Loading translation...
The four texts are Toh 594, 595, 596 (the present text), and 598. The first three share the same title: Crown Victory of All Tathāgatas: The Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī with Its Ritual Manual (de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa). The fourth has an ever-so-slightly different title: Crown Victory of All Tathāgatas: A Ritual Manual for the Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī (de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ma’i gzungs zhe bya ba’i rtog pa).
Hidas 2020, p. 141. See also Hidas 2021b, which catalogs a number of Indic dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collections, many of which include the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī.
The surviving Sanskrit work seems, more properly, to be titled the Sarvagati (rather than Sarvadurgati)-pariśodhana-uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī, but either way the title provides evidence of the relationship between the Uṣṇīṣavijayā and Sarvadurgatipariśodhana corpuses. For more on this relationship see J. Dalton 2016 and forthcoming. The point here, however, is simply that Toh 597 is titled the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī rather than the Uṣṇīṣāvijayā- “dhāraṇī with its ritual manual” (kalpasahitā).
The Sanskrit of this work is preserved in what Gregory Schopen calls the “Los Angeles Manuscript,” though it appears to be held currently in Japan. This is an early manuscript from Bamiyan-Gilgit that Schopen transcribed and translated into English in an unpublished work, which we are grateful to Jacob Dalton for sharing. In addition to being incomplete, probably due to the loss of a folio, the manuscript lacks several passages that are found in the Tibetan translation of Toh 597 and contains a few passages that are absent in that translation, including two passages that are found in Toh 594. Nonetheless, the Sanskrit manuscript is by and large the same work that is translated into Tibetan as Toh 597. More recently, the Sanskrit of the very same manuscript was studied by Gudrun Meltzer in a 2007 “limited distribution report” (Silk 2021, p. 108), to which we have not had access, as well as by Unebe Toshiya, who published the Sanskrit along with a Japanese translation in a 2015 article.
This text has been edited on the basis of ten Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and translated into English in Hidas 2020. From among the works belonging to this group that are preserved in the Tibetan canon, the Sanskrit text is most closely parallel, though not identical, with Toh 595.
The first translation is Taishō 967, followed by Taishō 968–971 and Taishō 974 (Chou 1945, p. 322).
According to Chou, the ritual manuals surviving in Chinese are Taishō 972–973 (Chou 1945, p. 322). Hidas 2020 notes that the full set of Uṣṇīṣavijayā-related texts found in the Taishō canon includes Taishō 968–974, 978, and 979.
Hidas mentions that Taishō 978 “stands closest to the Nepalese tradition” of the Sanskrit work that he has edited, which is also how he describes the relationship between the Sanskrit work and Toh 595 (Hidas 2020, p. 156n6–7). A comparison of Toh 595 and Taishō 978 shows that while neither exactly matches the Sanskrit text that Hidas edited, the Tibetan and Chinese are indeed translations of the same Sanskrit work and contain identical material apart from the Chinese translation’s inclusion of a single, very short passage about a toothbrush that is absent in the Tibetan translation (but present in some of the other uṣṇīṣavijayā texts in the Tibetan canon).
Sørensen 2011b, p. 386. See also Silk 2021 for further mention of the uses of the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī, often alongside the Heart Sūtra, in China.
Copp 2005, p. 4. For further details see Copp 2005, which addresses the topic of dhāraṇīs in medieval China using the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī as a case study.
See IOL Tib J 307/PT 54, PT 6, and PT 368 for Tibetan translations of the work, IOL TIB J 322 and IOL Tib J 349/3 for a Tibetan translation of the dhāraṇī alone (not the whole text), and IOL Tib J 466/2, IOL Tib J 547, IOL Tib J 1134, IOL Tib J 1498, PT72, and PT73 for Tibetan transliterations of the Sanskrit dhāraṇī alone (J. Dalton and van Schaik 2006; accessed through The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online). The translations of the primary uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text (Toh 597) appearing at Dunhuang include at least one passage parallel with rites described in our text but missing from the primary text in its Tibetan canonical translation, though present in the surviving Sanskrit manuscript corresponding to Toh 597 studied by Schopen (see J. Dalton forthcoming; Schopen unpublished).
The three are Toh 3377, 3248, and 3580, translated respectively by Khampa Lotsāwa Bari Chödrak (khams pa lo tsA ba ba ri chos grags, 1040–11, possibly the translator of the present text, see i.10 below); Patshap Lotsāwa Tsültrim Gyaltsen (pa tshab lo tsA ba tshul khrims rgyal mtshan, twelfth century); and Yarlung Lotsāwa Trakpa Gyaltsen (yar klungs lo tsA ba grags pa rgyal mtshan, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century).
These Southeast Asian texts are not included in the official Pali Canon of the Theravāda tradition and are unknown in Sri Lanka. In mainland Southeast Asia, however, they are popular in rituals for extending life and in funeral rites. Whether they reflect the diffusion of texts and practices directly from India prior to the relatively recent evolution of Theravāda orthodoxy, or were transmitted via Chinese along with Chinese migrations and cultural influence in the region, remains an open question. For a detailed study of these texts and their possible origins, see Cicuzza (ed.) 2018.
