This text presents a dhāraṇī featuring the female deity Sitātapatrā (White Umbrella Goddess) that provides a magical means to avert a litany of dangers, illness, and threats. Sitātapatrā and her spell have enjoyed a long history and sustained popularity as a source of security against illness and misfortune, and her spell is widely used in contemporary Buddhist communities to this day.
Translated by Samye Translations under the guidance of Phakchok Rinpoche. The translation and was produced by Stefan Mang, Roger Espel Llima, Ryan Conlon, and Paul Thomas. It was revised and finalized by the 84000 editorial team.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Noble Dhāraṇī “The Invincible Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata” (Toh 592) is one of four texts preserved in the Degé Kangyur (Toh 590–93) dedicated to the female deity Sitātapatrā (gdugs dkar po can), the White Umbrella Goddess. Though these four texts differ somewhat in length and arrangement, they all share the same core material and thus represent four unique variations of a single work. At the heart of each of these texts is a series of spell formulas that can be recited to avert a wide array of threats to health, well-being, and prosperity. The spell of Sitātapatrā has enjoyed sustained popularity as a source of security and protection in numerous Buddhist communities, as evidenced by its long and complex textual history and the numerous languages into which it has been translated. The four texts translated into Tibetan and preserved in Kangyur reflect distinct stages of the spell’s evolution, stages that mirror its development in the broader Buddhist community. Toh 592 is the shortest of the four canonical translations and may be the earliest of the four versions translated into Tibetan, thus representing a relatively early stage in the spell’s evolution in the Indic Buddhist tradition.
Toh 592 is unique among the four canonical translations of the Sitātapatrā texts for omitting the scriptural introduction (nidāna; gleng gzhi) that sets the stage for Śākyamuni’s revelation of the deity and her spell.1 In the three other versions, the text begins in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, where Śākyamuni is resting in samādhi among an assembly of monks, bodhisattvas, and the gods of the realm. While he is deep in samādhi the spell issues from his uṣṇīṣa, resounding in full throughout the assembly. It begins with a long series of homages to the Three Jewels, an array of buddhas and other realized beings, and a number of gods and other figures from the brahmanical pantheon, including Brahmā, Indra, Śiva, and Viṣṇu. This opening homage is followed by verses invoking Sitātapatrā in the form of various female deities, including Tārā, Bhṛkuṭī, and Pāṇḍaravāsinī, thereby equating her with many of the most renowned female deities of the Buddhist tradition. Most of the teaching is dedicated to a series of spells and other recitation formulas that enjoin Sitātapatrā to intervene on the practitioner’s behalf to avert an exhaustive list of diseases, afflictions, rival spells, and the adverse influences of supernatural beings. The text concludes with a description of the effectiveness of the spell and the benefits of relying on Sitātapatrā.
Sitātapatrā is at once the name of a spell and the deity it invokes. In the title of Toh 590 and throughout all four texts, Sitātapatrā is called a vidyā, a term that refers to both a class of deities and a type of magical formula, thus indicating their inseparability. To recite Sitātapatrā’s spell—or to wear it, inscribe it on a talisman, insert it into a caitya, and so forth—is to summon the powerful deity to intercede on one’s behalf. The primary name of the spell in Sanskrit is sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrā,2 which is somewhat ambiguous given that the precise relationship between the compound sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa (“uṣṇīṣa[s] of all tathāgatas”) and sitātapatrā can be read in a number of plausible ways. The Tibetan translators settled on a specific interpretation by inserting the phrase nas byung ba (“born from”) in all versions of the title so that it reads, in Tibetan translation, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas.3 As this aligns well with the setting of the sūtra, in which the spell emerges from Śākyamuni’s uṣṇīṣa, we have followed this interpretation here.
As a magical formula, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathagatas is alternatively referred to as a vidyā (“spell”), a mahāvidyārajñī (“great queen of spells”), a dhāraṇī, and a mantra. These terms are used interchangeably to refer to the magical formulas that are used to avert the threats of disease, misfortune, aggression, and the influence of supernatural beings. Because the spell is held to be specifically effective for averting these threats before they strike, the spell is designated a pratyaṅgirā, an “averting” or “counter” spell. And, because it is regarded as highly potent for this purpose, it is further referred to as aparājitā (“invincible”).4
The dangers Sitātapatrā can capably avert are enumerated in great detail and include a litany of physical illness and mental disorders, a vast demonology of supernatural forces that cause illness and distress, threats from kings, poisons, and animals, and even a detailed list of rival magical traditions whose spells pose a potential threat. Given this exhaustive treatment of the benefits of the spell, it is noteworthy that the path to liberation and the attainment of buddhahood are never mentioned. While it can be implicitly understood that averting disease, calamity, and supernatural dangers are requisites for the pursuit of awakening, spiritual goals are clearly subordinated in these texts to the goal of alleviating the worldly anxieties shared by all beings, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.
The texts on Sitātapatrā preserved in the Kangyur do not provide a detailed iconography of the goddess, saying only that she has a thousand heads, a thousand arms, a thousand legs, and a trillion eyes. This form of Sitātapatrā is still popular in the contemporary Buddhist tradition, but she is also depicted in a number of other forms in the various practice manuals derived from the canonical texts. This includes forms of the goddess with one face and two arms (Toh 3084), three faces and six arms (Toh 3114), and five faces and eight arms (Toh 2689).5
The circulation of texts on Sitātapatrā can be traced back to at least the eighth century, which is the proposed date of the earliest textual witnesses available.6 Given that the earliest versions of the spell were discovered in Central Asia, it is clear the spell was popular well before this time.7 Sitātapatrā continues to be relevant in the contemporary Vajrayāna traditions of Buddhism, especially in Nepal and Tibet, as demonstrated by the numerous copies of her spell that circulate. In Tibet, the Sitātapatrā spell was widely popular from an early period, as indicated by the large number of Sitātapatrā texts discovered at Dunhuang.8 A version of the Sitātapatrā spell is also said to have been specifically translated for Tri Songdetsen (khri srong lde’u btsan, r. 756–800), as we find it included among the “ten royal sūtras” (rgyal po’i mdo bcu) translated for the king at Padmasambhava’s recommendation.9 Numerous practice manuals and ritual texts for Sitātapatrā have been composed in Tibet into recent times, many of which draw explicitly from the canonical sources.10
The four Sitātapatrā texts preserved in the Degé Kangyur are classified as kriyātantras, and they are further categorized among texts associated with the tathāgata family and listed alongside texts associated with other uṣṇīṣa deities such as Uṣṇīṣavijayā.11 As is often the case with spells and dhāraṇīs, the Sitātapatrā spell is also included in the Dhāraṇī Collection (gzungs ’dus) of the Degé Kangyur as Toh 985 and 986, which correspond to Toh 590 and 592.1212 The four canonical texts (Toh 590–593) represent four distinct versions of the same spell that are largely equivalent in terms of content, translation style, and terminology. Two of the four lack a colophon describing the context of their translation, but it is nonetheless apparent that the later versions of the text are in fact revisions of earlier Tibetan translations based on newly-available Sanskrit sources rather than distinct translations. Though many ambiguities remain, the four works offer us an important view into the long textual history of both the Indic source material and its Tibetan translations.
Toh 590, The Noble Invincible Great Queen of Spells for Averting Called “Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of All Tathāgatas” (Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitapratyaṅgirāmahāvidyārājñī; ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor nas byung ba gdugs dkar po can zhes bya ba gzhan gyis mi thub ma phyir zlog pa’i rig sngags kyi rgyal mo chen mo), the longest of the four and most closely aligned with the more recent Sanskrit witnesses, lacks a translator’s colophon, so it is impossible to determine its date, but its length and its similarity to the later Sanskrit manuscripts suggests that it is the most recent of the versions in the Kangyur. A unique, alternative translation of the text corresponding to Toh 590 is preserved in the Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur. This translation, which was made by the eleventh-century Indian paṇḍita Vibhūticandra and the Tibetan translator Sherap Rinchen (shes rab rin chen), is a revision of Toh 590 based on additional Sanskrit manuscripts not available to the anonymous translator of Toh 590.13 Toh 590 was also revised or retranslated in the fifteenth century by Sönam Nampar Gyalwa (bsod nams rnam par rgyal ba; 1401–75) of Jampa Ling monastery (byams pa gling) in Central Tibet. His translation, which is available only in his collected writings, was based on his own study of Indic manuscripts and consultation with the Burmese Buddhist paṇḍita Alaṅkāraśrī of Haṃsāvati (Pegu).
Toh 591, titled The Noble Dhāraṇī “The Supreme Accomplishment of Invincible Averting, Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata” (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrāparājitamahāpratyaṅgiraparamasiddhanāmadhāraṇī; ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa phyir zlog pa chen mo mchog tu grub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs), is shorter than Toh 590 and in this regard is perhaps closer in content to Toh 592 and 593 in lacking many of the lines in the opening homage found in Toh 590, but it nonetheless represents a distinct arrangement of the material in dividing the verse section listing the names and epithets of the goddess into two sections interspersed with one of the spell formulas. It is also unique for designating two of the spell formulas as “essence mantra” (snying po) and “subsidiary essence mantra” (nye ba’i snying po), designations that are not found in any of the Sanskrit sources consulted. Toh 591 identifies itself not as a translation but as a revision of a prior Tibetan translation. The colophon does not use the verb “translated” (bsgyur), but instead tells us that this version, prepared by the Kashmiri master Parahitabhadra (ca. eleventh century) and the Tibetan translator Zu Gawé Dorjé (gzu dga’ ba’i rdo rje), is based on a comparison of a prior translation with an “old” manuscript discovered at the Amṛtabhavana monastery in Kashmir.14 Though the prior translation that served as the basis for the revisions of Toh 591 cannot be definitively identified, it seems probable that the version was either Toh 592, Toh 593, or a version similar to those translations.
