The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra (, Sà «tra of the Heroic March) (Taisho no. 945) is a Mahayana Buddhist Sà «tra that has been influential across most forms of East Asian Buddhism, where it has traditionally been included as part of Chinese-language Tripitakas. In the modern Taisho Tripitaka, it is placed in the Esoteric Sà «tra category (å¯ÂæÂÂé¨). The sà «tra's à Âà «raá¹ gama Mantra is widely recited in China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam as part of temple liturgies.
In Chinese Buddhism, it is a major subject of doctrinal study and the mantra revealed within the sà «tra remains a regular part of the daily liturgy chanted in all Chinese Buddhist monasteries. It is particularly important in the Chinese Chan tradition, including both Linji and Caodong lineages, and the Chinese Pure Land Buddhist tradition (where it is considered a central scripture). In Korean Buddhism, it also remains a major subject of study in Sà Ân monasteries. In Japanese Buddhism, the mantra revealed in the sà «tra is chanted across the three main Zen traditions of Rinzai, Sà Âtà  and à Âbaku. The doctrinal outlook of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is that of Buddha-nature, Yogacara thought, and esoteric Buddhism.
The sà «tra was translated into Tibetan during the late eighth to early ninth century and other complete translations exist in Tibetan, Mongolian and Manchu languages (see Translations).
à Âà «raá¹ gama means "heroic valour", "heroic progress", or "heroic march" in Sanskrit. The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is not to be confused with the similarly titled à Âà «raá¹ gama Samadhi Sà «tra (T. 642 é¦Âæ¥Âå´ä¸Âæ§ç¶Â; ShÃÂuléngyán SÃÂnmèi Jëng) which was translated by KumÃÂrajëva (344âÂÂ413).
The complete title preserved in Chinese 大ä½Âé Âå¦Âä¾Âå¯Âå 修èÂÂäºÂ義諸è©è©è¬è¡Âé¦Âæ¥Âå´綠means:
An alternate translation of the title reads:
A common translation of the sà «tra's name in English is the "Heroic March sà «tra" (as used e.g. by Matthew Kapstein, Norman Waddell, and Andy Ferguson), or the "scripture of the Heroic Progress" (as used e.g. by Thomas Cleary). The Sanskrit title preserved in the Chinese Tripitaka is MahÃÂbuddhoá¹£á¹Âëṣa-tathÃÂgataguhyahetu-sÃÂká¹£ÃÂtká¹Âta-prasannÃÂrtha-sarvaBodhisattvacaryÃÂ-à Âà «raá¹ gama-sà «tra, rendered by Hsuan Hua as "Sà «tra of the Foremost Shurangama at the Great Buddha's Summit Concerning the Tathagata's Secret Cause of Cultivation, His Certification to Complete Meaning and All Bodhisattva's Myriad Practices".
The full title of the sà «tra also appears as .
It is also known by abbreviated versions of the title such as or simply and more commonly .
An original Sanskrit version of à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is not known to be extant and the Indic provenance of the text is in question. A Sanskrit language palm leaf manuscript consisting of 226 leaves with 6 leaves missing which according to the introduction "contains the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra" was discovered in a temple in China and now resides at Peng Xuefeng Memorial Museum. But scholars have not yet verified if this is the same text or some other sà «tra (like the à Âà «raá¹ gama Samadhi Sà «tra).
The first catalogue that recorded the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra was Zhisheng (), a monk in Tang dynasty (618-907) China. Zhisheng said this book was brought back from Guangxi to Luoyang during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong. He gave two seemingly different accounts in two different books, both of which were published in 730 CE.
According to Jia Jinhua, who studied and cross-referred a number of external documents related to both accounts that Zhisheng gave, the two accounts do not conflict but rather complement each other, with the Kaiyuan shijiao lu written first and the Xu gujin yijing tuji written later once Zhisheng had acquired more details about the sà «tra's translation and transmission. Jia demonstrates that the two accounts derive from two versions of the sà «tra that were in circulation, reflecting two versions of the text produced under different political circumstances. One version, associated with the monk Huaidi, omitted the name of the exiled official Fang Rong due to his disgrace at court. The later version, created after the political stigma had lifted, correctly credits Fang Rong as the scribe. Jia further provides detailed historical and geographical evidence to prove Fang Rong's presence in Guangzhou was feasible, thereby validating his role in the translation.