Phangthangma (2003), p. 23. While the phrase cho ga dang bcas pa (Skt. vidhisahitā) is functionally equivalent to the phrase rtog pa dang bcas pa (Skt. kalpasahitā), we unfortunately have no way of knowing whether this text was or resembled the primary uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text (Toh 597) with a ritual manual attached to it, or if it resembled the present text or any of the other works in the modern canons titled Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī-kalpasahitā (i.e., Toh 594 or 595); Toh 596 is too short to correspond with the text identified in the Phangthangma as having 120 ślokas, and Toh 598 is an unlikely candidate because, while it shares the opening narrative with the other texts in this set, it seems to represent a separate, and later, ritual system. The Phangthangma also lists what may be a copy of the dhāraṇī alone, outside of the framework of a sūtra (Phangthangma, p. 31). The other imperial catalog, the Denkarma, lists only the primary uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text, identified clearly as the text included in the later canons as Toh 597 by its full title in that catalog: the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana-uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī (Lalou 1953, p. 327).
Unlike many dhāraṇī texts (including Toh 597), which tend to appear both in the Tantra Collection and the Dhāraṇī Collection sections of the Kangyurs, the texts in the genre of dhāraṇī-kalpas seem to appear exclusively in the Tantra Collection section of the Kangyurs.
The text is F 631, Phukdrak Kangyur, vol. 117 (rgyud, dza), F.224.a–231.a. It should be noted, however, that the version of the dhāraṇī preserved in F 631 differs from the dhāraṇī in the present text much more substantially than any of the versions in the mainstream Kangyurs.
Probably Sumpa Lotsāwa Dharma Yontan (sum pa lo tsA ba dhar ma yon tan), a translator and teacher of Sakya Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen, but possibly his uncle, also called Sumpa Lotsāwa, Palchok Dangpö Dorje (dpal mchog dang po’i rdor rje). Both studied in Nepal. See Treasury of Lives.
The title of this text and the first part, through the presentation of the dhāraṇī, are closely parallel with the opening passages of Toh 594 and Toh 595. However, this version of the opening passage seems to have been edited and gives smoother readings in some places, and very much less smooth and even slightly different readings in other places. It is also parallel with the opening narrative of Toh 598, which has significantly improved the difficult readings.
chos yang dag par sdud pa’i phug khang bzangs mchog. The Sanskrit in the closely parallel text edited by Hidas reads dharmasaṃgītimahāguhyaprāsāde (Hidas 2020, p. 152). The Tibetan phrase is awkward, and it seems that there may have been some textual corruption. What has been rendered in Tibetan as phug seems to be guhya in the Sanskrit parallel; perhaps the Tibetan translators were reading guhā—which does translate to phug—rather than guhya. Although we cannot be sure that the surviving Sanskrit witnesses represent the older reading, they provide a more coherent reading than the one in our Tibetan witnesses, so we have translated this word following the Sanskrit, rather than the Tibetan witness.
The text here is corrupt and appears to have transmitted a line slip, where a line from slightly lower in the text made its way incongruously to a place where it does not belong, rendering this sentence difficult to parse. While the passage as it reads here, unlike the parallel passage in Toh 594 and Toh 595, shows evidence of having been edited to improve some readings, the text remains problematic. The parallel passage in both the Sanskrit text and Toh 598 lack this line slip error, confirming that it is a textual corruption. We have relied upon Hidas’ Sanskrit edition to repair the Tibetan text here. The Tibetan reads de rnams kyi phyir sems can thams cad la kun du gzigs pa’i mtshan gyi dpal de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs ’di nyid ’cang ba dang / klogs pa dang / gzhan la rgya cher yang dag par bstan pa’i phyir yun ring por gnas par sgrub pa’i ched du . . . The passage in bold has been incongruously lifted from its proper place several lines down in the text and added here. The phrase sems can thams cad la in our text is absent in all the parallel passages in both Sanskrit and Tibetan and may have been added here by editors in order to render the passage more sensible. Once the line slip has been corrected, however, that phrase no longer makes sense, so we have not translated it. The Sanskrit passage lacks the line slip error but also includes several additional words absent in the Tibetan. However, as the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts are not identical in other places in this parallel passage either, and since the Tibetan text makes perfect sense without these additional elements, we have not taken the liberty of adding them in the English translation. The Sanskrit passage, in Hidas’ edition (with the elements absent in the Tibetan text indicated in bold), reads teṣāṃ arthāya hitāya sukhāya imāṃ sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣavijayā-nāma-dhāraṇīṃ dhārayed vācayed deśayet paryavāpnuyāt parebhyaś ca vistareṇa samprakāśayet | dīrghāyuṣkāṇām upādāyeti (Hidas 2020, p. 152). The passage in Toh 598 reads de rnams kyi don du tshe ring bar nye bar bsgrub par bya ba’i phyir/ de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ma zhes bya ba’i gzungs ’di gzung bar bya/ gzhan la rgya cher yang dag par bstan par bya’o.
