How Malcolm Smith’s Campaign to Undermine the Surangama Sutra on Social Media Undermines the Mahayana
The following is an open letter to the Tibetan Buddhist Community.
Summary:
Malcolm Smith, a respected translator of Tibetan texts can seemingly be found throughout social media, wherever Buddhism and Buddhist meditation is discussed by practitioners, where he frequently makes statements that cast doubt on the Dharma, and undermines practitioners’ resolve. He has a prodigious presence on the Dharma Wheel forum, where his 40,452 posts (as of 27 July 2022) represents 6.75% of all of the posts on the forum over its multi-decade history. Dharma Wheel has 14,668 registered users, and many more daily ‘guests’.
The following text uses one single thread to exemplify the kinds of questionable statements he makes throughout his public activities. In this thread, Malcolm Smith holds that: (1) the Buddha’s qualities as taught are just abstractions that are not based on reality; (2) Buddhahood is illusory; (3) Tulkus and Khenpos have no Dharma authority; (4) he is especially dismissive of Tulkus’ authority in particular. (5) All Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are apocryphal teachings. (6) The Surangama Sutra is a forgery and he doesn’t have to prove that because everyone knows it is true!
What he says, regardless of whatever scholarly truth there may be in it, undermines Tibetan Buddhism in practice, because he ignores, or is insensitive to, the wisdom found in these teachings. He is not speaking with other scholars and academics, but rather, has chosen to take to social media to spread his inappropriate opinions.
The following excerpts are taken from the forum thread titled: Quotes from Śūraṅgama Sutra in “Poison is Medicine — Clarifying the Vajrayana” started on Sun Mar 13, 2022 on Dharma Wheel.
While the thread starts with a posting by me, that posting was actually made to a different thread that was subsequently locked down for no apparent reason after I submitted it (see below for a testimony by a moderator that Malcolm is involved in doing this). My post, on the subject of Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche’s quoting of the Surangama Sutra in his latest book, was retrieved by a moderator to start this new thread. I was not consulted about this.
The actual thread that I had posted this comment to was titled: Is Śūraṅgama Sūtra authentic?, which was started Aug 06, 2019 by ryan_oliveira a new member of the forum who posed the question.
The full thread on Quotes from Śūraṅgama Sutra in “Poison is Medicine — Clarifying the Vajrayana” is attached below as a set of four pdf files, one for each page of comments in the thread until it was locked.
The following excerpts have been selected to show the disturbing assertions by Malcolm in regard to the Dharma. You may ask, “Why not take this up with him?” Because his questionable and damaging views need to be anathematized by his peers. He is impervious to criticism from those he has no respect for, and criticizing him publicly immediately gets you labeled a ‘partisan’ by him, and ejected for having done so.
So to begin:
Zhen Li wrote: (Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:35 am)
I think it is conceivable, as ever, that someone managed to decipher the word “Śūraṅgama” and it might end up being the Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra. With its claimed length, it could be either text.
Zhen Li wrote: (Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:35 am)
(quoting James in another thread where he wrote: (Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:06 pm) “My summary of the controversy: Is the Surangama Sutra Authentic? https://medium.com/p/7c3f77086c3d)
This was very interesting and nicely written. Thank you.
James wrote, responding to Zhen Li: (Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:08 pm)
I am happy you found it of some interest. And thank you for you kind words.
There is no extant Sanskrit version of the Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra, but it is not questioned as to its authenticity. There is a reputed Sanskrit version of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, but both the reputed Sanskrit version and the Sutra itself are held in disbelief. The basis of both the unquestioned authenticity of the former, and the disbelief of the authenticity of the latter are from off-hand comments by the same translator: Lamotte. His opinion, even when expressed off-handedly, seems to bear such authority. Yet, the supposedly respected Tibetan lamas, such as Dzongsar Khyentse, who quotes from it, and Khenpo Sodargye who teaches it, seem to bear no authority. It is puzzling.
The Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra speaks about the attainments gained by reaching Buddhahood. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra speaks about how to attain Buddhahood. They are completely different, yet completely related texts.
Examples of Malcolm’s Comportment on the Dharma Wheel Forum:
Zhen Li wrote: (Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:56 am)
The Buddha’s qualities by definition must be limitless.
