Notes

n.1The four texts are Toh 594, 595, 596, and 598. The first three share the same title: Crown Victory of the Tathāgatas: The Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī with Its Ritual Manual (de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa). The fourth has an ever-so-slightly different title: Crown Victory of the Tathāgatas: A Ritual Manual for the Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī (de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ma’i gzungs zhe bya ba’i rtog pa).

n.2Hidas 2020, p. 141. See also Hidas 2021, which catalogs a number of Indic dhāraṇī­saṃgraha collections, many of which include the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī.

n.3The Sanskrit of this work is preserved in what Gregory Schopen calls the “Los Angeles Manuscript,” though it appears to be held currently in Japan. This is an early manuscript from Bamiyan-Gilgit that Schopen transcribed and translated into English in an unpublished work, which we are grateful to Jacob Dalton for sharing. In addition to being incomplete, probably due to the loss of a folio, the manuscript lacks several passages that are found in the Tibetan translation of Toh 597 and contains a few passages that are absent in that translation, including two passages that are found in Toh 594. Nonetheless, the Sanskrit manuscript is by and large the same work that is translated into Tibetan as Toh 597. More recently, the Sanskrit of the very same manuscript was studied by Gudrun Meltzer in a 2007 “limited distribution report” (Silk 2021, p. 108), to which we have not had access, as well as by Unebe Toshiya, who published the Sanskrit along with a Japanese translation in a 2015 article.

n.4This text has been edited on the basis of ten Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and translated into English in Hidas 2020. From among the works belonging to this group that are preserved in the Tibetan canon, the Sanskrit text is most closely parallel, though not identical, with Toh 595.

n.5According to Chou, the ritual manuals surviving in Chinese are Taishō 972–973 (Chou 1945, p. 322). Hidas 2020 notes that the full set of Uṣṇīṣavijayā-related texts found in the Taishō canon includes Taishō 968–974, 978, and 979.

n.6Sørensen 2011a, p. 165.

n.7Sørensen 2011b, p. 386.

n.8Copp 2005, p. 4. For further details see Copp 2005, which addresses the topic of dhāraṇīs in medieval China using the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī as a case study.

n.9See IOL Tib J 307/PT 54, PT 6, and PT 368 for Tibetan translations of this text, IOL TIB J 322 and IOL Tib J 349/3 for a Tibetan translation of the dhāraṇī alone (not the whole text), and IOL Tib J 466/2, IOL Tib J 547, IOL Tib J 1134, IOL Tib J 1498, PT72, and PT73 for Tibetan transliterations of the Sanskrit dhāraṇī alone (J. Dalton and van Schaik 2006; accessed through The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online). The translations of the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text translated here that appear at Dunhuang include at least one passage parallel with rites described in the kalpas (Toh 594, 595, 596, and 598) but missing from this dhāraṇī text in its Tibetan canonical translation, though present in the surviving Sanskrit manuscript corresponding to it (see J. Dalton forthcoming).

n.10Schmid 2011, pp. 372–73.

n.11J. Dalton 2016 and forthcoming.

n.12Bühnemann 2014; Rospatt 2015, p. 821.

n.13See Bhattacharyya 1928, vol. 2.

n.14The three are Toh 3377, 3248, and 3580, translated respectively by Khampa Lotsāwa Bari Chödrak (khams pa lo tsA ba ba ri chos grags, eleventh century), Patshap Lotsāwa Tsültrim Gyaltsen (pa tshab lo tsA ba tshul khrims rgyal mtshan, twelfth century), and Yarlung Lotsāwa Trakpa Gyaltsen (yar klungs lo tsA ba grags pa rgyal mtshan, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century).

n.15See Chandra 1980.

n.16These Southeast Asian texts are not included in the official Pali Canon of the Theravāda tradition and are unknown in Sri Lanka. In mainland Southeast Asia, however, they are popular in rituals for extending life and in funeral rites. Whether they reflect the diffusion of texts and practices directly from India prior to the relatively recent evolution of Theravāda orthodoxy, or were transmitted via Chinese along with Chinese migrations and cultural influence in the region, remains an open question. For a detailed study of these texts and their possible origins, see Cicuzza (ed.) 2018.

n.17Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 984 version of this text within vol. 101 or 102 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 984, n.­17, for details.

n.18See n.­35.

n.19The text is F 631, Phukdrak Kangyur, vol. 117 (rgyud, dza), F.224.a–231.a. It should be noted, however, that the version of the dhāraṇī preserved in F 631 differs from the dhāraṇī in the present text much more substantially than any of the versions in the mainstream Kangyurs.

