions, phaṭ! To all noxious foods, phaṭ! To all dutas, phaṭ! To all avadhūtas, phaṭ! To all evil actions, phaṭ! To all unsightly beings, phaṭ! To all fevers, phaṭ! To all apasmāras, phaṭ! To all ostārakas, phaṭ! To all ḍākinīs, phaṭ! To all revatīs, phaṭ! To all kaṭavāsinīs, phaṭ! To all jāmakas, phaṭ! To all śakunis, phaṭ! To all mātṛnandikas, phaṭ! To all poison-drink spirits, phaṭ! To all garas, phaṭ! To all ālambakas, phaṭ! To all fears, phaṭ! To all calamities, phaṭ! To all infectious diseases and mental disturbances, phaṭ! To all terrors, phaṭ! To all illnesses, phaṭ! To all ascetics, phaṭ! To all grahas, phaṭ! To all non-Buddhists, phaṭ! To all foes, phaṭ! To all downfalls, phaṭ! To all unmādas, phaṭ! To all chāyās, phaṭ! To all vidyādharas, phaṭ! To Jayakara, Madhukara, and Siddhikarasarvārtha­sādhana, phaṭ! To all masters of spells, phaṭ! To all kings of spells, phaṭ! To all sādhakas who are spell masters, phaṭ! To the Four Bhaginīs, phaṭ! To all vajrakaumārīs, queens of spells, phaṭ! To all vighnas and vināyakas, phaṭ! To the boon granter, phaṭ! To the disperser of enemies, phaṭ! To all asuras, phaṭ! To all garuḍas, phaṭ! To all mahoragas, phaṭ! To all humans and nonhumans, phaṭ! To all maruts, phaṭ! To all piśācas, phaṭ! To all kumbhāṇḍas, phaṭ! To Vajraśṛṅkhala and the pratyaṅgiras, phaṭ! To all calamities, phaṭ! To the great pratyaṅgiras, phaṭ! Cut, cut, phaṭ! Cleave, cleave, phaṭ! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ svāhā! He he phaṭ! Ho ho phaṭ! To the unfailing one, phaṭ! To the unobstructed one, phaṭ! To the boon granter, phaṭ! To the disperser of the asuras, phaṭ! To all devas, phaṭ! To all nāgas, phaṭ! To all yakṣas, phaṭ! To all rākṣasas, phaṭ! To all gandharvas, phaṭ! To all kinnaras, phaṭ! To all pretas, phaṭ! To all bhūtas, phaṭ! To all kumbhāṇḍas, phaṭ! To all pūtanas, phaṭ! To all kaṭapūtanas, phaṭ! To all skandas , phaṭ! To all unmādas, phaṭ! To Vajraśṛṅkhala and the pratyaṅgiras, phaṭ! To Mahākāla, phaṭ! To the host of mātṛs, phaṭ! To he who is worshiped by the host of mātṛs, phaṭ! To Vaiṣṇavī, phaṭ! To Māheśvarī, phaṭ! To Brahmaṇī, phaṭ! To Agni, phaṭ! To Mahākālī, phaṭ! To Kāladaṇḍī, phaṭ! To Aindriyā, phaṭ! To Raudrī, phaṭ! To Cāmuṇḍī, phaṭ! To Vārāhī, phaṭ! To the great Vārāhī, phaṭ! To Rātrī, phaṭ! To Kālarātrī, phaṭ! To Yamadaṇḍī, phaṭ! To Kapāli, phaṭ! To the great Kapāli, phaṭ! To Kaumārī, phaṭ! To Yāmī, phaṭ! To Vāyu, phaṭ! To Kauberā, phaṭ! To Nairṛti, phaṭ! To Vāruṇī, phaṭ! To Mārutī, phaṭ! To the great Mārutī, phaṭ! To Saumyā, phaṭ! To Aiśānī, phaṭ! To Paukasī, phaṭ! To Arthavaṇī, phaṭ! To Śabarī, phaṭ! To the black Śabarī, phaṭ! To Yamadūtī, phaṭ. To the diurnal and nocturnal spirits, phaṭ! To the spirits of the three junctures, phaṭ! To the earth spirit, phaṭ! To the one who prefers to dwell in the great sacred charnel grounds of Kashmir, phaṭ! To epidemics, to all dangers, to all faults, phaṭ! Oṁ hūṁ ṣṭoṃ, bind, bind all wicked ones! Protect, protect me and all sentient beings, svāhā!”

n.76Reading gnod sbyin (D) as snod byed following F. The phrase gdon dang snod byin attested in D is not reflected in any of the Sanskrit witnesses consulted and is absent in H, N, and S.