To which, Malcolm responded: (Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:32 am)
Which means they just (sic) an abstraction, and cannot actually represent buddhahood, since they are illusory, just as buddhahood is illusory.
Anders wrote: (Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:50 am)
Erik pema kunsang is apparently a big fan. I recall him referring to it as ‘one continuous pointing out instruction’.
James wrote: (Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:35 pm)
For those who may be interested: Khenpo Sodargye, from Larung Gar Five Sciences Buddhist Academy in Sertar, Sichuan Province, China, is continuing his teachings on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, that he started in 2019. The recordings, with excellent English translation done in real-time, are available on SoundCloud, and I believe on Youtube, though they are audio only. The SoundCloud link is: https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/SgYZZwnEZaFEfv1A9
The first 14 tracks are his teachings in 2019. The others (21 at the moment) are from this year. His translator told me that he intends to finish the entire sutra, world events and his health allowing. I asked specifically if he would be covering the actual meditation practice given in detail in the book for Avalokitesvara, Manjushri, and the Buddha (and all Buddhas), and she said “Yes, he will surely do so.
Malcolm responding to James’ Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:08 pm response to Zhen Li:
It is not puzzling at all. Neither person is an expert text critical scholar.
James wrote: (Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:33 pm)
Khenpo Sodargye examines the slander and vitriol (his translated words) of academics and translators with inflated egos (his translated words) in the first four tracks of his teachings on the Surangama Sutra that I already mentioned above and gave the link for. He shows the baselessness of these false opinions held by some academics.
Malcolm wrote: (Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:36 pm)
It’s up to you to provide evidence for such an original, not based on the touted authority of tulkus and khenpos, but based on evidence.
Nota Bene: I merely mentioned the publicly-available notice that there is a Sanskrit original that has been found in China. I don’t have to prove it exists as that was not my point — which was that the shifting sands of ‘scholarly’ standards for authenticity are not applied without prejudice in the case of the Surangama Sutra.
James responded: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:29 am)
I am at a complete loss as to how to handle your denunciation of the authority of “tulkus and khenpos” in their teachings about Tibetan Buddhism. That is such a totalization it took my breath away.
Are we to understand that the real Dharma is that which is verified by academics only?
Anders wrote: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:06 am)
You seem to be missing the point that Malcolm makes a distinction between Indian provenance and whether or not the sutra is a valuable teaching or not.
He’s commented on the former, saying neither sutra are demonstrably of Indian provenance. I haven’t seen him state any opinion here on the quality of the content of these sutras
To which, James responded: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:47 am)
Saying a text is a forgery undermines the Teaching in the text in the minds of those who do not see the subtle distinction he makes. This is evidenced by the complete absence of this text in Tibetan Buddhism until just recently.
I would suggest that if he wants to be an academic translator, he should talk to other academics, like Eric Pema Kunsang, Khenpo Sodargye, John Canti, etc. He does great damage when he creates doubt in the minds of practitioners who come here to learn, and not to debate academic subtleties.
jmlee369 wrote: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:17 am)
I’d just like to reiterate Anders’ point about what Malcolm is trying to say. Malcolm can speak for himself well enough, but he is someone who considers whatever is well spoken to be Buddhavacana. Provenance only becomes an issue when people make dubious claims.
To which, James responded (Mon Jul 25, 2022 1:29 pm):
What Malcolm is trying to say is obvious to me. To reiterate my point, what he is saying, whatever its merits or demerits, causes damage by creating doubt in the minds of practitioners. His academic position, whether based on evidence or hearsay, should not cause others to lose confidence in the Dharma. Period. Khenpo Sodargye’s point is well stated by him:
“When we look at this genuine sutra that is taught by the Buddha himself, and when there are people who would slander such a sutra, I think it would be very necessary for us to destruct — to eradicate — such kind of wrong view and wrong opinions. And by doing that, in fact, you are not making any mistakes. … it is not creating any negative karma for yourself. So… at the beginning, I really want to address the importance of recognizing that this is the genuine sutra, and we should all know that at appropriate time and appropriate situation, we should eradicate their wrong ideas. This is quite necessary.”