Toh 592 and 593, both of which are titled The Noble Dhāraṇī “The Invincible Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata” (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmaparājitānāmadhāraṇī; ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs), are nearly identical versions of the Sitātapatrā spell. Toh 592 lacks the scriptural introduction and conclusion found in Toh 593 but otherwise varies only slightly and in a manner more consistent with scribal errors and editorial interventions than differences in the source material. Toh 592 lacks a translator’s colophon, making it difficult to determine its origin, but a text with nearly the same title is recorded in the Denkarma (ldan dkar ma), the imperial-period register of Tibetan translations.15 Toh 593, which does include the introductory and concluding passages absent in Toh 592, has a colophon reporting it to be a translation by the eleventh-century Kashmiri master Mahājana made without the assistance of a Tibetan translator. It is therefore possible that Mahājana’s contribution to the collection was to add the introductory and concluding material known from other Sitātapatrā sources. Mahājana’s colophon identifies the text as a “version of the Uṣṇīṣa” that is “the shorter of those of the heavenly realm.”16 This ambiguous statement is made somewhat clearer in the catalog of the Urga Kangyur, which says that Toh 593 (Urga no. 594) “is renowned as the shorter Uṣṇīṣa of the heavenly realm” (lha yul ma chung bar grags pa).17 Sönam Nampar Gyalwa (see i.9 above) also refers to this translation as the “condensed version” (bsdus pa) of the Sitātapatrā spell.18
A comparison of the four canonical translations of Sitātapatrā’s spell suggests that they represent three distinct branch recensions of the same source material and thus reflect the evolution of the text in the Indic tradition. Toh 590 and 591 constitute two of those branches, while Toh 592 and 593 together represent the third. This was the view of Sönam Nampar Gyalwa, who offered this statement about the relationship between the texts in the colophon to his own revision of Toh 590:
There are three versions of this dhāraṇī rite. The most extensive is this text, The Great Queen of Vidyās (Toh 590), for which the previous translator is unidentified. The middle-length version is the one known as The Supreme Accomplishment (Toh 591), which was translated by Zu Gawé Dorjé. The concise version is [called] “the one known as the lesser of the heavenly realm” (Toh 593) and was translated by the Kashmiri paṇḍita Mahājana. There is another, shorter version of “the one known as the lesser of the heavenly realm” (Toh 592) that is distinct only for lacking the scriptural introduction. It need not be counted [separately].19
This brief survey of the four canonical translations allows for a tentative argument to be made about the translation and propagation of this series of Sitātapatrā spells in Tibet. The spell was likely first translated during Tibet’s imperial period, as indicated by the two imperial-period catalogs, the Denkarma and Phangthangma (phang thang ma). Whereas the title of the text in the Denkarma, ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub pa, aligns closely with that of Toh 592/3, the title in the Phangthangma, ’phags pa gtsug tor gdugs dkar po,20 is generic and thus could refer to any of the four canonical texts, or to a different, unknown version. It is possible that the earliest version of the four canonical texts is Toh 592,21 which lacks a colophon indicating its provenance. If this is the text recorded in the Denkarma it would have been translated no later than 843, the year the Tibetan empire collapsed and record of its translation efforts ceased. Toh 593, which does include a colophon dating it to the eleventh century, represents the same branch recension but, as noted above, differs in its inclusion of the introductory and concluding statements—perhaps Mahājana’s specific contribution to the corpus. Toh 591, which is described in its colophon as a revision rather than a new translation, was also prepared in the eleventh century. It differs only slightly from Toh 592/3, primarily in its unique arrangement of the material. Thus it appears that Toh 591 and 593 comprise a second period of translation of the Sitātapatrā spell in the eleventh century, one in which the earlier translation represented by Toh 592 served as a primary point of reference. It is especially noteworthy that this second wave primarily involved Indian masters and manuscript witnesses from Kashmir.22 Thus, Toh 590 is likely the last of the translations to be produced, and then was revised two additional times as described above.23
As noted above, the widespread popularity of Sitātapatrā is attested by the broad circulation of the Sitātapatrā spell. Numerous versions are preserved in Sanskrit, Khotanese, Chinese, Old Uyghur, and Tibetan, thus demarcating its circulation throughout South Asia, the Himalayan region, Central Asia, and China. What is perhaps the oldest documented Sanskrit witness of the spell, tentatively dated to the eighth century, was discovered at Dunhuang and written in a Gupta script unique to Central Asia.24 This version, published in 1963 by H. W. Bailey, was consulted for this translation. The popularity of Sitātapatrā in the Newar Buddhist tradition is evident in the large number of extant Sanskrit manuscript witnesses of the spell scribed in Nepal. Many of these versions are found in the numerous dhāraṇī collections (dhāraṇīsaṅgraha) popular in the Newar tradition. Most of the available manuscripts are relatively recent, dating no earlier than the eighteenth century. A representative collection of Nepalese manuscripts was consulted for this translation, the most noteworthy version of the spell being found in Cambridge Ms. Add 1326, a dhāraṇīsaṅgraha compiled in 1719.25 This version, like most Nepalese versions consulted, most closely aligns with Toh 590.26
Also noteworthy are the versions of the spell composed in Old Uyghur, which were translated from an unknown source language in likely the thirteenth or fourteenth century.27 The manuscripts were discovered in Turfan in the early twentieth century and are now dispersed among various European and Russian manuscript archives.28
There are two Chinese translations of works that are similar in title and content to Toh 590, but a close comparison of the Tibetan and Chinese translations is needed to determine precisely how the two Chinese translations and four Tibetan translations align. Taishō 976, Fo ding dabai sangai tuoluoni jing (佛頂大白傘蓋陀羅尼經), was translated by the Tangut monk Shaluoba (1279–1314), and Taishō 977, Fo shuo dabai sangai zong chi tuoluoni jing (佛說大白傘蓋總持陀羅尼經), was translated by Zhen Zhi sometime during the Yuan period (1271–1368). Based on these dates it would appear that both Chinese translations significantly postdate the Tibetan translations preserved in the Kangyur.
Finally, there were a number of Tibetan versions of the Sitātapatrā spell discovered among the Dunhuang manuscripts.29 These versions are revealing in that they are shorter and otherwise distinct from the canonical versions, indicating one or more additional branch recensions. Some of the Dunhuang manuscripts do align with Toh 592, the canonical version proposed as the earliest, but none appear to correlate directly with Toh 590 and 591, which are believed to have been translated in or after the eleventh century, long after the Dunhuang caves had been sealed.
The present translation is based on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the Stok Palace and Phukdrak versions as well as the variant readings recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) Kangyur. Extensive use was made of Sanskrit witnesses, including the Khotanese version and four representatives from the numerous Nepalese manuscript witnesses. Among those, Cambridge Ms. Add. 1326 and its edition prepared by Gergely Hidas proved especially useful for resolving ambiguities in the Tibetan translation and correcting minor but consequential orthographic errors in the Tibetan transliterations of Sanskrit spell formulas. Apart from those necessary corrections, the spell formulas follow the transliterations presented in the Degé version. Even with the wealth of resources available, a number of enigmatic passages remain imperfectly resolved, particularly in the verse section recounting the names and epithets of the deity. Tentative translations of these difficult passages have been offered, but they are not intended to represent a definitive interpretation.
“After paying homage to these blessed ones,34 this great spell for averting named the invincible blessed Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata annihilates all bhūtas who are grahas; disrupts all opposing spells; averts untimely death; frees beings from all that binds them; averts all malice, nightmares, and bad omens; destroys the eighty-four thousand types of grahas; appeases the twenty-eight lunar mansions; destroys the eight great celestial bodies;[F.220.b] averts all enemies; destroys all violence, malice, and nightmares; and frees beings from poison, weapons, fire, and water.
“May this entire host of mudrās44 protect me, please protect me!
oṁ ṛṣigaṇapraśastāya sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre hūṁ drūṁ | jambhanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | stambhanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | mahāvidyāsambhakṣanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | paravidyāsambhakṣanakarī hūṁ drūṁ |[F.135.a] sarvaduṣṭān stambhanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | sarvayakṣarākṣasagrahāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | caturaśitīnāṃ grahasahasrāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | aṣṭāviṃśatīnāṃ nakṣatrāṇāṃ prasādanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | aṣṭānāṃ mahāgrahāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | rakṣa rakṣa mām |45
“Blessed Sitātapatrā, born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, Vajroṣṇīṣā, great averting goddess, great goddess with a thousand arms, great goddess with a thousand heads, great goddess with a trillion eyes and indestructible blazing features, great exalted vajra goddess who rules over the maṇḍala of the three realms of existence, protect me completely! Please protect me![F.221.a]
“Oṁ, grant me auspiciousness in the face of dangers46 from rulers, thieves, fire, water, poison, weapons, opposing armies, famines, enemies, thunderbolts, untimely death, earthquakes, falling meteors, royal punishment, devas, nāgas, lightning, suparṇas, and ferocious beasts.
“Grant me auspiciousness in the face of grahas who are devas,47 nāgas, asuras, maruts, garuḍas, gandharvas, kinnaras, mahoragas, yakṣas, rākṣasas, pretas, piśācas, bhūtas, kumbhāṇḍas, pūtanas, kaṭapūtanas, skandas, apasmāras, unmādas, chāyās,[F.135.b] ostārakas, ḍākinīs, and revatīs! Grant me auspiciousness in the face of all these grahas!
“Grant me auspiciousness in the face of those who steal vitality and consume fetuses; who drink blood; who consume fat, flesh, grease, marrow, and newborns; who steal life; who consume vomit, filth, and urine; who drink sewage and consume leftovers; who drink saliva and consume snot, mucus, pus, oblations, garlands,[F.221.b] fragrances, and incense; who capture people’s minds; and who consume flowers, fruits, grains, and burnt offerings!
