འཕགས་པ་ད་བཞན་གཤགས་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱ་བྱན་གྱས་བརླབས་ཀྱ་སྙང་པ་གསང་བ་རང་བསྲལ་གྱ་ཟ་མ་ཏག་ཅས་བྱ་བའ་གཟངས་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད notes: Notes

The Dhāraṇī for Secret Relics notes

Language: English

Notes

notes.3

3. See Ryan Damron’s comments on the term in Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Dhāraṇī “Entering into Nonconceptuality,” Toh 142 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020), .

notes.4

4. Lamotte 1976, vol. 4, pp. 1863–64; Braarvig 1985, pp. 18–19, p. 24.

8. According to Schopen (1982, p. 105), influential sūtras of this movement include the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra (Toh 113) and the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra (Toh 555, Toh 556, Toh 557). For a translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, see Peter Alan Roberts, trans., The White Lotus of the Good Dharma , Toh 113 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018). For the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra, see the German translation of Taishō 665, the influential Chinese rendition prepared by Yijing (635–713), in Nobel 1958, vol. 1. For an English translation of the condensed Sanskrit version of the sūtra, see Emmerick 2001.

notes.9

9. While the relationship between the “cult of the book” and the “cult of relics” has at times been portrayed in terms of competition (cf. Schopen 1975, pp. 168–70), it is perhaps more accurate to view the cult of stūpas and of relics as forming the background against which the “cult of the book” emerged. See Drewes 2007, pp. 133–35.

notes.10

10. On the cult of stūpas, see Strong 2004.

notes.11

11. Harrison 1992, p. 76; Bentor 1995, pp. 251–52.

notes.12

12. Whereas in some strands of the Tibetan tradition, dhāraṇīs are considered relics of the body of reality (Skt. dharmakāya), in the Nyingma and Kagyu schools this position tends to be reserved for miniature stūpas and molded cones (tsha tsha). See Bentor 1995, p. 254, p. 258.

notes.13

13. Bentor 2003, p. 21.

notes.14

14. This is particularly the case with reference to the theory of the three bodies and the Buddha’s body of reality (Skt. dharmakāya). See Makransky 1998, pp. 33–34, p. 56.

notes.15

15. Bentor 2003, p. 24.

notes.16

16. See Chandra 1976, part 11, pp. 3410–11, and especially part 12, pp. 4117–22, for a multilingual transcription (in Manchurian, Chinese, Mongolian, and Tibetan) of the Sanskrit dhāraṇī, stemming from the Chinese imperial palace. On the role played by Tibetan and Mongolian monks as experts in Sanskrit at the Chinese imperial court during the Yuan (1279–1368), Ming (1368–1644), and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties, see Kapstein 2018, p. 473.

notes.17

17. See Schopen 1982, pp. 100–102, who refers to the transcription found in Mudiyanse 1967, pp. 99–105.

notes.18

18. See Baba 2017, pp. 124–26; Lee 2021, p. 7.

notes.19

19. Lee 2021, p. 9.

notes.20

20. Barrett 2001, p. 54; Baba 2017, pp. 130–32.

notes.21

21. Lee 2021, p. 12 (figures 4 and 5), p. 14.

notes.22

22. The stūpa was built in 975 ce and collapsed in 1924. See Edgren 1972. It has since been rebuilt.

notes.23

23. Schopen 1982, p. 106; Bentor 1995, pp. 255–56.

notes.24

24. Schopen 1982, pp. 106–7; Schopen 1985.

notes.25

25. See Strauch 2009.

notes.26

26. See Griffiths 2014.

notes.27

27. For a similar (though not quite identical) grouping, cf. Lee 2021, p. 8.

notes.28

28. Bentor 1995, p. 254, p. 256; Bentor 2003, p. 32; Phuntsok Tashi 1998, pp. 24–27.

notes.29

29. On Vidyākaraprabha, see Alexander Gardner, “Vidyākaraprabha,” Treasury of Lives, November 2019.

notes.30

30. Schopen 1982, p. 102.

notes.31

31. Resources for Kanjur and Tanjur Studies, Universität Wien, accessed November 26, 2021. See also Dalton and van Schaik 2006, and The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online, accessed December 2, 2021.

