Notes

n.1Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 912 version of this text within vol. 100 or 101 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 912, n.­1, for details.

n.2For ease of reference, in this introduction, we use the shorter of the two titles to refer to the work, and the Tohoku catalog numbers to refer to the individual versions.

n.3The Dhāraṇī of Avalokiteśvara Siṃhanāda (translated 2024).

n.4See Dhāraṇī of Avalokiteśvara Siṃhanāda (Toh 703), 1.­20.

n.5Losty 2021, p. 17.

n.6Holt 1991, p. 41.

n.7Holt 1991, p. 79.

n.8The 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 nounbers 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.9See sgrub thabs kun btus vol. 6, folios 252.a–297.b.

n.10See seng ge sgra’i gzungs kyi lo rgyus.

n.11Bhattacharyya 1925 vol. 1, p. 52.

n.12Hidas 2021, p. 138.

n.13The Dhāraṇī of Siṃhanāda (translated 2024).

n.14Here we follow the Narthang, Lhasa, and Stok Kangyurs, as well as the Degé recension of Toh 703, all of which read karoṭe, rather than the Degé, which reads karoṭa. This is also supported by the dhāraṇī as it is found in the Siṃha­nāda­dhāraṇī preserved in Sanskrit in the Sādhanamālā (Bhattacharyya 1925, vol. 1, p. 52).

n.15lhag ma. The parallel passage from The Dhāraṇī of Avalokiteśvara Siṃhanāda (Toh 703) includes an instruction to gather the incanted dung on which the maṇḍalas were previously inscribed and then to incant the “resulting dung” (Toh 703, 1.­20). This also seems to be indicated in the version of the dhāraṇī published by Hidas (2021, p. 138); there 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 of the Tibetan and Sanskrit 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. This interpretation is nonetheless tentative.

n.16In the section of the longer Dhāraṇī of Avalokiteśvara Siṃhanāda (Toh 703, 1.­20), which closely parallels this text, it is made clear that this is Avalokiteśvara Siṃhanāda’s promise. However, in that text, it is Śākyamuni who articulates Siṃhanāda’s promise to Mañjuśrī.

n.17This sentence appears to have been corrupted to the point of losing sense in this recension of the text, so we have translated the sentence following the Sanskrit text from the Sādhanamālā (which has also been transmitted correctly in the Tibetan of this text translation preserved in the Tengyur) and the Tibetan translation that is preserved in the Tengyur (Toh 3156). Toh 704 and Toh 912 read: gal te nyi ma bdun nam/ bcu gsum mam/ nyi shu rtsa gcig gi grub ste mtsham med pa lnga byas pa ni ma yin no/ de ltar ma grub na bdag gis mtsham med pa lnga byas par ’gyur ro/. The Sanskrit reads: yadi saptame divase trayodaśe vā ekavimśatitame va divase pañcānantarya­kāriṇo ’pi na sidhyanti tadā aham pañcānant­aryakārī syām iti. Toh 3156 reads: gal te mtshams med pa lnga byas pas kyang/ nyi ma bdun pa’am bcu gsum pa’am nyi ma nyi shu rtsa gcig pa la yang ma grub na de’i tshe de nyid kyis mtsham med pa lnga byas pa yin….

n.18Toh 912 reads “the translator Lokya Sherab Tsek” (lots+tsha ba klogs skya shes rab brtsegs).