Chinese and Tibetan Sources on the Dhāraṇī in Roll Seven of the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra

ABSTRACT

My research here concerns roll seven of the apocryphal Shoulengyan jing 首楞嚴經 [*Śūraṃgama-sūtra, Book of the Hero’s March] (T no. 945) because it contains the Lengyan zhou 楞嚴呪 [*Śūraṃgama spell], which is used in the Lengyan Assembly today in Chinese, South Korean and Japanese Buddhist monasteries on an annual basis. The presence of the *Śūraṃgama spell confirms for some scholars the authenticity of the Shoulengyan jing, as opposed to its status as an apocryphal composition in China. In this article I investigate both premodern Chinese and Tibetan sources regarding the dhāraṇī in roll seven of the Shoulengyan jing to bolster the argument that this scripture ought to be considered an apocryphon, and that the question of who composed the Shoulengyan jing remains problematic.

KEYWORDS:

• Shoulengyan jing
• śūraṃgama-sūtra
• śūraṃgama spell
• chinese buddhism
• apocryphal buddhist scriptures
• huaidi
• old Japanese manuscript buddhist canons
• Kongōji
• dunhuang manuscripts

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Cf. Z no. 1181–001 in Deleanu, ‘Xuanzang’s Translation,’ 2: 186, 398. ICPBS recently digitized the Nanatsudera manuscript of Z no. 1181–001, but I have not yet read it. T no. 945 should not be mistaken for T no. 642, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴三昧經, translated by Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (344–413). Lamotte’s French translation has been translated into English: Lamotte, Śūraṃgamasmādhisūtra; Lamotte and Kumārajīva, La concentration de la marche héroïque Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. On the title ‘pseudo-Śūraṃgama,’ see Benn, ‘Another look at the preudo-Śūraṃgama’; Benn, ‘Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra,’ 57–58 n.2 provides a recent, up to date synopsis of scholarship concerning the fabrication of the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra/Shoulengyan jing, including several sources mentioned here: von Staël-Holstein, ‘The Emperor Ch’ien-lung and the Larger Śūraṃgama Sutra’; Mochizuki, Bukkyō kyōten seiritsu shinron, 493–505; Tokiwa, ‘Daibucchō shuryōgongyō ni kansuru shomondai’; Lü, ‘Lengyan baiwei’; Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa, v. 7: 43–52 n.3 & 358 & 72–73; Luo, ‘Shoulengyan jing’; Jørgensen, Inventing Hui-neng, 510–17; Wu, ‘Knowledge for What?’; Wu, Enlightenment in Dispute. See also Tang, Han-Wei Jin Nanbeichao fojiao shi; Mizuno, ‘On the Pseudo-Fa-kiu-king’; Brough, ‘The Chinese Pseudo-translation of Aryasura’s Jātakamālā’; discussed in Buswell, ‘Introduction,’ 9–14. Epstein, ‘The Shurangama-sutra’ concludes that the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra may be an authentic scripture.

2. On self-immolation and the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra, see Benn, ‘Where Text Meets Flesh.’ At the very least, commentaries written on the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra indicate growing intellectual interest in this apocryphal scripture: four commentaries to it were completed during the Tang dynasty; 20 during the Song (960–1279); four during the Yuan (1271–1368); 34 during the Ming (1368–1644); and six during the Qing (1644–1912). See Ch’oe, Tonkōbon Ryōgongyō no kenkyū, 193, 94–254. The North American Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, which ministers to Chinese speaking communities in China, Taiwan and across the Chinese diaspora, also publishes a commentary of sorts – with DVD – composed by Master Hsüan Hua [Xuanhua] 宣化上人 (1918–1995). Cf. Xuanhua and Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, Lengyan zhou xiuxue shouce.

3. Benn, ‘Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra,’ 64–70 & 80, where Benn cites both Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa, 47; and Waley, Yuan Mei, 78–79. Some of the items covered by Benn include references to: flowers in the sky [or void] (konghua 空化), jellyfish with shrimp for eyes (shuimu mu xia 水母目蝦), narrow-waisted sphecid wasps (pulu 蒲盧), ‘broken-mirror’ birds (pojingniao 破鏡鳥), and ten types of immortals (xian 仙) and demons (gui 鬼), among other things.

4. Benn, ‘Another Look at the Pseudo-Śūraṃgama Sūtra,’ 58–60.

5. Chen, Lengyan jing, 1. Cf. Zhongguo Fojiao xiehui, ed., Fangshan shijing, 571: vol. 13.1.

6. Ch’oe, Ryōgongyō, 382–86; Chen, Lengyan jing, 100–1. S. 2762 in Huang, ed., Dunhuang baozang, 23:210. P.2152 in Dunhuang baozang, 115: 473 corresponds with Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 106b2–128b7. P.2349 in Dunhuang baozang, 119: 492 corresponds with Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 106b1–128b7. Ch’oe points out that it was Mochizuki who first postulated the possibility of a Huaidi manuscript 懷迪本 and another Fang Rong manuscript 房融本.

7. Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 106b3-4 n.1. Cf. Ch’oe, Ryōgongyō, 380–82&n.61 on P.2152 and P.2349.

8. Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu, T no. 2157, 55: 874a13-15.

9. Kimura, ‘Ryōgonshu to Byakusangai darani,’ 2, cf. T no. 944B, 19: 102–105.

10. Jian, Zenme chi Lengyan zhou zui youxiao; Chen, Lengyan jing; Kimura and Takenaka, Zenshū no darani; Noguchi, Kai kanromon no sekai, 57–180; perhaps the most authoritative Kimura, Ryōgonshu. These scholars follow Takubo Shūyo’s collection of Dunhuang fragments, Shingon Daranizō no kaisetsu, reviewed below.

11. Kuo, ‘Dhāraṇī Pillars in China,’ 360, 76–77 n.50–56. Cf. Liangzhe jinshi zhi 3: 20–23; Wuxing jinshi ji 4: 44; Baqiongshi jinshi buzheng 48 (31): 5.

12. Yanagida, ed., Zenrin shōkisen, Kattō gosen, Zenrin kushū benbyō, 1: 599–604.

13. The most concise summary of popular dhāraṇī used by Mahāyāna Buddhists, along with Sanskrit and Mongolian transcriptions, is Kanaoka Shūyū, ‘Daranishū.’ Unfortunately, the *Śūraṃgama mantra is not included because of its apocryphal status.

14. Shoulengyan yishu zhujing, T no. 1799, 39: 7.919b21-b26. Cf. Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 7.141b11-13. For the Sanskrit reconstruction I have examined: Kimura and Takenaka, Zenshū no darani, 98–100; Kimura, Ryōgonshu, 82–84; Noguchi, Zenmon darani no sekai, 146–48.

15. Song Gaoseng zhuan, T no. 2061.50: 6.738b14-c10.

16. Ch. Bodaluo/Jp. handara renders the transcribed – patra in the full Sanskrit title of the spell, as can be reconstructed from the Chinese transcriptions found used by Chan and Zen Buddhist monastics: Buddhôṣṇīṣa-prabhā-mahā-sitātapatra. There are two possible Chinese derivations for this reconstructed Sanskrit title: (1) T no. 945, 19: 133a12-13 provides: Foding guangming mohe sada duobodaluo/Jp. Bucchō kōmyō maha shittatta handara 佛頂光明摩訶薩怛多般怛羅 and (2) Foding guangji xida duobobaluo/Jp. Bucchō kōju shittatta handara 佛頂光聚悉怛多般怛羅. But Eisai’s decision to refer to the spell this way echoes two similar designations in roll 7: T no. 945, 19: 133c5-6; 137a6. For the Japanese reading of this spell, see line no. 75 in Noguchi (Yoshitaka) Zenkei, Zenmon darani no sekai, 129. Eisai echoes the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra when he gives ju 呪 – spell – rather than either mantra (zhenyan/shingon 真言) or dhāraṇī (tuoluoni/darani 陀羅尼).

17. The 2 Chinese commentaries raised here by Mujaku are (1) Zixuan’s Shoulengyan jing yishu zhujing and (2) Jiehuan 戒環 from Kaiyuan monastery in Wenling 溫陵 (Quanzhou 泉州, Fujian), called the Lengyan jing yaojie, XZJ 270, 11: 341–451.

18. Yanagida, Zenrin shōkisen, Kattō gosen, Zenrin kushū benbyō 1: 601, cf. Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 133a13-14. On the invisible sinciput or crown, see Da zhidu lun, T no. 1509, 25: 26.256a, trans. in Lamotte, Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nāgārjuna: 25–26 and 3:1701 as ‘le crâne invisible (anavalokitamūrdhatā).’

19. Mizhou yuanyin wangsheng ji, T no. 1956, 46: 1008c10-13 cited in Yanagida Seizan, Zenrin shōkisen, Kattō gosen, Zenrin kushū benbyō 1: 601. For the Sanskrit reconstruction, see Kimura Shungen and Takenaka Chitai, Zenshū no darani, 5–6, Kimura Tokugen, Ryōgonshu, 13 and Noguchi (Yoshitaka) Zenkei, Zenmon darani no sekai, 128–31 and note 23. The Chinese mantra from the Mizhou yuanyin wangsheng ji is: 捺麻廝但(二合)達(引)須遏怛(引)也啊囉訶(二合)矴薩滅三莫   薛怛涅達(引)唵　啊  令覓折寧　覓(引)囉末唧囉(二合)噤呤末(舌齒)  末(舌齒)噤禰末唧囉(二合)鉢(引)禰　癹(怛)吽   (二合引)癹(怛)莎(引)訶.