“Homage to you, blessed Sitātapatrā, born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata! Protect me, please protect me!
oṁ asitānalārkaprabhāsphuṭavikasitasitātapatre51 |[F.222.a] jvala jvala | khāda khāda | dara dara | vidara vidara | chinda chinda | bhinda bhinda | hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā | he he phaṭ | ho ho phaṭ | amoghe phaṭ | apratihatāya52 phaṭ | varapradāya53 phaṭ | pratyaṅgiritāya54 phaṭ | asuravidrāvakarāya55 phaṭ | sarvadevebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvanāgebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvāsurebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvamarutebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvagaruḍebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvagandharvebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakinnarebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvamahoragebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvayakṣebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvarākṣasebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvapretebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvapiśācebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvabhūtebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakumbhāṇḍebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvapūtanebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakaṭapūtanebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvaskandebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvonmādebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvachāyebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvāpasmārebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvostārakebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvadurlaṅghitebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarva duḥprekṣitebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvajvarebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakṛtyakarmaṇakākhordebhyaḥ phaṭ | kiraṇavaitāḍebhyaḥ phaṭ | cichapreṣakaduścharditebhyaḥ phaṭ | durbhuktebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvatīrthakebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvaśramaṇebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvavidyādharebhyaḥ phaṭ | jayakaramadhukarasarvārthasādhakebhyo vidyācārebhyaḥ phaṭ | caturbhyo bhaginībhyaḥ phaṭ | vajrakaumārīyebho phaṭ | vidyārajñīyebhyaḥ phaṭ |[F.136.b] mahāpratyaṅgirebhyaḥ phaṭ | vajraśṛṅkhalāya pratyaṅgirarājāya phaṭ | mahākālāya mātṛgaṇanamaskṛtāya phaṭ | viṣṇāvīye phaṭ | brahmaṇīye phaṭ | agnīye phaṭ | mahākālīye phaṭ | kāladaṇḍīye phaṭ | indrīye phaṭ | raudrīye phaṭ | kaumārīye phaṭ | vārāhīye phaṭ | cāmuṇḍīye phaṭ | rātrīye phaṭ | kālarātrīye phaṭ | yamadaṇḍīye phaṭ | kapālīye phaṭ | adhimuktiśmaśānavāsinīye phaṭ |56[F.222.b]
“Dispel all beings who harbor malicious and dangerous intentions toward me; who steal vitality; who consume fetuses; who drink blood; who consume fat, flesh, grease, marrow, and newborns; who steal life; who consume vomit, filth, and urine; who drink sewage and consume leftovers; who drink saliva; who consume snot, mucus, pus, oblations, garlands, fragrances, and incense; who capture people’s minds; who consume flowers, fruits, grains, and burnt offerings; and who harbor evil, malicious, or dangerous intentions.
“Dispel grahas who are yakṣas, rākṣasas, pretas, piśācas, bhūtas,[F.137.a] kumbhāṇḍas, pūtanas, kaṭapūtanas, skandas, unmādas, chāyās, apasmāras, ostārakas, ḍākinīs, revatīs, yāmakas, śakunis, mātṛnandīs, samikās,[F.223.a] and kaṇṭakamālinīs!
“Dispel all fevers that last one day, two days, three days, four days, or seven days; those that are chronic, irregular,57 or intermittent; and those that are caused by bhūtas or arise from disturbances in the wind, bile, phlegm, or their combination. Dispel all infectious diseases and all illnesses of the brain!
“Dispel splitting headaches;58 loss of appetite; illnesses of the eyes, nose, mouth, throat, and heart; laryngitis; and pain in the ears, teeth, heart, brain, neck, ribs, back, stomach, hips, pelvis, thighs, calves, hands, feet, and all the major and minor appendages!59
“May this great averting spell of the vajra uṣṇīṣa Sitātapatrā bind the spells60 of everything within twelve yojanas, including all bhūtas, vetālas, ḍākinīs, fevers, skin disease, itching, pruritus, leprosy, boils, skin irritations,61[F.137.b] erysipelas, scabies, blood boils, emaciation, anxiety, poisonous brews, poisonous compounds, kākhordas, fire, water, pestilence, enemies, harm, untimely death, tryambuka flies, tralāṭa flies, scorpions, snakes, mongooses, lions, tigers, bears, jackals, makaras,[F.223.b] and other life-threatening creatures such as bees. May it bind their energy! May it bind all opposing spells!
tadyathā | oṁ anale anale | viṣade viṣade62 | vaire vaire | vajradhari | bandha bandhani | vajrapāṇi phaṭ | hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā | hūṁ drūṁ bandha phaṭ mama rakṣa rakṣa svāhā ||63
“Whoever writes this great, invincible spell for averting, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, on birch bark, cloth, or tree bark and wears it on their body or around their neck will not be harmed by poison, weapons, fire, water, poisonous brews, poisonous compounds, or kākhordas for as long as they live, nor will they meet an untimely death. They will become dear to all grahas, vighnas, and vināyakas. The eighty-four billion members64 of the vajra family will guard, protect, and defend them, hold them dear, and delight in them. They will recall their rebirths of the past eighty-four thousand great eons. They will never become yakṣas, rākṣasas, pretas, pūtanas, or kaṭapūtanas, nor will they ever be poor. They will gain a quantity of merit equal to that of the blessed buddhas as innumerable and limitless as the grains of sand in the river Ganges.
“If one keeps this great, invincible spell for averting, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, one will become chaste, even if one was not chaste.[F.138.a] Those who did not observe silence will observe silence.65 The impure will become pure. Those who did not practice abstinence will practice abstinence.[F.224.a] Those who did not fast will observe fasts.66 Even those who have committed the five acts with immediate retribution will see their evil purified. All the obscurations resulting from their past actions will be exhausted without exception.
“If a woman who wishes to have a child keeps this great, invincible spell, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, she will gain a child.67 The child will have a long life and possess merit and strength. After they pass away they will take birth in the realm of Sukhāvatī.
“Those who are threatened by diseases68 that affect humans, livestock, or cattle or by any calamities, violence, epidemics, harm, mental disturbances, and the approach of opposing armies should affix this great, invincible spell for averting, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, to the top of a banner and worship it with great offerings. The banner should be planted at the gateway to any city or in a town, city,69 market town, country, or wilderness residence. As soon as this great, invincible spell for averting has been worshiped and planted, war will be pacified, as will calamities, violence, epidemics, harm, mental disturbances, and the approach of opposing armies.
tadyathā | oṁ ṣṭoṁ bandha bandha mama rāḳsa rāḳsa svāhā || oṁ hūṁ ṣṭoṁ bandha bandha vajra mama rāḳsa rāḳsa vajrapāṇi hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ svāhā || oṁ sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣānavalokite mūrdhani tejorāśi || oṁ hūṁ jvala jvala | dhaka dhaka | dara dara | vidara vidara | chinda chinda | bhinda bhinda | hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā[F.138.b] || oṁ sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa hūṁ phaṭ svāhā || tadyathā | oṁ anale anale | khasame khasame | vaire vaire | saumye saumye | sarvabuddhādhiṣṭhānādhiṣṭhite[F.224.b] sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre hūṁ phaṭ | hūṁ mama hūṁ ni svāhā ||70
“This should be done in connection with the Buddha.71 The nāga kings will send timely rain.”
Thus concludes the noble dhāraṇī “The Invincible Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata.”
This text presents a dhāraṇī featuring the female deity Sitātapatrā (White Umbrella Goddess) that provides a magical means to avert a litany of dangers, illness, and threats. Sitātapatrā and her spell have enjoyed a long history and sustained popularity as a source of security against illness and misfortune, and her spell is widely used in contemporary Buddhist communities to this day.
Translated by Samye Translations under the guidance of Phakchok Rinpoche. The translation and was produced by Stefan Mang, Roger Espel Llima, Ryan Conlon, and Paul Thomas. It was revised and finalized by the 84000 editorial team.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Noble Dhāraṇī “The Invincible Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata” (Toh 592) is one of four texts preserved in the Degé Kangyur (Toh 590–93) dedicated to the female deity Sitātapatrā (gdugs dkar po can), the White Umbrella Goddess. Though these four texts differ somewhat in length and arrangement, they all share the same core material and thus represent four unique variations of a single work. At the heart of each of these texts is a series of spell formulas that can be recited to avert a wide array of threats to health, well-being, and prosperity. The spell of Sitātapatrā has enjoyed sustained popularity as a source of security and protection in numerous Buddhist communities, as evidenced by its long and complex textual history and the numerous languages into which it has been translated. The four texts translated into Tibetan and preserved in Kangyur reflect distinct stages of the spell’s evolution, stages that mirror its development in the broader Buddhist community. Toh 592 is the shortest of the four canonical translations and may be the earliest of the four versions translated into Tibetan, thus representing a relatively early stage in the spell’s evolution in the Indic Buddhist tradition.
Toh 592 is unique among the four canonical translations of the Sitātapatrā texts for omitting the scriptural introduction (nidāna; gleng gzhi) that sets the stage for Śākyamuni’s revelation of the deity and her spell.1 In the three other versions, the text begins in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, where Śākyamuni is resting in samādhi among an assembly of monks, bodhisattvas, and the gods of the realm. While he is deep in samādhi the spell issues from his uṣṇīṣa, resounding in full throughout the assembly. It begins with a long series of homages to the Three Jewels, an array of buddhas and other realized beings, and a number of gods and other figures from the brahmanical pantheon, including Brahmā, Indra, Śiva, and Viṣṇu. This opening homage is followed by verses invoking Sitātapatrā in the form of various female deities, including Tārā, Bhṛkuṭī, and Pāṇḍaravāsinī, thereby equating her with many of the most renowned female deities of the Buddhist tradition. Most of the teaching is dedicated to a series of spells and other recitation formulas that enjoin Sitātapatrā to intervene on the practitioner’s behalf to avert an exhaustive list of diseases, afflictions, rival spells, and the adverse influences of supernatural beings. The text concludes with a description of the effectiveness of the spell and the benefits of relying on Sitātapatrā.
