ད་བཞན་གཤགས་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱ་གཙག་ཏར་རྣམ་པར་རྒྱལ་བ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་གཟངས་རྟག་པ་དང་བཅས་པ intro.12

intro.12

The present text lacks a translator’s colophon. However, as noted above, it is made up entirely of passages that are parallel with Toh 594, with which it also shares the same title. That work does have a translator’s colophon indicating that it was translated into Tibetan by the Indian scholar Dharmasena and the Tibetan translator Khampa Lotsāwa Bari Chödrak, and it is therefore an eleventh- or twelfth-century translation. However, the imperial Phangthangma catalog lists one Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī-vidhisahitā, which, even if not the same as the present text, is certainly a work of a similar type.²¹ Thus, along with the records of Uṣṇīṣavijayā texts at Dunhuang, its presence in the Phangthangma catalog at the very least indicates the early presence of parts of the Uṣṇīṣavijayā corpus, including not just the dhāraṇī but also some of its associated rites, in Tibet.