Jia states that the first version brought from Guangzhou to Chang'an, which was included in the Kaiyuan catalogue and is extant in the Fangshan stone canon, listed the translators as Huaidi and an Indian monk and was the source for the account provided in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu. He infers that the reason this version omitted Fang RongâÂÂs name is because, at the time of the translation in 705, he was a disgraced and banished official in exile. The reason for this exile was that on 20 February 705, Zhang Yizhi (å¼µæÂÂä¹Â) and Zhang Changzong (å¼µæÂÂå®Â), two brothers who were Empress WuâÂÂs favoured courtiers were killed in a coup, and Fang Rong was imprisoned for his close association with the Zhang brothers before being exiled to Gaozhou on 4 March. Song dynasty (960-1279) records by the monk Zuxiu (ç¥ÂçÂÂ) recorded that Fang Rong arrived in Guangzhou in the fourth month and was invited by the Prefect of Guangzhou to take part in translating the à Âà «raá¹Âgama-sà «tra. The Tang court soon offered pardons to officials implicated in the affair involving the Zhang brothers, issuing amnesties and summoning officials back to court from the winter of 705 to the spring of 707, but Fang Rong unfortunately died in exile in Gaozhou. Jia then infers that ZhishengâÂÂs second account was based on a second version brought from Guangzhou to Chang'an by an official envoy at later time. Jia reasons that, by then, the reason for Fang RongâÂÂs exile had been pardoned, so there was no more taboo on signing his name on the sà «tra, hence the second version lists in full the transmitter and translator of the sà «tra, including Fang Rong as the transcriber and Huaidi as the verifier of the Sanskrit meanings. This version is supported by detailed accounts of the same events and attributions from a commentary of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra by the monk Weique (æÂÂæ ¤), who was personally introduced to the sà «tra by Fang Rong's family during a meal at their house. Extracts of Weique's commentary with regards to the authorship of the sà «tra is cited by the Japanese monk Genei (çÂÂå¡) in his work, the Daijà  sanron daigi shà  (大ä¹Âä¸Âè«Â大義éÂÂ, lit: "Digest of Major Doctrines of MahÃÂyÃÂna Three Treatises"), and the details regarding how he was introduced to the sà «tra is cited by the Song dynasty monk Zanning<sup>]</sup> (è´Â寧) in his historical work, the Song gaoseng zhuan (å®Âé«Âå§å³, lit: "Biographies of Eminent Monks of the Song dynasty"). This second version was then included in a later catalogue of Buddhist scriptures called the Zhenyuan catalogue, and is extant in various later Buddhist canons.
In China, Taiwan and overseas Chinese communities, the sà «tra is recognized as an authentic Buddhist scripture by all traditions of Chinese Buddhism such Chan, Pure Land, Tiantai and Huayan Buddhism. Many eminent historical Chinese monastics, including the patriarchs of some traditions, have praised the sà «tra's teachings, and more than one hundred commentaries have been written on it, over eighty of which are extant in the Buddhist canon. The list of figures who have written commentaries on the sà «tra include Zhongfeng Mingben, Yongming Yanshou (the Sixth Patriarch of the Chinese Pure Land tradition and the Third Patriarch of the Fayan tradition of Chan Buddhism), all of the Four Eminent Monks of the Wanli Era (consisting of Hanshan Deqing, Zibo Zhenke, Yunqi Zhuhong and Ouyi Zhixu, with Zhuhong being the Eighth Patriarch of the Chinese Pure Land tradition and Zhixu being the Ninth Patriarch of the Chinese Pure Land tradition as well as the Thirty-First Patriarch of the Tiantai lineage respectively), Youxi Chuandeng (the Thirtieth Patriarch of the Tiantai lineage), Taixu (a monk and activist trained in the Linji tradition of Chan Buddhism who was the mentor of several other prominent modern monastics) and Hsuan Hua (a major contributing figure in bringing Chinese Buddhism to the United States). The sà «tra has also always been classified as an authentic scripture in all Chinese-language Tripitakas, including the Taisho Tripitaka where it is placed in the Esoteric Sà «tra category (å¯ÂæÂÂé¨). It remains a major subject of doctrinal study and practice in most contemporary Chinese Buddhist traditions. In addition, the sà «tra in its entirety is chanted during certain rituals like the Shuilu Fahui ceremony and the mantra revealed within the sà «tra is chanted during daily morning liturgical services in contemporary Chinese Buddhist practice.
