TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra (Chinese:首楞嚴經; pinyin:Shǒuléngyán jīng,Sūtra of the HeroicMarch) (Taisho no. 945) is aMahayana BuddhistSūtra that has been influential across most forms ofEast Asian Buddhism, where it has traditionally been included as part of Chinese-languageTripitakas. In the modernTaisho Tripitaka, it is placed in the Esoteric Sūtra category (密教部).[1] The sūtra'sŚūraṅgama Mantra is widely recited in China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam as part of temple liturgies.[2][3]
InChinese Buddhism, it is a major subject of doctrinal study and the mantra revealed within the sūtra remains a regular part of thedaily liturgy chanted in all Chinese Buddhist monasteries. It is particularly important in the ChineseChan tradition, including bothLinji andCaodong lineages, and the ChinesePure Land Buddhist tradition (where it is considered a central scripture).[4][5] InKorean Buddhism, it also remains a major subject of study inSŏn monasteries).[6][7][4] InJapanese Buddhism, the mantra revealed in the sūtra is chanted across the three mainZen traditions ofRinzai,Sōtō andŌbaku. The doctrinal outlook of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is that ofBuddha-nature,Yogacara thought, andesoteric Buddhism.
The sūtra was translated intoTibetan during the late eighth to early ninth century and other complete translations exist in Tibetan,Mongolian andManchu languages (seeTranslations).
| Part of a series on |
| Japanese Buddhism |
|---|
 |
History and Origins
|
Philosophy and Schools
|
Practices and Rituals
|
Important Figures Historical Figures
Cultural and Modern Thinkers
|
Sacred Spaces and Arts
|
Cultural Influence
|
Modern Influence
|
| Part of theBuddhism in Korea series |
| Korean Buddhism |
|---|
 |
History and Origins |
Philosophy and Teachings
|
Practices and Rituals |
Organizations and Movements |
| Part ofa series on |
| Vietnamese Buddhism |
|---|
 |
Schools and Texts
|
Temples & Monasteries
|
Organizations & Movements |
Śūraṅgama means "heroic valour",[8] "heroic progress", or "heroic march" in Sanskrit. TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra is not to be confused with the similarly titledŚūraṅgamaSamadhiSūtra (T. 642 首楞嚴三昧經;Shǒuléngyán Sānmèi Jīng) which was translated byKumārajīva (344–413).
The complete title preserved in Chinese 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經 means:
The Sūtra on theŚūraṅgama Mantra that is spoken from above the Crown of the Great Buddha's Head and on the Hidden Basis of the Tathagata's Myriad Bodhisattva Practices that lead to their Verifications of Ultimate Truth.[9]
An alternate translation of the title reads:
The Sutra of the Foremost Shurangama at the Great Buddha's Summit Concerning the Tathagata's Secret Cause of Cultivation His Certification to the Complete Meaning and Bodhisattvas' Myriad Practices[10]
A common translation of the sūtra's name in English is the "Heroic March sūtra" (as used e.g. by Matthew Kapstein, Norman Waddell, and Andy Ferguson), or the "scripture of the Heroic Progress" (as used e.g. by Thomas Cleary). The Sanskrit title preserved in the Chinese Tripitaka isMahābuddhoṣṇīṣa-tathāgataguhyahetu-sākṣātkṛta-prasannārtha-sarvabodhisattvacaryā-śūraṅgama-sūtra, rendered byHsuan Hua as "Sūtra of the Foremost Shurangama at the Great Buddha's Summit Concerning the Tathagata's Secret Cause of Cultivation, His Certification to Complete Meaning and All Bodhisattva's Myriad Practices".
The full title of the sūtra also appears astraditional Chinese:大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經; ; pinyin:Dà Fódǐng Rúlái Mìyīn Xiūzhèng Liǎoyì Zhū Púsà Wànxíng Shǒuléngyán jīng; Korean:대불정여래밀인수증료의제보살만행수릉엄경; Vietnamese:Đại Phật đỉnh Như Lai mật nhân tu chứng liễu nghĩa chư Bồ Tát vạn hạnh thủ-lăng-nghiêm kinh.
It is also known by abbreviated versions of the title such astraditional Chinese:大佛頂首楞嚴經; ; pinyin:Dà Fódǐng Shǒuléngyán jīng; Korean:대불정수릉엄경; Vietnamese:Đại Phật Đảnh Thủ-Lăng-Nghiêm Kinh or simply and more commonlytraditional Chinese:楞嚴經; ; pinyin:Léngyán jīng; Korean:능엄경; Vietnamese:Lăng-Nghiêm Kinh.
An original Sanskrit version ofŚūraṅgama Sūtra is not known to be extant and the Indic provenance of the text is in question. A Sanskrit language palm leaf manuscript consisting of 226 leaves with 6 leaves missing which according to the introduction "contains the Śūraṅgama Sūtra" was discovered in a temple in China and now resides at Peng Xuefeng Memorial Museum. But scholars have not yet verified if this is the same text or some other sūtra (like theŚūraṅgama Samadhi Sūtra).[11]
The first catalogue that recorded theŚūraṅgama Sūtra was Zhisheng (Chinese:智昇), a monk inTang dynasty (618-907)China. Zhisheng said this book was brought back fromGuangxi toLuoyang during the reign of EmperorXuanzong. He gave two seemingly different accounts in two different books, both of which were published in 730 CE.
