Loading translation...
Complete and fragmentary, as PT 77, PT 414, PT 415, PT 416, IOL Tib J 426, IOL Tib J 427, and IOL Tib J 432.
The present text (Toh 916), and all those contained in the same volume (gzungs ’dus, 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 present volume, 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.
In the Toh 526 version of the text there is a slight discrepancy in the folio numbering between the 1737 par phud printings and the late (post par phud) printings of the Degé Kangyur. Although the discrepancy is irrelevant here, further details concerning this may be found in n.5 of the Toh 526 version of this text.
In the Toh 526 version of the text there is a slight discrepancy in the folio numbering between the 1737 par phud printings and the late (post par phud) printings of the Degé Kangyur. Although the discrepancy is irrelevant here, further details concerning this may be found in n.5 of the Toh 526 version of this text.
Two sets of folio references have been included in this translation due to a discrepancy in volume 88 (rgyud ’bum, na) of the Degé Kangyur between the 1737 par phud printings and the late (post par phud) printings. In the latter case, an extra work, Bodhimaṇḍasyālaṃkāralakṣadhāraṇī (Toh 508, byang chub snying po’i rgyan ’bum gyi gzungs), was added as the second text in the volume, thereby displacing the pagination of all the following texts in the same volume by 17 folios. Since the eKangyur follows the later printing, both references have been provided, with the highlighted one linking to the eKangyur viewer.
In the Skt. edition we find oṁ namo buddhāya (“oṁ homage to the Buddha”), while S, PT, NT, and HT read sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad la phyag ’tshal lo (“Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas”). According to the instructions regarding Tripiṭaka translations decreed to the translators by the king Tri Ralpachen, a translators’ homage made to Mañjuśrī was supposed to be a mark of Abhidharma texts, while homage to the Buddha and homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas were deemed appropriate for Vinaya and Sūtra texts, respectively.
We have followed the Tib. reading. The Skt. reads “decorated with various jewels, among which the seven kinds of jewels were arranged.” For the critically edited Skt. text, see Mimaki 1977b, p. 10.
We follow the Tib. ’gro ba thams cad la phan pa dang bde ba’i phyir. The Skt. reads sarvajagaddhitārthaṃ (“for the benefit of the whole world”).
Translated based on the Skt. saṃsāre saṃsarato and S, PT ’khor ba na ’khor ba’i tshe. All witnesses in A have ’khor ba nas ’khor ba’i skye gnas gzhan dag tu (“from saṃsāra to other saṃsāric rebirths”).
The sūtra versions in D (Toh 141) and N, K, H, and C all read yongs su shes par byed par spyod par gyur cig, whereas the tantra and dhāraṇī versions in D (Toh 526 and 916) and the other Kangyurs read simply yongs su spyod par gyur cig. The extant Sanskrit versions do not include any equivalent to the phrase yongs su shes par byed par (“to bring about thorough understanding”).
PT 77 adds las kyi sgribs pa and S adds las kyi sgrib pa (“karmic obscurations”). The phrase in the Skt. is pāpakarmākuśalamūlaṃ karmāvaraṇaṃ (“misdeeds, roots of nonvirtue, karmic obscurations”).
The Skt. reads me mārakarmāṇi. All witnesses included in A have bdag gis bdud kyi las gang ci byas pa de yongs su shes pas, except for NT and HT. NT, HT, and S read bdag la bdud kyi las gang dag yod pa de dag yongs su shes pas. Although versions of this phrase could be interpreted as speaking of one’s own “demonic actions,” the commentary attributed to Vasubandhu suggests that the obstacle to be overcome here is rather actions done to one (and influences exerted on one) by others. However, Tāranātha’s commentary (p. 355), while confirming that for experienced practitioners “demonic actions” may be interpreted as applying mainly to others, lists them as including such things as procrastination, laziness, rowdiness, belittling others’ virtuous actions, disliking perfections, slandering bodhisattvas, favoring false views, getting distracted while in meditation, turning away from and diminishing virtuous actions, and having incompatible attitudes after engaging in them—all tendencies that less-than-perfect practitioners could potentially interpret as applying to themselves.
The Sanskrit text reads sarvasattvānām (“for all sentient beings”) and omits the equivalent for “fruit.” NT, S, and PT omit thams cad (“all”).
