There is a text that explains what the Buddha was doing as he sat under the Bodhi tree with the intent to become enlightened. Yes, he was meditating. But do you know how he was meditating? It is important to know this today, because everything, as we all know with complete certainty now, is changing. And Buddha left an explanation for what we need to do now in order to follow his path. When he was asked what this teaching should be called, he gave it the name: The Complete Instructions for the Practice and Realizations of the Buddha’s Secret Path. Today, it is known as the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, which means the “Heroic Progress” Sutra. This name refers to the efficacy of the Buddha’s secret path.
But for over twelve-hundred years, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra has been attacked, denigrated, slandered, and misrepresented as a forgery by those who have put great effort into poisoning the well of profound wisdom that this teaching of Buddha brings. These naysayers have been most effective within Tibetan Buddhism where this sutra has never been taught — until just recently — and you should know why so that your heart cannot be hardened against this sublime and timely teaching of the Buddha.
As Prof. Ron Epstein, who was part of the English translation team at the Buddhist Text Translation Society working under the auspices of Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, explains:
For over a thousand years the Shurangama Sutra has been held in great esteem in the Mahayana countries of East Asia. In China the Sutra was ranked in popularity and importance with the Lotus, Avatamsaka and Prajna Paramita Sutras; it was also accorded imperial favor.
Yet, in Tibetan Buddhism, it is unknown, except by scholars, who either dismiss it because they were told it was a forgery, or who actively denigrate it as a forgery because ‘everyone knows it’s a forgery’. But as will become apparent to you, there is very little actual scholarship and much acrimony in these opinions that are held by otherwise bright people. To put it bluntly, these opinions of scholars are based upon a meme that has persisted for over a millennium.
The teaching of Buddha within this sutra is literally the most important tool ever created — because it provides us with the means to actually save ourselves from our most damaging behavior and thinking. It explains in detail how Siddhārtha Gautama became enlightened — necessarily on his own, without the guidance of a teacher — and it takes us step-by-step to a direct understanding of reality and the nature of our mind, while helping us change our most problematic behaviors, which today, have led us to impending global environmental collapse, and perhaps global ecocide.
The sutra also explains exactly how there will be some who will try to control us at this time in order to misdirect our efforts to their benefit, and against our collective-interest. They will specifically do this by leading us away from this teaching.
How did this happen? As I will show you, the Buddha explains in this sutra how we can become confused about his teachings, thinking that all we need to do is listen to his words with reverence, yet not make any effort to put his wisdom into practice in our lives. Many people satisfy themselves in this way, and take pride in their knowledge of Buddhist concepts and names. Even some scholars, who should know better, fall into this ego trap.
But see what this sutra says about that:
One of the main themes of the work is that in itself knowledge of the Dharma, that is the teachings of the Buddha, is worthless unless accompanied by meditational ability, or samadhi power. Also stressed is the importance of moral precepts as a foundation for the Path. These themes are established in the work’s prologue in which the erudite Ananda, who remembered everything the Buddha taught but never bothered to sit down and meditate, succumbs to an evil spell and is on the verge of being seduced by a prostitute, when he is saved by a mantra recited by the Buddha.¹
How this campaign against the truth came to be — by those directly attacked by this sutra — is an interesting story, which I am about to tell. It starts with a lie, and as most good stories go, with an evil villain. Only this one was real, not just another Hollywood creation. He lived in the 8th Century in Tibet, and his name was Langdarma.
Rather than recount the story in sequential order, I am going to frame it as a series of vignettes in response to the things said, and done, by those who, still today, wish to harm the reputation of this most wonderful tool — the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. I call them the Skeptics — those that oppose the truth.
And before you dismiss this story as just a history lesson, and therefore of no interest to you, you should know that there is something new here in this story, something very important, as it is evidence that undermines the slander, lies, and poison used by those who wish to harm this sutra — and those that meekly follow these naysayers by unquestioningly accepting what they say.
This evidence lay forgotten and overlooked for hundreds of years until it was found by someone with a good heart filled with compassion for all beings in the face of what is coming, and who provided that evidence to me. In light of this evidence, which is confirmable by anyone with the desire to see it for themselves, and in light of the complete lack of any justification for what has, and is, passed off as ‘critical scholarship’ that calls into question the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, this controversy is over. This conflict is now behind us, except for those most vehemently opposed to the insights and hope it brings us.