Sitātapatrā is at once the name of a spell and the deity it invokes. In the title of Toh 590 and throughout all four texts, Sitātapatrā is called a vidyā, a term that refers to both a class of deities and a type of magical formula, thus indicating their inseparability. To recite Sitātapatrā’s spell—or to wear it, inscribe it on a talisman, insert it into a caitya, and so forth—is to summon the powerful deity to intercede on one’s behalf. The primary name of the spell in Sanskrit is sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrā,2 which is somewhat ambiguous given that the precise relationship between the compound sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa (“uṣṇīṣa[s] of all tathāgatas”) and sitātapatrā can be read in a number of plausible ways. The Tibetan translators settled on a specific interpretation by inserting the phrase nas byung ba (“born from”) in all versions of the title so that it reads, in Tibetan translation, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas.3 As this aligns well with the setting of the sūtra, in which the spell emerges from Śākyamuni’s uṣṇīṣa, we have followed this interpretation here.
As a magical formula, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathagatas is alternatively referred to as a vidyā (“spell”), a mahāvidyārajñī (“great queen of spells”), a dhāraṇī, and a mantra. These terms are used interchangeably to refer to the magical formulas that are used to avert the threats of disease, misfortune, aggression, and the influence of supernatural beings. Because the spell is held to be specifically effective for averting these threats before they strike, the spell is designated a pratyaṅgirā, an “averting” or “counter” spell. And, because it is regarded as highly potent for this purpose, it is further referred to as aparājitā (“invincible”).4
The dangers Sitātapatrā can capably avert are enumerated in great detail and include a litany of physical illness and mental disorders, a vast demonology of supernatural forces that cause illness and distress, threats from kings, poisons, and animals, and even a detailed list of rival magical traditions whose spells pose a potential threat. Given this exhaustive treatment of the benefits of the spell, it is noteworthy that the path to liberation and the attainment of buddhahood are never mentioned. While it can be implicitly understood that averting disease, calamity, and supernatural dangers are requisites for the pursuit of awakening, spiritual goals are clearly subordinated in these texts to the goal of alleviating the worldly anxieties shared by all beings, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.
The texts on Sitātapatrā preserved in the Kangyur do not provide a detailed iconography of the goddess, saying only that she has a thousand heads, a thousand arms, a thousand legs, and a trillion eyes. This form of Sitātapatrā is still popular in the contemporary Buddhist tradition, but she is also depicted in a number of other forms in the various practice manuals derived from the canonical texts. This includes forms of the goddess with one face and two arms (Toh 3084), three faces and six arms (Toh 3114), and five faces and eight arms (Toh 2689).5
The circulation of texts on Sitātapatrā can be traced back to at least the eighth century, which is the proposed date of the earliest textual witnesses available.6 Given that the earliest versions of the spell were discovered in Central Asia, it is clear the spell was popular well before this time.7 Sitātapatrā continues to be relevant in the contemporary Vajrayāna traditions of Buddhism, especially in Nepal and Tibet, as demonstrated by the numerous copies of her spell that circulate. In Tibet, the Sitātapatrā spell was widely popular from an early period, as indicated by the large number of Sitātapatrā texts discovered at Dunhuang.8 A version of the Sitātapatrā spell is also said to have been specifically translated for Tri Songdetsen (khri srong lde’u btsan, r. 756–800), as we find it included among the “ten royal sūtras” (rgyal po’i mdo bcu) translated for the king at Padmasambhava’s recommendation.9 Numerous practice manuals and ritual texts for Sitātapatrā have been composed in Tibet into recent times, many of which draw explicitly from the canonical sources.10
The four Sitātapatrā texts preserved in the Degé Kangyur are classified as kriyātantras, and they are further categorized among texts associated with the tathāgata family and listed alongside texts associated with other uṣṇīṣa deities such as Uṣṇīṣavijayā.11 As is often the case with spells and dhāraṇīs, the Sitātapatrā spell is also included in the Dhāraṇī Collection (gzungs ’dus) of the Degé Kangyur as Toh 985 and 986, which correspond to Toh 590 and 592.1212 The four canonical texts (Toh 590–593) represent four distinct versions of the same spell that are largely equivalent in terms of content, translation style, and terminology. Two of the four lack a colophon describing the context of their translation, but it is nonetheless apparent that the later versions of the text are in fact revisions of earlier Tibetan translations based on newly-available Sanskrit sources rather than distinct translations. Though many ambiguities remain, the four works offer us an important view into the long textual history of both the Indic source material and its Tibetan translations.
Toh 590, The Noble Invincible Great Queen of Spells for Averting Called “Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of All Tathāgatas” (Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitapratyaṅgirāmahāvidyārājñī; ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor nas byung ba gdugs dkar po can zhes bya ba gzhan gyis mi thub ma phyir zlog pa’i rig sngags kyi rgyal mo chen mo), the longest of the four and most closely aligned with the more recent Sanskrit witnesses, lacks a translator’s colophon, so it is impossible to determine its date, but its length and its similarity to the later Sanskrit manuscripts suggests that it is the most recent of the versions in the Kangyur. A unique, alternative translation of the text corresponding to Toh 590 is preserved in the Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur. This translation, which was made by the eleventh-century Indian paṇḍita Vibhūticandra and the Tibetan translator Sherap Rinchen (shes rab rin chen), is a revision of Toh 590 based on additional Sanskrit manuscripts not available to the anonymous translator of Toh 590.13 Toh 590 was also revised or retranslated in the fifteenth century by Sönam Nampar Gyalwa (bsod nams rnam par rgyal ba; 1401–75) of Jampa Ling monastery (byams pa gling) in Central Tibet. His translation, which is available only in his collected writings, was based on his own study of Indic manuscripts and consultation with the Burmese Buddhist paṇḍita Alaṅkāraśrī of Haṃsāvati (Pegu).
Toh 591, titled The Noble Dhāraṇī “The Supreme Accomplishment of Invincible Averting, Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata” (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrāparājitamahāpratyaṅgiraparamasiddhanāmadhāraṇī; ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa phyir zlog pa chen mo mchog tu grub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs), is shorter than Toh 590 and in this regard is perhaps closer in content to Toh 592 and 593 in lacking many of the lines in the opening homage found in Toh 590, but it nonetheless represents a distinct arrangement of the material in dividing the verse section listing the names and epithets of the goddess into two sections interspersed with one of the spell formulas. It is also unique for designating two of the spell formulas as “essence mantra” (snying po) and “subsidiary essence mantra” (nye ba’i snying po), designations that are not found in any of the Sanskrit sources consulted. Toh 591 identifies itself not as a translation but as a revision of a prior Tibetan translation. The colophon does not use the verb “translated” (bsgyur), but instead tells us that this version, prepared by the Kashmiri master Parahitabhadra (ca. eleventh century) and the Tibetan translator Zu Gawé Dorjé (gzu dga’ ba’i rdo rje), is based on a comparison of a prior translation with an “old” manuscript discovered at the Amṛtabhavana monastery in Kashmir.14 Though the prior translation that served as the basis for the revisions of Toh 591 cannot be definitively identified, it seems probable that the version was either Toh 592, Toh 593, or a version similar to those translations.
