འཕགས་པ་རྡ་རྗ་འཇགས་བྱད་ཀྱ་གཟངས་ཞས་བྱ་བ notes: Notes

The Dhāraṇī of Vajrabhairava notes

Language: English

Notes

notes.1

1. Denkarma, folio 303.a; see also Hermann-Pfandt 2008, pp. 227–28. Phangthangma 2003, p. 28.

2. The exact wording of the colophon, in which the text is said to have been translated “in the presence” (zhal snga nas) of Amoghavajra, appears to indicate the collaboration of the Indian master and his Tibetan disciple in producing the present Tibetan translation. For his part, Butön Rinchen Drup (1290–1364) identifies Amoghavajra as the translator in his History, and in his Catalog of the Tantras (rgyud ’bum gyi dkar chag) he lists both Amoghavajra and Kyo Öjung as the translators. See Hermann-Pfandt 2008, p. 227.

notes.3

3. See, for example, Dhongthog Rinpoche and van Schaik 2016, p. 175.

notes.4

4. This text, Toh 956, and all those contained in this same volume (gzungs 'dus 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. Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 956 version of this text within vol. 101 or 102 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 956, , for details.

notes.5

5. Tib. mthun par.

notes.6

6. It may seem odd that Vajrabhairava would beseech the buddhas “and their heirs” for the supreme boon. Perhaps we are meant to read this line as an homage that is not part of the discourse proper spoken by Vajrabhairava, which would begin with the line that follows.

notes.7

7. K, Y, N anantadharmatre; H anantadharmetre; J, C anantadharmma.

notes.8

8. Y and K add mahāvara.

notes.9

9. K, Y asahā; H: āsaha.

notes.10

10. K, Y, N, H aggrihe; C, J akrihe.

notes.11

11. K ha ha vajrai; H, N ha ha vajra.

notes.12

12. K, Y vajrāhāye.

notes.13

13. H, N sarvaṃthā.

notes.14

14. The above dhāraṇī appears as a portion of a larger mantra (sngags) in Orderly Arrangement of the Three Commitments (Toh 502) at folio 210.a.

notes.15

15. Tib. dam tshig gsum pa’i cho ga, apparently a reference to or alternative title for Toh 502, Orderly Arrangement of the Three Commitments. See .

notes.16

16. K, Y daṃṣṭraṃ; C, U daṃṣṭā; H, N daṃṣṭaṃ. Note that the Comparative Edition itself appears to read daṃṣṭwā.

notes.17

17. K and Y omit this. C, J gṛhītam; H, N, U grihītam.

notes.18

18. Here the Comparative Edition appears to read daṃṣṭrāmā.

notes.19

19. K, Y damṣṭramā damṣṭra; C daṃṣṭāmā daṃśṭrī; U daṃṣṭamā daṃśtri; H, N daṃṣṭama daṃṣṭa.

notes.20

20. Y adtra viśatu śariraṃ kin cirāyasi; U attā viśatu śarīraṃ kiñ cirāyasi; J attra viśatu riraṃ kiñ carāyasi; C attra viśatu riraṃ kiñ carāyasi; K attra viśatu śariraṃ kin cirāyasi.

notes.21

21. K, Y vijrimbā vijrimbā; C, J vijrima vijrima; U vijraṃma vijraṃma; H vajriṃbā vajriṃbā. More than likely, vijṛmbha vijṛmbha (“swell, swell”) is consistent with the subsequent imperative pair pūra pūra (“fill, fill”).

notes.22

22. K, Y ghurṇa ghurṇa aviśa aviśa; U ghārṇṇa ghūrṇṇa āviśa āviśa; H gurna gurna aviśa aviśa.

notes.23

23. H reads mahāvajrabhairawe, which is vocative. C, J, K, Y, and Toh 956 have mahāvajrabhairavo, which is nominative. The present text’s mahāvajrabhairabhe is probably a rendering of the Sanskrit mahāvajrabhairave.

notes.24

24. K, Y gaṇapatir adnyavayati svāhā; C, J gaṇapatir ājñāvayati svāhā; H gaṇapatir ajñāvayati svāhā.

notes.25

25. The Tibetan does not explicitly say “the dhāraṇī” here, but this has been inserted for the sake of clarity.

notes.26

26. Tib. bsrung bya’i las bdun. This term appears to be unique to the present text. It may therefore be assumed to refer to the ritual uses listed above, enumerated as (1) the paralysis of one’s enemies, (2) the countering of sorcery, (3) the repulsion of enemy armies, (4) the subjugation of nāgas, (5) the repulsion of hail, (6) the preservation of liquor, and (7) the allaying of illness, with the subsequent performance of any (other) activity treated separately. Alternatively, one might treat the first two above as they appear in the text, as a single item, in which case they could be enumerated as (1) the paralysis of one’s enemies and the countering of sorcery, (2) the repulsion of enemy armies, (3) the subjugation of nāgas, (4) the repulsion of hail, (5) the preservation of liquor, (6) the allaying of illness, and (7) the performance of any other such activities.

notes.27

27. Tib. gnang.