notes.32

32. Denkarma, folio 302.b.3; Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, pp. 215–16 (no. 377).

notes.33

33. The Comparative Edition reports that the variant reading of the Sanskrit title is also followed by the Narthang, Yongle, Lithang, Kangxi, and Choné editions, with the last four sharing the minor variant mun dra.

notes.34

34. Degé, F.6.b.4; F.7.a.3. The former passage is also mentioned by Schopen 1982, p. 104. Degé, F.128.a.3; F.128.b.3. The former passage is also mentioned by Schopen 1982, p. 104.

notes.35

35. Lewis R. Lancaster, The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).

notes.36

36. Lee 2021, p. 10.

notes.37

37. Bodong Paṇchen Choklé Namgyal, pp. 1969–81.

notes.38

38. Jetsün Drakpa Gyaltsen, pp. 1992–93. For a translation of an important passage from Drakpa Gyaltsen’s treatise, see Bentor 1995, pp. 256–57.

notes.39

39. This text, Toh 883, and all those contained in this same volume (gzungs, e), are listed as being located in volume 100 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 101. 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. Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 883 version of this text within vol. 100 or 101 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 883, , for details.

notes.40

40. This phrase is omitted in the Tantra section of the Degé edition, presumably through eyeskip. It is found, however, in the Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition, in the Stok Palace MS, vol. 102 (rgyud, da), folio 4.a.7, as well as in the Narthang and Lhasa editions, as reported in the Comparative Edition.

notes.41

41. Here we follow the variant reading ’bri found in the Yongle and Kangxi versions. Most versions read ’dri, as witnessed, for instance, in both the Tantra section and the Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition, as well as in the Stok Palace MS. While this majority reading at first sight suggests a translation along the lines of “inquires” rather than “writes down,” the word ’dri is attested as an archaic variant of ’bri (Namgyal Tsering 2001, p. 268; see also Chökyi Drakpa 1995, p. 440). Moreover, contextually speaking, the sense of writing down or copying fits well with what we know about the way Mahāyāna sūtras tended to self-referentially advocate their own reproduction. See McMahan 2002, p. 90.

notes.42

42. In his summary of the sūtra, Schopen proposes the simpler rendition “equal to that of ninety-nine hundreds of millions of Tathāgatas.” Cf. Schopen 1982, pp. 103–4.

notes.43

43. The identification of several of the animals mentioned in this sentence has posed some difficulty. The word “ladybug” translates bye ba, which itself would seem to be a rendering of the Sanskrit koṭika. “Worm” translates sbrang ma mchu gsum, which seems to be an alternative for mchu sbrang, itself a rendering of the Sanskrit kīṭa (Negi 1993–2005, vol. 3, p. 1305). “Mosquito” translates mchu rings, an abbreviation of sbrang bu mchu rings, which renders the Sanskrit maśaka (Negi 1993–2005, vol. 9, p. 4154). Finally, “centipede” translates rta bla, following the definition given by Chökyi Drakpa 1995, p. 343: “an insect with many legs” (rkang pa mang ba’i ’bu zhig); a similar definition is found in Tudeng Nima 1998, p. 1060.

notes.44

44. For mtshan bar rdol ba (Drungtso and Drungtso 2005, p. 378), corresponding to the Sanskrit term bhagandara (Negi 1993–2005, vol. 11, p. 4960).

notes.45

45. It is not clear which thirty-two abodes are being referred to. In any case, unless we assume a transmissional error, this does not seem to refer to the Trāyastriṃśa heaven.

notes.46

46. Here the reading of the Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition has been followed, which has ji lta bur; this reading is also confirmed by the Stok Palace MS, vol. 102 (rgyud, da), folio 8.b.7. The Tantra section of the Degé edition, on the other hand, reads ’di lta bur, although an interrogative sense is called for by the context.

notes.47

47. Reading traiyadhvikānāṃ, as in the Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition. The version in the Tantra section is somewhat illegible here, so although it seems to read dhī, it may be that dhvi was intended.