Toh 592 and 593, both of which are titled The Noble Dhāraṇī “The Invincible Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata” (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmaparājitānāmadhāraṇī; ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs), are nearly identical versions of the Sitātapatrā spell. Toh 592 lacks the scriptural introduction and conclusion found in Toh 593 but otherwise varies only slightly and in a manner more consistent with scribal errors and editorial interventions than differences in the source material. Toh 592 lacks a translator’s colophon, making it difficult to determine its origin, but a text with nearly the same title is recorded in the Denkarma (ldan dkar ma), the imperial-period register of Tibetan translations.15 Toh 593, which does include the introductory and concluding passages absent in Toh 592, has a colophon reporting it to be a translation by the eleventh-century Kashmiri master Mahājana made without the assistance of a Tibetan translator. It is therefore possible that Mahājana’s contribution to the collection was to add the introductory and concluding material known from other Sitātapatrā sources. Mahājana’s colophon identifies the text as a “version of the Uṣṇīṣa” that is “the shorter of those of the heavenly realm.”16 This ambiguous statement is made somewhat clearer in the catalog of the Urga Kangyur, which says that Toh 593 (Urga no. 594) “is renowned as the shorter Uṣṇīṣa of the heavenly realm” (lha yul ma chung bar grags pa).17 Sönam Nampar Gyalwa (see i.9 above) also refers to this translation as the “condensed version” (bsdus pa) of the Sitātapatrā spell.18
A comparison of the four canonical translations of Sitātapatrā’s spell suggests that they represent three distinct branch recensions of the same source material and thus reflect the evolution of the text in the Indic tradition. Toh 590 and 591 constitute two of those branches, while Toh 592 and 593 together represent the third. This was the view of Sönam Nampar Gyalwa, who offered this statement about the relationship between the texts in the colophon to his own revision of Toh 590:
There are three versions of this dhāraṇī rite. The most extensive is this text, The Great Queen of Vidyās (Toh 590), for which the previous translator is unidentified. The middle-length version is the one known as The Supreme Accomplishment (Toh 591), which was translated by Zu Gawé Dorjé. The concise version is [called] “the one known as the lesser of the heavenly realm” (Toh 593) and was translated by the Kashmiri paṇḍita Mahājana. There is another, shorter version of “the one known as the lesser of the heavenly realm” (Toh 592) that is distinct only for lacking the scriptural introduction. It need not be counted [separately].19
This brief survey of the four canonical translations allows for a tentative argument to be made about the translation and propagation of this series of Sitātapatrā spells in Tibet. The spell was likely first translated during Tibet’s imperial period, as indicated by the two imperial-period catalogs, the Denkarma and Phangthangma (phang thang ma). Whereas the title of the text in the Denkarma, ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub pa, aligns closely with that of Toh 592/3, the title in the Phangthangma, ’phags pa gtsug tor gdugs dkar po,20 is generic and thus could refer to any of the four canonical texts, or to a different, unknown version. It is possible that the earliest version of the four canonical texts is Toh 592,21 which lacks a colophon indicating its provenance. If this is the text recorded in the Denkarma it would have been translated no later than 843, the year the Tibetan empire collapsed and record of its translation efforts ceased. Toh 593, which does include a colophon dating it to the eleventh century, represents the same branch recension but, as noted above, differs in its inclusion of the introductory and concluding statements—perhaps Mahājana’s specific contribution to the corpus. Toh 591, which is described in its colophon as a revision rather than a new translation, was also prepared in the eleventh century. It differs only slightly from Toh 592/3, primarily in its unique arrangement of the material. Thus it appears that Toh 591 and 593 comprise a second period of translation of the Sitātapatrā spell in the eleventh century, one in which the earlier translation represented by Toh 592 served as a primary point of reference. It is especially noteworthy that this second wave primarily involved Indian masters and manuscript witnesses from Kashmir.22 Thus, Toh 590 is likely the last of the translations to be produced, and then was revised two additional times as described above.23
As noted above, the widespread popularity of Sitātapatrā is attested by the broad circulation of the Sitātapatrā spell. Numerous versions are preserved in Sanskrit, Khotanese, Chinese, Old Uyghur, and Tibetan, thus demarcating its circulation throughout South Asia, the Himalayan region, Central Asia, and China. What is perhaps the oldest documented Sanskrit witness of the spell, tentatively dated to the eighth century, was discovered at Dunhuang and written in a Gupta script unique to Central Asia.24 This version, published in 1963 by H. W. Bailey, was consulted for this translation. The popularity of Sitātapatrā in the Newar Buddhist tradition is evident in the large number of extant Sanskrit manuscript witnesses of the spell scribed in Nepal. Many of these versions are found in the numerous dhāraṇī collections (dhāraṇīsaṅgraha) popular in the Newar tradition. Most of the available manuscripts are relatively recent, dating no earlier than the eighteenth century. A representative collection of Nepalese manuscripts was consulted for this translation, the most noteworthy version of the spell being found in Cambridge Ms. Add 1326, a dhāraṇīsaṅgraha compiled in 1719.25 This version, like most Nepalese versions consulted, most closely aligns with Toh 590.26
Also noteworthy are the versions of the spell composed in Old Uyghur, which were translated from an unknown source language in likely the thirteenth or fourteenth century.27 The manuscripts were discovered in Turfan in the early twentieth century and are now dispersed among various European and Russian manuscript archives.28
There are two Chinese translations of works that are similar in title and content to Toh 590, but a close comparison of the Tibetan and Chinese translations is needed to determine precisely how the two Chinese translations and four Tibetan translations align. Taishō 976, Fo ding dabai sangai tuoluoni jing (佛頂大白傘蓋陀羅尼經), was translated by the Tangut monk Shaluoba (1279–1314), and Taishō 977, Fo shuo dabai sangai zong chi tuoluoni jing (佛說大白傘蓋總持陀羅尼經), was translated by Zhen Zhi sometime during the Yuan period (1271–1368). Based on these dates it would appear that both Chinese translations significantly postdate the Tibetan translations preserved in the Kangyur.
Finally, there were a number of Tibetan versions of the Sitātapatrā spell discovered among the Dunhuang manuscripts.29 These versions are revealing in that they are shorter and otherwise distinct from the canonical versions, indicating one or more additional branch recensions. Some of the Dunhuang manuscripts do align with Toh 592, the canonical version proposed as the earliest, but none appear to correlate directly with Toh 590 and 591, which are believed to have been translated in or after the eleventh century, long after the Dunhuang caves had been sealed.
The present translation is based on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the Stok Palace and Phukdrak versions as well as the variant readings recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) Kangyur. Extensive use was made of Sanskrit witnesses, including the Khotanese version and four representatives from the numerous Nepalese manuscript witnesses. Among those, Cambridge Ms. Add. 1326 and its edition prepared by Gergely Hidas proved especially useful for resolving ambiguities in the Tibetan translation and correcting minor but consequential orthographic errors in the Tibetan transliterations of Sanskrit spell formulas. Apart from those necessary corrections, the spell formulas follow the transliterations presented in the Degé version. Even with the wealth of resources available, a number of enigmatic passages remain imperfectly resolved, particularly in the verse section recounting the names and epithets of the deity. Tentative translations of these difficult passages have been offered, but they are not intended to represent a definitive interpretation.
“After paying homage to these blessed ones,34 this great spell for averting named the invincible blessed Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata annihilates all bhūtas who are grahas; disrupts all opposing spells; averts untimely death; frees beings from all that binds them; averts all malice, nightmares, and bad omens; destroys the eighty-four thousand types of grahas; appeases the twenty-eight lunar mansions; destroys the eight great celestial bodies;[F.220.b] averts all enemies; destroys all violence, malice, and nightmares; and frees beings from poison, weapons, fire, and water.
“May this entire host of mudrās44 protect me, please protect me!
oṁ ṛṣigaṇapraśastāya sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre hūṁ drūṁ | jambhanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | stambhanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | mahāvidyāsambhakṣanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | paravidyāsambhakṣanakarī hūṁ drūṁ |[F.135.a] sarvaduṣṭān stambhanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | sarvayakṣarākṣasagrahāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | caturaśitīnāṃ grahasahasrāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | aṣṭāviṃśatīnāṃ nakṣatrāṇāṃ prasādanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | aṣṭānāṃ mahāgrahāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī hūṁ drūṁ | rakṣa rakṣa mām |45
“Blessed Sitātapatrā, born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, Vajroṣṇīṣā, great averting goddess, great goddess with a thousand arms, great goddess with a thousand heads, great goddess with a trillion eyes and indestructible blazing features, great exalted vajra goddess who rules over the maṇḍala of the three realms of existence, protect me completely! Please protect me![F.221.a]
“Oṁ, grant me auspiciousness in the face of dangers46 from rulers, thieves, fire, water, poison, weapons, opposing armies, famines, enemies, thunderbolts, untimely death, earthquakes, falling meteors, royal punishment, devas, nāgas, lightning, suparṇas, and ferocious beasts.
“Grant me auspiciousness in the face of grahas who are devas,47 nāgas, asuras, maruts, garuḍas, gandharvas, kinnaras, mahoragas, yakṣas, rākṣasas, pretas, piśācas, bhūtas, kumbhāṇḍas, pūtanas, kaṭapūtanas, skandas, apasmāras, unmādas, chāyās,[F.135.b] ostārakas, ḍākinīs, and revatīs! Grant me auspiciousness in the face of all these grahas!
“Grant me auspiciousness in the face of those who steal vitality and consume fetuses; who drink blood; who consume fat, flesh, grease, marrow, and newborns; who steal life; who consume vomit, filth, and urine; who drink sewage and consume leftovers; who drink saliva and consume snot, mucus, pus, oblations, garlands,[F.221.b] fragrances, and incense; who capture people’s minds; and who consume flowers, fruits, grains, and burnt offerings!
“Homage to you, blessed Sitātapatrā, born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata! Protect me, please protect me!
oṁ asitānalārkaprabhāsphuṭavikasitasitātapatre51 |[F.222.a] jvala jvala | khāda khāda | dara dara | vidara vidara | chinda chinda | bhinda bhinda | hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā | he he phaṭ | ho ho phaṭ | amoghe phaṭ | apratihatāya52 phaṭ | varapradāya53 phaṭ | pratyaṅgiritāya54 phaṭ | asuravidrāvakarāya55 phaṭ | sarvadevebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvanāgebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvāsurebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvamarutebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvagaruḍebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvagandharvebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakinnarebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvamahoragebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvayakṣebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvarākṣasebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvapretebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvapiśācebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvabhūtebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakumbhāṇḍebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvapūtanebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakaṭapūtanebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvaskandebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvonmādebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvachāyebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvāpasmārebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvostārakebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvadurlaṅghitebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarva duḥprekṣitebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvajvarebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvakṛtyakarmaṇakākhordebhyaḥ phaṭ | kiraṇavaitāḍebhyaḥ phaṭ | cichapreṣakaduścharditebhyaḥ phaṭ | durbhuktebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvatīrthakebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvaśramaṇebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarvavidyādharebhyaḥ phaṭ | jayakaramadhukarasarvārthasādhakebhyo vidyācārebhyaḥ phaṭ | caturbhyo bhaginībhyaḥ phaṭ | vajrakaumārīyebho phaṭ | vidyārajñīyebhyaḥ phaṭ |[F.136.b] mahāpratyaṅgirebhyaḥ phaṭ | vajraśṛṅkhalāya pratyaṅgirarājāya phaṭ | mahākālāya mātṛgaṇanamaskṛtāya phaṭ | viṣṇāvīye phaṭ | brahmaṇīye phaṭ | agnīye phaṭ | mahākālīye phaṭ | kāladaṇḍīye phaṭ | indrīye phaṭ | raudrīye phaṭ | kaumārīye phaṭ | vārāhīye phaṭ | cāmuṇḍīye phaṭ | rātrīye phaṭ | kālarātrīye phaṭ | yamadaṇḍīye phaṭ | kapālīye phaṭ | adhimuktiśmaśānavāsinīye phaṭ |56[F.222.b]
“Dispel all beings who harbor malicious and dangerous intentions toward me; who steal vitality; who consume fetuses; who drink blood; who consume fat, flesh, grease, marrow, and newborns; who steal life; who consume vomit, filth, and urine; who drink sewage and consume leftovers; who drink saliva; who consume snot, mucus, pus, oblations, garlands, fragrances, and incense; who capture people’s minds; who consume flowers, fruits, grains, and burnt offerings; and who harbor evil, malicious, or dangerous intentions.