According to Jia Jinhua, who studied and cross-referred a number of external documents related to both accounts that Zhisheng gave, the two accounts do not conflict but rather complement each other, with theKaiyuan shijiao lu written first and theXu gujin yijing tuji written later once Zhisheng had acquired more details about the sūtra's translation and transmission.[12][13] According to Jia, the two accounts derive from two versions of the sūtra that were in circulation.[12]
Jia states that the first version brought fromGuangzhou toChang'an, which was included in theKaiyuan catalogue and is extant in theFangshan stonecanon, listed the translators as Huaidi and an Indian monk and was the source for the account provided in theKaiyuan shijiao lu.[12] He infers that the reason this version omitted Fang Rong’s name is because, at the time of the translation in 705, he was a disgraced and banished official in exile.[12] The reason for this exile was that on 20 February 705,Zhang Yizhi (張易之) andZhang Changzong (張昌宗), two brothers who wereEmpress Wu’s favoured courtiers were killed in a coup, and Fang Rong was imprisoned for his close association with the Zhang brothers before being exiled toGaozhou on 4 March.[12]Song dynasty (960-1279) records by the monk Zuxiu (祖琇) recorded that Fang Rong arrived inGuangzhou in the fourth month and was invited by the Prefect of Guangzhou to take part in translating theŚūraṃgama-sūtra.[12] The Tang court soon offered pardons to officials implicated in the affair involving the Zhang brothers, issuing amnesties and summoning officials back to court from the winter of 705 to the spring of 707, but Fang Rong unfortunately died in exile in Gaozhou.[12] Jia then infers that Zhisheng’s second account was based on a second version brought fromGuangzhou toChang'an by an official envoy at later time.[12] Jia reasons that, by then, the reason for Fang Rong’s exile had been pardoned, so there was no more taboo on signing his name on the sūtra, hence the second version lists in full the transmitter and translator of the sūtra, including Fang Rong as the transcriber and Huaidi as the verifier of the Sanskrit meanings.[12] This version is supported by detailed accounts of the same events and attributions from a commentary of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra by the monk Weique (惟慤), who was personally introduced to the sūtra by Fang Rong's family during a meal at their house.[12] Extracts of Weique's commentary with regards to the authorship of the sūtra is cited by the Japanese monk Genei (玄叡) in his work, theDaijō sanron daigi shō (大乘三論大義鈔, lit: "Digest of Major Doctrines of Mahāyāna Three Treatises"), and the details regarding how he was introduced to the sūtra is cited by the Song dynasty monk Zanning[zh] (贊寧) in his historical work, theSong gaoseng zhuan (宋高僧傳, lit: "Biographies of Eminent Monks of the Song dynasty").[12] This second version was then included in a later catalogue of Buddhist scriptures called the Zhenyuan catalogue, and is extant in various later Buddhist canons.[12]
InChina,Taiwan andoverseas Chinese communities, the sūtra is recognized as an authentic Buddhist scripture by all traditions ofChinese Buddhism suchChan,Pure Land,Tiantai andHuayan Buddhism.[12] Many eminent historical Chinese monastics, including the patriarchs of some traditions, have praised the sūtra's teachings, and more than one hundred commentaries have been written on it, over eighty of which are extant in the Buddhist canon.[12] The list of figures who have written commentaries on the sūtra includeZhongfeng Mingben,Yongming Yanshou (the Sixth Patriarch of theChinese Pure Land tradition and the Third Patriarch of theFayan tradition ofChan Buddhism), all of theFour Eminent Monks of the Wanli Era (consisting ofHanshan Deqing,Zibo Zhenke,Yunqi Zhuhong andOuyi Zhixu, with Zhuhong being the Eighth Patriarch of theChinese Pure Land tradition and Zhixu being the Ninth Patriarch of theChinese Pure Land tradition as well as the Thirty-First Patriarch of theTiantai lineage respectively),Youxi Chuandeng (the Thirtieth Patriarch of theTiantai lineage),Taixu (a monk and activist trained in theLinji tradition ofChan Buddhism who was the mentor of several other prominent modern monastics) andHsuan Hua (a major contributing figure in bringingChinese Buddhism to the United States).[14] The sūtra has also always been classified as an authentic scripture in all Chinese-languageTripitakas, including theTaisho Tripitaka where it is placed in the Esoteric Sūtra category (密教部).[1] It remains a major subject of doctrinal study and practice in most contemporary Chinese Buddhist traditions. In addition, the sūtra in its entirety is chanted during certain rituals like theShuilu Fahui ceremony and the mantra revealed within the sūtra is chanted during dailymorning liturgical services in contemporary Chinese Buddhist practice.
TheQianlong Emperor and the ThirdChangkya Khutukhtu, the traditional head tulku of theGelug lineage ofTibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia, believed in the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.[15] They later translated the Śūraṅgama Sūtra into the Manchu language, Mongolian and Tibetan. (see translations)
InJapan, records state that theŚūraṃgama-sūtra was brought to Japan by the visiting monk Fushō (普照) in 754, which caused a debate over its authenticity.Emperor Shōmu gathered monastics from theSanron andHossō Buddhist traditions during theTenpyō era (729–749) to examine the sūtra, and eventually reached the conclusion that it was authentic.[12] During theHōki era (770–781 CE),Emperor Kōnin sent Master Tokusei (Hanyu Pinyin:Deqing; Japanese:徳清), Master Kaimyō (Hanyu Pinyin:Jieming; Japanese:戒明) and a group of monks to China, asking whether this book was a forgery or not. A Chineseupasaka or layperson named Faxiang (法詳) told the head monk of the Japanese monastic delegation, Master Tokusei, that this was forged by Fang Yong.[e][12] This once again raised doubts about the sūtra in Japan, but these were dismissed with another report from China thatEmperor Daizong had the sūtra preached at the Tang court.[12] Later during theHōki era, various monks gathered atDaian-ji and claimed the sūtra to be false, but Master Kaimyō, who had gone on the expedition toTang-dynastyChina earlier, refused to co-sign their claims and insisted that the sūtra was authentic. The sūtra remained influential inJapanese Buddhism as over seventy commentaries have been written on it, with the majority being from theZen tradition.[16] In addition, eminent monastics such asKōbō Daishi, the Eighth Patriarch and founder of theShingon Buddhist tradition, andDengyō Daishi, the founder of theTendai Buddhist tradition, have also written works based on it. In contemporaryJapanese Buddhist practice, the mantra revealed within the sūtra is still chanted across the three mainZen traditions ofRinzai,Sōtō andŌbaku.
In China during the early modern era, the reformistLiang Qichao claimed that the sūtra is apocryphal, writing, "The real Buddhist scriptures would not say things like Surangama Sūtra, so we know the Surangama Sūtra is apocryphal.[f] In the same era,Lü Cheng (Chinese:呂澂) wrote an essay to claim that the book is apocryphal, named "One hundred reasons about why Shurangama Sūtra is apocryphal" (Chinese:楞嚴百偽).[6]
According to James Benn, the Japanese scholar Mochizuki Shinko's (1869–1948)Bukkyo kyoten seiritsu shiron "showed how many of the text's doctrinal elements may be traced to sources that already existed in China at the beginning of the eighth century, and he also described he early controversy surrounding the text in Japan."[6]