To which, Anders responded: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:18 pm)
Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, you can explain what it is you think he is actually saying. Because I have a hard time keeping up with what you are actually arguing against.
To which, James responded: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:30 pm)
Sure, he says it is apocryphal — a forgery, a fake, not canonical, not with a clear provenance from India, etc. (He has been changing his evaluation criteria each time he answers, so it’s a bit hard to keep up.)
Malcolm, responding to James, wrote: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:05 pm)
Right, I could care less about the authority of anyone, tulkus especially. As for Khenpos, the kind of training they receive is not training in text critical methodology. They have a different kind of training.
Nota Bene: Khenpo Sodargye is a prolific translator of Tibetan texts into Chinese. All of those translations have now been called into question by Malcolm’s broad assertion, as if they are amateur attempts at translation, not up to true scholarly standards.
Malcolm, responding to James, wrote: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:05 pm)
All Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are apocryphal. Some were written down in India, some in Tibet, some in Khotan, some in China, etc. It’s easier to just accept this fact and move on.
To which, James responded: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:59 pm)
Yeah, that’s not going to work. If, as you say, all Mahayana sutras and tantras are apocryphal, why single out the Surangama Sutra? Your statement makes your focus on this sutra all the more egregious. Do you not see that?
To which, Malcolm responded: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:44 pm)
I singled it out because it is being presented as a text of Indian origin when it clearly is not.
Nota Bene: no one in the thread had claimed it was of Indian origin. It is Malcolm who claims it is not, without providing HIS evidence. My statement of fact that there is asserted to be a Sanskrit version in China, which one can read about on Wikipedia, and about which Khenpo Sodargye has also spoken, is not a claim that it is Indian, it is a fact about a reputed copy in China. Malcolm is on a mission to denounce this Sutra whenever and wherever possible. You will find his presence in forums and social media anywhere Buddhism is discussed. (One wonders, given his daily production of commentary throughout the net, if he is actually a chatbot program aimed at undermining Buddhist practice by injecting doubt and obfuscation into any and all discussions about its wisdom teachings.)
Shunyatagarbha responding to Malcolm: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:51 pm)
How can the teachings of the Buddha be apocryphal? Then you are saying that Shakyamuni Buddha is an apocryphal Buddha, a view which isn’t supported by any authentic tradition. The Dharma Syllables of the Vajrasamadhi, even the Shuramgama Sutra may be called apocryphal and not sutras spoken by the Buddha himself but to call all his Great Vehicle and esoteric vehicle teachings apocryphal, is a really remarkable thing…surely you don’t expect anyone else here to accept that view? It’s even more ironic since you criticized some Chinese masters for critiquing other schools and now you would make a statement like that which undermines literally everything, every school of every country (aside from those fundamentalist Lesser Vehicle tradition which share your view that the Great Vehicle teachings weren’t spoken by the Buddha and were fabrications by later monks and layman).
…
James, to Malcolm: (Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:33 am)
So, we have come full circle. You have dropped the facade of evaluating texts on their content, and returned to the academic-imposed test of whether or not there is either a Sanskrit original, or Indian textual references, for a text, in order to undermine the Dharma. What else is such a standard for? In order to keep the Dharma pure? Safe? Or just to feed academic egos? What else are your fluctuating standards good for? Texts, teachers, and teachings should be evaluated on their wisdom.
Tibetan Buddhism, of course, the Mahayana, of course, Dzogchen, Vajrayana, all of these are not safe from your criticisms, plaints, and denunciation. In light of that, any discussion is fruitless. Respected teachers, great masters, all Tulkus, all Khenpos, all are dismissed as not being up to your academic standards. Is the Buddha? Well, how would we know? Nothing he said was written down until years, decades, centuries later. We must accede to your immense knowledge about the Dharma, and forget about the wisdom it supposedly points to, or we will be categorized as a partisan by you and dismissed. Nothing and no one is safe, unless they receive a seal of approval from the academics. Or is it just by you, because I know no other scholar who presents the disdain you do for respected teachers. These ‘discussions’ here undermine that which you claim to study. It is my immovable faith in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, and not your academic knowledge, that is my only standard of what is valid, and what is not. So yes, I am a partisan, as you have categorized me. This dance of your fluctuating standards has become boringly repetitive. And your words are empty of wisdom. Yes, that’s my opinion and I stand by it, and dismiss the conflict, doubt, and confusion you sow.