n.20Probably Sumpa Lotsāwa Dharma Yontan (sum pa lo tsA ba dhar ma yon tan), a translator and teacher of Sakya Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen, but possibly his uncle, also called Sumpa Lotsāwa, Palchok Dangpö Dorje (dpal mchog dang po’i rdor rje). Both studied in Nepal. See Treasury of Lives.

n.21Sanskrit ’haṃ katham parimucyeyam, “How might I be released from these things?”

n.22The Tibetan does not mention Jetavana, but the Sanskrit has yena jetavane vihāre.

n.23The Sanskrit witness consulted for this translation preserves the alternate reading punar evāgatya bhagavantaṃ triḥ pradakṣiṇīkṛtya bhaga vataḥ mukhadvārṃ praviṣṭā (“three rays returned [and] circumambulated the Blessed One”).

n.24It is not entirely clear what this refers to. According to the Abhidharmakośa , there are six levels of gods in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), seventeen in the form realm (rūpadhātu), and four in the formless realm (ārūpyadhātu/ārūpadhātu), totaling twenty-seven. It may refer to the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, but the Tibetan versions, as well as the Sanskrit, all say “the thirty-second.”

n.25This translation follows the Sanskrit witness, which reads devendra bhāṣitamātrāyāṃ gatāyuṣaś ca devaputraḥ punar api dīrghāyuṃ pratilabhate. The Tibetan witnesses do not include the term devaputraḥ and indicate that the dhāraṇī can perform this function for anyone who recites it.

n.26The English term “realms” has been added to the translation for the sake of clarity and assumes that the term bde ba in the Tibetan witnesses refers to the “higher realms” (bde ’gro). It is possible, however, to interpret this phrase to mean simply maintaining contact with “pleasant things.”

n.27The Sanskrit witness reads sarvadevatā cāsya rakṣāvaraṇaguptim kurvanti, which indicates that the nominative agent of this phrase is all the tutelary deities and not the tathāgatas.

n.28Of the collection of uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī texts in the Kangyurs, only this text preserves the reading gzungs ’di dag, which notes that the long dhāraṇī that follows is in fact a collection of several separate dhāraṇīs.

n.29This opening homage to the Three Jewels is included here only in Toh 597, the version of the text in the Action Tantra section of the Degé Kangyur, and is not present in Toh 984, the supposedly duplicate reiteration in the Dhāraṇī section. Moreover, it is only in the Degé Kangyur that the dhāraṇī in the Action Tantra version includes this homage; it does not appear in the Action Tantra recensions in the Yongle, Narthang, Lhasa, and Stok Palace Kangyurs.

n.30The phrase uṣṇīṣa­vijāyā­pariśuddhe follows here in the Yongle and Kanxi Kangyur versions of this text, in Hidas’ Sanskrit edition, and in Toh 595, 596, and 598.

n.31mama is not present in Hidas’ edition of the Sanskrit manuscripts.

n.32Hidas’ edition reads sarva­tathāgata­mātre, a plausible variant unattested in Tibetan sources.

n.33suvajre is not present in Hidas’ edition of the Sanskrit manuscripts.

n.34Yongle and Kanxi here read sadame, while Hidas’ edition of the Sanskrit manuscripts has mama sadā. In Toh 595 and 598 the phrase reads kāya­pari­śuddhir bhavatu | me sadā sarva­gati­pari­śuddhiś ca.

n.35This is the anomalous phrase mentioned in the introduction at i.­17. In place of the reading samantān mocaya mocaya | ādhiṣṭhāna here in the Degé of Toh 597 and in the equivalent texts in the Lithang and Cone Kangyurs, the supposedly duplicate reiteration of this text in the Dhāraṇī section, Toh 984, instead reads sarva­ta­thāgata­­samaya ādhiṣṭhānādhiṣṭhite. The Sanskrit manuscripts as edited by Hidas read sarva­­tathāgata­­hṛdayādhiṣṭhānādhiṣṭhite. However, in other Kangyurs, including the Narthang, Lhasa, and Stok Palace, the phrase is omitted altogether. See also n.­37.

n.36māṃ is absent in Hidas’ Sanskrit edition.