Charles Muller and Kogen Mizuno also hold that this sūtra is apocryphal (and is similar to other apocryphal Chinese sūtras). According to Muller, "even a brief glance" through these apocryphal works "by someone familiar with both indigenous sinitic philosophy and the Indian Mahāyāna textual corpus yields the recognition of themes, terms and concepts from indigenous traditions playing a dominant role in the text, to an extent which makes it obvious that they must have been written in East Asia."[4] He also notes that apocryphal works like theŚūraṅgama contain terms that were only used in East Asia:
...such as innate enlightenment (本覺 pen-chüeh) and actualized enlightenment (始覺 chih-chüeh) and other terms connected with the discourse of thetathāgatagarbha-ālayavijñāna problematik (the debate as to whether the human mind is, at its most fundamental level, pure or impure) appear in such number that the difference from the bona fide translations from Indic languages is obvious. Furthermore, the entire discourse of innate/actualized enlightenment and tathāgatagarbha-ālayavijñāna opposition can be seen as strongly reflecting a Chinese philosophical obsession dating back to at least the time of Mencius, when Mencius entered into debate with Kao-tzu on the original purity of the mind. The indigenous provenance of such texts is also indicated by their clear influence and borrowing from other current popular East Asian works, whether or not these other works were Indian or East Asian composition.[4]
James A. Benn notes that theŚūraṅgama also "shares some notable similarities with another scripture composed in China and dating to the same period", that is, theSūtra of Perfect Enlightenment.[6] Indeed, Benn states that "One might regard theSūtra of Perfect Enlightenment, which has only one fascicle, as opposed to theŚūraṅgama's ten, as a precis of the essential points of theŚūraṅgama."[6] Benn points out several passages which present uniquely Chinese understandings of animal life and natural phenomena that are without Indic precedent (such as the "Jelly fish with shrimp for eyes" and the "wasps, which take the larvae of other insects as their own") but that are found in earlierChinese literature.[6]
James A. Benn also notes how theŚūraṅgama even borrows ideas that are mostly found inTaoist sources (such as theBaopuzi), such as the idea that there are ten types of "immortals" (仙xiān) in a realm located between thedeva realm and the human realm. The qualities of these immortals include common ideas found in Taoism, such as their "ingestion of metals and minerals" and the practice of "movement and stillness"(dongzhi, which is related todaoyin).[6] Benn argues that theŚūraṅgama's "taxonomy" of immortals was "clearly derived" fromTaoist literature.[6] In a similar fashion, theŚūraṅgama's "ten types of demons" (鬼 gui), are also influenced by Taoist and Confucian sources.[6]
After the critiques of the Śūraṅgama from Lü Cheng and Liang Qichao, Shi Minsheng (釋愍生) wrote a book titled theBianpo lengyan baiwei (辯破楞嚴百偽, lit: "Refutation of the One hundred reasons about whyŚūraṅgama Sūtra is apocryphal"), establishing a rigorous response to them by criticizing both Lü and Liang for misunderstanding theŚūraṅgama Sūtra.[17][18][19] In Shi Minsheng's book, he listed one hundred arguments that directly corresponded to and countered Lü Cheng's list of one hundred critiques, cross-referencing and citing multiple other scriptures in the Buddhist canon to undermine each of Lü's critiques by demonstrating that they were based on misinterpretations of the text or lack of understanding regarding Buddhist doctrines.[17][18][19]
In his examination of the authenticity of the Surangama Sūtra as well as arguments presented by past academics on the issue, Jia Jinhua notes that the presence of Chinese or Taoist elements in the text that have been noted by some academics such as those mentioned by James A. Benn, "comprise only a tiny ratio of the whole sūtra, and are mostly sporadic terms and allusions that do not form significant ideas of indigenous Chinese origin; thus, they do not necessarily indicate a Chinese origin for the sūtra. Rather, they can be seen as translative substitutions of parallel Sanskrit elements applied by the translators."[12] In other words, they represent the translators' method of finding functional native Chinese equivalents that closely resemble and parallel the original concepts in the Sanskrit source.[12] Indeed, he further notes that "Chinese terms and allusions appear more or less in almost all Buddhist scriptures of Chinese translation. For example, Daoist “philosophical” terms such as Dao 道,wu 無,wuwei 無為, and so forth appear everywhere in authentic translated sūtras. While Daoist “religious” terms are less commonly seen, several sūtras translated during Empress Wu’s reign do contain this kind of terminology."[12]
Ron Epstein gives an overview of the arguments for Indian or Chinese origin, and concludes:[20]
Preliminary analysis of the internal evidence then indicates that the Sutra is probably a compilation of Indic materials that may have had a long literary history. It should be noted though, that for a compilation, which is also how the Sutra is treated by some traditional commentators, the Sutra has an intricate beauty of structure that is not particularly Chinese and which shines through and can clearly be distinguished from the Classical Chinese syntax, on which attention has usually been centered. Thus one of the difficulties with the theory that the Sutra is apocryphal is that it would be difficult to find an author who could plausibly be held accountable for both structure and language and who would also be familiar with the doctrinal intricacies that the Sutra presents. Therefore, it seems likely that the origin of the great bulk of material in the Sutra is Indic, though it is obvious that the text was edited in China. However, a great deal of further, systematic research will be necessary to bring to light all the details of the text's rather complicated construction.
A number of scholars have associated theŚūraṅgama Sūtra with the Buddhist tradition atNālandā.[21][22]
Epstein thinks that certain passages in the sūtra do show Chinese influence, such as the section on the Taoist immortals, but he thinks that this "could easily represent an adaptive Chinese translation of Buddhist tantric ideas. The whole area of the doctrinal relationship between the Taoistnei-tan, or so-called "inner alchemy", and early Buddhist tantra is a murky one, and until we know more about both, the issue probably cannot be resolved adequately."[20] Epstein further writes regarding uniquely Chinese influences found in the text: "As to things Chinese, there are various short references to them scattered throughout the text, but, just as well as indicating the work's Chinese origin, they also could be an indication of a translation style of substitution of parallel items, which would fit right in with the highly literary Chinese phraseology."[20]
In arguing for an Indic origin, Epstein gives three main reasons:
Similarly, Rounds argues for an Indic source by pointing out "two indisputably Indian elements" in the sūtra: the text's reliance on theBuddhist science of reasoning (hetuvidya) and theŚūraṅgama mantra.[23]
The Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated intoTibetan probably during the late eighth to early ninth century.[24][25][26] However possibly because of the persecution of Buddhism during KingLangdarma's reign (ca. 840-841), only a portion of Scroll 9 and Scroll 10 of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra are preserved in the surviving two ancient texts.[27][28][29]Buton Rinchen DrubRinpoche mentioned that one of the two texts was probably translated from Chinese; thereby suggesting the second text may have possibly been translated from another language.[30]
