Talk:Śūraṅgama Sūtra

message: 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)
replies: text: The mantra is also not properly translitered.--Stephen Hodge 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of mantra 

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

message: What do you mean with the  for Faure? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Bernard Faure

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding a Reference Link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  meaning of Śūraṅgama