Nota Bene: my last response was not approved, and the thread was locked, so that no further discussion can occur. ALL threads about the Surangama Sutra are locked after Malcolm has his say.
To recapitualize: Malcolm Smith holds that: (1) the Buddha’s qualities as taught are just abstractions that are not based on reality; (2) Buddhahood is illusory; (3) Tulkus and Khenpos have no Dharma authority; (4) he is dismissive of Tulkus’ authority in particular. (5) All Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are apocryphal teachings. (6) The Surangama Sutra is a forgery and he doesn’t have to prove that because everyone knows it is true!
A big part of the problem is that the staff of Dharma Wheel — in particular — enable his often shockingly questionable statements. While he says he has nothing to do with what the forum does, and specifically, its disapproval of most critiques or critical responses to his posts, and at least in my case, ejections from the forum, that is a lie. Here is a case in point from this thread:
Malcolm wrote: (Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:36 pm)
I never said the dharma taught in the Śurangama Sūtra was invalid.
To which, James replied: ( Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:29 am)
Yet, you have never said it is valid either. But in a different thread here on Dharma Wheel you had the thread about the contents of the Surangama Sutra terminated as “too controversial” because of the Surangama Sutra’s overly Indian content regarding similarities between a particular meditation technique presented by the Surangama Sutra and certain Indian techniques.
To which, Malcolm replied: (Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:05 pm)
James, if you are talking about this thread: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=34204, I did not participate in it and had no part of having it closed.
It may be true that he had nothing to do with that thread, but that wasn’t the one I was referring to.
In the thread titled “Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen,” according to one of the forum’s ‘global’ moderators, Ayu, Malcolm specifically asked that my last answer to him be deleted, and the thread was closed:
Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Sent: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:20 pm
From: Ayu
Recipient: Panaesthesia (my old userid before my ejection from the forum)
Hello Panaesthesia,
although Malcolm asked, where you have your ideas from, he wanted us to remove your answer. He says, the teaching you’ve linked to is an incorrect new age fusion — in other words “this isn’t real Buddhism”.
For the sake of forum’s peace I locked this thread and removed your post.
I’m sorry.
The forum http://www.dharmapaths.com might be more tolerant.
Best wishes, Ayu
My “new age fusion,” as Malcolm had labeled it, was my textual analysis of a description of the “yoga of the supreme sound of the four elements found in the Drathalgyur. To wit:
The stages of training with the three kāyas emphasize the qualities of the elements.
By training with the sound of the supreme aspect of earth, fire, water, and wind, supreme attainment will be certain.
The sound of water is roaring and carries the melodious sound of the ḍākinīs. To always engage and become familiar with this, it is certain that the nirmāṇakāya will be attained.
The characteristic of earth is cool and heavy, possessing the sound of great Brahmā. To always engage and maintain balance with this will bring the certain attainment of the nirmāṇakāya.
To accomplish the sambhogakāya, by listening to the sound of fire, this reveals the sound of the great Viṣhṇu.
Whoever listens to this will certainly attain the qualities of the dharmakāya: the characteristics of wind are cool and fierce and carry the sound of uniting with the king of birds.
If one knows how to constantly practice this, then that is training with the common aspect of the three kāyas.
My ‘incorrect new age fusion’ analysis was:
The first thing to take note of in the practice description quoted above is the second line asserting that training with the supreme aspect of each of the four Elements will result in supreme attainment. The word “supreme” is used purposely to indicate the specific aspect of sound that is used, and the attainment to be gained through the use of this practice.
“Supreme attainment” is another way of saying Full Enlightenment, which is the supreme attainment of Buddhist practices. It is transparently inconsistent to use the same adjective then — and in the same sentence — to refer to anything having to do with a mundane phenomenon such as the conditioned sounds of moving earth, flowing water, burning wood, and blowing wind.