The entire Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated in 1763 from Han Chinese into theManchu language, Mongolian and Tibetan languages and compiled into a four language set at the command of theQianlong Emperor.[31][32] The thirdChangkya KhutukhtuRölpé Dorjé or 若必多吉 or Lalitavajra (1716–1786) convinced the Qianlong Emperor to engage in the translation.[33] The third Changkya Khutukhtu supervised (and verified) with the help of Fu Nai the translation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.[34][35] The complete translation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra into Tibetan is found in a supplement to the Narthang Kangyur.[36][37]
There are a few English translations:
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra contains teachings fromYogācāra,Buddha-nature, andVajrayana.[20][38] It makes use ofBuddhist logic with its methods ofsyllogism and thecatuṣkoṭi "fourfold negation" first popularized byNāgārjuna.[39]
One of the main themes of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is how knowledge of the Buddha's teaching (Dharma) is worthless unless it is coupled with the power ofsamādhi (meditative absorption), as well as the importance of moralprecepts as a foundation for the Buddhist practice.[20] Also stressed is the theme of how one effectively combats delusions and demonic influences that may arise during meditation.[20][g]
According toRon Epstein, a key theme of the sūtra is the "two types of mind", furthermore, "also contained in the work are a discussion of meditational methodology in terms of the importance of picking the proper faculty (indriya) as a vehicle for meditation, instructions for the construction of a tantricbodhimanda, a long mantra, a description of fifty-sevenBodhisattva stages, a description of the karmic relationship among the destinies (gati), or paths of rebirth, and an enumeration of fifty demonic states encountered on the path."[20]
Ron Epstein and David Rounds have suggested that the major themes of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra reflect the strains uponIndian Buddhism during the time of its creation.[41] They cite the resurgence of non-Buddhist religions, and the crumbling social supports for monastic Buddhist institutions. This era also saw the emergence of Hindutantrism and the beginnings ofEsoteric Buddhism and thesiddha traditions.[41] They propose that moral challenges and general confusion about Buddhism are said to have then given rise to the themes of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra, such as clear understanding of principles, moral discipline, essential Buddhist cosmology, development of samādhi, and how to avoid falling into various delusions in meditation.[41]
A key theme found in theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is the distinction between the true mind and the discriminating mind.[23] The discriminating worldly mind is the ordinary quotidian mind that becomes entangled in rebirth, thinking, change and illusion. But, according to theŚūraṅgama, there is also "an everlasting true mind, which is our real nature, and which is the state of the Buddha."[23] According to theŚūraṅgama, the worldly mind "is the mind that is the basis of death and rebirth and that has continued for the entirety of time...dependent upon perceived objects."[23]
This worldly mind is mistaken by sentient beings as being their true nature. Meanwhile, the "pure enlightened mind" is the underlying nature of all dharmas (phenomena). It is the ultimate reality which is alsoenlightenment, which has no beginning. It is the original and pure essence ofnirvana.[23] The true awakened mind is an unchanging awareness that remains still and independent of all sense objects, even while the discriminating mind changes.[23] The pure mind then is the essential nature of awareness, not the ordinary awareness which is distorted and diseased.[23]
This theme of the everlasting true mind which is contrasted with thesamsaric mind is also a common theme of theMahayana Awakening of Faith treatise.[4]
The "everlasting true mind" is associated with theMahayana teaching oftathāgatagarbha orbuddha-nature. Rounds and Epstein explain theŚūraṅgama's conception of thetathāgatagarbha, the "Matrix of the Thus Come One", as follows:[42]
Fundamentally, everything that comes and goes, that comes into being and ceases to be, is within the true nature of the Matrix of the Thus-Come One, which is the wondrous, everlasting understanding — the unmoving, all-pervading, wondrous suchness of reality.
[The Buddha] shows one by one that each of the elements of the physical world and each of the elements of our sensory apparatus is, fundamentally, an illusion. But at the same time, these illusory entities and experiences arise out of what is real. That matrix from which all is produced is the Matrix of the Thus-Come One. It is identical to our own true mind and identical as well to the fundamental nature of the universe and to the mind of all Buddhas.
Thus, according to theŚūraṅgama Sūtra the "buddha-womb" or "buddha-essence" is source of mind and world.[23] This buddha nature is originally pure enlightenment, however, due to the deluded development of a subject-object separation, the whole world of birth and death arises.[23]
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra teaches about the Śūraṅgama Samādhi (the "meditative absorption of the heroic march"), which is associated withcomplete enlightenment andBuddhahood. This samādhi is also featured extensively in theŚūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra. It is equally praised in theMahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, where it is explained by the Buddha that this samādhi is the essence of the nature of the Buddha and is indeed the "mother of all Buddhas."[43] The Buddha also comments that the Śūraṅgama Samādhi additionally goes under several other names, specificallyPrajñāpāramitā ("Perfection of Wisdom"), theVajra Samādhi, theSiṃhanāda Samādhi ("Lion's Roar Samādhi"), and theBuddha-svabhāva.[43]
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra contains various explanations of specific meditation practices which help one cultivatesamadhi, including a famous passage in which twenty five sages discuss twenty five methods of practice. The main intent of these various methods is to detach one's awareness of all sense objects and to direct awareness inward, to the fundamental true nature. This leads to the experience of the disappearance of everything and finally to illumination.[23]
The most well known part of this passage is the meditation taught bybodhisattvaAvalokiteshvara, the last of these sages to teach. Avalokiteshvara describes their method as follows:[44]
I began with a practice based on the enlightened nature of hearing. First I redirected my hearing inward in order to enter the current of the sages. Then external sounds disappeared. With the direction of my hearing reversed and with sounds stilled, both sounds and silence ceased to arise. So it was that, as I gradually progressed, what I heard and my awareness of what I heard came to an end. Even when that state of mind in which everything had come to an end disappeared, I did not rest. My awareness and the objects of my awareness were emptied, and when that process of emptying my awareness was wholly complete, then even that emptying and what had been emptied vanished. Coming into being and ceasing to be themselves ceased to be. Then the ultimate stillness was revealed. All of a sudden I transcended the worlds of ordinary beings, and I also transcended the worlds of beings who have transcended the ordinary worlds. Everything in the ten directions was fully illuminated, and I gained two remarkable powers. First, my mind ascended to unite with the fundamental, wondrous, enlightened mind of all Buddhas in all ten directions, and my power of compassion became the same as theirs. Second, my mind descended to unite with all beings of the six destinies in all ten directions such that I felt their sorrows and their prayerful yearnings as my own.