Hidas’s edition of the Sanskrit reads sarvatathāgatamātre, a plausible variant unattested in Tibetan sources.
This repetition of vijayagarbhe is absent in the Choné, Kangxi, Lhasa, Narthang, Stok Palace, and Yongle versions of Toh 596. It is also absent in the uṣṇīṣavijaya dhāraṇīs reported in Toh 594, 595, 597, 598, and 984, as well as Hidas’ Sanskrit edition. It is likely that this repetition in the Degé version is the result of scribal error.
There is some variation in this phrase across the Tibetan and Sanskrit sources. Toh 594, 597, and this text read sadā me; Toh 595, 598, and Toh 984 read me sadā; and Hidas’ Sanskrit edition has mama sadā. The meaning is the same in all cases.
The Lhasa and Narthang versions of this text include the line sarvatathāgatasamayādhiṣthānādhiṣṭhite here. The Degé version of Toh 597 includes the phrase samantān mocaya mocaya ādhiṣṭhāna, though it is absent in other canonical recensions of the same translation. Hidas’s Sanskrit edition includes sarvatathāgatahṛdayādhiṣṭhānādhiṣṭhite at this point.
Hidas has translated the dhāraṇī based on his edition, and rather than retranslate it, we give his translation here. Substantive variants between the Sanskrit basis for his translation and the Degé have been noted above. “Oṁ veneration to the glorious Buddha distinguished in all the Three Worlds. Namely, oṁ bhrūṃ bhrūṃ bhrūṃ, purge, purge, purify, purify, O Unequalled Enveloping Splendor Sparkle Destiny Sky, O the One of Purified Nature, O the One Purified by the Topknot Victory, let all Tathāgatas consecrate me with consecrations of the nectar of the excellent Sugata’s words along with great seals and mantrapadas, oṁ bring, bring, O the One who Nourishes Life, purge, purge, purify, purify, O the One Purified by Sky Nature, O the One Purified by the Topknot Victory, O the One Impelled by Thousand Rays, O the One Beholding all Tathāgatas, O the One Fulfilling the Six Perfections, O Mother of all Tathāgatas, O the One Established in the Ten Stages, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Heart of all Tathāgatas, oṁ O Seal, O Seal, O Great Seal, O the One Purified by the Firmness of the Vajra Body, O the One Purged of all Obscurations Resulting from Actions, turn back for me O Life-purged One, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Vow of all Tathāgatas, oṁ muni muni, mahāmuni, vimuni vimuni, mahāvimuni, mati mati, mahāmati, mamati, sumati, O the One Purified by Truth and the True Goal, O the One Purged by a Burst Open Mind, oṁ he he, triumph triumph, succeed succeed, recollect recollect, manifest manifest, expand expand, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of all Buddhas, oṁ O Pure One, O Pure One, O Awakened One, O Awakened One, O Vajra, O Vajra, O Great Vajra, O Vajra-essence, O Victory-essence, O Triumph-essence, O Vajra-flame-essence, O Vajra-born, O Vajra-produced, O Vajra, O the One with a Vajra, let my body become a vajra and that of all beings, let there be body-purification for me and purification of all destinies, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Heart of all Tathāgatas, let all Tathāgatas provide encouragement, oṁ awake awake, succeed succeed, awaken awaken, wake up, wake up, liberate liberate, release release, purge purge, purify purify, liberate completely, O the One Purified by an Enveloping Ray, O the One Empowered by the Empowerment of the Heart of all Tathāgatas, oṁ O Seal O Seal, O Great Seal, O Great Seal and Mantrapada svāhā” (Hidas 2020, p. 154).
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 \1\2The 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 \1\2The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1) Toh 674, i.9.
The buddha residing in the western buddha realm of Sukhāvatī. He is sometimes known as Amitābha. More commonly translated into Tibetan as tshe dpag med.
One of the “eight close sons of the Buddha,” he is also known as the bodhisattva who embodies compassion. In certain tantras, he is also the lord of the three families, where he embodies the compassion of the buddhas. In Tibet, he attained great significance as a special protector of Tibet, and in China, in female form, as Guanyin, the most important bodhisattva in all of East Asia.
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”).
The highest caste in traditional Indian society.
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.
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.
A secret palace in Sukhāvatī.
This can refer either to the sal (or sala) tree (Shorea robusta) or to a great (mahā) household (śāla). The Buddha was said to have been born and died beneath a sāla tree.
Not one of the normal four “castes” of Indian society, but presumably here a term referring to nonmonastics.
A ritual manual.
The ruling caste in the traditional four-caste hierarchy of India, associated with warriors, the aristocracy, and kings.
Lower rebirths within cyclic existence.
In a general sense, samādhi can describe a number of different meditative states. In the Mahāyāna literature, in particular in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, we find extensive lists of different samādhis, numbering over one hundred.