Another participant in the “Quotes from Śūraṅgama Sutra in Poison is Medicine” thread, who, based upon my reading of his postings, is at least very familiar with the Tibetan and Chinese texts — and who is unassociated with me — posted a public comment to my article “Is the Surangama Sutra Authentic?” on Medium.com (later deleted after I had received an email notification of it from Medium).
That man Malcolm Smith is borderline insane. He hates the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Despises all holy lords and masters. Has a terrifyingly huge ego. A horribly wrong view of everything. Anger, insult, irreverence, profanity is all he has. It’s completely appalling and people swoon and dote over him.
The article of mine on the question of the authenticity of the Surangama Sutra was actually begun after John Canti, the head of Padmakara Translation Group, had amicably suggested to me that my references to the Surangama Sutra in one of my articles was probably an error and suggested that I must have meant the Surangama Samadhi Sutra. I assured him it was not a mistake and asked if we could talk about this subject in person, but he was/is busy and has no time, so I wrote that article instead.
I bring this up, because there is a schism opening up between respected teachers and translators who don’t seem to see the wisdom teachings on display in the Surangama Sutra — or haven’t bothered to see them because of the slanderous statements by earlier translators and scholars. But when these technical concerns are bandied about in public forums, faith in the Dharma is undermined. The Surangama Sutra is unique in its full, detailed, description of the meditation technique of Avalokitasvara, a point, I will pick up below.
“Mara” has the meaning of “what puts an end” (mthar-byed, Skt. antaka) with the sense of “that which puts an end to spiritual practice.” Malcolm Smith, whatever his academic and translation credentials may be, is just that: Mara. He cannot see that his understanding is wrong, and his motivations are egotistic in the extreme in that they ignore the needs of those he is speaking to, but only cater to his need to be right.
In reference to the statement by jmlee369 that Malcolm Smith “is someone who considers whatever is well spoken to be Buddhavacana,” Malcolm doesn’t seem to connect with the Buddha’s great compassion and his desire to end the suffering of others. Malcolm’s particular blindness to any standard other than his own self-opinion and immense accumulation of academic data diminishes all other concerns — no matter who suffers. And I use that word “data” with purpose. Knowledge is meaningful and useful. Data is just indiscriminate facts gathered without any comprehension of their wisdom purpose. Malcolm has to be right, no matter what the cost is to others. He is Mara.
And to repeat two prominent masters statements on this controversy:
When we look at this genuine sutra that is taught by the Buddha himself, and when there are people who would slander such a sutra, I think it would be very necessary for us to destruct — to eradicate — such kind of wrong view and wrong opinions. And by doing that, in fact, you are not making any mistakes. … it is not creating any negative karma for yourself. So… at the beginning, I really want to address the importance of recognizing that this is the genuine sutra, and we should all know that at appropriate time and appropriate situation, we should eradicate their wrong ideas. This is quite necessary. (Khenpo Sodargye in his teachings on the Surangama Sutra available for free on SoundCloud)
Today (the seventeenth day of the eleventh lunar month) is Amitabha Buddha’s birthday. I shall now make a vow regarding the Shurangama Sutra’s authenticity before the Buddhas of the ten directions. Recently, some Ph.D.’s and scholars have criticized the Shurangama Sutra. They claim it was invented by later generations and not spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha. They have spread this rumor and tried to destroy this Sutra, causing Buddhists who lack true understanding to doubt. These people, who stir up a fuss by repeating what others say, are truly pathetic. Today, I will vouch for the authenticity of the Shurangama Sutra before the assembly. Not only the Shurangama Sutra, but also the Shurangama Mantra is authentic. The Shurangama Sutra is the Buddha’s “true body,” and the Buddha’s sharira; no one can destroy it. If the Shurangama Sutra exists, then the Proper Dharma exists. If the Shurangama Sutra ceases to exist, then the Proper Dharma will also vanish. If the Shurangama Sutra is inauthentic, then I vow to fall into the Hell of Pulling Tongues to undergo uninterrupted suffering. (“The Shurangama Sutra Is Definitely Authentic,” by the Venerable Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua, in a talk given on January 21, 1978, Translated by the Buddhist Text Translation Society.)