20. T no. 1956.46.1008c14-1009b8.

21. The Kaśmīri *Devaśānti (Tianxizai 天息災, d. 1000) presents the Chinese an mani bami hong 唵嘛呢叭咪吽 (or an moni boneming hong 唵麼抳鉢訥銘吽). This mantra, celebrated in the west because of its ubiquitousness in Tibetan Buddhism, is typically characterized as the esoteric or Tantric mantra for Avalokiteśvara, while the exoteric, or conventional mantra is from the Heart Sūtra: gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā oṃ.

22. Gimello, ‘Icon and Incantation,’ 235–238 has suggested that the forms of Buddhism preferred by these kingdoms ‘had enjoyed particular prestige in the Tang but that were in decline under the Song in southern China.’ These forms favored the ritual practices introduced into China under the rubric of what Gimello calls the occult (Ch. Mijiao/Jp. Mikkyō), but most other scholars have termed either esoteric or Tantric Buddhism. Gimello’s research has uncovered the application of many Tang-era esoteric Buddhist rites under a doctrinal umbrella of Huayan scholasticism in the writings of Daochen 道㲀 (d.u.), who composed his Xianmi yuantong chengfo xinyao ji sometime in the 1080s, likely to develop a synthesis between the exoteric teachings of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra and esoteric rituals from manuals to achieve empowerment from powerful deities to attain liberation in a single lifetime while generating myriad worldly blessings. Daochen’s text additionally incorporates several of the esoteric Buddhist translations made during the Northern Song dynasty, including the Kāraṇḍavyūha mentioned above, as well as the [Ārya-] Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (Dafangguang pusazang wenshushili genben yigui jing 大方廣菩薩藏文殊師利根本儀軌經, T no. 1191), translated by *Devaśanti (Tianxizai 天息災, a.k.a. *Dharmabhadra [Faxian 法賢], d. 1000) in the tenth century. ‘Northern’ Buddhism here refers to a teachings and practices that flourished under patronage by the rulers of northern China during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, under the Khitan Liao (907–1125), Tangut Xi Xia and Jurchen Jin dynasties (1115–1234). See Solonin, ‘The Teaching of Daoshen in Tangut Translation.’

23. Lalou, ‘Notes a propos d’une amulette de Touen-Houang’; Wang-Toutain, ‘Baisangai fomu.’

24. von Staël-Holstein, ‘The Emperor Ch’ien-lung and the Larger Śūraṃgama Sutra,’ esp.138 and Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism, 257 n.77.

25. These Tibetan translations are discussed in Wang-Toutain ‘Sitātapatra (Baisan gai fomu – dDugs dkar po), 100–01.

26. Shi, ed., Dunhuang yishu zongmu suoyin xinbian and International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies Library, ed., Daizōkyō taishō mokuroku II, 68 no. 945, which provides a comparative table of Dunhuang fragments that correspond to each of the 10 roles of the text.

27. See Halkias, ‘Tibetan Buddhism Registered’; Dotson, ‘‘Emperor’ Mu rug btsan and the ‘Phang thang ma Catalogue’; Kawagoe, ‘Pantan mokuroku no kenkyū for information concerning the dating of these two catalogs.’

28. Stein, Rolf Stein’s Tibetica Antiqua, 95. See Herrmann-Pfandt, Die Lhan Kar Ma Ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texts, 143 for this text in these two Tibetan catalogs. Ldan dkar ma (DK) 260 and ‘Phang thang ma (PT) 238 are classified as a Mahāyāna sūtra translated from Chinese (Theg pa chen po’i mdo sde rgya las bsgyur ba’i tshar); category 10 in the DK, 7 in the PT. See Halkias, ‘Tibetan Buddhism Registered,’ 79; Lalou, ‘Contribution à la bibliographie du Kanjur et du Tanjur,’ 317. Cf. Obata, ‘Chibetto no zenshū to zō-yaku gikyō ni tsuite,’ who follows Yoshimura, The Denkar-Ma, where the DK no. is 259. It is significant that these Tibetan translations from a possible Chinese edition of the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra appear to have been produced from the perspective that this was an important scripture for members of the nascent Tang dynasty Chan traditions.