In a more restricted sense, and when understood as a mental state, samādhi is defined as the one-pointedness of the mind (cittaikāgratā), the ability to remain on the same object over long periods of time. The Drajor Bamponyipa (sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa) commentary on the Mahāvyutpatti explains the term samādhi as referring to the instrument through which mind and mental states “get collected,” i.e., it is by the force of samādhi that the continuum of mind and mental states becomes collected on a single point of reference without getting distracted.
Amitāyus’ pure realm.
A frequently used synonym for buddha. According to different explanations, it can be read as tathā-gata, literally meaning “one who has thus gone,” or as tathā-āgata, “one who has thus come.” Gata, though literally meaning “gone,” is a past passive participle used to describe a state or condition of existence. Tatha(tā), often rendered as “suchness” or “thusness,” is the quality or condition of things as they really are, which cannot be conveyed in conceptual, dualistic terms. Therefore, this epithet is interpreted in different ways, but in general it implies one who has departed in the wake of the buddhas of the past, or one who has manifested the supreme awakening dependent on the reality that does not abide in the two extremes of existence and quiescence. It is also often used as a specific epithet of the Buddha Śākyamuni.
One of the thirty-two signs, or major marks, of a great being. In its simplest form it is a pointed shape of the head like a turban (the Sanskrit term, uṣṇīṣa, in fact means “turban”), or more elaborately a dome-shaped extension. The extension is described as having various extraordinary attributes such as emitting and absorbing rays of light or reaching an immense height.
One of the standard epithets of the buddhas. A recurrent explanation offers three different meanings for su- that are meant to show the special qualities of “accomplishment of one’s own purpose” (svārthasampad) for a complete buddha. Thus, the Sugata is “well” gone, as in the expression su-rūpa (“having a good form”); he is gone “in a way that he shall not come back,” as in the expression su-naṣṭa-jvara (“a fever that has utterly gone”); and he has gone “without any remainder” as in the expression su-pūrṇa-ghaṭa (“a pot that is completely full”). According to Buddhaghoṣa, the term means that the way the Buddha went (Skt. gata) is good (Skt. su) and where he went (Skt. gata) is good (Skt. su).
de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa (Sarvatathāgatauṣṇīṣavijayānāmadhāraṇīkalpasahitā). Toh 596, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 242.a–243.b.
de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa. 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. 799–802.
de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa. Stok Palace Kangyur vol. 104 (rgyud, pa), folios 224.a–225.b.
de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa (Sarvatathāgatauṣṇīṣavijayānāmadhāraṇīkalpasahitā). Toh 594, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 230.a–237.b.
de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ba zhes bya ba’i gzungs rtog pa dang bcas pa (Sarvatathāgatauṣṇīṣavijayānāmadhāraṇīkalpasahitā). Toh 595, Degé Kangyur vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 237.b–242.a.
de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi gtsug tor rnam par rgyal ma’i gzungs zhe bya ba’i rtog pa (Sarvatathāgatauṣṇīṣavijayānāmadhāraṇīkalpa). Toh 598, Degé Kangyur, vol. 90 (rgyud, pha), folios 248.a–250.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.
Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh (ed). Sādhanamāla. 2 vols. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1925–28.
Bühnemann, Gudrun. “A Dhāraṇī for Each Day of the Week: The Saptavāra Tradition of the Newar Buddhists.” Bulletin of SOAS 77, no. 1 (2014): 119–36.
Chandra, Lokesh. “Comparative Iconography of the Goddess Uṣṇīṣavijāyā.” In Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, vol. 34, nos. 1–3, pp. 125–37. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980.
Cicuzza, Claudio (ed). Katā me rakkhā, katā me parittā: Protecting the protective texts and manuscripts. Proceedings of the Second International Pali Studies Week, Paris 2016. Materials for the Study of the Tripiṭaka Volume 14. Bangkok and Lumbini: Fragile Palm Leaves Foundation and Lumbini International Research Institute, 2018.
Chou, Yi-liang. “Tantrism in China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8, no. 3/4 (March 1945): 241–332.
Copp, Paul. “Voice, Dust, Shadow, Stone: The Makings of Spells in Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2005.
Dalton, Jacob P. (2016). “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric: Liturgies, Ritual Manuals, and the Origins of the Tantras.” In Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation, edited by David Gray and Ryan Richard Overbey, 199–229. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Dalton, Jacob P. (2023). Conjuring the Buddha: Ritual Manuals in Early Tantric Buddhism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2023.
Dalton, Jacob, and Sam van Schaik, ed. Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Stein Collection at the British Library. Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 12. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Hidas, Gergely (2014). “Two Dhāraṇī Prints in the Stein Collection at the British Museum.” Bulletin of SOAS 77, no. 1 (2014): 105–17.
Hidas, Gergely (2020). “Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī: The Complete Sanskrit Text Based on Nepalese Manuscripts.” International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture 30, no. 2 (December 2020): 147–67.