“Dispel grahas who are yakṣas, rākṣasas, pretas, piśācas, bhūtas,[F.137.a] kumbhāṇḍas, pūtanas, kaṭapūtanas, skandas, unmādas, chāyās, apasmāras, ostārakas, ḍākinīs, revatīs, yāmakas, śakunis, mātṛnandīs, samikās,[F.223.a] and kaṇṭakamālinīs!
“Dispel all fevers that last one day, two days, three days, four days, or seven days; those that are chronic, irregular,57 or intermittent; and those that are caused by bhūtas or arise from disturbances in the wind, bile, phlegm, or their combination. Dispel all infectious diseases and all illnesses of the brain!
“Dispel splitting headaches;58 loss of appetite; illnesses of the eyes, nose, mouth, throat, and heart; laryngitis; and pain in the ears, teeth, heart, brain, neck, ribs, back, stomach, hips, pelvis, thighs, calves, hands, feet, and all the major and minor appendages!59
“May this great averting spell of the vajra uṣṇīṣa Sitātapatrā bind the spells60 of everything within twelve yojanas, including all bhūtas, vetālas, ḍākinīs, fevers, skin disease, itching, pruritus, leprosy, boils, skin irritations,61[F.137.b] erysipelas, scabies, blood boils, emaciation, anxiety, poisonous brews, poisonous compounds, kākhordas, fire, water, pestilence, enemies, harm, untimely death, tryambuka flies, tralāṭa flies, scorpions, snakes, mongooses, lions, tigers, bears, jackals, makaras,[F.223.b] and other life-threatening creatures such as bees. May it bind their energy! May it bind all opposing spells!
tadyathā | oṁ anale anale | viṣade viṣade62 | vaire vaire | vajradhari | bandha bandhani | vajrapāṇi phaṭ | hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā | hūṁ drūṁ bandha phaṭ mama rakṣa rakṣa svāhā ||63
“Whoever writes this great, invincible spell for averting, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of all tathāgatas, on birch bark, cloth, or tree bark and wears it on their body or around their neck will not be harmed by poison, weapons, fire, water, poisonous brews, poisonous compounds, or kākhordas for as long as they live, nor will they meet an untimely death. They will become dear to all grahas, vighnas, and vināyakas. The eighty-four billion members64 of the vajra family will guard, protect, and defend them, hold them dear, and delight in them. They will recall their rebirths of the past eighty-four thousand great eons. They will never become yakṣas, rākṣasas, pretas, pūtanas, or kaṭapūtanas, nor will they ever be poor. They will gain a quantity of merit equal to that of the blessed buddhas as innumerable and limitless as the grains of sand in the river Ganges.
“If one keeps this great, invincible spell for averting, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, one will become chaste, even if one was not chaste.[F.138.a] Those who did not observe silence will observe silence.65 The impure will become pure. Those who did not practice abstinence will practice abstinence.[F.224.a] Those who did not fast will observe fasts.66 Even those who have committed the five acts with immediate retribution will see their evil purified. All the obscurations resulting from their past actions will be exhausted without exception.
“If a woman who wishes to have a child keeps this great, invincible spell, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, she will gain a child.67 The child will have a long life and possess merit and strength. After they pass away they will take birth in the realm of Sukhāvatī.
“Those who are threatened by diseases68 that affect humans, livestock, or cattle or by any calamities, violence, epidemics, harm, mental disturbances, and the approach of opposing armies should affix this great, invincible spell for averting, Sitātapatrā born from the uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata, to the top of a banner and worship it with great offerings. The banner should be planted at the gateway to any city or in a town, city,69 market town, country, or wilderness residence. As soon as this great, invincible spell for averting has been worshiped and planted, war will be pacified, as will calamities, violence, epidemics, harm, mental disturbances, and the approach of opposing armies.
tadyathā | oṁ ṣṭoṁ bandha bandha mama rāḳsa rāḳsa svāhā || oṁ hūṁ ṣṭoṁ bandha bandha vajra mama rāḳsa rāḳsa vajrapāṇi hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ svāhā || oṁ sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣānavalokite mūrdhani tejorāśi || oṁ hūṁ jvala jvala | dhaka dhaka | dara dara | vidara vidara | chinda chinda | bhinda bhinda | hūṁ hūṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā[F.138.b] || oṁ sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa hūṁ phaṭ svāhā || tadyathā | oṁ anale anale | khasame khasame | vaire vaire | saumye saumye | sarvabuddhādhiṣṭhānādhiṣṭhite[F.224.b] sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre hūṁ phaṭ | hūṁ mama hūṁ ni svāhā ||70
“This should be done in connection with the Buddha.71 The nāga kings will send timely rain.”
Thus concludes the noble dhāraṇī “The Invincible Sitātapatrā Born from the Uṣṇīṣa of the Tathāgata.”
Among 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.
In 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.
Though all Tibetan translations of the title consistently insert “born from,” they are anything but consistent in their use of “all tathāgatas” (sarvatathāgata º; 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 sarvatathāgata º. All Sanskrit sources consulted are unanimous in reading sarvatathāgata º.
A 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.
The 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).
On the circulation of apotropaic Buddhist literature in Inner and Central Asia, see White 2021, pp. 45-84.
See 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.
This text, Toh 986, and all those contained in this same volume (gzungs, waM), are listed as being located in volume 101 of the Degé Kangyur by the Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC). However, several other Kangyur databases—including the eKangyur that supplies the digital input version displayed by the 84000 Reading Room—list this work as being located in volume 102. This discrepancy is partly due to the fact that the two volumes of the gzungs ’dus section are an added supplement not mentioned in the original catalog, and also hinges on the fact that the compilers of the Tōhoku catalog placed another text—which forms a whole, very large volume—the Vimalaprabhānāmakālacakratantraṭīkā (dus ’khor ’grel bshad dri med ’od, Toh 845), before the volume 100 of the Degé Kangyur, numbering it as vol. 100, although it is almost certainly intended to come right at the end of the Degé Kangyur texts as volume 102; indeed its final fifth chapter is often carried over and wrapped in the same volume as the Kangyur dkar chags (catalog). Please note this discrepancy when using the eKangyur viewer in this translation.
The 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.)
’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.
Toh 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.
A 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.
Sönam 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.
Herrmann-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.
Both 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.
Toh 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.
This manuscript is available digitally from the University of Cambridge Digital Library and has also been edited and published in Hidas 2021.
Three 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.
About these versions of the spell, see Kiliç Cengiz 2020, and Kiliç Cengiz and Turanskaya 2019 and 2021.
A 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.
It is not clear who the “five great mudrās” (mahāpañcamudrā; phyag rgya chen po lnga) are in the context of Nārāyaṇa.
In 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).
This 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.
In 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.
In 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.
This 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.
The 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.
Conjectural 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”).
Tib. 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).
The 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.
The interpretation of these two lines follows Dh33, which reads ºvijṛmbhamānikā || 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.
This 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!”
This translation follows the syntax of the Sanskrit sources, in which this and each of the subsequent phrases are declined in the ablative case.
Here and in the next paragraph the initial supplication, “Grant auspiciousness...” has been inserted for the sake of clarity in the English translation.
The 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.”
Following 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.
The 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)dhana º; CL1326, Dh33, and UTM 441-01 have ºsiddhikarasarvārthasādhana º; and RASH 77 has ºsarvārthāsiddhisādhaka º. 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).”
Emended 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.
Emended based on the Sanskrit sources. D and S read, in Tibetan transliteration, apratihatā phaṭ.
Emended based on the Sanskrit sources and Toh 590 and 591. D and S read, in Tibetan transliteration, varapdradā phaṭ.
Emended based on the Sanskrit sources and Toh 590 and 591. D reads, in Tibetan transliteration, pratyaṅgiri phaṭ. S reads pratyaṅgiriti phaṭ.
Emended based on the Sanskrit sources and Toh 590 and 591. D and S read, in Tibetan transliteration, asuravidrāvaka phaṭ.
This 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!”
Tib. 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.”
This 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.
The “major” appendages would include the head, arms, legs, etc. The “minor” appendages include the nose, ears, fingers, and toes.
Toh 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.”
Tib. 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.
Viṣada (“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.
This 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!”
The 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).
Though 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.
Tib. nad. The Sanskrit sources all read ºmāra, which could be understood as “obstacles,” or perhaps “fatalities.”
“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.
This 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!”
Tib. 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.
As expressed in the Sanskrit and translated literally into Tibetan, the term means “to dwell near.” The term comes from the older Vedic traditions in which during full moon and new moon sacrifices, householders would practice abstinence in various forms such as fasting and refraining from sexual activity. These holy days were called upavasatha days because it was said that the gods who were the recipients of these sacrifices would “dwell” (√vas) “near” (upa) the practitioners of these sacrifices. While sacrificial practices were discarded by Buddhists, the framework of practicing fortnightly abstinence evolved into the poṣadha observance, a term etymologically related to the term upavasatha.
Lit. “Not Disturbed” or “Immovable One.” The buddha in the eastern realm of Abhirati. A well-known buddha in Mahāyāna, regarded in the higher tantras as the head of one of the five buddha families, the vajra family in the east.