29. According to Dalton and van Schaik, Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang, Tibetan texts from Dunhuang in the Stein and Pelliot collections that contain translations or transcriptions of the Sitātapātra-dhāraṇī correspond to either Q. 204 or Q. 203. Among the 28 IOL Tib J texts in the Stein Collection, 26 resemble Q 204: these include IOL Tib J nos. (a) 315.2, (b) 316.3, (c) 323 [Q 204: 259a1-6 / 260a2-5 / 260b1], (d) 324 [Q 204: 258b1-8 / 260a5-260b6 / 257a3-8], (e) 351.2 [follows Q204, complete], (f) 352, (g) 353.3, (h) 354 [Q 204: 259a], (i) 355 [Q 204: 257a1-259b8], (j) 356, (k) 358 [Q 204: 257a6-260b8 / 261a5-7], (l) 359 [Q 204: 259a3 / 259b4 / 260a2], (m) 360, (n) 362.2 [Q 204: 257b8-268a7], (o) 363, (p) 364, (q) 491 [Q 204: 257a7-257b1 // verso 258b8-259a1], (r) 499 [Q 204: 260a7], (s) 515 [Q 204: 259a7-259b5], (t) 544.3 [first part, Q 204: 260b4], (u) 548, (v) 558 [Q 204: 261], (w) 561 [Q 204: 259b3-260a5], (x) 1241 [Q 204: 257b2-258b5], (y) 1750 [Q 204: 257a6-257b8] correspond to Q 0204. A further two, IOL Tib J Nos. (aa) 357 [Q. 203: 251b7-252a6] and (bb) the second two parts of 544.3 [Q 203: 255b7 & 254a6], are similar to Q 0203. Of particular note is IOL Tib J 323, which follows the order and structure of Q. 204 ‘but it is a different translation of an earlier version’; cf. Dalton and van Schaik, Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang, 53–54. Dalton and van Schaik provides an additional 16 Tibetan texts from the Pelliot Collection that correspond to the 28 extant fragments or manuscripts in the Stein Collection: Pelliot tibétain nos. 8; 9; 20.2; 23; 28; 34; 46; 83; 102; 103; 372; 373; 374; 375; 376; and 383. Of particular note is P. tib. 383, which completes IOL Tib J 499.

30. Lalou, ‘Notes a propos d’une amulette de Touen-Houang,’ 136, 40.

31. Hoernle, Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature found in Eastern Turkestan, 52–57.

32. Lalou, ‘Notes a propos d’une amulette de Touen-Houang,’ 142. Wang-Toutain, ‘Baisangai fomu,’ 103 examines another similar text, P. 3916.8 and P. 4071.2, discussed below, which appears to follow the same outline, with the addition of two more categories: (1) an invocation to the Three Jewels and (6) another mantra that begins with oṃ asitana.

33. Lalou, ‘Notes a propos d’une amulette de Touen-Houang,’ 141–45.

34. See n. 69 above esp. Dalton and van Schaik, Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang, 43.

35. Cf. Q. nos. 3513, 3903, 3904, 3905, 3916, 3927, 3928, 3929, 3930, 3932, 3933, 3935, 3937, 4210 and 4403.

36. Wang-Toutain, ‘Baisangai fomu’; Wang-Toutain, ‘Sitātapatra.’

37. Fragments of Sanskrit, Khotanese and Uighur manuscripts of dhāraṇīs have been found in several sites in Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan), one of which was translated into English by Hoernle early in the twentieth century. For a partial English translation from Khotanese, calling it the ‘Mahāpratyaṅgirā Dhāraṇī,’ see Hoernle, ‘The “Unknown Languages” of Eastern Turkestan. II,’ 471; Hoernle, Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature found in Eastern Turkestan, 1, 52–57, reprinted from S. 2529 in H.W. Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies Being Khotanese Texts Volume V, 359–67. Hoernle trusted Watanabe Kaikyoku to provide him with Chinese texts for comparison. Watanabe wisely opted for Yuan dynasty translations or Amoghavajra’s, discussed above. Sanskrit texts of the Sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa-sitātapatrā-nāmāparājitā-mahāprtyaṅgirā-vidhārājñī from Nepal are listed in Tsukamoto Keishō and et. al., Bongo Butten no kenkyū IV, 96–100. According to this rich resource, three types of manuscripts of our spell have been found in Nepal. First, there are those in only ten to forty leaves which have been found in Tibetan and corresponding Chinese – T no. 944A only – and Khotanese with the title of Sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa-sitātapatrā-nāmāparājitā-mahāpratyaṅgirā-mahāvidyārājñī. Second, there are several longer versions of a ritual manual in 100 leaves, in Sanskrit, bearing the title of Dvādaśasāhasrikāyāṃ mahāpratyaṅgirāyāṃ sarva- tathāgatoṣṇīṣa-sitātapatra-nāma-mahāvidyārājñī-avalokitamūrddhni-tṛīyakalpa. Third, there are several lengthy Sanskrit manuscripts that explain our spell with the title Sarvatathāgatoṣṇīṣa-sitātapatrā-nāmāparājitā-lo(ka)nalokāyāṃ-mahāpratyaṅgirāyāṃ-dharmopadeśa-śāstra. See also ‘Daibucchō darani’ in Mochizuki, Bukkyō daijiten, 3385–87.