Hidas, Gergely (2021a). “Dhāraṇī Seals in the Cunningham Collection.” In Precious Treasures from the Diamond Throne: Finds from the Site of the Buddha’s Enlightenment, edited by Sam van Schaik et al., 87–94. London: The British Museum, 2021.
Hidas, Gergely (2021b). Powers of Protection: The Buddhist Tradition of Spells in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha Collections. Beyond Boundaries 9. Boston: de Gruyter, 2021.
Lalou, Marcelle. “Les textes bouddhiques au temps du roi Khri-sroṅ-lde-bcan.” Journal Asiatique 241 (1953): 313–53.
Negi, J. S. Tibetan–Sanskrit Dictionary (bod skad legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo). 16 vols. Sarnath: Dictionary Unit, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993.
Schopen, Gregory (2005). “The Bodhigarbhālaṅkāralakṣa and Vimaloṣṇīṣa Dhāraṇīs in Indian Inscriptions: Two Sources for the Practice of Buddhism in Medieval India.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, 314–34. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005.
Schopen, Gregory (unpublished). “Sarva(dur)gatipariśodhani-uṣṇīṣavijaya: The Los Angeles Manuscript.” Unpublished transcription and English translation.
Schmid, Neil. “Dunhuang and Central Asia.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, and Richard K. Payne, 365–78. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Silk, Jonathan. “The Heart Sūtra as Dhāraṇī.” Acta Asiatica 121 (2021): 99–125.
Sørensen, Henrik (2011a). “On Esoteric Buddhism in China: A Working Definition.” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, and Richard K. Payne, 155–75. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Sørensen, Henrik (2011b). “Esoteric Buddhism in the Nanzhao and Dali Kingdoms (ca. 800–1253).” In Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia, edited by Charles D. Orzech, Henrik H. Sørensen, and Richard K. Payne, 379–92. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Unebe Toshiya. “Bonbun Bucchō Sonshō daranikyō to shoyaku no taishō kenkyū” [Sarvadurgatipariśodhana-ūṣṇīṣavijayā nama dhāraṇī: Sanskrit text collated with Tibetan and Chinese translations along with Japanese translation]. Nagoya Daigaku Bungakubu Kankyū Ronshū 61 (2015): 97–146.
von Rospatt, Alexander. “Local Literatures: Nepal.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, edited by Jonathan Silk et al., vol. 1, Literature and Languages, 819–30. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
The Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī with Its Ritual Manual is a short work in which the Buddha Amitāyus teaches the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī along with its benefits and a short rite for its recitation.
This text was translated by Catherine Dalton, who also wrote the introduction.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The generous sponsorship of May, George, Likai, and Lillian Gu, which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.
The Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī with Its Ritual Manual opens in Sukhāvatī, where the Blessed One Amitāyus is residing. Amitāyus addresses the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, informing him that there are beings who suffer from illnesses and short lifespans, and introducing the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī as a remedy for such painful circumstances. Avalokiteśvara immediately asks Amitāyus to pronounce the dhāraṇī, which the Tathāgata does from within a state of samādhi.
After he pronounces the dhāraṇī, Amitāyus explains the benefits of reciting the dhāraṇī for oneself, as well as for animals, as a method for purification and for cutting off lower rebirths.
This work is one among a group of texts in the Kriyātantra section of the Tibetan Kangyurs that contain the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī and its related rituals (kalpa). The present text is the shortest of four short dhāraṇī texts—three of which have the same title—that present the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī with its ritual manual (kalpa). These four works share a similar narrative opening (nidāna) up through the presentation of the dhāraṇī proper, and several among them also share additional passages. The present text is made up of content that is entirely parallel—even if some of it appears abbreviated and rearranged—with the longer Toh 594.
There are many Sanskrit witnesses of the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī proper. Moreover, what we will call—simply for the purpose of distinguishing it from the present group of dhāraṇī-kalpas—the “primary” uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text (Toh 597, which is titled Sarvadurgatipariśodhana-uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī rather than Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī-kalpasahitā) survives in at least one incomplete early manuscript. While the present text appears to no longer be extant in Sanskrit, there is at least one surviving Sanskrit uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī work that is closely related to it and belongs to the same group of related dhāraṇī texts described above. This work shares the same opening narrative and some of the ritual material with the texts from this group.
The primary uṣṇīṣavijayā text was first translated into Chinese by Buddhapāli in the late seventh century, and then at least five times subsequently. Several ritual manuals for the dhāraṇī’s recitation were also translated into Chinese, but our text does not appear to be among them. One ritual manual (Taishō 978), translated into Chinese by Dharmadeva between 973 and 981, is among the group of uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī texts to which the present work belongs. The primary uṣṇīṣavijayā text was significant in East Asia, and one scholar has even identified it as the most important esoteric Buddhist scripture translated into Chinese in the seventh century. Practices connected with the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī were important in China, in particular in conjunction with funerary rites, where the dhāraṇī was written on pillars near tombs, especially from the mid-Tang to Ming dynasties (ca. 800–1600
The uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī also appears to have been popular in Dunhuang. A number of Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang include just the dhāraṇī on its own, both in Tibetan transliteration (dhāraṇīs, like mantras, are commonly left untranslated in Tibetan texts) and in Tibetan translation. The primary uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text (Toh 597) also appears in several Dunhuang manuscripts. Moreover, several drawings from Dunhuang show maṇḍala (altar) arrangements corresponding to uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī texts.