The Qianlong Emperor and the Third Changkya Khutukhtu, the traditional head tulku of the Gelug lineage of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia, believed in the authenticity of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra. They later translated the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra into the Manchu language, Mongolian and Tibetan. (see translations)
In Japan, records state that the à Âà «raá¹Âgama-sà «tra was brought to Japan by the visiting monk Fushà  (æ®砧) in 754, which caused a debate over its authenticity. Emperor Shà Âmu gathered monastics from the Sanron and Hossà  Buddhist traditions during the Tenpyà  era (729âÂÂ749) to examine the sà «tra, and eventually reached the conclusion that it was authentic. During the Hà Âki era (770âÂÂ781 CE), Emperor Kà Ânin sent Master Tokusei (), Master Kaimyà  () and a group of monks to China, asking whether this book was a forgery or not. A Chinese upasaka or layperson named Faxiang (æ³Â詳) told the head monk of the Japanese monastic delegation, Master Tokusei, that this was forged by Fang Yong. This once again raised doubts about the sà «tra in Japan, but these were dismissed with another report from China that Emperor Daizong had the sà «tra preached at the Tang court. Later during the Hà Âki era, various monks gathered at Daian-ji and claimed the sà «tra to be false, but Master Kaimyà Â, who had gone on the expedition to Tang-dynasty China earlier, refused to co-sign their claims and insisted that the sà «tra was authentic. The sà «tra remained influential in Japanese Buddhism as over seventy commentaries have been written on it, with the majority being from the Zen tradition. In addition, eminent monastics such as Kà Âbà  Daishi, the Eighth Patriarch and founder of the Shingon Buddhist tradition, and Dengyà  Daishi, the founder of the Tendai Buddhist tradition, have also written works based on it. For instance, Kà Âbà  Daishi wrote the Daibutchà Â-kyà  kaidai (大ä»Âé ÂçµÂéÂÂé¡Â, lit: "Introduction to the Sà «tra of the Great Buddha-Crown"), a commentary on the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra in which he referred to it as a nëtÃÂrtha sà «tra, a class of sà «tras that contain the definitive and direct teachings of the Buddhas. In contemporary Japanese Buddhist practice, the mantra revealed within the sà «tra is still chanted across the three main Zen traditions of Rinzai, Sà Âtà  and à Âbaku.
In China during the early modern era, the reformist Liang Qichao claimed that the sà «tra is apocryphal, writing, "The real Buddhist scriptures would not say things like Surangama Sà «tra, so we know the Surangama Sà «tra 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 Sà «tra is apocryphal" ().
According to James Benn, the Japanese scholar Mochizuki Shinko's (1869âÂÂ1948) Bukkyo kyoten seiritsu shiron "showed how many of the text's doctrinal elements may be traced to sources that already existed in China at the beginning of the eighth century, and he also described the early controversy surrounding the text in Japan."
