Surangma Sutra
History
Authorship:
The first catalogue giving an account of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was Zhisheng (Chinese: 智昇), a monk in Tang China. Zhisheng said this book was brought back from Guangxi to Luoyang during the reign of Xuanzong. He gave two different accounts in two different books, which were published in 730 CE.
- According to the first account, in his book Buddhist Texts Catalogue of Kaiyuan Era (Chinese: 開元釋教錄), the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated about in 713 CE by a monk Huaidi (Chinese: 懷迪) with an unnamed Indian monk.
- According to the second account, in his later book The Story About This Translation of Buddhist Scriptures Mural (續古今譯經圖記), the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was translated in May 705 CE by Śramaṇa Pāramiti from central India, who came to China and brought the text to the province of Guangzhou. The text was then polished and edited by Empress Wu Zetian's former minister, court regulator, and state censor Fang Yong (Chinese: 房融) of Qingho. The translation was reviewed by Śramaṇa Meghaśikha from Oḍḍiyāna, and certified by Śramaṇa Huai-di (Chinese: 懷迪) of Nanlou Monastery on Mount Luofu.
Zhi-sheng didn't explain why he wrote two different records, but at the end of The story about this translation of Buddhist scriptures mural (續古今譯經圖記) he left a small comment, recommending readers the record at Buddhist Book catalogue of Kaiyuan era is better than The story about this translation of Buddhist scriptures mural (續古今譯經圖記).
Dispute about this text arose in 8th century in Japan, so Emperor Kōnin sent a monk to China, asking whether this book was a forgery or not. His Chinese teacher told him that this was forged by Fang Yong. Zhu Xi, a 12th-century Neo-confucian who was opposed to Buddhism, believed that it was created during the Tang Dynasty in China, and did not come from India.
The Qianlong Emperor and the Third Changkya Khutukhtu believed in the authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.They later translated the Śūraṅgama Sūtra into the Manchu language, Mongolian and Tibetan.(see translations)
In China during the early modern era, the reformist Liang Qichao claimed that the sutra is apocryphal, writing, "The real Buddhist scriptures would not say things like Surangama Sutra, so we know the Surangama Sutra is apocryphal. In the same era, Lü Cheng wrote an essay to claim that the book is apocryphal, named "One hundred reasons about why Shurangama Sutra is apocryphal".
Hurvitz claims that the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is "a Chinese forgery" but gives no reasons for this claim. Faure claims that it is "apocryphal," similarly without rationale.
Ron Epstein gives an overview of the arguments for Indian or Chinese origin, and concludes:
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 the Śūraṅgama Sūtra with the Buddhist tradition at Nālandā. Epstein also notes that the general doctrinal position of the sūtra does indeed correspond to what is known about the Buddhist teachings at Nālandā during this period.
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.