These scholars are small in number, but they prey, still today, on the widespread ignorance about this wonderful teaching of Buddha — within Tibetan Buddhism. You can identify them by their incessant slandering of this teaching and the technological help it can give us — you see, it’s not just the text itself that they attack as being inauthentic, it is the meditation practice of all the Buddhas that it contains, and explains at length, that they try to keep from us, for it is that which can help us overcome our worst behaviors, and perhaps, if enough of us follow the Buddha’s true path, actually put an end to our destruction of each other, and of all sentient life on this planet.
These skeptics will not even be able to see the evidence of its veridical nature that this text presents, so they won’t read and verify it, being content to continue repeating their slanderous opinions against this sutra. They are deplorable, yes, but also, they are a sad reminder to us all, that it is easy — especially today — to lose our way thinking that knowledge alone can save us. If only it was that easy! Some examples from the sutra:
When Ānanda saw the Buddha, he bowed and wept in sorrow. He regretted that, since time without beginning, he had devoted himself to erudition but had not fully developed his practice on the Path. Respectfully and repeatedly he asked the Buddha to explain for him the elementary steps that lead to attainment in the wondrous practices of calming the mind, contemplative insight, and meditation in stillness — practices through which the Thus-Come Ones from all ten directions had become fully awakened.
The Buddha said to Ānanda, “the reason why so many practitioners in the world do not succeed in putting an end to outflows and becoming Arhats — though they may have passed through all nine of the successive stages of Samādhi — is that they are attached to distorted mental processes that come into being and then cease to be, and they mistake these processes for what is real. That is why, even though you have become quite learned, you have not become a sage.
(Ānanda said,) Ever since I followed the Buddha and resolved to enter the monastic life, I have relied on the Buddha’s awe-inspiring spirit. I have often thought, “There is no reason for me to toil at spiritual practice,” because I just expected that the Thus-Come One would graciously transfer some of his samādhi to me. I never realized that in fact he simply could not stand in for me, in body or in mind. Thus I abandoned my original resolve, and though my body has indeed entered the monastic life, my mind has not entered the Path. I am like that poor son who ran away from his father. Today I realize that, though I am learned, I might as well not have learned anything if I do not practice, just as someone who only talks of food never gets full.²
Such individuals as these that substitute knowledge for actual attainments are ghosts who will forever wander the confines of their diseased minds, relishing all the ‘beautiful’ things they find there, while being forever blind to what is real.
And they will continue to poison the minds of fools who listen to them. But it is these fools who have accepted what the skeptics have slanderously said about this sutra — without ever seeing if it was true for themselves — that may be saved from their unhappy ignorance, if they can be led to the truth and made to see it. And it is for them, that I have been directed to write this information down and disseminate it.
You may find the word “fool” to be unkind, so allow me to expand on my meaning in using it. First off, I understand that scholars’ work is always built upon the work of other scholars, both contemporary and those that preceded them, and so it would seem that I am being very unkind calling any scholar a fool simply because they never bothered to research the authenticity of the Surangama Sutra themselves — especially given the widespread understanding in Tibetan Buddhism that “everyone knows it is a forgery.”
But here’s the reason why that isn’t acceptable in this case: for while the Surangama Sutra has been believed to be a forgery among scholars of Tibetan Buddhism, the very same sutra “has been held in great esteem in the Mahayana countries of East Asia,” as I quoted above. So, any scholar that pays attention to their field of study should be aware that the esteem and popularity of this text in various other parts of East Asia strongly indicates that there is something amiss in “what everyone knows to be true.”
And yes, I am sure that they are all too busy with other, more important work, to bother to go back and re-examine a question that has been ‘settled’ for so long that no one can even remember what the issues were. Ok, that’s acceptable. But times change and new information comes to light, and a scholar should always keep an open mind, and never, ever, try to suppress information, which is exactly what is happening today — we are moving into a time of extreme suffering, this text specifically talks about a specific meditation practice that will help one and all get through this suffering, and there is a prophetic text that has been discovered in the papers of the most highly respected Tibetan lama of the last century which specifically points to this same meditation practice as a salve for the suffering of this specific period of time, and all of this is being intentionally suppressed by some skeptics, dismissed out-of-hand by others, and doesn’t even hit the radar screen of the rest because it has been suppressed or ignored. This is kindergarten scholarship.
I have spoken elsewhere in this book about how science only advances “one funeral at a time” — which is an infamous quote from Max Plank, the famous 20th Century physicist, which has recently been confirmed to be accurate by scientists. The point is, ‘positions’ on academic subjects are held as firmly as a modern army holds a captured hill, and that is the reason why some scholars are so intent on killing this information. Such behavior does not belong within the study of Tibetan Buddhism because it completely goes against Buddha’s teachings on not holding attachments to things, and certainly goes against Buddha’s prescription to always “see for yourself if this is true, or not.”