38. Even though several scholars, including Rong, ‘The Nature of the Dunhuang Library Cave,’ 252, Hoernle, and Bailey proposed IOL Ch. 001 has 1, 108 or 1, 109 lines, Emmerick, ‘Review of Shūyō TAKUBO, Tonkō-shutsudo Uten-go himitsu kyō-tenshū no kenkyū,’ 253 confirms the length to be 1, 100. See Bailey, KTV, 368–76.

39. Emmerick, A Guide to the Literature of Khotan, 18–19 cites Hamilton, ‘Les Règnes Khotanais Entre 851 ET 1001,’ 54 on the dating of this and other colophons. Takubo, Tonkō shutsudo Utengo himitsu kyōtenshū no kenkyū, 46–118. Takubo provides a Japanese translation of the second text, leaves 2–12 on pp. 201–207. The 6 texts in IOL Ch. 001 are: (1) final lines from the Buddhôṣṇīṣa-viyaja-dhāraṇī; (2) Sitātapatra-dhāraṇī; (3) Bhadrakalpikā-sūtra; (4) Deśanā I; (5) Samukha-sūtra; and (6) Deśanā II. For reference, deśanā texts are invocational, ritual texts. Cf. Bailey, Khotanese Buddhist Texts, lines 1–198, KT 5:368–376 (no. 729); lines 199–754, KBT 76–90 (no. 24); lines 755–851, KT 5:249–252 (no. 530), lines 852–1061, KBT 135–143 (no. 30); and lines 1062–1, 109, KT 5:253–255 (no. 531).

40. Emmerick, ‘Review of Shūyō TAKUBO.’ On the Buddhôṣṇīṣa-vijaya-dhāraṇī, see Copp, The Body Incantory, ch. 3.

41. Tanigawa, ‘Bonbun Bucchōdaihakusangaidaranikyō ni tsuite,’ which also compares Hoernle’s MS, IOL Ch. 001 and contemporary Nepalese Sanskrit manuscript of texts that seem to correspond to Tibetan texts discussed above: Vidyārājñī (Q. 202), Paramasiddhi (Q. 203), Tīkṣṇavajra (Q. 3926), and Vimalamitra (Q. 3931). Kimura Toshihiko, ‘Bongakushinryō shoshū no Byakusangai darani no kenkyū,’ esp.414 on Jiun’s Siddhaṃ Mss, rpt. in Chandra, Sanskrit Manuscripts from Japan, vol. 93–94. Note that Kimura is aware that Jiun’s Siddhaṃ text compares far more comparably with T no. 944A than with the Hero’s March spell.

42. For the reconstructed Sanskrit, I reply upon Noguchi, Zenmon darani no sekai, 57–180.

43. The character hong 吽 is a homograph for with the same pronunciation.

44. Bailey, KTV, 370 n.1: t for n.

45. Rong, ‘The Nature of the Dunhuang Library Cave,’ 250–54.

46. Ibid, 248, 70–74.

47. Emmerick, ‘The Khotanese Sumukhasūtra.’ On the distinction between early, middle, and late period in the transmission of Tantric Buddhism – with particular attention to dhāraṇī-sūtras – to China and Chinese Central Asia, see McBride, ‘Is There Really “Esoteric” Buddhism?’ and ‘Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism’; Davidson, ‘Studies in dhāraṇī literature II’ and ‘Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I’; and Dalton, ‘How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric.’

48. Ji, ed., Dunhuangxue da cidian, 704: Fang Guangchang does not surmise about any Indic sources but he does note that this version of the Sitātapatra-dhāraṇī is very different than the one in the Chinese *Śūraṃgama-sūtra, Amoghavajra’s translation, or many other Dunhuang MSS in Chinese.

49. Strickmann, Chinese Magical Medicine, 206–207.

50. Waley, ed., A Catalogue of Paintings Recovered from Tun-huang by Sir Aurel Stein, xiii, cited in Schopen, ‘The Text of the “Dhāraṇī Stones from Abhayagiriya”,’ 104 [308]; Schopen, ‘The Bodhgarbhālaṅkāralakṣa and Vimaloṣṇīṣa Dhāraṇīs in Indian Inscriptions,’ 339, McBride, ‘Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism,’ 87 n.8, and Davidson, ‘Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I,’ 99.