In Nepal, uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī rituals continue to be performed as part of modern Newar Buddhist practice, where their practice is sometimes prescribed for Wednesdays in particular. Practices connected to the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī likewise continue in modern Tibetan Buddhism. The so-called Tongchö (stong mchod)—the thousandfold offering practice of Uṣṇīṣavijayā, a version of which is mentioned briefly in our text—is currently performed in Tibetan monasteries, sometimes using a ritual manual composed by the nineteenth-century polymath Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo. Other notable Tibetan works on the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī and its associated practices include commentaries by the great Sakya lama Butön (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290–1364) and the fourth Panchen Lama, Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen (blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1570–1662).
The question of what, or who, exactly, Uṣṇīṣavijayā is is a complex one that cannot be clearly answered here. In short, like a number of uṣṇīṣa deities, she is sometimes identified as a protective deity, in this case a goddess, emanated from the Buddha’s uṣṇīṣa. Indeed, Uṣṇīṣavijayā is clearly depicted as a goddess in a number of short sādhanas included in Indian anthologies such as the Sādhanamāla, compiled from the works of many authors probably during the period of the Pāla kings (eighth to twelfth century). Three closely similar sādhanas of a three-faced, eight armed form of the goddess are included in the Tengyur, one in each of the three related anthologies translated from the Indian collections into Tibetan in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries respectively. A variety of other forms are depicted or described in Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, Mongolian, and Kashmiri sources. In the later Tibetan tradition Uṣṇīṣavijayā can even appear as one of a group of three long-life deities along with the Buddha Amitāyus and White Tārā. However, in our text, and indeed in all but one of the uṣṇīṣavijayā works in this section of the Kangyur (Toh 598), while the dhāraṇī itself uses the feminine vocative form throughout, the name uṣṇīṣavijayā is not rendered into Tibetan in the feminine, and the word uṣṇīṣavijayā is not used to refer to anything apart from the name of the dhāraṇī—the dhāraṇī of the crown victory.
The range of possible answers to the question of what the name Uṣṇīṣavijayā refers to is enlarged even further by the existence of a group of related texts widely used in Southeast Asia, sharing the Pali title Uṇhissa-vijaya-sutta (or in some cases simply Uṇhissa-vijaya) but found in a number of different forms, some in Pali but others in Siamese, Lao, Yuon, and Khmer. Some refer at least briefly to the story of the god Supratiṣṭhita (Pali Supatiṭṭhita) which, although not included in the present text, is the frame story of Toh 597 and a secondary narrative element in Toh 594. But instead of the dhāraṇī of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions these Southeast Asian texts contain a set of verses (gāthā) to be recited whose content is unrelated to that of the Sanskrit dhāraṇī. The gāthā are also found alone in several ritual compilations. Even in the vernacular versions, the verses are written in Pali. In these texts, in their own opening lines, it seems to be the verses themselves that are referred to as the Uṇhissa-vijaya.
The present text lacks a translator’s colophon. However, as noted above it is made up of content that is almost entirely 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 Bari Lotsāwa, 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. 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.
The present translation was completed on the basis of the Tibetan translation of the text found in the Tantra Collection (rgyud ’bum) section of the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the Stok Palace Kangyur and the notes in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma). The text is stable across all the Kangyurs consulted, with the same title and only minor variants; all recensions are alike in lacking a translator’s colophon. We have also consulted Hidas’ edition and translation of the surviving Sanskrit Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī text for the passages that are parallel with the present text.
The main dhāraṇī is not identical in every detail across the five different versions in the Degé Kangyur (Toh 594–598), and the existence of further variations across different Kangyurs and versions in extra-canonical collections further complicates the picture. Reference to the dhāraṇī as presented in Hidas’ edition of the Sanskrit yields useful orthographic confirmation, but may be misleading as a model given that the ten different Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts on which it is based are of much later date than any of the present Tibetan witnesses. Here and in the other works in the group we have therefore chosen to transcribe the dhāraṇī as it appears in the Degé version of each text making only minor choices of orthography and adding annotations to point out the most significant discrepancies.
