Notes

n.1In the Tantra section of the Degé Kangyur, The Dhāraṇī of Refuge for the Preta Flaming Mouth (Toh 646) comes first, followed by The Bali Ritual to Relieve the Female Preta Flaming Mouth (Toh 647). However in the Dhāraṇī section, in which both texts are also found, the order is reversed, so that the (marginally shorter) The Bali Ritual to Relieve the Female Preta Flaming Mouth (Toh 1079) comes first, followed by the The Dhāraṇī of Refuge for the Preta Flaming Mouth (1080).

n.2Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 1080 version of this text within vol. 101 or 102 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 1080, note 2, for details.

n.3On the dating of Amoghavajra’s Chinese translation see Lye (2003), p. 30.

n.4Orzech (1996).

n.5Denkarma, folio 303.a; Herrmann-Pfandt, p. 234; Lalou 1953, p. 328.

n.6In both Chinese versions, the interlocutor is Ānanda (阿難). Since Ānanda was the attendant to the Buddha, it is unusual to find him described as being away from the Buddha in the middle of the night, as found in the narrative here. Many narratives about pretas have Maudgalyāyana as chief protagonist; this is the case for the first five of the ten stories about pretas in the Avadānaśataka . None of the ten much resemble the present story, and none feature either Nanda or Ānanda, although in one Nandaka is the intermediary. See Rotman (2021), pp. 73–131.

n.7Lye (2003), p. 227. For further discussion of the Chinese and Tibetan translations, see Lye (2003), pp. 226–31.

n.8In the other text, Toh 647/1079, the Tibetan rendering of the epithet is kha ’bar ma, and the preta is specifically identified as female. Nevertheless (and disregarding this gender difference), both versions have a very similar meaning, and given the presumed common source of the narrative and the likelihood that the same original Sanskrit (or possibly Chinese) epithet could easily have been translated into Tibetan in different ways, we have used “Flaming Mouth,” to render both.

n.9See Rotman (2021), p. 46.

n.10As, for example, in the ting nge ’dzin mchog gi rgyud (rKTs-G149 f. 163.a) and chos nyid zhi ba’i rgyud (rKTs-G153 f. 228.b); see also the translation of the Guhyagarbhatantra and commentary in Choying Tobden Dorje (2016), vol. 1, p. 198 et passim.

n.11As well as rituals in which the offerings consist of food, the genre includes rituals in which the offering is of water alone (Tib. chu gtor). These may derive from the other version of the text, in which this additional way of making offerings is mentioned (see 1.­11 in Toh 647).

n.12Rotman (2021), pp. 60–61. The association with Avalokiteśvara (or Guanyin) may be relevant to the apparent reference to Avalokiteśvara in the dhāraṇī formula (see n.­14).

n.13Sakya Paṇḍita writes in his sdom gsum rab dbye (Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes, in the translation of Jared Rhoton): “Furthermore, there are numerous mistaken practices here in the midst of the snowy mountains of Tibet. I have witnessed practices in which the names of the four Tathāgatas were recited in prologue to the ‘Burning mouth’ oblation. This, too, does not agree with the sūtras. In the sūtra the recitation of the four names follows the recitation of the mantra.” He also cautions that when making food offerings to pretas, the food should not be placed in water (despite the apparent instruction contained in this text), because this causes them great torment. When making food offerings to pretas, he says, the food should be offered in balls of hand-squeezed dough. See Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltshen (2002), p. 140.

n.14Here Sarvatathāgatāvalokita is likely an epithet of Avalokiteśvara.

n.15See, for example, the Balimālika (Toh 3771: gtor ma’i phreng ba): oṁ suru suru prasuru prasuru tara tara bhara bhara sambhara sambhara santarpaya santarpaya sarvapretānī [sic] svāhā ||

n.16In the Chinese of Taishō 1313 (trans. Orzech 1996), the four tathāgathas are each introduced with a line of transcribed Sanskrit: “namo bhagavata prabhūtaratnāya tathāgatāya…namo bhagavata surūpāya tathāgatāya…namo bhagavata vipulagātrāya tathāgatāya…namo bhagavata abhayaṃkarāya tathāgatāya.” Aside from Prabhūtaratna, it is only from this source that the Sanskrit names of the other three tathāgatas is attested, and their identity and significance remains unclear. Muller’s Digital Dictionary of Buddhism suggests they might be homologized with more well-known buddhas associated with the four cardinal directions. For example, that the tathāgata Surūpa/Surūpakāya (妙色身如來) might be another name for the buddha Akṣobhya, that Vipulagātra/Vipulakāya (廣博身如來) might be another name for the tathāgata Mahāvairocana, and citing Nakamura, that Abhayakara/Abhayaṃkara (離怖畏如來) might be another name for the buddha Śākyamuni; however, in the last case such an identity would not make sense in this context.

n.17See Dharmamitra (2013).

n.18In Toh 647, “the day after tomorrow” (gnangs). In the Chinese (Taishō 1313, Taishō 1314), “in three days.” Orzech (1996), p. 281; Lye (2003), p. 418.

n.19gzi brjid tshad med pa’i dbang du gyur pa’i ’od zer rnam par rgyal ba’i shugs zhes bya ba. Cf. the name of the same dhāraṇī in Toh 647 is given as thams cad du ‘od dang ldan pa rgyal chen shugs ldan ’od ces bya ba (the great powerful light that illumines everything).

n.20There is a certain amount of variation of the spelling of this name in different recensions of the text. The Dunhuang manuscript and the Degé, Peking, and Choné recensions of the Kangyur read sku ’byam klas, while the Stok Palace recension provides the homophonous reading sku ’jam klas, and the Narthang and Phukdrak recensions read sku ’dzam klas.

n.21In the Chinese version (Taishō 1313), “seven times.” Orzech (1996), p. 282; Lye (2003), p. 422.

n.22mi ma yin pa (Skt. *amanuṣya), following the reading in the Narthang and Urga recensions. Other recensions, including the Degé, read “humans and nonhumans” (mi dang mi ma yin pa). However, protections from humans typically require different methods. The Narthang reading also agrees with the Chinese version (Taishō 1313), in which no humans are mentioned. The term amanuṣya is often seen as a modifier in such lists of nonhuman beings.

n.23yongs su ’ gyur ba; *pariṇata.