51. Waley, A Catalogue of Paintings Recovered from Tun-huang, xiii–xiv.

52. Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa, n.3, 46.

53. Misaki, ‘Bucchōkei no mikkyō,’ 480–483.

54. Da shenli tuoluoni jing Shijia Foding sanmei tuoluoni pin, T no. 901, 18: 685b10-11.

55. Lin, ‘Chishō erabu Zoku kokon yakkyō zuki no tekisuto hensen ni tsuite’; idem, ‘Shuryōgonkyō no bunken gakutekina kenkyū,’ 147 (1123).

56. Da Foding rulai fangguang xidaduo bodaluo da shenli doushe yiqiezhouwang tuoluoni jing Daweide zuizheng jinlun sanmei zhou pin, T no. 947, 19: 180a7-8.

57. Lin, ‘Daibucchō betsugyōhō no kisoteki kenkyū’; idem, ‘Daibucchō betsugyōhō no shohon ni tsuite.’

58. See the ritual instructions in T no. 947, 19: 181a and the corresponding name throughout, esp. T no. 947, 19: 185b20.

59. Da Foding rulai fangguang xidaduo bodaluo da shenli doushe yiqiezhouwang tuoluoni jing Daweide zuizheng jinlun sanmei zhou pin, T no. 947, 19: 181c8-15. Tejorāṣi is the name of one of the five buddhas of the Buddhoṣṇīṣa in esoteric Buddhism, cf. Yixing’s commentary to the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, Da Piluzhena chengfo jingshu, T no. 1796, 39: 5.633c28; see note 41.

60. T no. 947, 19: 181c16-182a27.

61. Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 7.136c-137a.

62. Shoulengyan jing, T no. 945, 19: 7.137a12-25. A similar, though much abridged, set of parallel instructions can be found in T no. 947, 19: 185a.

63. Lin, ‘Daibucchō betsugyōhō no shohon ni tsuite,’ 547.

64. T no. 946, 19: 169c1. Similar epithets, some much longer, for the title of this text’s dhāraṇīs and mantras are used throughout the text, though the substance of the titles remain similar.

65. Schopen, ‘The Bodhgarbhālaṇkāralakṣa and Vimaloṣṇīṣa Dhāraṇīs,’ 337; Schopen, ‘The Generalization of an Old Yogic Attainment in Medieval Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature,’ 209–10&13 esp., ‘First, we should note that the obtainment of jātismara – like rebirth in Sukhāvatī – occurs over and over again in more or less standardized lists of “blessings” or “benefits” stipulated to follow from a wide variety of merit-making activity. In addition to the obtainment of jātismara and rebirth in Sukhāvatī, such lists also promise freedom from sickness (Suvarṇabhāsottama, Saptatathāgatapūrvapraṇidhāna, Bodhimaṇḍalalakṣa), avoidance of rebirth in the hells or other unfortunate destinies (Suvarṇabhāsottama, Saptatathāgatapūrvapraṇidhāna, Aparimitāyurjñāna, Kāraṇḍavyūha, Samanta-mukhapraveśa), a favorable rebirth (Saṃghāta, Buddhabalādhāna, Saptabuddhaka), an auspicious death (Tathāgatānām-buddhakṣetraguṇokta, Mahāyāna-Sūtrālaṃkāra), the “purification” or “exhaustion” of the obstructions due to past karma (Saptatathā-gatapūrvapraṇidhāna, Kāraṇḍavyūha, Nārāyaṇaparipṛcchā, Bodhimaṇḍalalakṣa, Samantamukhapraveśa, Prajñāpāramitā-nāma-aṣṭaśatakā), etc., and these lists occur almost everywhere, not just in medieval, but in early Mahāyāna sūtra literature as well.’

66. Forte, ‘Divākara.’

67. No. 13 in ‘Theses on Method’; Lincoln, Gods and Demons Priests and Scholars, 3.

68. Strickmann, Chinese Magical Medicine, 59.

69. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism Online, s.v. ‘Ankyo 安居’ and ‘Ryōgon-e’ 楞厳会, accessed 25 February 2022. http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/. Bodiford, ‘Zen and Esoteric Buddhism’ also mentions that the Hero’s March Assembly may have been started by Zhenxie Qingliao 真歇清了 (1088–1151), but Juefan Huihong mentions the Hero’s March Assembly in his entry on Yongming Yanshou 永明延壽 (904–975): cf. Chanlin sengbao zhuan, XZJ no. 1560, 79: 9.510b17; 510a17-512a12. Kimura and Takenaka, Zenshū no darani, 3; Zengaku Daijiten Hensansho, ‘Zengaku daijiten,’ 12c, 1284a. Foulk, ‘Myth, Ritual, and Monastic Practice,’ 171–73; and idem, ‘Ritual in Japanese Zen Buddhism.’