The other section of the sūtra which is influential inChinese Buddhism is the passage which details the meditation method ofMahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva. This section is considered to be a major text ofChinese Pure Land Buddhism, since it discusses the practice ofnianfo (recollection of the Buddha Amitabha).[45][5][46] This passage states:
beings who are always mindful of the Buddha, always thinking of the Buddha, are certain to see the Buddha now or in the future. They will never be far from Buddhas, and their minds will awaken by themselves without any special effort. Such people may be said to be adorned with fragrance and light, just as people who have been in the presence of incense will naturally smell sweet. The basis of my practice was mindfulness of the Buddha. I became patient with the state of mind in which no mental objects arise. Now when people of this world are mindful of the Buddha, I act as their guide to lead them to the Pure Land. The Buddha has asked us how we broke through to enlightenment. In order to enter samādhi, I chose no other method than to gather in the six faculties while continuously maintaining a pure mindfulness of the Buddha. This is the best method.[47]
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra also focuses on the necessity of keeping traditional ethical precepts, especially thefive precepts and the monasticvinaya.[48][49][50] These precepts are said to be the basis tosamadhi which in turn leads to wisdom.[51][52] The Buddha describes the precepts as clear and unalterable instruction on purity which transverse time and place. If one breaks them (by killing, stealing, lying etc.) one will never reach enlightenment, no matter how much one meditates.[53][23]
Indeed, according to theŚūraṅgama:
No matter how much you may practice samādhi in order to transcend the stress of entanglement with perceived objects, you will never transcend that stress until you have freed yourself from thoughts of killing. Even very intelligent people who can enter samādhi while practicing meditation in stillness are certain to fall into the realm of ghosts and spirits upon their rebirth if they have not renounced all killing.[54]
Similarly, the sūtra also claims that unless one frees oneself from sensual desire, sexual activity, meat eating (which it associated with killing), stealing or lying, one will not reach enlightenment.[23][55] According to theŚūraṅgama, even though one may have some wisdom and meditative absorption, one is certain to enter bad rebirths, eventhe hells, if one does not cease lust, killing, stealing and making false claims.[55]
TheŚūraṅgama also warns against heterodox teachers who practice meditation without being properly prepared and then fall under the influence of demons. These teachers then begin to spoutheterodoxies, such as the idea that practitioners should stop reveringstupas and temples, wishing to destroysūtras andBuddha statues and engaging in sex while saying that "the male and female organs are the true abodes of bodhi and nirvana".[6] James A. Benn notes that the first teaching may be a reference to certain radicalChan masters of the time, while the second one may refer to certainesoteric Buddhist practices which made use of ritual sex.[6]
TheŚūraṅgamaSūtra argues for strict dietary rules, includingvegetarianism and the avoidance of the five pungent roots (radish, leek, onion, garlic, asafoetida).[6] The sūtra argues that these dietary choices "drive away bodhisattvas, gods, and xian [immortals], who protect the practitioner in this life, and attracts instead hungry ghosts."[6] The sūtra also states that eating meat can have dire consequences:
You should know that those who eat meat, although their minds maybe opened and realize a semblance of samadhi, will become greatraksasas (demons). When that retribution is over, they will sink back into the bitter ocean of samsara and will not be able to be disciples of the Buddha.[6]
TheŚūraṅgama goes even further with its ascetic injunctions, recommending the avoidance of animal products such as silk, leather, furs, milk, cream, and butter and arguing that this abstention can be a cause of enlightenment:[6]
Bodhisattvas and pure monks walking on country paths will not even tread on living grasses, much less uproot them. How then can it be compassionate to gorge on other beings' blood and flesh? Monks who will not wear silks from the East, whether coarse or fine; who will not wear shoes or boots of leather, nor furs, nor birds' down from our own country; and who will not consume milk, curds, or ghee, have truly freed themselves from the world. When they have paid their debts from previous lives, they will roam no longer through the three realms. "Why? To wear parts of a being's body is to involve one's karma with that being, just as people have become bound to this earth by eating vegetables and grains. I can affirm that a person who neither eats the flesh of other beings nor wears any part of the bodies of other beings, nor even thinks of eating or wearing these things, is a person who will gain liberation.[56]
The sūtra also teaches the practice of theburning of the body as an offering to the Buddhas.[6]
In addition to the sūtra's doctrinal content, it also contains a longdhāraṇī (chant, incantation) which is known in Chinese as theLéngyán Zhòu (楞嚴咒), orŚūraṅgama Mantra. It is well-known and popularly chanted inEast Asian Buddhism. InSanskrit, the dhāraṇī is known as theSitātapatra Uṣṇīṣa Dhāraṇī (Ch. 大白傘蓋陀羅尼). This is sometimes simplified in English toWhite Canopy Dhāraṇī orWhite Parasol Dhāraṇī. In Tibetan traditions, the English is instead sometimes rendered as the "White Umbrella Mantra." The dhāraṇī is extant in three other translations found in theChinese Buddhist canon[h], and is also preserved in Sanskrit andTibetan.
This dhāraṇī is often seen as having magicalapotropaic powers, as it is associated with the deitySitātapatra, a protector against supernatural dangers and evil beings.[57] TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra also states that the dhāraṇī can be used as an expedient means to enter into theŚūraṅgama samadhi.[23] According to Rounds, the sūtra also "gives precise instructions on the construction and consecration of a sacred space in which a practitioner can properly focus on recitation of the mantra."[23]
TheŚūraṅgama Mantra is widely recited in China, Korea and Vietnam by Mahayana monastics on a daily basis and by some laypersons as part of the Morning Recitation Liturgy.[2][3] The mantra is also recited by someJapanese Buddhist sects.
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra also contains various explanations ofBuddhist cosmology andsoteriology. The sūtra outlines various levels of enlightenment, the fifty-five bodhisattva stages. It also contains explanations of the horrible sufferings that are experienced in the hells (narakas) as well as explanations of the other realms of rebirth.[23]
Another theme found in theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is that of variousMāras (demonic beings) which are manifestations of the fiveskandhas (aggregates).[7] In its section on the fifty skandha-māras, each of the five skandhas has ten skandha-māras associated with it, and each skandha-māra is described in detail as a deviation from correct samādhi. These skandha-māras are also known as the "fifty skandha demons" in some English-language publications. Epstein introduces the fifty skandha-māras section as follows:[58]
For each state a description is given of the mental phenomena experienced by the practitioner, the causes of the phenomena and the difficulties which arise from attachment to the phenomena and misinterpretation of them. In essence what is presented is both a unique method of cataloguing and classifyingspiritual experience and indication of causal factors involved in the experience of the phenomena. Although the fifty states presented are by no means exhaustive, the approach taken has the potential of offering a framework for the classification of all spiritual experience, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist.
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra has been widely studied and commented on inChinese Buddhism.Ron Epstein has "found reference to 127 Chinese commentaries on the Sūtra, quite a few for such a lengthy work, including 59 in the Ming dynasty alone, when it was especially popular".[20]
Two principal factors underpinned its appeal. First, the text presents Buddha-nature through the concept ofxin xing (心性), or mind-nature, aligning with the interpretive framework common to most Chinese Buddhist traditions. Second, its doctrinal content is thoroughly Mahāyāna, resonating with the dominant philosophical orientation of Chinese Buddhism since the Tang. Once the sūtra appeared during the Tang, it was swiftly integrated into various schools, especially theChan tradition. Chan patriarchBaotang Wuzhu (保唐無住, 714–774), founder of theBaotang lineage, was the first to extensively cite theŚūraṃgama Sūtra to support Chan teachings. Prominent later Chan figures such as Guishan (溈山), Yangshan (仰山), and Fayan (法眼) were also deeply familiar with the text. The earliest known commentary, by Weique (惟愨), was produced in 766.[59]