Charles Muller and Kogen Mizuno also hold that this sà «tra is apocryphal (and is similar to other apocryphal Chinese sà «tras). According to Muller, "even a brief glance" through these apocryphal works "by someone familiar with both indigenous sinitic philosophy and the Indian MahÃÂyÃÂna textual corpus yields the recognition of themes, terms and concepts from indigenous traditions playing a dominant role in the text, to an extent which makes it obvious that they must have been written in East Asia." He also notes that apocryphal works like the à Âà «raá¹ gama contain terms that were only used in East Asia:<blockquote>...such as innate enlightenment (æ¬覺 pen-chüeh) and actualized enlightenment (å§Â覺 chih-chüeh) and other terms connected with the discourse of the tathÃÂgatagarbha-ÃÂlayavijñÃÂna problematik (the debate as to whether the human mind is, at its most fundamental level, pure or impure) appear in such number that the difference from the bona fide translations from Indic languages is obvious. Furthermore, the entire discourse of innate/actualized enlightenment and tathÃÂgatagarbha-ÃÂlayavijñÃÂna opposition can be seen as strongly reflecting a Chinese philosophical obsession dating back to at least the time of Mencius, when Mencius entered into debate with Kao-tzu on the original purity of the mind. The indigenous provenance of such texts is also indicated by their clear influence and borrowing from other current popular East Asian works, whether or not these other works were Indian or East Asian composition. </blockquote>James A. Benn notes that the à Âà «raá¹ gama also "shares some notable similarities with another scripture composed in China and dating to the same period", that is, the Sà «tra of Perfect Enlightenment. Indeed, Benn states that "One might regard the Sà «tra of Perfect Enlightenment, which has only one fascicle, as opposed to the à Âà «raá¹ gama<nowiki/>'s ten, as a precis of the essential points of the à Âà «raá¹ gama." Benn points out several passages which present uniquely Chinese understandings of animal life and natural phenomena that are without Indic precedent (such as the "Jelly fish with shrimp for eyes" and the "wasps, which take the larvae of other insects as their own") but that are found in earlier Chinese literature.
James A. Benn also notes how the à Âà «raá¹ gama even borrows ideas that are mostly found in Taoist sources (such as the Baopuzi), such as the idea that there are ten types of "immortals" (ä» xiÃÂn) in a realm located between the deva realm and the human realm. The qualities of these immortals include common ideas found in Taoism, such as their "ingestion of metals and minerals" and the practice of "movement and stillness"(dongzhi, which is related to daoyin). Benn argues that the à Âà «raá¹ gama's "taxonomy" of immortals was "clearly derived" from Taoist literature. In a similar fashion, the à Âà «raá¹ gama's "ten types of demons" (鬼 gui), are also influenced by Taoist and Confucian sources.
After the critiques of the à Âà «raá¹ gama from Lü Cheng and Liang Qichao, Shi Minsheng (éÂÂæÂÂçÂÂ) wrote a book titled the Bianpo lengyan baiwei (辯破æ¥Âå´ç¾å½, lit: "Refutation of the One hundred reasons about why à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is apocryphal"), establishing a rigorous response to them by criticizing both Lü and Liang for misunderstanding the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra. In Shi Minsheng's book, he listed one hundred arguments that directly corresponded to and countered Lü Cheng's list of one hundred critiques, cross-referencing and citing multiple other scriptures in the Buddhist canon to undermine each of Lü's critiques by demonstrating that they were based on misinterpretations of the text or lack of understanding regarding Buddhist doctrines.
Likewise, Jinhua Jia contends that the text is not a Chinese forgery but a genuine Indian Buddhist scripture that underwent a culturally adaptive translation process in the early 8th century. In his examination of the authenticity of the Surangama Sà «tra as well as arguments presented by past academics on the issue, Jia notes that the presence of Chinese or Taoist elements in the text that have been noted by some academics, such as those mentioned by James A. Benn, "comprise only a tiny ratio of the whole sà «tra, and are mostly sporadic terms and allusions that do not form significant ideas of indigenous Chinese origin; thus, they do not necessarily indicate a Chinese origin for the sà «tra. Rather, they can be seen as translative substitutions of parallel Sanskrit elements applied by the translators." In other words, they represent the translators' method of finding functional native Chinese equivalents that closely resemble and parallel the original concepts in the Sanskrit source. Indeed, he further notes that "Chinese terms and allusions appear more or less in almost all Buddhist scriptures of Chinese translation. For example, Daoist âÂÂphilosophicalâ terms such as Dao éÂÂ, wu ç¡, wuwei ç¡çº, and so forth appear everywhere in authentic translated sà «tras. While Daoist âÂÂreligiousâ terms are less commonly seen, several sà «tras translated during Empress WuâÂÂs reign do contain this kind of terminology." Furthermore, Jia argues that these Chinese elements within the sutra, including Taoist influenced terminology and a refined literary style, resulted from Fang Rong's and Huai Di's editorial contributions during translation. These modifications were shaped by the contemporary intellectual environment, which synthesized Buddhist and indigenous ideas, and by the translators' connections to early Chan Buddhism. Thus, the current text of the à Âà «raá¹Âgama was a MahÃÂyÃÂna text that absorbed Chinese cultural influences through translation.