So, yes, those who don’t notice the incongruity of a supposedly forged sutra being held in high esteem and being widely studied in related Mahayana schools of Buddhism, and who don’t take the time to examine new information, especially if their refusal is based upon what “everyone knows to be true,” and even go to the extent of suppressing and denigrating work of one of their own most revered lamas, refusing to acknowledge what is at stake, are fools. And fools are leading us to our lemming-lunge to obscurity.
ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
Claim 1: The first claim of the skeptics is that this sutra is a forgery, created in China by Fang Yong, Tang Dynasty Empress Wu Zetian’s former minister, court regulator, and state censor.
The Chinese documentation for this sutra says that it was translated during the Tang Dynasty. The first catalogue that recorded the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was that of Zhisheng, a monk in Tang China. He gave two accounts of its translation: the first, which appeared in The Kaiyuan Era Catalog of the Buddhist Tripitaka, said that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated in 713 CE by Venerable Master Huai Di and an unnamed Indian monk. The second, more detailed record, which appeared in the “Continuation to the History of the Translation of Buddhist Sutras Mural Record,” said the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated in May 705 CE by Shramana Paramiti from Central India, edited by Bodhisattva-precepts Disciple Fang Yong of Qing He, who was Empress Wu Zetian’s former minister, court regulator, and state censor, and reviewed by Shramana Meghashikara from Uddiyana, and finally, it was certified by Shramana Huai Di from Nan Luo Monastery on Luo Fu Mountain. “Shramana” (Śramaṇa in Sanskrit) means “one who labours, toils, or exerts themselves for some higher or religious purpose.”
It will be useful to expand on this latter detailed record in order to understand the complexity of the translation process so that we can understand the role that each of the individuals just listed had in the work itself. This will help us understand the roles of the individuals who were responsible for the Tibetan translation of this sutra that we will discuss later in this chapter.
Reviewed by Shramana Meghashikara from Uddiyana: When Dharma Master Paramiti was conducting the translation task, Shramana Meghashika of Uddiyana was his assistant. Uddiyana was a place in India. It used to be an imperial garden. Meghashika means “Able to Subdue”, which indicates that he could subdue afflictions, demon-obstacles, or anything of the sort. Having left Uddiyana for China, Meghashika revised the translation, paying particular attention to what expressions in Chinese would be used. He was one of the highest Dharma Masters to take part in the work.
Certified by Shramana Huai Di from Nan Luo Monastery on Luo Fu Mountain: This Dharma Master was extremely well-educated. He concentrated on the study of the teachings of the sutras, so he was very clear about the doctrines contained in them. Because he also understood Sanskrit, he was the Dharma Master appointed to certify the translation.
Since both Dharma Master Paramiti and Dharma Master Meghashika understood Sanskrit thoroughly, why did someone else from China certify the translation? Although these two Dharma Masters had mastered both Sanskrit and Chinese, they had just come to China, and it was feared that they did not completely understand Chinese, so someone from China was called upon to certify the translation. This was Dharma Master Huai Di.
Edited by Bodhisattva-precepts Disciple Fang Yong of Qing He, former Censor of State, concurrently Attendant and Minister, and Court Regulator: The Bodhisattva precepts should be taken by both monastics and laity. The Sutra that sets forth the Bodhisattva precepts, the Brahma Net Sutra, says, “Whether as king of a country or as a great official, when one is initiated into one’s position, one should take the Bodhisattva precepts.”
Because Fang Yong understood the Buddhadharma, he took the Buddha as his father and the Bodhisattvas as his brothers. The Bodhisattva Precepts consist of Ten Major and Forty-eight Minor Precepts. After Fang Yong took the Bodhisattva Precepts, he referred to himself as a disciple.
In the past, he had been a Censor of State, whose duty was to keep watch of state affairs and criticize any misconduct. “Of State” affirms his official authority. The text says “former,” meaning that at the time he edited the Shurangama Sutra translation, he was no longer in that position.
Concurrently means that he held two positions: Attendant and Minister. These are names from the Prime Minister mansion. As attendant, he looked after the Emperor’s affairs and carried out imperial commands. As minister, he was involved in the government of the country and in that capacity issued his own commands. His duty as Court Regulator was to make sure the affairs of imperial court were in equilibrium.
His family name was Fang; his given name was Yong. Yong means “perfectly fused.” He was from Qing He. “Edited by” means he used his brush to write out the text. He polished the language, making it even more eloquent, so that the style and technical perfection of the writing is of unsurpassed excellence.