PT 77 reads gang bdag gi rnam par grol ba de sems can thams cad kyi rnam par grol bar ’gyur cig (“may my liberation be the liberation of all sentient beings”). It is closer to the Skt. yā ca me vimuktiḥ sā bhavatu sarvasattvavimokṣāya (“may my liberation be for the liberation of all sentient beings”).
Most of the versions in the Sūtra sections of Tshalpa Kangyurs do not specify that this aspiration to remain neither in saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa is made for oneself, but here we have followed K and Y in the Sūtra section, all witnesses in A for Toh 916 and Toh 526, and S and PT 415, which read ’khor ba dang mya ngan las ’das pa la bdag gnas par ma gyur cig. The Skt. has mā ca me bhūt saṃsāre nirvāṇe pratiṣṭhitatā, with the same meaning.
Following Skt. and PT; D and other Kangyurs read sarvārthapraśamane, which would mean “O remover of everything that is valuable.”
Following the Skt. which has kṣipram (“swiftly”), translated in S, NT, HT, and PT as myur du.
The Skt. reads, “If anyone, son or daughter of a good family, recites this dhāraṇī of the six gates three times each night and three times each day, then, having abandoned all karma, they will quickly reach the supreme state of perfect awakening.” For the critically edited Skt. text, see Mimaki 1977b, p. 10.
Instead of “assembly of bodhisattvas,” the Skt. reads bodhisattvā mahāsattvā, and S, NT, HT, and PT 415 read byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po (“bodhisattvas mahāsattvas”).
This passage is missing in the Sanskrit. In PT 415, S, D (Toh 916), and D (Toh 526) following “the assembly of bodhisattvas,” it instead reads gnas gtsang ma’i ris kyi lha’i bu de dag (“the gods of Śuddhāvāsa”).
The Skt. reads, “When the delighted Bhagavān had thus spoken, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas rejoiced in what the Blessed One had taught.” For the critically edited Skt. text, see Mimaki 1977b, p. 10. Commentators and translators have disagreed over whether the adjective ravi (“delighted”) here applies to the Bhagavān, to the bodhisattvas (as in the Chinese translations), or to both (as in the Tibetan translations that have dgyes for the Bhagavān and yi (d) rang (s) for the assembly). On this delicate issue, see Mimaki 1977b, p. 13, n. 9.
“May there be benefit for all beings.” Only D (Toh 141) has this and the following auspicious sayings in Sanskrit.
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).
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.
An action that is either done by the god-demon Māra (the personification of evil) himself; or by beings belonging to the class of demons; or by humans either (literally) under demonic influence or (figuratively) under the influence of whatever distractions, obstacles, and afflictions act as an impediment to liberation.
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.
A verbal formula or phrase that can serve a variety of purposes depending on the genre of text. It often refers to a magical incantation for attaining mundane or supramundane goals.
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.”
Obstructions due to past actions.
Mañjuśrī is one of the “eight close sons of the Buddha” and a bodhisattva who embodies wisdom. He is a major figure in the Mahāyāna sūtras, appearing often as an interlocutor of the Buddha. In his most well-known iconographic form, he is portrayed bearing the sword of wisdom in his right hand and a volume of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in his left. To his name, Mañjuśrī, meaning “Gentle and Glorious One,” is often added the epithet Kumārabhūta, “having a youthful form.” He is also called Mañjughoṣa, Mañjusvara, and Pañcaśikha.
Final liberation from suffering. The Sanskrit literally means “extinguishment” and the Tibetan “the transcendence of suffering.”
Typically refers to the practices of the bodhisattvas, which are embraced with knowledge. The six perfections are generosity, discipline, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom.
Usually referring to the ten unwholesome actions, which are taking life, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, lying, sowing discord, harsh speech, worthless chatter, covetousness, wishing harm on others, and wrong views.
Wholesome actions that are conducive to happiness.
The cyclic existence in which beings are confined to suffering and unsatisfactoriness.
The set of seven precious materials or substances includes a range of precious metals and gems, but their exact list varies. The set often consists of gold, silver, beryl, crystal, red pearls, emeralds, and white coral, but may also contain lapis lazuli, ruby, sapphire, chrysoberyl, diamonds, etc. The term is frequently used in the sūtras to exemplify preciousness, wealth, and beauty, and can describe treasures, offering materials, or the features of architectural structures such as stūpas, palaces, thrones, etc. The set is also used to describe the beauty and prosperity of buddha realms and the realms of the gods.