70. Much of the secondary literature concerning what East Asian monastics chant and when concerns Japan. In the case of the Japanese Rinzai Zen tradition, Mujaku Dōchū’s voluminous encyclopedia of Zen monasticism, Zenrin shōkisen (1715), discussed above. For a brief discussion on the Zenrin shōkisen, see Bodiford, ‘Zen and Esoteric Buddhism,’ and on Mujaku Dōchū: App, ‘Dōchū,’ and Jørgensen, ‘Dōchū.’ Popular ‘monk-books for Zen monastics,’ still available today at most Buddhist bookstores in Kyoto, include the Zenrin kaju, Chanlin kesong 禪林課誦 [Daily Liturgies from the Zen Groves]. Probably a Ming dynasty (1368–1644) compilation of daily recitations within Chan monasteries, which came to Japan by the founder of the Ōbakushū, Yinyian Longqi/Jp. Ingen Ryūki 隱元隆琦 (1592–1673), see Nakao, trans., Ōbaku shingi. Cf. also Wu, Enlightenment in Dispute, 271–72. For an exhaustive study of the Chanlin kesong with coverage of both contemporary versions in Japan and China, as well as premodern editions and changes, see Kamata, ‘Zenshū to Ryōgonshu.’ See also Zenrin kaju, and Shi, Fomen bibei kesong ben guoyu zhuyin, 3–5. On Korea, see Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience, Appendix, 229–242 (without specific treatment of the Hero’s March Spell) and Ch’oe, Ryōgongyō, 459–464.

71. T no. 945, 19: 137a12-15 and T no. 945, 19: 137b24-27. Rounds, ‘Rescuing Ānanda’ provides a short synopsis of the scripture in English. I am not the first to point out that the central narrative of the Hero’s March Spell within the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra is probably borrowed from the thirty-third text, the Śārdūlakaṛnāvadāna, in an early compendium of Buddhist miracle tales known as the Divyāvadāna. Cf. Strickmann, Mantras et mandarins, 117, 446n17. In this story an outcaste (caṇḍāla) girl named Prakṛti falls in love with Ānanda when he takes a drink of water from her. She asks her mother, who is a sorceress, to bring him to her. Because of the mother’s incantations, Ānanda came to see Prakṛti. Seeing what was going on apparently due to his omniscience, the Buddha intervened with his own spell – perhaps the first Buddhist dhāraṇī according to Burnouf who translated most of the Śārdūlakaṛnāvadāna – with the result that Ānanda was freed from his own lust and, after meeting with the Buddha begging to see her would-be boyfriend, Prakṛti becomes the first outcaste nun. Vaidya, Divyāvadānaṃ, 607–08[4103-04] and Burnouf, Buffetrille, and Lopez, Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism, 155, 222, 494. Cf. Modengqie jing 摩登伽經 (trans. Zhulüyan 竺律炎 and Zhiqian 支謙 ca. 230), T no. 1300, 21: 399–410; Modengnü jing 摩登女經 (trans. An Shigao 安世高 ca. 148–170), T no. 551, 14: 895; and Modengnü jiexing zhong liushi jing 摩登女解形中六事經 [Sūtra of the Girl Mātaṅgī who Reveals the Six Matters] (trans. 317–420), T no. 552, 14: 895–896; cf. Demiéville et al., Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais. This suggests that a rather rough version of the Śārdūlakaṛnāvadāna with the story of how the Buddha saved lascivious Ānanda from Prakṛti with a spell or dhāraṇī – the same overall narrative concerning the Hero’s March Spell in the *Śūraṃgama-sūtra with Prakṛti’s name changed to Mātaṅgī – was in China long before the mid-Tang dynasty. See also Chen, Lengyan jing, ch.2.1–2:147-94. Davidson, ‘Studies in dhāraṇī literature II,’ 18–46 translates many salient details of this ‘mantra-dhāraṇī.’

72. On the Chuanfayuan and its implications for studying Song China and Chinese translation projects of Indian Buddhist scriptures, in particular, see Sen, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade, ch.2, 55–101. On Taiping xingguo monastery, see Chen, ‘Xiangguo Monastery.’