As far as logical proof goes, testimony is a form of valid knowledge if it’s reliable and believable. Unlike Malcolm Smith, I believe that the two individuals just mentioned above are irreproachable witnesses to the sutra’s authenticity as a Mahayana (and Vajrayana) teaching.
Ron Epstein points out a singular characteristic of the Surangama Sutra that he feels would prejudice many “deviant spiritual teachers” against it. He argues that, perhaps out of a sense of discomfort in raising the issue, the modern Buddhist community has failed to address this possible source of some of the slanderous comments made against this sutra. In his words:
The Sutra’s particularly clear and graphic exposure of wrong practice, wrong views, the wrong use of spiritual powers, and the deceptions of deviant spiritual teachers is probably one of the major factors involved in the perennial attacks on its authenticity. It is clear that the types of people it criticizes have certainly been threatened by it, and in order to preserve their own authority and views, have attacked the Sutra. Unfortunately this primary motivation for discrediting the Sutra has been ignored by the modern Buddhist scholarly community. It is not, however, difficult to see why this is the case.” (“Foreword” to the Commentary on The Surangama Sutra by Hsüan Hua, Volume 8, Second Edition, 2002, by Ronald B Epstein, an American scholar and translator, specializing in Mahayana Buddhism. He is Chancellor Emeritus, Board of Trustees, and Emeritus Faculty of the Dharma Realm Buddhist University, he graduated from Harvard University in 1965. He received his Masters in Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Washington in 1969, and his PhD in Buddhist Studies at UC Berkeley in 1975.)
I submit that this is the motivating factor driving (besides his overweening ego) Malcolm Smith’s attacks against the Surangama Sutra.
Why does this Sutra matter, beyond it’s obviously profound Dharma teaching? Because it provides humanity with a practice that will allow it to survive, and will reduce the suffering of all sentient beings immeasurably, over the coming decades. The practice is that of the Greatly Responsive One, Avalokitasvara — “He who hears the cries of the world.” It’s about the development of Great Responsiveness — Mahākarunā — and it is that which will allow humanity to change its direction, which, at present, is headed to Global Ecocide.
This Sutra alone contains the description of the step-by-step “heroic march” along Avalokitasvara’s path. It seems to not be noticed by most readers, even while the Sutra is trumpeting this technique’s unique efficacy and power to manifest responsive naturing in the lives of those who use it. The detailed description is contained in the enumeration of the “Fourteen Fearlessnesses.” (Not all translators of the Surangama Sutra deem the statements of what is done at each step to be useful and leave them off, while simply enumerating the power gained at each step — this is Dharma lost.)
These Fourteen Kinds of Fearlessness are also featured in the Lotus Sutra, chapter 25, “The Universal Gateway of the Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World’s Sounds,” although they are not even designated there as “Fearlessnesses”. As well, the cognitive attainments that bring about each power are not given in that sutra, or have been left off by translators. Thus, it is just an enumeration of out-of-context statements.
The Surangama Sutra is a precious gift for many reasons, but this one, the enumeration of the steps taken in Avalokitasvara’s meditation practice, is unique, and unavailable in any other text. For this reason alone, academic considerations must be ignored — if this precious gift is to be useful in aiding and reducing the suffering of all sentient beings. Malcolm Smith must stop his Mara-like activities.
I have written this testimony and shared it with you in the hope that you might see the wisdom in protecting and teaching the Surangama Sutra. I have also done so, to evade the well-meaning moderators who take Malcolm Smith’s word as Buddhavacana and stop any substantive rebuttals to his more bizarre assertions. And I pray you will anathematize these assertions, which in any case, do not belong in the public eye.
Footnote:
T. 945: *Śūraṅgama Sūtra: Da foding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyi zhupusa wanxing shouleng- yan jing 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經 (Bancimidi 般刺蜜帝) = D 237, P 903: Gtsug gtor chen po bam po dgu pa la bdud kyi le’u nyi tshe phyung ba. Lhan dkar ma 260, ’Phang thang ma 238. DS colophon: sngon gyi dkar chag gsum du rgya nag las ’gyur bar bshad do. Bu ston 319: rgya las bsgyur ba. Staël-Holstein 1936. Chinese translated into English several times. See also Benn 2008.