In other contexts, the term saptaratna can also refer to the seven precious possessions of a cakravartin or to a set of seven precious moral qualities.
Name for the five highest levels of existence within the form realm.
A general term that may here imply not just understanding or knowledge but realization or even awakening.
sgo drug pa’i gzungs (Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī). Toh 141, Degé Kangyur vol. 56 (mdo sde, na), folios 299.a–300.a.
sgo drug pa’i gzungs (Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī). Toh 526, Degé Kangyur vol. 88 (rgyud, na), folios 54.a–54.b (in par phud printings).
sgo drug pa’i gzungs (Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī). Toh 916, Degé Kangyur vol. 100 (gzungs, e), folios 260.b–261.a.
sgo drug pa’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. 56, pp. 826–29; vol. 88, pp. 227–30; vol. 97, pp. 775–78.
sgo drug pa’i gzungs. Stok Palace Kangyur vol. 102 (rgyud, da), folios 60.a–61.a.
Pelliot tibétain 77, section 2. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Accessed through The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online.
Pelliot tibétain 415, section 1. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Accessed through The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online.
Mimaki, Katsumi (1977b). “La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou ‘Incantation des SIX PORTES,’ texte attribué aux Sautrāntika (II).” Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies 23 (1977): 9–13.
Vasubandhu. sgo drug pa’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa (Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇīvyākhyāna). Toh 3989, Degé Tengyur vol. 113 (mdo ’grel, ngi), folios 64.b–66.a.
Vasubandhu. sgo drug pa’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa. bstan ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Tengyur], krung go’i bod kyi shes rig zhib ’jug lte gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 120 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa’i dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 1994–2008, vol. 37, pp. 3–7.
Jñānadatta (ye shes byin). ’phags pa sgo drug pa’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa rgya cher ’grel pa. IOL Tib J 430, section 1. British Library, London. Accessed through The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online.
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.
Tāranātha. ’phags pa sgo drug pa’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa. In gsung ’bum/ tA ra nA tha (dpe bsdur ma), vol. 35 (77) pp. 350–362. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008.
Xuanzang, trans. Liu men tuoluoni jing 六門陀羅尼經, Taishō 1360.
Vasubandhu. Liu men tuoluoni jing lun 六門陀羅尼經論, Taishō 1361.
Buddhavacana Translation Group, trans. The Sūtra on Dependent Arising (Pratītyasamutpādasūtra, Toh 212). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2016.
Dalton, Jacob, and Sam Van Schaik. Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Stein Collection at the British Library. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Halkias, Georgios. “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of ’Phang Thang.” The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1–2 (2004): 46–105.
Hidas, Gergely. “Dhāraṇī Sūtras.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, edited by Jonathan Silk et al., vol. 1, Literature and Languages, 129–37. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Mimaki, Katsumi (1977a). “La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou ‘Incantation des SIX PORTES,’ texte attribué aux Sautrāntika (I).” Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies 23 (1977): 965–72.
Mimaki, Katsumi (1977b). “La Ṣaṇmukhī-dhāraṇī ou ‘Incantation des SIX PORTES,’ texte attribué aux Sautrāntika (II).” Report of the Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies 23 (1977): 9–13.
Obermiller, Eugéne, trans. and ed. History of Buddhism (Chos ḥbyung) by Bu-ston. Vol. 2, The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet. Materialien zur Kunde des Buddhismus 19. Heidelberg: O. Harrassowitz, 1932.
Sánchez, Pedro M. C. “The Indian Buddhist Dhāraṇī: An Introduction to its History, Meanings and Functions.” MA diss., University of Sunderland, 2011.
Yoshimura, Shyuki. The Denkar-Ma: An Oldest Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. Kyoto: Ryukoku University, 1950.
A Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) of the Kangyur
D (Toh 141) Degé (sde dge) Kangyur—Sūtra section
D (Toh 526) Degé (sde dge) Kangyur—Tantra section
D (Toh 916) Degé (sde dge) Kangyur—Dhāraṇī section
HT Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur—Tantra section
K Peking (pe cin) Kangxi Kangyur
NT Narthang (snar thang) Kangyur—Tantra section
PT Pelliot tibétain (numbers denote specific texts in collection)
S Stok Palace (stog pho brang) Manuscript Kangyur
Skt. Mimaki’s Sanskrit edition (1977)
Toh Degé (sde dge) Kangyur (numbers denote specific texts in collection)
Y Peking Yongle (g.yung lo) Kangyur
While the Buddha is abiding in the space above the Śuddhāvāsa realm with a retinue of bodhisattvas, he urges them to uphold The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates and presents these gates as six aspirations that vanquish the causes of saṃsāric experience. He then presents the dhāraṇī itself to his listeners and instructs them to recite it three times each day and three times each night. Finally, he indicates the benefits that come from this practice, and the assembly praises the Buddha’s words. This is followed by a short dedication marking the conclusion of the text.
Giuliano Proença and Leticia Osorio produced and revised the translation. Joaquim Monteiro provided comparisons with the Chinese versions of the consulted texts and gave valuable references throughout the translation process. Giuliano Proença wrote the introduction and other ancillary elements while Leticia Osorio revised them.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates is a short text that consists mainly of a dhāraṇī taught by the Buddha to an assembly of bodhisattvas. According to Pedro Sánchez, this style of dhāraṇī appeared between the third and eighth centuries
One of its commentaries, the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇīvyākhyāna (Toh 3989), appears in the Tengyur and is attributed to Vasubandhu (fourth to fifth century); its Chinese translation is in the Taishō. Its subcommentary (IOL Tib J 430) written by Jñānadatta has been preserved only in Tibetan and Chinese among the Dunhuang manuscripts. According to the colophon of the Dunhuang texts, these Indian commentaries were translated into Tibetan by the Indian paṇḍitas Dharmapāla and Prajñāvarman and the Tibetan translator-monk Yeshé Dé.
There are four known Tibetan commentaries on the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī composed by the renowned scholars Butön Rinchen Drup (1290–1364), Jonang Tāranātha (1575–1634), the seventh Dalai Lama (1708–57), and the Geluk scholar Ngülchu Dharmabhadra (1772–1851). The Phangthangma, one of the imperial catalogs of translated works, also mentions two sādhanas related to the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī, which we could not locate. There are available, however, some relatively modern recitation texts related to this dhāraṇī composed by Ngawang Khedrup (1779–1838) and Losang Tsültrim Gyatso (1845–1915).
It is not known who translated The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates into Tibetan. Neither the colophons, the Denkarma and Phangthangma imperial catalogs, nor Tibetan historical works mention the translators. The inclusion of our text in the Denkarma catalog, dated to ca. 812 ᴄᴇ, confirms that the translation was made by the early ninth century at the latest. It seems likely that this dhāraṇī was translated from an Indian original since, according to the Phangthangma catalog, it was not among the dhāraṇīs that were translated from Chinese.
Texts that include dhāraṇīs, as well as those referred to as dhāraṇīs by their titles, are widespread in the Mahāyāna sūtra literature as well as featuring in the tantras. Gergely Hidas, for example, notes that dhāraṇī scriptures have been assigned both to sūtra and tantra categories in Buddhist canonical collections and that their classification is “sometimes controversial within Tibetan and Chinese textual systems.” In this regard, it is interesting to note that three almost identical versions of the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī are assigned to the Sūtra, Tantra, and Dhāraṇī sections of the Kangyurs of the Tshalpa group. In the Thempangma Kangyurs, such as the Stok Palace Kangyur, it is included exclusively in the Tantra section. In the Lhasa and Narthang Kangyurs, we find almost identical versions of The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates in both the Sūtra and Tantra sections. Our text is also found among the Dunhuang manuscripts. All versions are roughly the same length. There were probably different sources for the Tibetan translations that were found in Dunhuang: Pelliot tibétain 415 is almost identical to the Thempangma versions, while Pelliot tibétain 77 is in some cases closer to the Tshalpa versions.