One noticeable difference across both Tibetan and Sanskrit versions of the dhāraṇī is the presence or absence of the syllable oṁ at the beginning of certain phrases. In the present work and in Toh 594, 595, and 597 there are only three such oṁ syllables, while in Toh 598 oṁ appears no less than nine times, as it does in Hidas’ edition from Sanskrit sources and in extra-canonical liturgies. The Tibetan translation of Toh 598 was made at a significantly later date than the other works of the group, and may possibly signal a change in usage that is also reflected in the Nepalese Sanskrit texts of even later date. This is corroborated by the absence of extra oṁ-s in the Dunhuang manuscripts. The colophon of Toh 597 found in the Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur includes a note claiming that the texts with only three oṁ-s are to be considered more correct. The note also states that although there may have been Sanskrit sources with as many as nine oṁ-s, the twelfth-century translator Sumpa Lotsāwa reported that all the Sanskrit texts he had seen contained only three, and that the Sanskrit manuscripts of the texts held at Sakya monastery had no more than that. Because Sumpa Lotsāwa is known to have lived and studied in Nepal, his comment on the “correct” number of oṁ-s in the Sanskrit manuscripts available to him offers a glimpse of the evolution of the text in the Nepalese tradition. As Hidas’ edition of the Nepalese manuscripts suggests, the number of oṁ-s in the dhāraṇī seem to proliferate, eventually reaching a total of nine.
Over the centuries, the textual transmission of the dhāraṇī has preserved the major portion of it with remarkable fidelity. Nevertheless, the few anomalies to be seen across all these closely related texts are a reminder that here, as with other dhāraṇī works, some variations over time and place are to be expected.
The Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī with Its Ritual Manual is a short work in which the Buddha Amitāyus teaches the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī along with its benefits and a short rite for its recitation.
This text was translated by Catherine Dalton, who also wrote the introduction.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The generous sponsorship of May, George, Likai, and Lillian Gu, which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.
The Uṣṇīṣavijayā Dhāraṇī with Its Ritual Manual opens in Sukhāvatī, where the Blessed One Amitāyus is residing. Amitāyus addresses the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, informing him that there are beings who suffer from illnesses and short lifespans, and introducing the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī as a remedy for such painful circumstances. Avalokiteśvara immediately asks Amitāyus to pronounce the dhāraṇī, which the Tathāgata does from within a state of samādhi.
After he pronounces the dhāraṇī, Amitāyus explains the benefits of reciting the dhāraṇī for oneself, as well as for animals, as a method for purification and for cutting off lower rebirths.
This work is one among a group of texts in the Kriyātantra section of the Tibetan Kangyurs that contain the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī and its related rituals (kalpa). The present text is the shortest of four short dhāraṇī texts—three of which have the same title—that present the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī with its ritual manual (kalpa). These four works share a similar narrative opening (nidāna) up through the presentation of the dhāraṇī proper, and several among them also share additional passages. The present text is made up of content that is entirely parallel—even if some of it appears abbreviated and rearranged—with the longer Toh 594.
There are many Sanskrit witnesses of the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī proper. Moreover, what we will call—simply for the purpose of distinguishing it from the present group of dhāraṇī-kalpas—the “primary” uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text (Toh 597, which is titled Sarvadurgatipariśodhana-uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī rather than Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī-kalpasahitā) survives in at least one incomplete early manuscript. While the present text appears to no longer be extant in Sanskrit, there is at least one surviving Sanskrit uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī work that is closely related to it and belongs to the same group of related dhāraṇī texts described above. This work shares the same opening narrative and some of the ritual material with the texts from this group.
The primary uṣṇīṣavijayā text was first translated into Chinese by Buddhapāli in the late seventh century, and then at least five times subsequently. Several ritual manuals for the dhāraṇī’s recitation were also translated into Chinese, but our text does not appear to be among them. One ritual manual (Taishō 978), translated into Chinese by Dharmadeva between 973 and 981, is among the group of uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī texts to which the present work belongs. The primary uṣṇīṣavijayā text was significant in East Asia, and one scholar has even identified it as the most important esoteric Buddhist scripture translated into Chinese in the seventh century. Practices connected with the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī were important in China, in particular in conjunction with funerary rites, where the dhāraṇī was written on pillars near tombs, especially from the mid-Tang to Ming dynasties (ca. 800–1600
The uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī also appears to have been popular in Dunhuang. A number of Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang include just the dhāraṇī on its own, both in Tibetan transliteration (dhāraṇīs, like mantras, are commonly left untranslated in Tibetan texts) and in Tibetan translation. The primary uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī text (Toh 597) also appears in several Dunhuang manuscripts. Moreover, several drawings from Dunhuang show maṇḍala (altar) arrangements corresponding to uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī texts.
In Nepal, uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī rituals continue to be performed as part of modern Newar Buddhist practice, where their practice is sometimes prescribed for Wednesdays in particular. Practices connected to the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī likewise continue in modern Tibetan Buddhism. The so-called Tongchö (stong mchod)—the thousandfold offering practice of Uṣṇīṣavijayā, a version of which is mentioned briefly in our text—is currently performed in Tibetan monasteries, sometimes using a ritual manual composed by the nineteenth-century polymath Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo. Other notable Tibetan works on the uṣṇīṣavijayā dhāraṇī and its associated practices include commentaries by the great Sakya lama Butön (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290–1364) and the fourth Panchen Lama, Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen (blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1570–1662).