In theTang andSong dynasties influential figures likeGuifeng Zongmi (圭峰宗密, 780–841) andYongming Yanshou (永明延壽, 904–975) helped advance the sūtra's prestige. Zongmi, who bridged the Huayan and Chan schools, frequently cited it in his interpretation of theSūtra of Perfect Enlightenment and considered it a supreme expression of doctrine, emblematic of the unity of Chan and scriptural teaching. Similarly, Yanshou made extensive use of the sūtra in his major treatise,Zongjing lu (宗鏡錄), to reinforce the same theme.[59] Exegesis on theŚūraṃgama Sūtra proliferated during the Song, especially among thinkers affiliated with the Huayan, Tiantai, and Chan traditions. Changshui Zixuan (長水子璿, 965–1038), who revitalized the Huayan school, earned the epithet "Grand Master of the Śūraṃgama" due to his influential commentary,Lengyan yishu (楞嚴義疏). His disciple, Jinshui Jingyuan (晉水淨源, 1011–1088), composed the first ritual manual based on the sūtra,Shoulengyan tanchang xiuzheng yi (首楞嚴壇場修證儀).[59] Tiantai tradition also revered the sūtra. Key Tiantai masters of the Song likeSiming Zhili (四明知禮, 960–1028) and Ciyun Zunshi (慈雲遵式, 964–1032) drew upon theŚūraṃgama Sūtra to support their positions. Commentaries by Gushan Zhiyuan (孤山智圓, 976–1022) and Renyue Jingjue (仁岳淨覺, 992–1064) became especially influential.[59]
In the Song era Chan school, the sūtra was revered as “the marrow of Chan” and became a central text. Chan monks used its content to support and deepen the integration of meditative and doctrinal practice. Masters such asDahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲, 1089–1163) andHongzhi Zhengjue (宏智正覺, 1091–1157) interpreted its teaching on the “ear-organ entry” as a model for Chan realization.[59] During theSong dynasty the sūtra was used in a ritual called theŚūraṅgama assembly which "was held semi-annually during monastic retreats, and there the participants chanted the long magical spell (dharani) contained in the sūtra. The dharani was also recited at memorial services for Chan abbots and patriarchs."[6] The sūtra is cited in various Chan Buddhist texts, like theBlue Cliff Record (case 94).[60][i] TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra also influenced the work of several Song intellectuals, likeSu Shi (1037–1101) andSu Zhe (1039–1112).[6]
Beyond Buddhism, the sūtra also began to influence Daoist and Confucian intellectuals in the Song. It was a preferred text among literati with Buddhist interests. As noted by official Chen Guan (陳瓘, 1042–1106), lay scholars often limited their Buddhist reading to a few key works, including theŚūraṃgama Sūtra. Distinguished figures such as Su Shi (蘇軾), Su Che (蘇轍),Wang Anshi (王安石), Zhang Shangying (張商英), and Huang Tingjian (黃庭堅) were all familiar with it. Commentaries by Wang and Zhang were particularly esteemed by monastic readers.[59]
The sūtra retained its prominence during theYuan dynasty (1271-1368).Chan mastersZhongfeng Mingben (中峰明本, 1263–1323) and his disciple Tianru Weize (天如惟則, 1284–1354) continued to promote its study. Weize’s commentary,Lengyan huijie (楞嚴會解), became the most authoritative exegetical work on the sūtra for the next two centuries. He asserted that no other scripture equaled theŚūraṃgama Sūtra in elucidating mind-nature, making it essential for Chan practice. AlthoughHuayan andTiantai were in decline during the Yuan, figures like Biefeng Datong (別峰大同, 1289–1370) and Yuanmeng Yunze (雲夢允澤, 1232–1297) sought to revitalize their respective schools through engagement with theŚūraṃgama Sūtra. EvenPure Land master Pudu (普度, d. 1330) drew on the sūtra to bolster his interpretation of Pure Land practice.[59]
The Ming dynasty saw theŚūraṅgama Sūtra at the height of its popularity in China.[62] By the mid-Ming period, theŚūraṅgama Sūtra retained significant influence, particularly among eminent monks and the educated elite. During this time, the Huayan monk Huijin 慧進 (1355–1436) was invited to lecture on theŚūraṅgama Sūtra in the imperial capital, drawing audiences exceeding ten thousand.[63] During the late Ming period, theŚūraṃgama Sūtra reached a peak in its influence and popularity among both Buddhist circles and the broader intellectual elite. Over the seventy-year span of the late Ming, more commentarial works on theŚūraṃgama Sūtra were produced than in any other historical period. The Qing-era monastic scholar Tongli (通理, 1701–1782) recorded at least sixty-eight known commentaries between the sūtra’s appearance in the Tang and his own time, with thirty of these composed during the late Ming alone—surpassing the twenty produced in the Song. A more comprehensive modern count confirms this trend: out of 135 commentaries written from the Tang through the Qing, sixty originated in the Ming, with over fifty of those concentrated in the late Ming. The range of authors (including Buddhists, Confucians, and Daoists) indicates the text’s wide dissemination and popularity among the literati.[59]
The continued relevance of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra during the Ming is largely attributable to its sophisticated exposition ofmind-nature (心性), a theme that resonated across the Chinese intellectual landscape in the Ming. As a tradition of foreign origin, Buddhism had long positioned itself in dialogue with native Chinese philosophies. It was only in the Ming dynasty, however, that the convergence of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism achieved a degree of philosophical integration around the principle thatmind-nature is truth. This development reflected a broader trend of doctrinal synthesis amongthe three teachings.[63] One key figure in this transformation was the Neo-Confucian philosopherWang Yangming 王陽明 (1472–1529), who reoriented Confucian metaphysics by emphasizing the concept ofinnate knowing (良知liang zhi). In his system, the mind supplantedHeavenly Principle (天理) as the foundational reality, thereby identifying the mind as the source and substance of all phenomena. Wang’s system gained wide acceptance in Confucian circles and served to dissolve longstanding boundaries between the three traditions. This philosophical convergence catalyzed the late Ming movement known as "Three Teachings in One" (三教合一), which advocated the fundamental compatibility of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism.[63]
Moreover, theŚūraṅgama Sūtra became a tool through which Buddhists articulated the superiority of their doctrine over that of the other traditions. For example, one promoter of the sūtra, the eminent monkYunqi Zhuhong (雲棲袾宏), while acknowledging that the three teachings express a common principle with varying degrees of profundity, asserted that the teachings of Confucian and Daoist sages failed to attain the depth of insight found in the sūtra’s presentation of the Way (dao).[63] As such, this influential monk held that would should begin one's studies with this sūtra: "The Śūraṃgama Sūtra has the best order [in discussing Buddhist teaching], one should read it first."[64] He also used the sūtra to defend his promotion of the dual practice ofChan andPure Land, as well as to argue for the unity of all Buddhist teachings (includingEsoteric Buddhism andVinaya).[64]
In this period, scholarly engagement with theŚūraṃgama Sūtra played a significant role in the broader Buddhist revival. Other influential figures who wrote commentaries on theŚūraṃgama wereHanshan Deqing (憨山德清, who is said to have attained enlightenment through the sūtra), Zibo Zhenke (紫栢真可),Ouyi Zhixu (蕅益智旭), Jiaoguang Zhenjian (交光真鑑) andYouxi Chuandeng (幽溪傳燈).[65] Chuandeng relied on the sūtra to revive the Tiantai school and wrote various commentaries on it.[66][20] Hanshan Deqing captured the spirit of the Ming era's attachment to the sūtra when he wrote:
[The Śūraṃgama Sūtra] has thorough insight into the origin of the one-mind and includes all the dharmas to the utmost extent. No scripture surpasses the extensiveness and completion of this sūtra.[67]
The sūtra continued to remain popular during the succeedingQing dynasty (1644-1912) through to the modern era. For instance, the eminent monk, VenerableYinguang, who is the Thirteenth Patriarch of theChinese Pure Land tradition, promoted the "Chapter of BodhisattvaDashizhi’s (Mahāsthāmaprāpta) Perfect Realisation onNianfo Samādhi" from the sūtra as the fifth Pure Land sūtra, together with theAmitābha Sūtra, theAmitāyus Sūtra, theAmitāyus Contemplation Sūtra and "The Practices and Vow of the BodhisattvaPuxian (Samantabhadra)" (which constitutes the last chapter of theAvataṃsaka Sūtra). Commentaries also continued to be produced by various eminent monks during this period. For instance, during the early Qing dynasty, the eminent monk Boting Xufa (伯亭續法), who was a dharma descendent ofYunqi Zhuhong and who specialized in theHuayan tradition, wrote a commentary titled theShou lengyan jing guanding shu (首楞嚴經灌頂疏) which has remained influential in contemporary times.[68] As another example, the eminentChan master VenerableXuyun, who was a mentor to many influential Buddhist teachers, wrote a commentary on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra which was unfortunately lost in 1951 during the horrific persecution of monks under theCampaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries. Other examples of influential commentaries written during this period are theDafoding lengyan jing jiangji (大佛頂首楞嚴經講記) by Venerable Hairen (海仁), the similarly titledDafoding lengyan jing jiangji (大佛頂首楞嚴經講記) by VenerableTanxu (倓虛), theDafoding lengyan jing miaoxin shu (大佛頂首楞嚴經妙心疏) by Venerable Shoupei (守培) and theDafoding lengyan jing jiangyi (大佛頂首楞嚴經講義) by VenerableYuanying (圓瑛).
