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” (naman; zhes bya ba) immediately follows the compound sarva­tathāgatoṣṇīṣa­sitātrapatrā, thereby marking it as the primary title of the deity/spell/text. In a small number of instances the word naman 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 986 version of this text within vol. 101 or 102 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 986, 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 Ms. Add. 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.30Reading legs ldan here and throughout as bhagavat following the Sanskrit.

n.31It is not clear who the “five great mudrās” (mahāpañcamudrā; phyag rgya chen po lnga) are in the context of Nārāyaṇa.

n.32In the corresponding passages in the Sanskrit sources, this final clause is treated 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).

n.33This Sanskrit rendering is tentative, as the Tibetan term used here differs slightly from the Sanskrit sources. All Sanskrit sources consulted have Vikasitakamalotpalagandhaketurāja, a term that aligns with the Tibetan translation of the name given in Toh 590, pad+ma rgyas pa dang ut+pa la’i dri’i tog gi rgyal po.

n.34In the Sanskrit versions aligned with this text, as well as in Toh 590, the verbal statement “I will teach…” (pravakṣyāmi; rab tu brjod par bya) is given here, with the title of the spell as the object of the verb. Toh 592 lacks this verb and does not provide a finite verb until the end of the verse section that follows.

n.35In 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 a number of the names/descriptive phrases are repeated. Thus, the parsing of this sequence of proper names, epithets, and adjectives that follows in these verses 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 the following note.

n.36This translation follows the Tibetan translations in rendering the preceding lines 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 pratyaṅgirāṃ (the “averting [spell]”) as the object of the verb “teach,” which is absent in Toh 591, 592, and 593. Beginning with the next verse, the syntax changes to render the epithets in the nominative singular. From that point the text is rendered in verse in the Sanskrit as well as the Tibetan sources.

n.37Reading rgyal ba’i rdo rje ’phreng as rgyal ba rdo rje phreng.

n.38The term aparājitā (gzhan gyis mi thub), “invincible,” is frequently used in this text as an adjective describing Sitātapatrā. Aparājitā is also the proper name of a protective deity, which is how the term seems to be used here.

n.39Conjectural for rdo rje mkhar bsnams joms pa mo, a reading unique to Toh 592 and 593. The decision to render the ambiguous phrase rdo rje mkhar bsnams as “bears a vajra staff” interprets mkhar as “staff” following KT728, which reads vajradaṇḍī (em. vajradhaṇḍī). The other Sanskrit witnesses consulted read vajratuṇḍi viśālī ca (“the vast Vajratuṇḍī”), while Toh 590 and 591 read rdo rje mchu can rnam sgeg ma (“the alluring Vajratuṇḍī”).

n.40Tib. 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).

n.41Reading rigs as rig based on the attested Sanskrit vajravidyā (CL1326, Dh33, UTM 441-01).

n.42The 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.43The interpretation of these two lines follows Dh33, which reads º vijṛmbhamānikā || vajrā kanakaprabhā locanā º. D reads rnam par bsgyings ma’i rdo rje dang / gser ’od lta bu’i spyan mnga’ ba. Other interpretations are possible based on variants attested in the Sanskrit and Tibetan sources.

n.44“Mudrās” (phyag rgya) refers to the forms of Sitātapatrā just listed.

n.45This can be tentatively translated as “Oṁ, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, praised by the host of ṛṣis, hūṁ drūṁ! Crusher, hūṁ drūṁ! Paralyzer, hūṁ drūṁ! Devourer of great spells, hūṁ drūṁ! Devourer of opposing spells, hūṁ drūṁ! Paralyzer of all evil ones, hūṁ drūṁ! Destroyer of all yakṣas, rākṣasas, and grahas, hūṁ drūṁ! Destroyer of the eighty-four thousand types of grahas, hūṁ drūṁ! Appeaser of the twenty-eight lunar mansions, hūṁ drūṁ! Destroyer of the eight great celestial bodies, hūṁ drūṁ! Protect, protect me!”