Fortunately, there are a few extant Sanskrit manuscripts of The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates. Mimaki (1977b) prepared a critical edition based on these manuscripts and prepared a critical edition of the Tibetan based on various canonical translations. The Tibetan versions seem to be quite accurate translations of the Sanskrit text, although there are minor differences between them. It is noteworthy that the versions of the Thempangma Kangyur group, like that of the Stok Palace, and Pelliot tibétain 415 are closer to the extant Sanskrit version than versions from the Tshalpa Kangyur group. The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates was translated into Chinese by the great translator Xuanzang in 645
In addition to his critical editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the text, Mimaki (1977a) offers a French translation. Mimaki also examines references to The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates in later treatises and its possible affiliation to the Sautrāntika school. He lists the extant Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese manuscripts of the text, as well as the Tibetan editions and the commentaries. He also compares his Sanskrit edition with the Tibetan and with the Chinese canonical versions. Mimaki’s research proved invaluable for preparing our own translation.
We have based our translation mainly on the Tibetan text as found in the Sūtra section of the Degé Kangyur (Toh 141), but consulted the other versions found in the Action Tantra and Dhāraṇī sections to clarify ambiguous passages (Toh 526 and Toh 916, respectively). Whenever our main source text diverged from the Sanskrit, we compared the passage in question with other Tibetan translations, including the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and Stok Palace versions, and the two complete Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang, and we recorded variant readings in the notes. Moreover, in cases where both the Tibetan and Sanskrit texts allowed for different readings, we consulted the Indian commentaries on The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates for clarification.
As suggested by its title, The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates consists in an account of the six gates, which are presented as a series of six aspiration prayers, followed by the presentation of the dhāraṇī itself. The goal of the dhāraṇī is to transcend worldly suffering by eradicating the causes of saṃsāric experience.
The text begins with the Buddha advising his audience of innumerable bodhisattvas to uphold The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates for the good of the entire world. He then utters the six aspirations, which can be summarized as recognizing one’s own sufferings as no different from those of all beings in saṃsāra, using worldly happiness for the benefit of others as well as oneself, purifying one’s misdeeds through confession, understanding demonic actions, developing virtue through supreme knowledge, and liberating all beings from saṃsāra.
He finally instructs the assembly to recite the dhāraṇī three times each day and three times each night and then highlights the benefits that derive from this practice, including the ultimate benefit of attaining spiritual awakening. The text concludes with the assembly praising the Buddha’s teaching. This is followed by a short dedication marking the conclusion of the text. In one Tibetan canonical version (Toh 141), two auspicious sayings in Sanskrit and the “Verse on Dependent Arising” (Pratītyasamutpādagāthā) appear after the dedication.
While the Buddha is abiding in the space above the Śuddhāvāsa realm with a retinue of bodhisattvas, he urges them to uphold The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates and presents these gates as six aspirations that vanquish the causes of saṃsāric experience. He then presents the dhāraṇī itself to his listeners and instructs them to recite it three times each day and three times each night. Finally, he indicates the benefits that come from this practice, and the assembly praises the Buddha’s words. This is followed by a short dedication marking the conclusion of the text.
Giuliano Proença and Leticia Osorio produced and revised the translation. Joaquim Monteiro provided comparisons with the Chinese versions of the consulted texts and gave valuable references throughout the translation process. Giuliano Proença wrote the introduction and other ancillary elements while Leticia Osorio revised them.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates is a short text that consists mainly of a dhāraṇī taught by the Buddha to an assembly of bodhisattvas. According to Pedro Sánchez, this style of dhāraṇī appeared between the third and eighth centuries
One of its commentaries, the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇīvyākhyāna (Toh 3989), appears in the Tengyur and is attributed to Vasubandhu (fourth to fifth century); its Chinese translation is in the Taishō. Its subcommentary (IOL Tib J 430) written by Jñānadatta has been preserved only in Tibetan and Chinese among the Dunhuang manuscripts. According to the colophon of the Dunhuang texts, these Indian commentaries were translated into Tibetan by the Indian paṇḍitas Dharmapāla and Prajñāvarman and the Tibetan translator-monk Yeshé Dé.
There are four known Tibetan commentaries on the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī composed by the renowned scholars Butön Rinchen Drup (1290–1364), Jonang Tāranātha (1575–1634), the seventh Dalai Lama (1708–57), and the Geluk scholar Ngülchu Dharmabhadra (1772–1851). The Phangthangma, one of the imperial catalogs of translated works, also mentions two sādhanas related to the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī, which we could not locate. There are available, however, some relatively modern recitation texts related to this dhāraṇī composed by Ngawang Khedrup (1779–1838) and Losang Tsültrim Gyatso (1845–1915).