VenerableHsuan Hua, who was among the first to teachChinese Buddhism in America, was another major modern proponent of theŚūraṅgama Sūtra. The sūtra along with his commentary on it was translated and published in English in 2003 by theDharma Realm Buddhist Association, which he founded. According to Hsuan Hua:
In Buddhism all the sutras are very important, but theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is most important. Wherever theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is, the Proper Dharma abides in the world. When theŚūraṅgama Sūtra is gone, the Dharma Ending Age is before one's eyes. (In theExtinction of the Dharma Sutra it says that in the Dharma Ending Age, theŚūraṅgama Sūtra will become extinct first. Then gradually the other sutras will also become extinct.)[69] TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra is the true body of the Buddha; theśarīra (relics) of the Buddha; the stūpa of the Buddha. All Buddhists must support with their utmost strength TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra[70]
It remains a major subject of doctrinal study and practice in most contemporaryChinese Buddhist traditions, with many popular modern eminent monastics inChina,Taiwan andoverseas Chinese communities such asSheng-yen (聖嚴),Chin Kung (淨空), Chengguan (成觀), Huilü (慧律) and Jingjie (淨界) having written commentaries on the sūtra or lectured on its teachings. The sūtra in its entirety is usually chanted in rituals such as theShuilu Fahui ceremony, and theŚūraṅgama mantra revealed in the sūtra is typically chanted as part of the dailymorning liturgical session in most Chinese Buddhist monasteries.
TheŚūraṅgama Sūtra was also important inKorean Buddhism. It became a required text for Korea's monastic examination system during theJoseon period.[6] TheŚūraṅgama remains one of the most influential sources in the advanced curriculum ofKorean Sŏn monasteries, along with theAwakening of Faith and theVajrasamadhi sūtra.[4]
TheJapanese Zen BuddhistDōgen held that the sūtra was not an authentic Indian text.[20] But he also drew on the text, commenting on theŚūraṅgama verse "when someone gives rise to Truth by returning to the Source, the whole of space in all ten quarters falls away and vanishes" as follows:
This verse has been cited by various Buddhas and Ancestors alike. Up to this very day, this verse is truly the Bones and Marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors. It is the very Eye of the Buddhas and Ancestors. As to my intention in saying so, there are those who say that the ten-fascicle Shurangama Scripture is a spurious scripture, whereas others say that it is a genuine Scripture: both views have persisted from long in the past down to our very day [...] Even were the Scripture a spurious one, if [Ancestors] continue to offer its turning, then it is a genuine Scripture of the Buddhas and Ancestors, as well as the Dharma Wheel intimately associated with Them.[71]
The sūtra was influential inJapanese Buddhism as over seventy historical commentaries have been written on it, with the majority being from theZen tradition.[16] In addition, eminent monastics such asKōbō Daishi, the Eighth Patriarch and founder of theShingon Buddhist tradition, andDengyō Daishi, the founder of theTendai Buddhist tradition, have also written works based on it. In contemporaryJapanese Buddhist practice, theŚūraṅgama mantra revealed in the sūtra is still chanted across the three mainZen traditions ofRinzai,Sōtō andŌbaku.
Note: Several notes are Chinese, due to the international character of Wikipedia. Help in translation is welcome.
Chinese texts
This is an index to the Taisho Tripitaka - nb Volume 19 is listed as 密教部 or Esoteric Sutra Section is where Taisho 945 (Surangama Sutra) is located.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)'河南南阳菩提寺原藏有1函梵文贝叶经，共226叶，其中残缺6叶，函上写有"印度古梵文"字样，据介绍，内容为 《楞严经》，很可能是唐代梵文经的孤本，字体为圆形，系印度南方文字一种，被国家定为一级文物，现存彭雪枫纪念馆。'(tr to English: Henan Nanyang Bodhi Temple originally had one Sanskrit language manuscript sutra, consisting in total 226 leaves, of which 6 were missing... according to introduction, it contains the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and most probably the only extant Sanskrit manuscript dating from the Tang Dynasty. The letters are roundish and belongs to a type used in South India and has been recognized by the country as a Category 1 cultural artifact. It is now located in the Peng Xuefeng Memorial Museum.
然而在乾隆皇帝另一御制序文里也提及了《首楞严经》...于乾隆三十五年（1770）7月25日的藏文《甘珠尔》的文序。...因为汉文本《首楞严经》中包含的经咒，与同一经咒的印度文献完全相同。有印度梵本渊源，因而整部《首楞严经》是真的。...至少可以看出乾隆及三世章嘉的态度即判定《首楞严经》并非伪经。(trans. to English: however in another foreword written by the Qianlong Emperor the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is mentioned...In the foreword to the Tibetan Kangyur from July 25, 1770...because the mantra contained in the Chinese text of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is identical to the mantra in an Indian text. (Since) there is an Indian Sanskrit source text (for the mantra), the entire Śūraṅgama Sūtra must be authentic...at the very least, we can see the attitude of the Qianlong Emperor and the Third Changkya Khutukhtu that judge the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is definitely not an apocryphal sutra.)