Ron Epstein gives an overview of the arguments for Indian or Chinese origin, and concludes:
A number of scholars have associated the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra with the Buddhist tradition at NÃÂlandÃÂ.
Epstein thinks that certain passages in the sà «tra do show Chinese influence, such as the section on the Taoist immortals, but he thinks that this "could easily represent an adaptive Chinese translation of Buddhist tantric ideas. The whole area of the doctrinal relationship between the Taoist nei-tan, or so-called "inner alchemy", and early Buddhist tantra is a murky one, and until we know more about both, the issue probably cannot be resolved adequately." Epstein further writes regarding uniquely Chinese influences found in the text: "As to things Chinese, there are various short references to them scattered throughout the text, but, just as well as indicating the work's Chinese origin, they also could be an indication of a translation style of substitution of parallel items, which would fit right in with the highly literary Chinese phraseology."
In arguing for an Indic origin, Epstein gives three main reasons:
Similarly, Rounds argues for an Indic source by pointing out "two indisputably Indian elements" in the sà «tra: the text's reliance on the Buddhist science of reasoning (hetuvidya) and the à Âà «raá¹ gama mantra.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra was translated into Tibetan probably during the late eighth to early ninth century. However possibly because of the persecution of Buddhism during King Langdarma's reign (ca. 840-841), only a portion of Scroll 9 and Scroll 10 of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra are preserved in the surviving two ancient texts. Buton Rinchen Drub Rinpoche mentioned that one of the two texts was probably translated from Chinese; thereby suggesting the second text may have possibly been translated from another language.
The entire à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra was translated in 1763 from Han Chinese into the Manchu language, Mongolian and Tibetan languages and compiled into a four language set at the command of the Qianlong Emperor. The third Changkya Khutukhtu Rölpé Dorjé or è¥忠å¤Âå or Lalitavajra (1716âÂÂ1786) convinced the Qianlong Emperor to engage in the translation. The third Changkya Khutukhtu supervised (and verified) with the help of Fu Nai the translation of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra. The complete translation of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra into Tibetan is found in a supplement to the Narthang Kangyur.
There are a few English translations:
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra contains teachings from YogÃÂcÃÂra, Buddha-nature, and Vajrayana. It makes use of Buddhist logic with its methods of syllogism and the catuá¹£koá¹Âi "fourfold negation" first popularized by NÃÂgÃÂrjuna.
One of the main themes of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is how knowledge of the Buddha's teaching (Dharma) is worthless unless it is coupled with the power of samÃÂdhi (meditative absorption), as well as the importance of moral precepts as a foundation for the Buddhist practice. Also stressed is the theme of how one effectively combats delusions and demonic influences that may arise during meditation.
According to Ron Epstein, a key theme of the sà «tra is the "two types of mind", furthermore, "also contained in the work are a discussion of meditational methodology in terms of the importance of picking the proper faculty (indriya) as a vehicle for meditation, instructions for the construction of a tantric bodhimanda, a long mantra, a description of fifty-seven Bodhisattva stages, a description of the karmic relationship among the destinies (gati), or paths of rebirth, and an enumeration of fifty demonic states encountered on the path."
Ron Epstein and David Rounds have suggested that the major themes of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra reflect the strains upon Indian Buddhism during the time of its creation. They cite the resurgence of non-Buddhist religions, and the crumbling social supports for monastic Buddhist institutions. This era also saw the emergence of Hindu tantrism and the beginnings of Esoteric Buddhism and the siddha traditions. They propose that moral challenges and general confusion about Buddhism are said to have then given rise to the themes of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra, such as clear understanding of principles, moral discipline, essential Buddhist cosmology, development of samÃÂdhi, and how to avoid falling into various delusions in meditation.
