Talk:Śūraṅgama Sūtra

Source of mantra
It would be good to point out the source from where the mantra in the article has been taken. --Knverma 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The mantra is also not properly translitered.--Stephen Hodge 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese sources
Some scholar said the Shurangama Sutra is created by chinese, you could see them at the chinese wiki.--Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A wikipedia article is not a reliable source, and "some scholar" is too vague to be worth writing without actually saying which scholars. - SudoGhost 16:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I just thinking that was a common sense in chinese buddish study so I added it. All the source I got is written in chinese.--Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can just provide the Chinese sources? That has been done before; see Buddhist mummies. It's quite likely that there are much more Chinese sources on Chinese culture and religion than that there are western sources... Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I could provide the chinese source. And I would translate it to english if I can. That would be great if someone could review my english. --Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * |en|%E9%96%8B%E5%85%83%E9%87%8B%E6%95%99%E9%8C%84%E3%80%8B%EF%BC%9A%E3%80%8C%E6%B2%99%E9%96%80%E9%87%8B%E6%87%B7%E8%BF%AA%EF%BC%8C%E5%BE%AA%E5%B7%9E%E4%BA%BA%E4%B9%9F%EF%BC%8C%E4%BD%8F%E6%9C%AC%E5%B7%9E%E7%BE%85%E6%B5%AE%E5%B1%B1%E5%8D%97%E6%A8%93%E5%AF%BA%E3%80%82%E5%85%B6%E5%B1%B1%E4%B9%83%E4%BB%99%E8%81%96%E9%81%8A%E5%B1%85%E4%B9%8B%E8%99%95%E3%80%82%E8%BF%AA%E4%B9%85%E7%BF%92%E7%B6%93%E8%AB%96%EF%BC%8C%E5%A4%9A%E6%89%80%E8%A9%B2%E5%8D%9A%EF%BC%8C%E4%B9%9D%E6%B5%81%E5%BC%8B%E7%95%A5%EF%BC%8C%E7%B2%97%E4%BA%A6%E8%A8%8E%E5%B0%8B%EF%BC%8C%E4%BD%86%E4%BB%A5%E5%B1%85%E8%BF%91%E6%B5%B7%E9%9A%85%EF%BC%8C%E6%95%B8%E6%9C%89%E6%A2%B5%E5%83%A7%E9%81%8A%E6%AD%A2%EF%BC%9B%E8%BF%AA%E5%B0%B1%E5%AD%B8%E6%9B%B8%E8%AA%9E%EF%BC%8C%E5%BE%A9%E7%9A%86%E9%80%9A%E6%82%89%E3%80%82%E5%BE%80%E8%80%85%E4%B8%89%E8%97%8F%E8%8F%A9%E6%8F%90%E6%B5%81%E5%BF%97%E8%AD%AF%E7%AB%87%E7%A9%8D%E7%B6%93%EF%BC%8C%E9%81%A0%E5%8F%AC%E8%BF%AA%E4%BE%86%EF%BC%8C%E4%BB%A5%E5%85%85%E8%AD%89%E7%BE%A9%E3%80%82%E6%89%80%E7%82%BA%E4%BA%8B%E7%95%A2%EF%BC%8C%E9%82%84%E6%AD%B8%E6%95%85%E9%84%89%E3%80%82%E5%BE%8C%E5%9B%A0%E9%81%8A%E5%BB%A3%E5%BA%9C%E9%81%87%E4%B8%80%E6%A2%B5%E5%83%A7%20%28%E6%9C%AA%E5%BE%97%E5%85%B6%E5%90%8D%29%20%EF%BC%8C%E8%B3%9A%E6%A2%B5%E7%B6%93%E4%B8%80%E5%A4%BE%EF%BC%8C%E8%AB%8B%E5%85%B1%E8%AD%AF%E4%B9%8B%EF%BC%8C%E5%8B%92%E6%88%90%E5%8D%81%E5%8D%B7%EF%BC%8C%E5%8D%B3%E3%80%8A%E5%A4%A7%E4%BD%9B%E9%A0%82%E8%90%AC%E8%A1%8C%E9%A6%96%E6%A5%9E%E5%9A%B4%E7%B6%93%E3%80%8B%E6%98%AF%E4%B9%9F%E3%80%82%E8%BF%AA%E7%AD%86%E5%8F%97%E7%B6%93%E6%97%A8%EF%BC%8C%E7%B7%9D%E7%B7%9E%E6%96%87%E7%90%86%E3%80%82%E5%85%B6%E6%A2%B5%E5%83%A7%E5%82%B3%E7%B6%93%E4%BA%8B%E7%95%A2%EF%BC%8C%E8%8E%AB%E7%9F%A5%E6%89%80%E4%B9%8B%E3%80%82%E6%9C%89%E5%9B%A0%E5%8D%97%E4%BD%BF%EF%BC%8C%E6%B5%81%E7%B6%93%E8%87%B3%E6%AD%A4%E3%80%82 Google translate has got some difficulties... This is the translation of the first source/note:
 * "Kaiyuan release teach recorded: "Salmonella relieved Di, through the state of people live in the state Rover Shannan floor Temple. Their mountain is a fairy holy tour ranking place. Di-long learning through theory, many of the Bo, On abysmal Yi, crude also discussto find, but ranks near Haiyu number the Fanseng tour only; Di school book language, complex and all directions noted. Sanzo Bodhi flow to those Chi translation sinus product by far Zhao Di, to charge the card justice. for things completed.to the hometown. case of a Fanseng due to travel Guangfu (without his name), Dalai Vatican by a folder, the total translation of Le into ten volumes, "big Foding Wan line sutra" is also.Di pen by purpose, Ji satin Arts and its Fanseng pass by things completed, Mozhi of due south so that flows through this point."