73. The jobs at the Institute include: Trepiṭakas [a designation meaning something like ‘master of the Buddhist canon’ (sanzang 三藏)], assistant translators (tongyijing 同譯經), Sanskrit scholars (zhengfanxue 正梵學), philological assistants (zhengyi 證義), textual appraisers (zhengwen 證文), textual composers (zhuiwen 綴文), proofreaders (canyijing 參譯經), editors (panding 判定), stylists (runwen 潤文) and scribes (bishou 筆受). Cf. T. 2035, 49: 398b7-19 for a canonical description of those involved in the translation process; San Tendai Godaisanki 4: 10/14.

74. These include the Yuedeng sanmeijing 月燈三昧經 (Skt. *Samādhirāja [candrapradīpasūtra]; T nos. 639–641), Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 (Skt. Sukhāvatīvyūha, T no. 360), and Mile shoujue jing 彌勒受決經 [Skt. Maitreyavyākaraṇa?, cf. T nos. 454–455]. According to Demiéville et al., Répertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais, 65, the last text deals with Mañjuśrī bodhisattva. Sanskrit manuscripts are fanqie 梵篋, pustaka or poṭhī, and a palm-leaf is a tāla-pattra 貝葉.

75. Jōjin refers to an eminent monk from Onjōji 園城寺 who apparently instructed him on one of two possible bilingual primers of Sanskrit: either the Bonji fudōson giki 梵字不動尊儀軌 [Manual to Venerate Acalanātha in Sanskrit Syllables] or the Bonji fudōson shinshingon 梵字不動尊心真言 [Heart Mantra to Venerate Acalanātha in Sanskrit Syllables], both of which are listed in Sho ajari shingon mikkyō burui sōroku, T no. 2176, 55: 1126b17; the former is attributed to having been brought back to Japan by Kūkai, the latter by Ennin 円仁 (794–864). According to Kenyō’s biography in the Kokan Shiren’s 虎關師錬 (1278–1356) Genkō shakusho 元亨釋書 [Buddhist History of the Genkō Era (1321–24)] 4, Kenyō produced ‘Sanskrit maṇḍalas’ (Bonji mandara 梵字曼荼羅). This biography also mentions how Trepiṭaka śramaṇas Huixun and Dingzhao extoled Kenyō’s Sanskrit calligraphy Jōjin showed them; cf. Genkō shakusho 4, 62: 92c and Iwano, ed., Kokuyaku issaikyō, shidenbu 19: 112.

76. See Appendix 1.

77. Tianjixiang and Zhijixiang recited this divine spell and performed their mudrā 神呪印結, completed 2, 600 circumambulations [of an altar they had constructed], before placing 108 small mounds of incense powder on it.

78. Tianjixiang and Zhijixiang state that *Pāramiti’s transliteration of this spell with 427 pada (inflected words) is missing 274 pada; Amoghavajra’s has 481 pada, which means it is missing 200. The postscript/petition is signed by one overseer, three proofreaders, Zhijixiang, two scribes and two individuals who carved both the Chinese and Sanskrit woodblocks: San Tendai Godai sanki 5: 12/28 provides this list: see Appendix 1.

79. (1) Fascicle seven of T no. 945 has two versions of the long spell: 439 ju at T no. 945.19.134a-136c15; and 427 ju at T no. 945.19.139a14-141b13. T no. 945.19.134a1 says: [1] 此陀羅尼宋元明三本與麗本大異故附於載卷末 cf. P. 139a; T no. 945.19.139a14 also says: [2] 此陀羅尼依明本載之以宋本元本對校之 cf. P. 134a. Ch’oe, Tonkōbon Ryōgongyō no kenkyū, 310 gives a date of 1601 for the 427 phrase version.

80. Lin, ‘Shuryōgonkyō no bunken gakutekina kenkyū,’ 79–88.

81. Ibid., 51.

82. Ibid., 56–63/

83. San Tendai Godai san ki 5, Xining 5.12.27; Shimazu, Jōjin Ajari no Haha shū, San Tendai Godai sanki no kenkyū, 487–89; Fujiyoshi, San Tendai Godaisanki ue, n.59, 431–32; idem, San Tendai Godaisanki no kenkyū, 381–82. The western date for this entry is 2 February 1073.

84. Miao Zhen was Vice Chamberlain of Mingzhou 明州 prefecture and military prefecture, cf. Song shi 200/153/4998, and Fujiyoshi, San Tendai Godaisanki no kenkyū, 382.

85. Fujiyoshi, San Tendai Godaisanki no kenkyū, 382.

86. The text reads zhongzu 種族, which usually means ethnic group, but in this case translates caste.

87. San Tendai Godai san ki, B no. 174, 32: 5.386a4-b23.