n.77Tib. bum pa lta bu. This Tibetan term does not directly correspond to the name any of the beings listed in the available Sanskrit versions. The Sanskrit versions have kambukāminīgraha and alambanagraha following mātṛnandigraha.

n.78Tib. nyi ma phyed pa; Skt. ardhadaivasika. More literally, this term means “half daily.”

n.79Tib. mi bzad pa; Skt. viṣama. While viṣama can be interpreted as “unbearable,” as the Tibetan translators did, in the context of the duration or recurrence of fever it means “irregular.”

n.80This translation follows the attested Sanskrit term ardhāvabhedaka. The Tibetan term, gzhogs phyed na ba, could also be interpreted as a translation of pakṣavadha, referring to hemiplegia.

n.81The “major” appendages would include the head, arms, legs, etc. The “minor” appendages include the nose, ears, fingers, toes.

n.82Tib. bas bldags. The Tibetan term, for which there is no Sanskrit equivalent in the sources consulted, means “cow licked” (Skt. golīḍha?) and refers to a skin irritation with a sensation similar to that of being licked by a cow.

n.83It is clear from the Sanskrit that this sentence is to be understood in the first person.

n.84All Tibetan versions of Toh 590 and all Sanskrit sources consulted read khakhame khakhame. Toh 591, 592, and 593 attest to khasame khasame here. The reading khasame khasame also aligns with a similar spell formula below that attests to khasame khasame in all Tibetan and Sanskrit sources consulted. Whereas khakhame is ambiguous in meaning, khasame means “O you who are equal to the sky.”

n.85Viṣada (“poisoner”) is attested in the majority of sources but should perhaps be emended to viśada (“brilliant”). The confusion of sibilants is a consistent feature of Sanskrit manuscripts, thus the reading viśada is perhaps preferable. However, none of the Sanskrit and Tibetan sources consulted attest to viśada.

n.86This transliteration follows F, D, and S. The Sanskrit attested in CL1326, Dh33, RASH 77, and UTM 441-01, as well as the transliterated Sanskrit reported in H and N, read vajrapāśe (“O Vajra Noose”).

n.87This can be tentatively translated as “It is like this: Oṁ, O fire, fire! O immovable one, immovable one! Khakhame, khakhame! O poisoner, poisoner! O hero, hero! O vengeful one, vengeful one! O gentle one, gentle one! O peaceful one, peaceful one! O tamed one, tamed one! O vajra holder, bind, bind! Vajrapāṇi, phaṭ! Oṁ hūṁ drūṃ hrīḥ ṣṭoṃ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā! Oṁ, Vajrapāṇi, bind, bind with your vajra noose all wicked beings obstructors and those who mislead! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ! Hūṁ drūṃ bandha phaṭ! Protect, protect me and all sentient beings!”

n.88Following the Sanskrit sources in reading maunin for thub pa.

n.89Tib. nad. The Sanskrit sources all read º māra , which could be understood as “obstacles,” or perhaps “fatalities.”

n.90The syntax of the Sanskrit versions would read “the undefeated perfect buddhas’ invincible queen of spells for averting named the blessed, invincible, perfectly awakened Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas .

n.91“City” (nagara; grong khyer) is repeated in all sources consulted. The difference appears to be that the banner can be planted either at the gateway to a city or generally in the city.

n.92Emended to the vocative following CL1326, KT728, and RASH 77. The Tibetan transliterations read vajrapāṇi .

n.93This can be tentatively translated as “It is like this: Oṁ hūṁ ṣṭoṃ, bind, bind! Protect me, my community, and all sentient beings from all evil ones, svāhā! Oṁ hūṁ ṣṭoṃ, bind, bind all evil ones! Protect, protect me, my community, and all sentient beings, O Vajrapāṇi, hūṁ phaṭ svāhā! Oṁ, the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, a mass of brilliance on the head that gazes down! Oṃ, blaze, blaze! Devour, devour! Burn, burn! Break, break! Destroy, destroy! Cut, cut! Cleave, cleave! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ! Protect, protect me, my community, and all sentient beings, svāhā! Oṁ, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, hūṁ phaṭ svāhā! Hūṁ hūṁ, protect me, my community, and all sentient beings, phaṭ svāhā! It is like this: O fire, fire! O immovable one, immovable one! O one equal to the sky, equal to the sky! O hero, hero! O Vengeful one, vengeful one! O gentle one, gentle one! O you who are empowered by the blessing of all buddhas, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, to all those with evil intentions, hūṁ phaṭ svāhā!”

n.94The Tibetan term shig pa tams cad has been interpreted based on the attested Sanskrit term sarvopadrava.

n.95This enigmatic statement perhaps indicates that one should recite this formula while meditating on or contemplating the Buddha, or perhaps in the presence of an image of a buddha.