Notes

n.1Losty 2021, p. 17.

n.2Holt 1991, p. 41.

n.3Holt 1991, p. 79.

n.4The iconographic details of Siṃhanāda are described with some variation and differing degrees of detail in Toh 2858, 2859, 3155, 3157, 3329, 3414, 3417, 3418, 3419, and 3650. Descriptions in Sanskrit can be found in sādhana nos. 17, 20, 22, and 25 in volume one of the Sādhanamālā. For a survey of Indo-Tibetan artistic depictions of Siṃhanāda, see the deity’s main page at Himalayan Art Resources: https://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setID=472&page=1.

n.5See sgrub thabs kun btus vol. 6, folios 252.a–297.b.

n.6See seng ge sgra’i gzungs kyi lo rgyus.

n.7The two versions of this text preserved in the Degé Kangyur have identical textual content but different titles. Toh 704 is The Dhāraṇī of Siṃhanāda (seng ge sgra’i gzungs), while Toh 912 is The Dhāraṇī of the Promise Made by Siṃhanāda (seng ge sgras dam bcas pa’i gzungs). The Kangyur and Tengyur recensions of the work were translated by different translators and transmitted separately. They also differ with respect to several minor variants that suggest that in addition to being translated by different translators, they were also derived from different Sanskrit recensions of the text. Although the differences are minor, the Tengyur recension stands closer to the extant Sanskrit text as preserved in the Sādhanamālā than the Kangyur recensions do. A different translation of The Dhāraṇī of Siṃhanāda is also found in the Tengyur, The Dhāraṇī of Siṃhanāda (Toh 3156). The Kangyur and Tengyur versions differ with respect to several minor variants, suggesting that they were derived from different Sanskrit recensions of the text. Although the differences are minor, the Tengyur recension stands closer to the extant Sanskrit text as preserved in the Sādhanamālā than the Kangyur recensions do.

n.8Bhattacharyya 1925 vol. 1, p. 52.

n.9Hidas 2021, p. 138.

n.10The title jetsunma, translated here as “noble lady,” can sometimes refer to a nun, but does not necessarily do so.

n.11This transliteration follows C, L, and K, as well as the Sanskrit reported in the Siṃhanāda­dhāraṇī from the Sādhana­mālā in reading karoṭa. D reads karoti.

n.12The term citijvalaº appears to be unique to this text. The Sanskrit and Tibetan version of the shorter Siṃhanāda­dhāraṇī omit it to read only karoṭavīrye here.

n.13This translation follows F in reading tshegs chen po mi dgos pa (em., F: tshegs cho no mi dgos pa). D reads mi dgos pa “without need,” which does not make sense in this context. Though the reading in F requires minor emendation, it conveys an overall meaning that makes clear contextual sense.

n.14Here we prefer the Choné and Stok Palace Kangyurs in reading sngags, “incant,” rather than the Degé which reads bsngags, “praise.” The reading we have chosen is also corroborated in Toh 912 where the parallel passage reads, even more clearly, sngag bzlas, “incant.”

n.15lhag ma. While lhag ma in and of itself might be more literally translated as “remaining” rather than “resulting,” in the parallel passage in the version of the dhāraṇī published by Hidas (2021, p. 138) this cow dung is described as prati­maṇḍala­lekhita­śeṣagomaya, which could be interpreted to mean “the cow dung that remains after inscribing the individual maṇḍalas.” The implication seems to be that this “remaining” dung is the same dung that was first inscribed with maṇḍalas and incanted before being collected together, incanted a second time, and applied to the patient. This would make logical sense insofar as this process would infuse the dung with healing potency, and in order to convey this in the translation, we have translated lhag ma here as “resulting.” This interpretation is nonetheless tentative.

n.16The preceding passage, beginning with nama āryāvalokiteśvarāya, corresponds (with some significant variation) to the Siṃhanāda­dhāraṇī recorded in the Sādhanamālā and Hidas 2021.

n.17Tib. bye ba grangs med mthu las ’byung. It is unclear what is being quantified.

n.18zin. This literally translates as “grasped” or “possessed” and refers to affliction‍—usually in the form of an illness‍—that is understood to be caused by entities that “grasp” or “possess” an individual. We have translated it here as “afflicted by” since the range of affliction and illness caused by this type of possession includes, in addition to mental instability, things like skin rashes, which do not fit into the typical way in which “possession” by an outside entity is understood in English. We refer the interested reader to Smith 2006 for a study of possession in South Asia, including the type of disease-causing possession referenced here (see especially his chapter on “The Medicalization of Possession in Āyurveda and Tantra”), as well as Tidwell et al. 2022 for a study of possession-related illness in modern Tibetan medicine.

n.19We have done our best to translate the list of illnesses here as accurately as possible, and have relied on Jan Meulenbeld’s A History of Indian Medical Literature for more precise terminology when reasonably certain of a Tibetan term’s Sanskrit equivalent. Some of the terms given in this text could not be confidently correlated with either Sanskrit or Tibetan medical terminology, in which case more descriptive, and tentative, translations are proposed. The medical terminology used here seems intended to primarily communicate the ritual’s efficacy in eradicating nearly any kind of illness that might afflict a person.

n.20Reading dgod, “laugh” as bkod, “set.”

n.21Reading rmag shad as smag shad, as in F.

n.22Unlike the rest of the mantra, this phrase is in Tibetan rather than transliterated Sanskrit.

n.23This translation follows F in reading lcug ma la / thum po btag. D reads lcug ma dang/ lcum po btags.

n.24Here we follow C, F, J, K, N, S, and Y which read asmrari. D reads a mra ri. The meaning of this term is uncertain.

n.25No sense can be made of the text as given in the Degé and most other Kangyurs consulted. Thus we have adopted the reading from F, a sma ra, which we understand as equivalent to the Sanskrit term asmaraṇa. However, the Phugdrak reading, while much better than that in other Kangyurs, is unmetrical as well as ungrammatical, so we have made a small emendation, changing the genitive particle ’i after a sma ra into ni, the topical particle, to create a metrical and grammatical phrase that also conveys meaning: the word dhāraṇī means “retention,” or “memory” and indeed is often understood as a remedy to “not remembering.”

n.26All of the names from the homage above match the names in these mantras except for Nanda. Karkoṭaka, another well-known nāga king not in the homage above, appears in the mantra.

n.27Translation tentative.

n.28This refers to a being who has laid down the burden of the aggregates, signifying that they are no longer karmically compelled to take bodily rebirth.

n.29Here we have followed Y in omitting dpa’ so that this line reads sems [kyi] dbang bsgyur tams cad kyi. Though this results in an unmetrical line, this brings the reading in this text in line with what is a stock formula for describing highly advanced beings in Buddhist literature. See, for example, The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Toh 9, translated by the Padmakara Translation Group, 2023), 1.­2.

n.30This reading follows D and S in reading nya gro bu. C, J, K, and Y read nya grol bu and F reads bya grol mtshungs. We suspect the text may be corrupt here.

n.31We have emended to las. D reads la.

n.32The mantric syllable tā is omitted in F, N, and S. One might expect the Sanskrit syllable da here, as this is the only syllable from Siṃhanāda’s essence mantra not otherwise represented in this passage. The full essence mantra, as given above, is oṁ āḥ hrīḥ siṃha­nāda hūṁ phaṭ. If we read tā as da, then this passage includes the same set of syllables, albeit in a different order: oṁ āḥ hrīḥ siṃha da hūṁ phaṭ nā.

n.33Tib. chu lha. This is a frequent Tibetan translation of the name Varuṇa.