Why? Official Fang Yong was a great writer, an extremely well-educated man. That he himself, with his own brush, polished this text makes the Shurangama Sutra text particularly fine. If you wish to study Chinese, you can memorize the Shurangama Sutra; it is a paragon of Chinese composition.³
Take a look at this: There were three dharma masters and one layperson listed. With regard to these four people, we can use the four-steps in translation to explain it:
Translation: This is the initial translation, or the preliminary translation.
Review: This is to correct or modify the translated text.
Refinement: This is to polish the text.
Certification: This is to authenticate the text.
These four steps are consistent with all translation processes, even modern ones. Dharma Master Huai Di was the certifier at the time. It was uncertain that he knew Sanskrit. However, he could certify that the meanings of the translated Chinese text were completely accurate. At that time, Fang Yong was a very well-educated scholar, a high official and a noble person. He had a high social status, he was erudite and he believed in the Buddha. Because of these, he was also willing to join in and investigate the Buddhadharma together. Do you see the point of why Fang Yong was needed to do the text polishing? This refinement was not due to any issue of trust or distrust, accuracy or inaccuracy. Rather, it was Fang Yong’s Buddhist faith, his good educational background, and his status being the same level as other high officials during that time that made him perfect for the job.⁴
It is difficult to understand, or even assert, that Fang Yong alone could have forged this sutra, given the reputations of the three individuals who were responsible for the translation and certification of this text. It is hard to understand how someone, though a follower of Buddha who had taken the Bodhisattva Precepts, which are the rules of discipline that one must adhere to (more on this later) could have forged a document within which such sublime and profound doctrines were recorded. He even referred to himself as a disciple, not a master, and certainly not a realized being, as would be necessarily the case if he authored this document himself.
However, this attribution to Fang Yong is problematic for another reason.
You see, the mention of Fang Yong poses a chronological problem. According to the “Old Book of Tang,” Volume 7, Fang Yong was put in prison in January 705 CE because he was involved in a court struggle. He was then exiled from Luoyang to Guangxi Qinzhou in February, where he died in February. If the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated in 705 CE, the cooperation of Fang Yong is doubtful, and his forgery-making impossible, given the sheer size of the text. If the text was translated in 713 CE, Fang Yong had no chance to aid in the translation of the text, nor forge it, since he died in 705.
A possible solution to this problem though is to reflect on the size and complexity of this sutra and realize that it would have taken a significant amount of time to translate, edit, refine, and then certify it. Fang Yong’s fall from grace may have come at the end, rather than the beginning, of the translation effort, so he might have been available for some time in 704 to refine the text. But whether he tried to forge a new version of the text, is beyond doubt impossible simply because Dharma Master Huai Di certified it after Fang Yong’s death, and he would have seen the forgery immediately.
This whole affair is important because a dispute about this text arose later in the 8th century in Japan, so Emperor Kōnin sent Master Tokusei and a group of monks to China, to ask whether this book was a forgery or not. A Chinese upasaka, or layperson — note the lack of authority of this person — who was sweeping the courtyard of the monastery where they traveled to, to learn the truth about the sutra, told the head monk of the Japanese monastic delegation that the sutra had been forged by Fang Yong.
As Khenpo Sodargye of Larung Gar Tibetan Monastery in China related in his teachings on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra in Autumn 2019 — which was the first time in over a millennia that this sutra was taught by a Tibetan Buddhist teacher — the Japanese delegation had not made an appointment with the Abbot of the monastery, and they were not received by him on their arrival. As they were leaving, they met the gardener, and decided to ask him instead. This then became the ‘truth’ upon which the sutra’s apocryphal status as a forgery was first established. Clearly, the gardener’s response was based either upon misinformation, or an outright act of calumny. In any case, anyone who listens to a gardener on such matters is a fool. And yet, at its heart, this was the foundation for all the later slandering of this sutra.
Khenpo Sodargye of Larung Gar Monastery
ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
Claim 2: The second claim of the skeptics is that this sutra is not recorded in the Kangyur, that is, it is not canonical.
Here is where the evil one, Langdarma, comes into the story.
But first, I need to repeat what everyone knows is the case: There are two scrolls of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra found in the Tibetan Kangyur: scroll 9 and 10 (out of 10). These are, of course, in the Tibetan language, as the Kangyur (the collected translated texts recounting Buddha’s teachings) contains the Tibetan translations of most of the sutras of Indian Buddhism. The translations in the Kangyur are assumed to have (or had) Sanskrit originals from which they were translated, but there are a certain number of texts that were necessarily translated from other Indic languages and from Chinese translations, when no Indian original was available.
This post is for subscribers only
Sign up now to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for subscribers only.