notes.48

48. Unlike the Tantra section of the Degé edition, which gives an anusvāra for oṃ, the Compendium of Incantations section gives an anunāsika for oṁ instead; this also applies to the occurrence of the syllable below. The difference is minor in any case.

notes.49

49. Read vacate. The Yongle (both vols. rgyud, na and rgyud, ’a), Lithang (J 801), Kangxi (both vols. rgyud, na and rgyud, ’a), and Choné (C 513) editions, as reported in the Comparative Edition, have vacaṭe, whereas the Narthang edition and the Stok Palace MS, vol. 102 (rgyud, da), folio 9.a.5 read vacare.

notes.50

50. The Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition reads dhare dhare. The Stok Palace MS has dhara dhare.

notes.51

51. This should probably be understood as buddhāya. The Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition reads buddhaya buddhaya. The version transcribed from the ninth-century Sri Lankan stone tablets (see Schopen 1982, p. 101), on the other hand, has budhya budhya.

notes.52

52. This reading follows the version in the Tantra section of the Degé edition. The version in the Compendium of Incantations reads subuddha.

notes.53

53. This reading is ungrammatical, since mudrā is feminine in gender, but the declension given is that of a vocative, plural, neuter a-stem. The reading mudre (as given in Schopen 1982, p. 101) seems called for; in that case, we have a straightforward vocative, singular, feminine.

notes.54

54. The translation presented here is merely tentative, as both the spellings and the grammar are quite ambiguous. For the a-stems (e.g., vara, garbha), the recurrent ending in e has been taken to refer not to a locative, singular, masculine/neuter, but to a vocative, singular, feminine, which accords with the vocative, singular, feminine i-stems (e.g., buddhi). The impression is thus that the deity being invoked is a feminine personification of the dhāraṇī in question. In translating this dhāraṇī, it was beneficial to reflect on Arlo Griffiths’ transliteration and translation of the Bodhigarbhālaṅkāralakṣadhāraṇī as preserved on an Indonesian inscription (Griffiths 2014, pp. 161–63).“Homage to the thus-gone ones of the three times. Oṁ, O you who are best in splendor, O you who have been uttered, culu culu! Hold firm, hold firm! O holder of the relics of all the thus-gone ones, O lotus matrix, best among victories, unmoving one! Remember! O thus-gone one, setting in motion the wheel of the doctrine! O you who adorn with ornaments the adamantine seat of enlightenment! O you who are blessed by all the thus-gone ones! Arouse, arouse toward enlightenment, enlightenment! Thoroughly arouse, arouse toward the buddha, the buddha! Shake, shake! All obscurations must shake! O you in whom all evil has disappeared, huru huru! O you in whom all grief has disappeared! O quintessence of all the thus-gone ones, O wielder of the adamantine thunderbolt, engender, engender, O secret of all the thus-gone ones, O seal of the dhāraṇī, O knowing one, O well-knowing one, O you who are blessed by all the thus-gone ones, O matrix of relics, svāhā! O you who are blessed by the pledge, svāhā! O quintessence of all the thus-gone ones, O seal of relics, svāhā! O well-constructed stūpa blessed by the thus-gone one, hūṁ hūṁ svāhā! Oṁ, O seal of the relics of all the thus-gone ones’ uṣṇīṣas, O you who are blessed by the ornament of the dimension of reality of all the thus-gone ones, huru huru, hūṁ hūṁ svāhā!”

notes.55

55. The Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition replaces “scholar” (paṇḍita) with “Indian preceptor” (rgya gar gyi mkhan po). This variant is also found in the Stok Palace MS, vol. 102 (rgyud, da), folio 10.a.4, as well as in the Narthang and Lhasa editions, as reported in the Comparative Edition.

notes.56

56. The Compendium of Incantations section of the Degé edition adds several titles: “the chief editor and translator, the Venerable” (zhu chen gyi lo ts+tsha ba bandhe). Again, these additional titles are also found in the Stok Palace MS, as well as in the Narthang and Lhasa editions.