 * the google translate is not very useful when translate chinese. And Ancient Chinese is like latin, it grammar is different with the chinese now. That is difficult to understand ancient chinese even for the Chinese people in well education. --Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, some people thought this sutra might be a Chinese original due to the literary styling of the text. Some Confucians tried to claim that it was originally Chinese in order to slander Chinese Buddhism, and this included some very weak claims that could not be taken seriously by scholars anymore. For example, because the character for "immortal" was used, it was claimed that the text is referring to Chinese Daoist immortals. However, that same character is commonly found in many Buddhist texts as a translation of rishi or siddha. I've tried to find any type of reliable English sources on the matter, but no actual evidence whatsoever is provided for the sutra being Chinese in origin. Ron Epstein is the only one who has addressed this matter in any depth, but his conclusion is that the sutra is probably from India, as its contents have characteristics that indicate an Indian original. See: THE SHURANGAMA-SUTRA (T. 945): A REAPPRAISAL OF ITS AUTHENTICITY. I don't think any western academics have looked into the matter since. Tengu800 11:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the material recently added seems like original synthesis that is meant to cast doubt on the origins of the sutra, without providing actual evidence and research that indicate one conclusion or another. For example, sentences posing questions to the reader are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and violate WP policies regarding NPOV and original research. Tengu800 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Faure considers it to be "apocryphal" (p42, p122 n9, p231, p240), but gives no indication if his sources or research, though his topic of interest seems to be the 'danger' of immoral behaviour when 'emptiness' is taken too literal. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Leon Hurvitz
Apparently Leon Hurvitz is/was a western scholar of Buddhism:, who translated the Lotus Sutra. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Faure
What do you mean with the for Faure? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just mean that when relying on scholarship, since scholars often have divergent opinions, it is usually best practice to name the scholar and cite the rationale or research. Particularly on a subject like this, in which one scholar may cite the text as being "apocryphal" without then citing their actual sources or research, the information may not be reliable. With this sutra, much criticism has been in the form of rumors (unfortunately). I would be surprised if more than a handful of scholars in the West have even read the text in question. Tengu800 23:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. As for Faure and his rationale, see above. I was surprised how little research is vailable. Not only on the Internet, but also via the University digital library: two articles. What I wanted to know is how important this sutra actually has been for the Chán/Zen tradition. The sutra itself is interesting; I'm reading it now, and (to me) it has a clear 'Zen flavour'. But that's for my personal interest, of course. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sutra itself has a lot of Tathagatagarbha teachings and Buddhist Logic, with esoteric elements throughout (and a little Yogacara). I haven't noticed anything I would regard as close to the Chan of the Tang or Song dynasties, but Chan also draws upon sources with Tathagatagarbha and Yogacara elements. The sutra was quite popular within Chinese Buddhism since the Song Dynasty, and was very popular with some later Chan masters, but (as far as I know) never really had any special relationship to the Chan school. I'm not sure where that whole notion came from, as some parts of the sutra are very strongly esoteric (e.g. elaborate bodhimanda construction, and the extremely long White Parasol Dharani), and assume gradual cultivation through 57 bodhisattva stages. Tengu800 23:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's also nice to keep some "riddles" and unknowns in our understanding of Buddhism. Thanks again for your comments and critical assessments. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This Sūtra has been well-established as an apocryphal Chinese creation for at least 60 years. See Paul Demieville, /Le Concile de Lhasa: une controverse sur le quietisme entre bouddhistes de l'lnde et de la Chine au Ville siecle de l'ere chretienne/ (Paris: College de France, Institutdes hautes etudes chinoises, 1952), pp. 42-52; or Mochizuki Shinkō, /Bukkyō kyōten seiritsu shiron/ (Kyoto: Hozokan, 1946), pp. 493-509. The only scholar who seems ever to have questioned it is Epstein, as far as I know. Benn (Benn, James A. “Where Text Meets Flesh: Burning the Body as an Apocryphal Practice in Chinese Buddhism.” History of Religions 37.4 (1998): 295–322.) suggests that Fang Rong, an official at the court of Empress Wu and listed in catalogues as the "assistant" to an otherwise totally unknown "Indian translator", has long been considered the likely author, a position which he considers himself to have corroborated in this paper. Sjwiles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article by Benn does not really give any reasoning for regarding the sutra as apocryphal, and instead avoids the matter in the typical manner. The theory that Fang Yong himself composed the sutra is quite a stretch, since the text relies heavily on materials that would only be known to a monk educated in abhidharma, buddhist logic, and even Indian esoteric teachings (e.g. construction of a tantric bodhimanda that are definitely from India). Epstein covers many such issues including the structure of the text itself and the linguistic aspects including the transliteration method. Now, I definitely am not opposed to different views being included in the article, but the views cited in the article should be clearly referenced and explained so the reader can judge for him or herself. From what I have seen, it is clear that most scholars who regard the sutra as "apocryphal" in passing have never even examined the contents of the text. Tengu800 05:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Śūraṅgama Sūtra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.shky.org/zsdde/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=1500
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://staff.oswego.org/ephaneuf/web/On%20The%20Road%20Trip%202007/Suzuki,%20D.T.%20-%20Manual%20of%20Zen%20Buddhism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Śūraṅgama Sūtra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120420063029/http://www4.bayarea.net:80/~mtlee/ to http://www4.bayarea.net/~mtlee/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Reference Link
Hi. I would like to add a reference link, but failed many times. Could you please help me? Thanks. at the english edit book: Hsuan Hua url= www.cttbusa.org/shurangama1/shurangama_contents.asp title=The Shurangama Sutra Contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venajun (talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

meaning of Śūraṅgama
The article currently reads ''Śūraṅgama roughly means "indestructible." The word is composed of Śūraṅ (great, absolutely), with Gama (durable, solid).'' This is cited to the Buddhist Text Translation Society. In turn, BTTS cites Boin-Webb's translation and Boin-Webb cites the Nirvana Sutra. It seems that the Śūraṅgama samādhi is mentioned in the Nirvana Sutra and there this interpretation of its meaning is given. Étienne Lamotte quotes this passage of the Nirvana Sutra in the introduction to his translation of the Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra and comments that "This is a purely imaginary etymology." All other sources beside the Nirvana Sutra agree that Śūraṅgama means something along the lines of "heroic". DDB glosses it as "heroic valor". Lamotte and others take it mean something like "heroic march" or "heroic progression" (gama by itself would mean a going, march, road, etc.). I am going to edit the article to show these as the possible meanings. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)