n.37At this point in most versions of the dhāraṇī comes the phrase samantān mocaya mocaya which, while it is absent here in the Degé text of Toh 597, the version of this work in the Action Tantra section, is present in Toh 984, the supposedly duplicate reiteration in the Dhāraṇī section, as well as in the Stok Palace Kangyur, and in the Sanskrit manuscripts according to Hidas’ edition; in the Narthang and Lhasa Kangyurs it reads samantā mocaya mocaya. The phrase (in one or other of these two spellings) is also present in all other canonical versions of the dhāraṇī in this group of texts‍—with the exception of the heavily abridged version in the Phukdrak Kangyur (see n.­19). See also n.­35; one could speculate that this phrase might possibly have been displaced at some point by a scribal error.

n.38Hidas has translated the dhāraṇī based on his edition, and rather than retranslate it, we give his translation here. Substantive variants between the Sanskrit basis for his translation and the Degé have been noted above. “Oṁ veneration to the glorious Buddha distinguished in all the Three Worlds. Namely, oṁ bhrūṃ bhrūṃ bhrūṃ, purge, purge, purify, purify, O Unequalled Enveloping Splendor Sparkle Destiny Sky, O the One of Purified Nature, O the One Purified by the Topknot Victory, let all Tathāgatas consecrate me with consecrations of the nectar of the excellent Sugata’s words along with great seals and mantrapadas, oṁ bring, bring, O the One who Nourishes Life, purge, purge, purify, purify, O the One Purified by Sky Nature, O the One Purified by the Topknot Victory, O the One Impelled by Thousand Rays, O the One Beholding all Tathāgatas, O the One Fulfilling the Six Perfections, O Mother of all Tathāgatas, O the One Established in the Ten Stages, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Heart of all Tathāgatas, oṁ O Seal, O Seal, O Great Seal, O the One Purified by the Firmness of the Vajra Body, O the One Purged of all Obscurations Resulting from Actions, turn back for me O Life-purged One, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Vow of all Tathāgatas, oṁ muni muni, mahāmuni, vimuni vimuni, mahāvimuni, mati mati, mahāmati, mamati, sumati, O the One Purified by Truth and the True Goal, O the One Purged by a Burst Open Mind, oṁ he he, triumph triumph, succeed succeed, recollect recollect, manifest manifest, expand expand, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of all Buddhas, oṁ O Pure One, O Pure One, O Awakened One, O Awakened One, O Vajra, O Vajra, O Great Vajra, O Vajra-essence, O Victory-essence, O Triumph-essence, O Vajra-flame-essence, O Vajra-born, O Vajra-produced, O Vajra, O the One with a Vajra, let my body become a vajra and that of all beings, let there be body-purification for me and purification of all destinies, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Heart of all Tathāgatas, let all Tathāgatas provide encouragement, oṁ awake awake, succeed succeed, awaken awaken, wake up, wake up, liberate liberate, release release, purge purge, purify purify, liberate completely, O the One Purified by an Enveloping Ray, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Heart of all Tathāgatas, oṁ O Seal O Seal, O Great Seal, O Great Seal and Mantrapada svāhā” (Hidas 2020, p. 154).

n.39Note that from this point until where it is indicated below, in Unebe’s transcription there does not appear to be any corresponding Sanskrit text.

n.40Reading mnyen pa as *snigdha.

n.41Degé here adds ’dzin pa (“upheld”), but this term is repeated later in the list, so we follow the Lithang and Choné Kangyurs, which omit the first instance.

n.42mchod rten gyi srog shing gi steng du. This reading differs in Toh 594, where we find the alternate reading mchod rten gyi nang du (“inside a caitya”). Either reading would be appropriate.

n.43Technically the final verb mi ’byung (“will not come about”) applies both to the evil deeds of the beings and their fears of lower rebirths, so this line could be translated as “all the evil deeds of that being will not come about,” i.e., they will stop performing evil deeds. However, given the context of the wider passage, we find it more likely that the passage means that their evil deeds will be purified, and so we have translated it accordingly.

n.44The implication here is of course that Yama, the Lord of the Realm of the Dead, will defend and protect those beings who are connected with this dhāraṇī and will not send them to lower rebirths.

n.45The parallels between this text and Toh 594 end here.

n.46The Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur manuscript contains a significant variant at this point beginning with the phrase phyag rgya bcings pa ni on folio 6.b.3. This line corresponds to the instructions for forming the mudrā for this dhāraṇī that appear in Toh 594, which do not appear in any of the other versions of Toh 597.

n.47This translation follows the reading lha’i bu shin tu brtan pa in the Stok Palace Kangyur. The Degé reads lha’i bu blo gros shin tu brtan pa.