It is not known who translated The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates into Tibetan. Neither the colophons, the Denkarma and Phangthangma imperial catalogs, nor Tibetan historical works mention the translators. The inclusion of our text in the Denkarma catalog, dated to ca. 812 ᴄᴇ, confirms that the translation was made by the early ninth century at the latest. It seems likely that this dhāraṇī was translated from an Indian original since, according to the Phangthangma catalog, it was not among the dhāraṇīs that were translated from Chinese.
Texts that include dhāraṇīs, as well as those referred to as dhāraṇīs by their titles, are widespread in the Mahāyāna sūtra literature as well as featuring in the tantras. Gergely Hidas, for example, notes that dhāraṇī scriptures have been assigned both to sūtra and tantra categories in Buddhist canonical collections and that their classification is “sometimes controversial within Tibetan and Chinese textual systems.” In this regard, it is interesting to note that three almost identical versions of the Ṣaṇmukhīdhāraṇī are assigned to the Sūtra, Tantra, and Dhāraṇī sections of the Kangyurs of the Tshalpa group. In the Thempangma Kangyurs, such as the Stok Palace Kangyur, it is included exclusively in the Tantra section. In the Lhasa and Narthang Kangyurs, we find almost identical versions of The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates in both the Sūtra and Tantra sections. Our text is also found among the Dunhuang manuscripts. All versions are roughly the same length. There were probably different sources for the Tibetan translations that were found in Dunhuang: Pelliot tibétain 415 is almost identical to the Thempangma versions, while Pelliot tibétain 77 is in some cases closer to the Tshalpa versions.
Fortunately, there are a few extant Sanskrit manuscripts of The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates. Mimaki (1977b) prepared a critical edition based on these manuscripts and prepared a critical edition of the Tibetan based on various canonical translations. The Tibetan versions seem to be quite accurate translations of the Sanskrit text, although there are minor differences between them. It is noteworthy that the versions of the Thempangma Kangyur group, like that of the Stok Palace, and Pelliot tibétain 415 are closer to the extant Sanskrit version than versions from the Tshalpa Kangyur group. The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates was translated into Chinese by the great translator Xuanzang in 645
In addition to his critical editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the text, Mimaki (1977a) offers a French translation. Mimaki also examines references to The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates in later treatises and its possible affiliation to the Sautrāntika school. He lists the extant Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese manuscripts of the text, as well as the Tibetan editions and the commentaries. He also compares his Sanskrit edition with the Tibetan and with the Chinese canonical versions. Mimaki’s research proved invaluable for preparing our own translation.
We have based our translation mainly on the Tibetan text as found in the Sūtra section of the Degé Kangyur (Toh 141), but consulted the other versions found in the Action Tantra and Dhāraṇī sections to clarify ambiguous passages (Toh 526 and Toh 916, respectively). Whenever our main source text diverged from the Sanskrit, we compared the passage in question with other Tibetan translations, including the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and Stok Palace versions, and the two complete Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang, and we recorded variant readings in the notes. Moreover, in cases where both the Tibetan and Sanskrit texts allowed for different readings, we consulted the Indian commentaries on The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates for clarification.
As suggested by its title, The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates consists in an account of the six gates, which are presented as a series of six aspiration prayers, followed by the presentation of the dhāraṇī itself. The goal of the dhāraṇī is to transcend worldly suffering by eradicating the causes of saṃsāric experience.
The text begins with the Buddha advising his audience of innumerable bodhisattvas to uphold The Dhāraṇī of the Six Gates for the good of the entire world. He then utters the six aspirations, which can be summarized as recognizing one’s own sufferings as no different from those of all beings in saṃsāra, using worldly happiness for the benefit of others as well as oneself, purifying one’s misdeeds through confession, understanding demonic actions, developing virtue through supreme knowledge, and liberating all beings from saṃsāra.
He finally instructs the assembly to recite the dhāraṇī three times each day and three times each night and then highlights the benefits that derive from this practice, including the ultimate benefit of attaining spiritual awakening. The text concludes with the assembly praising the Buddha’s teaching. This is followed by a short dedication marking the conclusion of the text. In one Tibetan canonical version (Toh 141), two auspicious sayings in Sanskrit and the “Verse on Dependent Arising” (Pratītyasamutpādagāthā) appear after the dedication.