n.46This translation follows the syntax of the Sanskrit sources, in which this and each of the subsequent phrases are declined in the ablative case.

n.47Here and in the next paragraph the initial supplication, “Grant auspiciousness...” has been inserted for the sake of clarity in the English translation.

n.48The Sanskrit versions confirm that the following sentences are in the first person singular present indicative voice. Additionally, the Tibetan phrase phur bus gdab bo suggests that the pinning is done by a kīla (“dagger”), but the Sanskrit texts suggest that the Tibetan phrase is a translation of kīlayāmi (√kīl), meaning “to pin down.” The Sanskrit versions consulted, as well as Toh 590, read kilayāmi vajrena (rdo rje phur bus gdab bo), “pin down with a vajra.”

n.49Following Nārāyaṇa (Viṣṇu), the ambiguous phrase nam mkha’ lding yang dag pa dang lhan cig pa has been interpreted to be a specific reference to the garuḍa who serves as Viṣṇu’s mount. An equivalent to yang dag pa dang lhan cig pa does not appear in any of the Sanskrit sources consulted.

n.50The precise identity of these figures is uncertain, and this translation is conjectural. In his Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, a commentary on the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti, 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. 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.51Emended based on the Sanskrit sources as well as Toh 590, wherein this Sanskrit line is translated into Tibetan. D and S read, in transliteration, asitānalārkaprabhāspuṭavikāsitātapatre.

n.52Emended based on the Sanskrit sources. D and S read, in Tibetan transliteration, apratihatā phaṭ.

n.53Emended based on the Sanskrit sources and Toh 590 and 591. D and S read, in Tibetan transliteration, varapdradā phaṭ.

n.54Emended based on the Sanskrit sources and Toh 590 and 591. D reads, in Tibetan transliteration, pratyaṅgiri phaṭ. S reads pratyaṅgiriti phaṭ.

n.55Emended based on the Sanskrit sources and Toh 590 and 591. D and S read, in Tibetan transliteration, asuravidrāvaka phaṭ.

n.56This can be tentatively translated as “Oṁ, White Umbrella ( sitātapatrā ) opened broadly and shining with the white fire of the sun! Blaze, blaze! Devour, devour! Break, break! Destroy, destroy! Cut, cut! Cleave, cleave! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ 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 averter, phaṭ! To the disperser of the asuras, phaṭ! To all devas, phaṭ! To all nāgas, phaṭ! To all asuras, phaṭ! To all maruts, phaṭ! To all garuḍas, phaṭ! To all gandharvas, phaṭ! To all kinnaras, phaṭ! To all mahoragas, phaṭ! To all yakṣas, phaṭ! To all rākṣasas, phaṭ! To all pretas, phaṭ! To all piśācas, 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 all chāyās, phaṭ! To all apasmāras, phaṭ! To all ostārakas, phaṭ! To all those difficult to violate, phaṭ! To all unsightly spirits, phaṭ! To all fevers, phaṭ! To all kākhordas and kṛtyā rites, phaṭ! To all kiraṇas and vetālas (vaitāḍa), phaṭ! To all ciccas (cicha), preṣakas, and spirits of vomiting, phaṭ! To all indigestion spirits, phaṭ! To all non-Buddhists, phaṭ! To all ascetics, phaṭ! To all vidyādharas, phaṭ! To Jayakara, Madhukara, and Sarvārthasādhaka, phaṭ! To all masters of spells, phaṭ! To the four bhaginīs, phaṭ! To the vajrakaumārīs, phaṭ! To the queens of spells, phaṭ! To the great averters, phaṭ! To Varjaśṛṅkhala, king of averting, phaṭ! To Mahākāla, who is honored by the host of mātṛs, phaṭ! To Vaiṣṇavī, phaṭ! To Brahmaṇī, phaṭ! To Agni, phaṭ! To Mahākālī, phaṭ! To Kāladaṇḍī, phaṭ! To Indrā, phaṭ! To Raudrī, phaṭ! To Kaumāri, phaṭ! To Vārāhī, phaṭ! To Cāmuṇḍī, phaṭ! To Rātrī, phaṭ! To Kālarātrī, phaṭ! To Yamadaṇḍī, phaṭ! To Kapāli, phaṭ! To those who prefer to dwell in charnel grounds, phaṭ!”