The question of what, or who, exactly, Uṣṇīṣavijayā is is a complex one that cannot be clearly answered here. In short, like a number of uṣṇīṣa deities, she is sometimes identified as a protective deity, in this case a goddess, emanated from the Buddha’s uṣṇīṣa. Indeed, Uṣṇīṣavijayā is clearly depicted as a goddess in a number of short sādhanas included in Indian anthologies such as the Sādhanamāla, compiled from the works of many authors probably during the period of the Pāla kings (eighth to twelfth century). Three closely similar sādhanas of a three-faced, eight armed form of the goddess are included in the Tengyur, one in each of the three related anthologies translated from the Indian collections into Tibetan in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries respectively. A variety of other forms are depicted or described in Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, Mongolian, and Kashmiri sources. In the later Tibetan tradition Uṣṇīṣavijayā can even appear as one of a group of three long-life deities along with the Buddha Amitāyus and White Tārā. However, in our text, and indeed in all but one of the uṣṇīṣavijayā works in this section of the Kangyur (Toh 598), while the dhāraṇī itself uses the feminine vocative form throughout, the name uṣṇīṣavijayā is not rendered into Tibetan in the feminine, and the word uṣṇīṣavijayā is not used to refer to anything apart from the name of the dhāraṇī—the dhāraṇī of the crown victory.
The range of possible answers to the question of what the name Uṣṇīṣavijayā refers to is enlarged even further by the existence of a group of related texts widely used in Southeast Asia, sharing the Pali title Uṇhissa-vijaya-sutta (or in some cases simply Uṇhissa-vijaya) but found in a number of different forms, some in Pali but others in Siamese, Lao, Yuon, and Khmer. Some refer at least briefly to the story of the god Supratiṣṭhita (Pali Supatiṭṭhita) which, although not included in the present text, is the frame story of Toh 597 and a secondary narrative element in Toh 594. But instead of the dhāraṇī of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions these Southeast Asian texts contain a set of verses (gāthā) to be recited whose content is unrelated to that of the Sanskrit dhāraṇī. The gāthā are also found alone in several ritual compilations. Even in the vernacular versions, the verses are written in Pali. In these texts, in their own opening lines, it seems to be the verses themselves that are referred to as the Uṇhissa-vijaya.
The present text lacks a translator’s colophon. However, as noted above it is made up of content that is almost entirely 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 Bari Lotsāwa, 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. 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.
The present translation was completed on the basis of the Tibetan translation of the text found in the Tantra Collection (rgyud ’bum) section of the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the Stok Palace Kangyur and the notes in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma). The text is stable across all the Kangyurs consulted, with the same title and only minor variants; all recensions are alike in lacking a translator’s colophon. We have also consulted Hidas’ edition and translation of the surviving Sanskrit Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī text for the passages that are parallel with the present text.
The main dhāraṇī is not identical in every detail across the five different versions in the Degé Kangyur (Toh 594–598), and the existence of further variations across different Kangyurs and versions in extra-canonical collections further complicates the picture. Reference to the dhāraṇī as presented in Hidas’ edition of the Sanskrit yields useful orthographic confirmation, but may be misleading as a model given that the ten different Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts on which it is based are of much later date than any of the present Tibetan witnesses. Here and in the other works in the group we have therefore chosen to transcribe the dhāraṇī as it appears in the Degé version of each text making only minor choices of orthography and adding annotations to point out the most significant discrepancies.
One noticeable difference across both Tibetan and Sanskrit versions of the dhāraṇī is the presence or absence of the syllable oṁ at the beginning of certain phrases. In the present work and in Toh 594, 595, and 597 there are only three such oṁ syllables, while in Toh 598 oṁ appears no less than nine times, as it does in Hidas’ edition from Sanskrit sources and in extra-canonical liturgies. The Tibetan translation of Toh 598 was made at a significantly later date than the other works of the group, and may possibly signal a change in usage that is also reflected in the Nepalese Sanskrit texts of even later date. This is corroborated by the absence of extra oṁ-s in the Dunhuang manuscripts. The colophon of Toh 597 found in the Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur includes a note claiming that the texts with only three oṁ-s are to be considered more correct. The note also states that although there may have been Sanskrit sources with as many as nine oṁ-s, the twelfth-century translator Sumpa Lotsāwa reported that all the Sanskrit texts he had seen contained only three, and that the Sanskrit manuscripts of the texts held at Sakya monastery had no more than that. Because Sumpa Lotsāwa is known to have lived and studied in Nepal, his comment on the “correct” number of oṁ-s in the Sanskrit manuscripts available to him offers a glimpse of the evolution of the text in the Nepalese tradition. As Hidas’ edition of the Nepalese manuscripts suggests, the number of oṁ-s in the dhāraṇī seem to proliferate, eventually reaching a total of nine.
Over the centuries, the textual transmission of the dhāraṇī has preserved the major portion of it with remarkable fidelity. Nevertheless, the few anomalies to be seen across all these closely related texts are a reminder that here, as with other dhāraṇī works, some variations over time and place are to be expected.