The buddha of the western buddhafield of Sukhāvatī, where fortunate beings are reborn to make further progress toward spiritual maturity. Amitābha made his great vows to create such a realm when he was a bodhisattva called Dharmākara. In the Pure Land Buddhist tradition, popular in East Asia, aspiring to be reborn in his buddha realm is the main emphasis; in other Mahāyāna traditions, too, it is a widespread practice. For a detailed description of the realm, see The Display of the Pure Land of Sukhāvatī, Toh 115. In some tantras that make reference to the five families he is the tathāgata associated with the lotus family.
Amitābha, “Infinite Light,” is also known in many Indian Buddhist works as Amitāyus, “Infinite Life.” In both East Asian and Tibetan Buddhist traditions he is often conflated with another buddha named “Infinite Life,” Aparimitāyus, or “Infinite Life and Wisdom,”Aparimitāyurjñāna, the shorter version of whose name has also been back-translated from Tibetan into Sanskrit as Amitāyus but who presides over a realm in the zenith. For details on the relation between these buddhas and their names, see The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1) Toh 674, i.9.
A Buddhist monastery in Kashmir that is reported in Chinese sources to exist as early as ca. 750 ᴄᴇ.
The name of a female Buddhist deity, meaning “Other,” here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā. A female deity of this name is also prominent in the esoteric Trika pantheon of the Śaiva tradition.
The name of a female Buddhist deity, meaning “Invincible,” here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā.
A class of nonhuman beings believed to cause epilepsy, fits, and loss of memory. As their name suggests—the Skt. apasmāra literally means “without memory” and the Tib. brjed byed means “causing forgetfulness”—they are defined by the condition they cause in affected humans, and the term can refer to any nonhuman being that causes such conditions, whether a bhūta, a piśāca, or other.
According to Buddhist tradition, one who is worthy of worship (pūjām arhati), or one who has conquered the enemies, the mental afflictions (kleśa-ari-hata-vat), and reached liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. It is the fourth and highest of the four fruits attainable by śrāvakas. Also used as an epithet of the Buddha.
A type of nonhuman being whose precise status is subject to different views, but is included as one of the six classes of beings in the sixfold classification of realms of rebirth. In the Buddhist context, asuras are powerful beings said to be dominated by envy, ambition, and hostility. They are also known in the pre-Buddhist and pre-Vedic mythologies of India and Iran, and feature prominently in Vedic and post-Vedic Brahmanical mythology, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. In these traditions, asuras are often described as being engaged in interminable conflict with the devas (gods).
The full name of the buddha popularly known as the Medicine Buddha.
The name of a female Buddhist deity meaning “Furrowed Brow,” here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā.
A deity from the Śaiva pantheon who appears in a grotesquely emaciated form.
This term in its broadest sense can refer to any being, whether human, animal, or nonhuman. However, it is often used to refer to a specific class of nonhuman beings, especially when bhūtas are mentioned alongside rākṣasas, piśācas, or pretas. In common with these other kinds of nonhumans, bhūtas are usually depicted with unattractive and misshapen bodies. Like several other classes of nonhuman beings, bhūtas take spontaneous birth. As their leader is traditionally regarded to be Rudra-Śiva (also known by the name Bhūta), with whom they haunt dangerous and wild places, bhūtas are especially prominent in Śaivism, where large sections of certain tantras concentrate on them.
In Buddhist literature, this is an epithet applied to buddhas, most often to Śākyamuni. The Sanskrit term generally means “possessing fortune,” but in specifically Buddhist contexts it implies that a buddha is in possession of six auspicious qualities (bhaga) associated with complete awakening. The Tibetan term—where bcom is said to refer to “subduing” the four māras, ldan to “possessing” the great qualities of buddhahood, and ’das to “going beyond” saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—possibly reflects the commentarial tradition where the Sanskrit bhagavat is interpreted, in addition, as “one who destroys the four māras.” This is achieved either by reading bhagavat as bhagnavat (“one who broke”), or by tracing the word bhaga to the root √bhañj (“to break”).
A being who is dedicated to the cultivation and fulfilment of the altruistic intention to attain perfect buddhahood, traversing the ten bodhisattva levels (daśabhūmi, sa bcu). Bodhisattvas purposely opt to remain within cyclic existence in order to liberate all sentient beings, instead of simply seeking personal freedom from suffering. In terms of the view, they realize both the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena.
A high-ranking deity presiding over a divine world; he is also considered to be the lord of the Sahā world (our universe). Though not considered a creator god in Buddhism, Brahmā occupies an important place as one of two gods (the other being Indra/Śakra) said to have first exhorted the Buddha Śākyamuni to teach the Dharma. The particular heavens found in the form realm over which Brahmā rules are often some of the most sought-after realms of higher rebirth in Buddhist literature. Since there are many universes or world systems, there are also multiple Brahmās presiding over them. His most frequent epithets are “Lord of the Sahā World” (sahāṃpati) and Great Brahmā (mahābrahman).
The Tibetan translates both stūpa and caitya with the same word, mchod rten, meaning “basis” or “recipient” of “offerings” or “veneration.” Pali: cetiya.
A caitya, although often synonymous with stūpa, can also refer to any site, sanctuary or shrine that is made for veneration, and may or may not contain relics.
A stūpa, literally “heap” or “mound,” is a mounded or circular structure usually containing relics of the Buddha or the masters of the past. It is considered to be a sacred object representing the awakened mind of a buddha, but the symbolism of the stūpa is complex, and its design varies throughout the Buddhist world. Stūpas continue to be erected today as objects of veneration and merit making.
“Shadow,” a class of supernatural beings considered a source of disease and misfortune.
The male equivalent to a ḍākinī. The term can refer to a mundane class of supernatural beings and to a class of Buddhist deities.
A class of powerful nonhuman female beings who play a variety of roles in Indic literature in general and Buddhist literature specifically. Essentially synonymous with yoginīs, ḍākinīs are liminal and often dangerous beings who can be propitiated to acquire both mundane and transcendent spiritual accomplishments. In the higher Buddhist tantras, ḍākinīs are often considered embodiments of awakening and feature prominently in tantric maṇḍalas.
In the most general sense the devas—the term is cognate with the English divine—are a class of celestial beings who frequently appear in Buddhist texts, often at the head of the assemblies of nonhuman beings who attend and celebrate the teachings of the Buddha Śākyamuni and other buddhas and bodhisattvas. In Buddhist cosmology the devas occupy the highest of the five or six “destinies” (gati) of saṃsāra among which beings take rebirth. The devas reside in the devalokas, “heavens” that traditionally number between twenty-six and twenty-eight and are divided between the desire realm (kāmadhātu), form realm (rūpadhātu), and formless realm (ārūpyadhātu). A being attains rebirth among the devas either through meritorious deeds (in the desire realm) or the attainment of subtle meditative states (in the form and formless realms). While rebirth among the devas is considered favorable, it is ultimately a transitory state from which beings will fall when the conditions that lead to rebirth there are exhausted. Thus, rebirth in the god realms is regarded as a diversion from the spiritual path.
The term dhāraṇī has the sense of something that “holds” or “retains,” and so it can refer to the special capacity of practitioners to memorize and recall detailed teachings. It can also refer to a verbal expression of the teachings—an incantation, spell, or mnemonic formula—that distills and “holds” essential points of the Dharma and is used by practitioners to attain mundane and supramundane goals. The same term is also used to denote texts that contain such formulas.
The name of a buddha.
Literally the “great seizers,” there are traditionally nine: the sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the eclipse (rahu), and comets/meteors (ketu). All are believed to exert influence on the world according to Indic astrological lore. When listed as eight, it is not certain which is excluded.
Acts for which one will be reborn in hell immediately after death, without any intervening stages; they are killing an arhat, killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, causing a schism in the monastic community, and maliciously drawing blood from a tathāgata.
The “Four Sisters,” likely a reference to Jayā, Vijayā, Ajitā, Aparājitā, a group of female deities who, along with their brother Tumburu (an aspect of Śiva), are the focal point of a prominent cult in the early Śaiva tantric tradition.
‟Lord of Gaṇas,” an epithet of Gaṇeśa, the elephant-headed god who is the son of Śiva.
A class of generally benevolent nonhuman beings who inhabit the skies, sometimes said to inhabit fantastic cities in the clouds, and more specifically to dwell on the eastern slopes of Mount Meru, where they are ruled by the Great King Dhṛtarāṣṭra. They are most renowned as celestial musicians who serve the gods. In the Abhidharma, the term is also used to refer to the mental body assumed by sentient beings during the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Gandharvas are said to live on fragrances (gandha) in the desire realm, hence the Tibetan translation dri za, meaning “scent eater.”
The Gaṅgā, or Ganges in English, is considered to be the most sacred river of India, particularly within the Hindu tradition. It starts in the Himalayas, flows through the northern plains of India, bathing the holy city of Vārāṇasī, and meets the sea at the Bay of Bengal, in Bangladesh. In the sūtras, however, this river is mostly mentioned not for its sacredness but for its abundant sands—noticeable still today on its many sandy banks and at its delta—which serve as a common metaphor for infinitely large numbers.
According to Buddhist cosmology, as explained in the Abhidharmakośa, it is one of the four rivers that flow from Lake Anavatapta and cross the southern continent of Jambudvīpa—the known human world or more specifically the Indian subcontinent.
In Indian mythology, the garuḍa is an eagle-like bird that is regarded as the king of all birds, normally depicted with a sharp, owl-like beak, often holding a snake, and with large and powerful wings. They are traditionally enemies of the nāgas. In the Vedas, they are said to have brought nectar from the heavens to earth. Garuḍa can also be used as a proper name for a king of such creatures.
The term graha refers to a class of supernatural beings who “seize,” possess, or otherwise adversely influence other beings by causing a range of physical and mental afflictions, as well as various kinds of misfortune. The term can also be applied generically to other classes of supernatural beings who have the capacity to adversely affect health and well-being.
A subclass of yakṣas, or an alternative name for yakṣas.