n.57Tib. 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 illness it means “irregular.”

n.58This 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.59The “major” appendages would include the head, arms, legs, etc. The “minor” appendages include the nose, ears, fingers, and toes.

n.60Toh 592 and 593 differ here from Toh 590, 591, and the Sanskrit sources consulted in omitting the verbal statement “please dispel” (apanayantu; bsal du gsol). Toh 592 and 593 instead treat “bind the spells of” as the main verb in this passage. In Toh 590, 591, and the Sanskrit sources this is a separate verbal statement that follows “please dispel.”

n.61Tib. 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 type of skin irritation with a sensation similar to that of being licked by a cow.

n.62Viṣada (“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.63This can be tentatively translated as “It is like this: Oṁ, O fire, fire! O poisoner, poisoner! O vengeful one, vengeful one! O vajra-holding goddess! Bind, O you who bind! Vajrapāṇi, phaṭ! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā! Hūṁ drūṁ, bind, phaṭ, protect, protect me, svāhā!”

n.64The Tibetan text of Toh 592 does not specify who the number eighty-four billion quantifies. The Sanskrit sources as well as Toh 590 refer to “vidyā deities” (vidyādevatā; rigs sngags kyi lha) here, while Toh 591 provides “goddesses” (lha mo rnams).

n.65Following the Sanskrit sources in reading maunin for the Tibetan thub pa.

n.66Though the phrasing of these two lines in Tibetan is different, it would appear that this line and the previous line translate the same line of Sanskrit text. In all Sanskrit sources consulted there is only one line related to abstinence (upavāsa), which reads anupavāsī upavāsī bhaviṣyati. In Toh 590, that line is translated into Tibetan as bsnyen gnas ma byas pa yang bsnyen gnas byas par ’gyur. In Toh 591, the same Sanskrit line is translated with smyung ba ma byas pa yang smyung ba byas par ’gyur. Here in Toh 592, as in 593, both Tibetan lines appear in sequence, despite meaning the same thing. This, it would seem, is the result of revisions to the Tibetan translation without knowledge of the Sanskrit source material. Though the two lines are essentially synonymous, they have both been translated here with slightly different English terminology to preserve the unique reading of this text.

n.67Following S and Toh 986 in reading bu rnyed pa. D reads de rnyed pa.

n.68Tib. nad. The Sanskrit sources all read ºmāra, which could be understood as “obstacles,” or perhaps “fatalities.”

n.69“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.70This can be tentatively translated as “It is like this: Oṁ ṣṭoṁ, bind, bind! Protect me, protect, svāhā! Oṁ ṣṭoṁ, bind, bind, vajra! Protect me, protect, Vajrapāṇi, hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ svāhā! Oṁ, the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas on the head that cannot be gazed upon is a mass of brilliance. Oṁ, blaze, blaze! Burn, burn! Break, break! Destroy, destroy! Cut, cut! Cleave, cleave! Hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā! Oṁ, the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, hūṁ phaṭ svāhā! It is like this: Oṁ, O fire, fire! O one equal to space, equal to space! O vengeful one, vengeful one! O gentle one, gentle one! O you who are empowered by the blessings of all the buddhas, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, hūṁ phaṭ! Hūṁ mama hūṁ ni svāhā!”

n.71Tib. sangs rgyas rnal ’byor du bya; Skt. buddhayogena… kartavyā. This enigmatic statement, which varies significantly across the Tibetan versions, 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.