查考藏文资料，可以发现，如今的德格版、北京版、那塘版（藏文大藏经）里都收录有两个古藏文译版在吐蕃世纪三大古目里有记载，布顿大师明著《布頓教法源流》里也有着录…[(If ) we examine the Tibetan language materials, we will discover that within the current Derge Kangyur, Peking (Beijing) Kangyur, Narthang Kangyur (all of the preceding being Tibetan language Buddhist Tripitakas) there are recorded two ancient Tibetan texts (of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra);during the Tubo period, the three great ancient catalogue of sutras (which were compiled prior to King Langdarma's persecution of Buddhism ca. 840-841 CE; therefore the Tibetan Śūraṅgama Sūtra was probably translated ca. late eighth – early ninth century CE) have records of these translations;within Buton Rinchen Drub Rinpoche's Famous History of Buddhism (in India and Tibet) (written ca. 1322) it is also recorded (in the list of sutras)…]
プトゥン・リンチェン・ドゥプ Bu ston Rin chen bgrub (1290–1364) によって1322年に著わされた「プトゥン仏教史」．．．(trans. to English : Buton'sHistory of Buddhism in India and Tibet written in 1322 by Buton Rinchen Drub Rinpoche (1290–1364)…)
Chapter 1 to 3 are an introduction for the purpose of organizing the catalogue section of (Buton's Tripitaka found in) chapter 4…
两本古藏文译本，经笔者与汉文比对，发现确为"残本"，大致对应汉文本的第九卷和第十卷。(trans. to English: When comparing the two ancient Tibetan text with the Chinese text, the author discovered that they are indeed fragmentary texts which corresponds approximately to the Chinese Śūraṅgama Sūtra Scroll 9 and Scroll 10.)
The larger fragment (Sakurabe No. 902) contains a consecutive translation of a part of the ninth chapter and the entire tenth chapter of the larger Śūraṃgama. The smaller fragment (Sakurabe No. 903) contains numerous passages belonging to the ninth and tenth chapters of the larger Śūraṃgama.
乾隆皇帝认为，此经应该是在朗达玛统治时期散失不全…(trans. to English: The Qianlong Emperor supposed this sutra was partially scattered and lost during the rule of King Langdarma…)
布顿大师…并提出其中一个译本…翻译自汉文。也就是确实在乾隆之前存有藏文译本，且布顿以为两部中的一部译出自汉文and 两本古藏文是否早在朗达玛灭佛前就自汉文译出，有全译本存在，后损毁不少。还是其一源自汉文，另一部另有所本，都将此序文引出的新的研究议题。(trans. to English: ' Buton Rinpoche also noted that one of the translations of the ancient Tibetan text…was translated from Chinese. This verifies that prior to the Qianlong period there were Tibetan translations (of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra) and furthermore Buton supposed one of the two text was translated from Chinese.' and 'The two ancient Tibetan text may have been translated from Chinese before King Langdarma's persecution of Buddhism and a complete translation existed (before King Langdarma's persecution of Buddhism) afterwards large portions were destroyed; or one of the two (text) was translated from Chinese and the second was based on another text (i.e. translated from another source), (the research on) this foreword has opened up a new research topic for discussion.' )
The translation of the sutra were begun in A.D. 1752 and finished in A.D. 1763.
乾隆皇帝在位时间，曾将其译成藏、满、蒙、汉文四体合璧本。(tr. into English : During the reign of the Qianlong Emperor, the Emperor ordered the translation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra into Tibetan, Manchu language and Mongolian and combined with the Chinese into a four language compilation.
其次，章嘉国师向乾隆陈述了元代佛学大师布顿（bu ston rin chen grub 1290–1364）所作的授记，即此经"当于后五百年，仍自中国译至藏地。自布顿大师往后推算，乾隆时期与'后五百年'时间上也是暗合的当然。布顿大师的所谓授记，应该是三世章嘉为了劝说乾隆皇帝翻译《首楞严经》所作的附会之辞。(trans. to English: Next, the Changkya Khutukhtu national preceptor tells the Qianlong Emperor the prophecy made by the great Buddhist Master Buton Rinchen Drub Rinpoche (1290–1364) regarding this sutra, namely that five hundred years hence, it will again be translated from China and brought to Tibet. If we calculate from Buton Rinpoche's time to the time period when the Qianlong Emperor reigns, it of course matches by coincidence the five hundred years (predicted by the prophecy). The so-called prophecy of Buton Rinpoche was (made relevant and) used by the third Changkya Khutukhtu to exhort the Qianlong Emperor to translate the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.)
序中提及的翻译工程的负责人是庄亲王允禄，主要参与者则有三世章嘉呼图克图若必多吉和傅鼐。(Trans. to English: The foreword mentioned the person responsible for the translation wasPrince Zhuang Yun Lu, the main participants were the third Changkya Khutukhtu Ruobiduoji (Rölpé Dorjé) and Fu Nai.)
Whenever there was the possibility of a doubt [the correct translation] was quickly fixed by advice from the state teacher (or National Preceptor) [8b] Lcan-skya Hu-thog-thu (also known as the Third Changkya Khutukhtu Rölpé Dorjé) and [the question] settled.
cf. Footnote 30: (volume KI of the Mdo division of the Narthang Kanjur is of course printed in black letters.) – the Tibetan version of my xylograph seems to be identical with the Tibetan version of the quadralingual edition.
Prince Fu-ch'üan, the chief editor of the A.D. 1700 Kanjur edition, reports that in preparing the edition, he acted on orders from the emperor K'ang-hsi to complement 補 the Kanjur. The emperor Ch'ien-lung venerated the emperor K'ang-hsi as a model ruler, and followed his grandfather's example whenever possible.
"Again, a sevenfold doctrine leads to an evil life course, a second sevenfold doctrine leads to a good life course, and a third sevenfold doctrine leads to nirvana. What are the sevenfold doctrinal items that lead to an evil life course? They are seven evil actions: taking life; taking what is not given;sexual misconduct; false speech; duplicitous speech; harsh speech; and frivolous sycophancy. There are seven good actions: abstinence from taking life; abstinence from taking what is not given; abstinence from sexual misconduct; abstinence from false speech; abstinence from duplicitous speech; abstinence from harsh speech; and abstinence from frivolous sycophancy. What are the seven doctrinal items that lead to nirvana? They are seven auxiliary disciplines of enlightenment. First a bhikṣu practices the discipline of mindfulness on the basis of nondesire and quiescence, distancing [himself] from worldly matters...." Ven. Ichimura Shōhei translated the Chinese translation of the Sanskrit Dīrgha Āgama into English (the Theravada equivalent is the Dīrgha Nikāya in Pali). The original Sanskrit text is from the Dharmaguptaka School of Buddhism and was translated into Chinese by Buddhayaśas (a Kashmiri monk) and Zhu Fonian in 413 CE. Notice the similar emphasis on precepts for the advancement of Buddhist practice. Although this example is from the Dharmaguptaka school, the same emphasis on precepts can be applied to all schools of Buddhism.
However, within fifty-two years the Shurangama Sutra and the Pratyutpanna [Standing Buddha] Samadhi, will be the first to change and then to disappear. The twelve divisions of the canon will gradually follow until they vanish completely, never to appear again.
在佛教裏，所有的經典，都很重要，但是楞嚴經更為重要。凡是有楞嚴經所在的地方，就是正法住世。楞嚴經沒有了，就是末法現前。楞嚴經是佛的真身，楞嚴經是佛的舍利，楞嚴經是佛的塔廟。所有的佛教徒，必須拿出力量，拿出血汗來擁護這部楞嚴經。
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
.svg)