The second heaven of the desire realm located above Mount Meru and reigned over by Indra and thirty-two other gods.
The lord of the Trāyastriṃśa heaven on the summit of Mount Sumeru. As one of the eight guardians of the directions, Indra guards the eastern quarter. In Buddhist sūtras, he is a disciple of the Buddha and protector of the Dharma and its practitioners. He is often referred to by the epithets Śatakratu, Śakra, and Kauśika.
An unknown figure who is said to be one of three brothers, along with Madhukara and Sarvārthasiddhikara.
A class of supernatural beings typically associated with violent sorcery rites.
The name of a female Buddhist deity, meaning “Lotus-Like Eyes,” here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā.
The name of a female Buddhist deity, meaning “Garlanded with Gold,” here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā.
A class of supernatural beings.
A sect of Śaiva ascetics who are known for their cremation ground practices and aesthetics.
A subgroup of pūtanas, a class of disease-causing spirits associated with cemeteries and dead bodies. The name probably derives from the Skt. pūta, “foul-smelling,” as reflected also in the Tib. srul po. The smell of a pūtana is variously described in the texts as resembling that of a billy goat or a crow, and the smell of a kaṭapūtana, as its name suggests, could resemble a corpse, kaṭa being one of the names for “corpse.” The morbid condition caused by pūtanas comes in various forms, with symptoms such as fever, vomiting, diarrhea, skin eruptions, and festering wounds, the latter possibly explaining the association with bad smells.
A class of nonhuman beings that resemble humans to the degree that their very name—which means “is that human?”—suggests some confusion as to their divine status. Kinnaras are mythological beings found in both Buddhist and Brahmanical literature, where they are portrayed as creatures half human, half animal. They are often depicted as highly skilled celestial musicians.
Rites of hostile magic that employ kṛtyās, a type of supernatural being, as magical agents.
A class of dwarf beings subordinate to Virūḍhaka, one of the Four Great Kings, associated with the southern direction. The name uses a play on the word aṇḍa, which means “egg” but is also a euphemism for a testicle. Thus, they are often depicted as having testicles as big as pots (from kumbha, or “pot”).
The name of a female Buddhist deity, meaning “Saffron Jewel,” here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā.
The name of a female Buddhist deity, here used as an epithet of Sitātapatrā.
The twenty-seven or twenty-eight sectors along the ecliptic that exert influence on the world according to Indic astrological lore.
An unknown figure who is said to be one of three brothers, along with Jayakara and Sarvārthasiddhikara.
A Kashmiri paṇḍita active in Tibet in the eleventh century.
Mahākāla (“Great Black One”) is a name for both a wrathful form of Śiva and one the most important Buddhist protector deities.
Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitāpratyaṅgirāmahāvidyārājñī. Cambridge Ms. Add. 1326, folios 115.v–123.v. University of Cambridge Digital Library. Accessed July 26, 2022.
Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitām Vidyārājñīm Mahāpratyaṅgirām. General Library, University of Tokyo Ms. 441-01. Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo. Accessed July 26, 2022.
Bailey, H. W., ed. Sitātapatrā Dhāraṇī. In Indo-Scythian Studies: Being Khotanese Texts Volume V, 359–67. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Hidas, Gergely, ed. Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitāpratyaṅgirāmahāvidyārājñī (Cambridge Ms. Add. 1326). In Powers of Protection: The Buddhist Tradition of Spells in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha Collections, 188–95. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021.
Mahāpratyaṅgirā Mahāvidyārajñji Dhāraṇī. RAS Hodgson Ms. 77. Royal Asiatic Society, London.
Samten, Ngawang, and Janardan Pandey, ed. “Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitapratyaṅgirāmahāvidyārājñī.” Dhīḥ 33 (2002): 145–54.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre aparājitānāmadhāraṇī). Toh 592, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 219.a.–224.b.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre aparājitānāmadhāraṇī). Toh 986, Degé Kangyur vol. 101 (gzungs ’dus, waM), folios 133.b–138.b.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 90, pp. 724–39; vol. 98, pp. 421–35.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub ma zhes bya ba’i gzungs (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitatapatre aparājitānāmadhāraṇī). Stok Palace Kangyur vol. 104 (rgyud, pa), folios 245.a–251.b.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa phyir bzlog pa chen mo rig pa’i rgyal mo chen mo zhes bya ba (Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatre namāparājitamahāpratyaṅgiramahārajñī). Phukdrak Kangyur vol. 117 (rgyud, dza), folios 181.b–193.a.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor nas byung ba gdugs dkar po can zhes bya ba gzhan gyis mi thub ma phyir zlog pa’i rig sngags kyi rgyal mo chen mo (Āryasarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitapratyaṅgirāmahāvidyārājñī). Toh 590, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 205.a–212.b.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa phyir zlog pa chen mo mchog tu grub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrāparājitamahāpratyaṅgiraparamasiddhanāmadhāraṇī). Toh 591, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 212.b–219.a.
’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gtsug tor nas byung ba’i gdugs dkar po can gzhan gyis mi thub pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs (Āryatathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrānāmāparājitādhāraṇī). Toh 593, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 224.b.–229.b.
’jam dpal gyi rtsa ba’i rgyud (Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa). Toh 543, Degé Kangyur vol. 88 (rgyud ’bum, na), folios 88.a–334.a. English translation in Dharmachakra Translation Committee 2020.
Chökyi Jungné (si tu paN chen chos kyi ’byung gnas). [dkar chag] bzhi pa/ bzhugs byang dkar chag dngos legs par bshad pa’i yal ’dab. Toh 4568-4, Degé Kangyur vol. 103 (lakṣmī), folios 112.a–157.a.
Denkarma (pho brang stod thang ldan dkar gyi chos kyi ’gyur ro cog gi dkar chag). Toh 4364, Degé Tengyur vol. 206 (sna tshogs, jo), folios 294.b–310.a.
Phangthangma (dkar chag ’phang thang ma). Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003.
Pelliot tibétain 45. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Resources for Kanjur and Tanjur Studies, Universität Wien. Accessed July 26, 2022.
Dudjom Jikdral Yeshé Dorjé (bdud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje). gtsug tor gdugs dkar mo’i rgyun khyer ’bar ba’i thog brtsegs. In rnying ma ba’i zhal ’don phyogs bsgrigs, 489–93. Lhasa: bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1997.
Orgyen Lingpa (o rgyan gling pa). o rgyan gu ru pad+ma ’byung gnas kyi skyes rabs rnam par thar pa rgyas pa bkod pa pad+ma bka’i thang yig. Xining: sku ’bum byams pa ling par khang, 2001. English translation in Douglas and Bays 2020.
Sönam Nampar Gyalwa (bsod nams rnam par rgyal ba). gtsug gtor gdugs dkar rgyas pa rig sngags kyi rgyal mo chen po. In gsung ’bum byams pa gling pa, 719–36. N.p.: n.p., n.d. BUDA: MW1CZ1101.
Bethlenfalvy, Geza. A Catalogue of the Urga Kanjur in the Prof. Raghuvira Collection at the International Academy of Indian Culture. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1980.
Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans. The Root Manual of the Rites of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, Toh 543). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
Douglas, Kenneth, and Gwendolyn Bays, trans. The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava: Padma Bka’i Thang. 2 vols. Emeryville, CA: Dharma Publishing, 1978. See above under Orgyen Lingpa.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. Die lHan kar ma: ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf (1911). “The ‘Unknown Languages’ of Eastern Turkestan II.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland 43, no. 2 (1911): 447–77.
Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf (1916). Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan: Facsimiles with Transcripts Translations and Notes. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1916.
Kano, Kazuo. “Exegeses of the Ratnagotravibhāga in Kashmir in the 11th and 12th Century.” Kōyasandaigaku daigakuin kiyō 15 (2016): 1–23.
Kawagoe, Eishin 川越 英真, ed. dKar chag ’Phang thang ma. Sendai: Tōhoku indo chibetto kenkyūkai 東北インド・チベット研究会 (Tohoku Society for Indo-Tibetan Studies), 2005.
Kiliç Cengiz, Ayşe. “Two Old Uyghur Sitātapatrādhāraṇī Fragments from the Berlin Turfan Collection.” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 31 (2020): 71–84.
Kiliç Cengiz, Ayşe, and Anna Turanskaya (2019). “Old Uyghur Blockprint of Sitātapatrā Dhāraṇī in the Serindia Collection of the IOM, RAS.” Written Monuments of the Orient 5, no. 2 (2019): 19–38.
Kiliç Cengiz, Ayşe, and Anna Turanskaya (2021). “Old Uyghur Sitātapatrā Dhāraṇī Fragments Preserved in the State Hermitage Museum.” Written Monuments of the Orient 7, no. 1 (2021): 100–117.
Lalou, M. “Notes à propos d’une amulette de Touen-houang: Les litanies de Tāra et la Sitātapatrādhāraṇī.” In Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, edited by Louis de La Vallée Poussin, 4:135–49. Brussels: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises, 1935–36.
Porció, Tibor. “The One with the White Parasol.” PhD diss., University of Vienna, 2000.
Tribe, Anthony. Tantric Buddhist Practice in India: Vilāsavajra’s Commentary on the Mañjuśrī-nāmasaṃgīti. Routledge Studies in Tantric Traditions. New York: Routledge, 2016.
White, David Gordon. Dæmons are Forever: Contacts and Exchanges in the Eurasian Pandemonium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021.
CL1326 Cambridge Library Ms. Add. 1326
Dh33 Samten and Pandey, ed., Dhīḥ vol. 33
KT728 Bailey, ed., Khotanese Texts vol. 5, no. 728
RASH 77 Royal Asiatic Society Hodgson Ms. 77
UTM 441-01 University of Tokyo Library Ms. 441-01
D Degé Kangyur
S Stok Palace Kangyur