In the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra, the Buddha dialogues with his disciple ÃÂnanda on the nature and location of the mind. ÃÂnanda proposes various views, such as that of the mind's being in the body, outside the body, being in the middle, or the mind's having no location at all. But Buddha disposes of each of these possibilities, leaving ÃÂnanda bewildered. ÃÂnanda then suggests mind to be that which he has been using to determine the mind's location, but again Buddha disposes of this, stating that the capacity for determination is not the mind either, but merely "mental processes that assign false and illusory attributes to the world of perceived objects." Buddha then undertakes to lead ÃÂnanda to the true mind through an analysis of visual awareness, pointing out that even though various objects go in and out of the field of vision, the essence of awareness itself does not come or go.
Buddha utilizes a number of arguments to overturn ÃÂnanda's assumptions regarding the nature of visual awareness. For example, Buddha explains that visual awareness does not depend on the eyes, since even in the case of one with damaged eyes, one will still be seeing darkness. In this way, Buddha concludes, "it is the mind that sees, not the eyes." In another such argument, Buddha demonstrates to ÃÂnanda that visual awareness neither contracts nor expands, as when entering a room or looking up at the sun. Buddha rather compares awareness to space, which, whether it is contained in a square or round box, does not itself take on these shapes.
Buddha rejects the notion that "the luminous nature of visual awareness" is dependent on causes and conditions. Buddha considers four different possibilities: that visual awareness depends on light, darkness, space, or solid objects. However, Buddha argues that if visual awareness depended on light, one would not be able to perceive darkness, and if it depended on darkness, one would not be able to perceive light. In the same way, if visual awareness depended on space, one would not be able to perceive solid objects, and if it depended on solid objects, one would not be able to perceive space.
Buddha extends this same line of reasoning to other senses as well, such as hearing. For instance, regardless of whether sounds or silence are present, the essential capacity for hearing does not vanish. The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra has the bodhisattva Mañjuà Ârë speak through the Buddha's power, saying:
<blockquote>WeâÂÂre capable of hearing sounds and silence both;<br />They may be present to the ear or not.<br />Though people say that when no sound is present,<br />Our hearing must be absent too, in fact<br />Our hearing does not lapse. It does not cease<br />With silence; neither is it born of sound.<br />Our hearing, then, is genuine and true.<br />It is the everlasting one.</blockquote>
The implication of these teachings is that, since the various awarenesses do not depend on their respective objects, it should be logically possible to disentangle awareness from such objects. In this way, one may turn inward, separating from the world of conditions, and establish oneself in the highest level of samÃÂdhi, known as the à Âà «raá¹ gama SamÃÂdhi.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra also has the Buddha address the question of how his teaching of unconditioned awareness differs from the doctrines of non-Buddhists. ÃÂnanda explains that, according to the teaching Buddha has been presenting, the enlightened nature is eternally present and does not depend on causes and conditions, but rather seems as though it "exists in and of itself." ÃÂnanda asks, "how does what the Buddha has said in this regard differ from the 'truth of the unmanifested nature' as taught by the Brahmin Kapila, or from the 'true self' as taught by the ascetics who smear ashes on themselves, or by others who are not on the right path?" In response to this, Buddha explains that while the enlightened nature does not depend on causes and conditions, neither does it exist in and of itself. In this regard, Buddha states: <blockquote>...you should understand that the existence of the essential, wondrously understanding, enlightened visual awareness is not dependent for its existence on causes and conditions, nor does it exist in and of itself. Nevertheless, one cannot say that it does not exist in and of itself, nor can one say that it is independent of causes and conditions. Statements that account for its existence cannot be negated, yet one cannot say that they cannot be negated. Such statements cannot be affirmed, yet one cannot say that they cannot be affirmed. What is entirely beyond all defining attributes â that is the entirety of Dharma.</blockquote>
A key theme found in the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is the distinction between the true mind and the discriminating mind. The discriminating worldly mind is the ordinary quotidian mind that becomes entangled in rebirth, thinking, change and illusion. But, according to the à Âà «raá¹ gama, there is also "an everlasting true mind, which is our real nature, and which is the state of the Buddha." According to the à Âà «raá¹ gama, the worldly mind "is the mind that is the basis of death and rebirth and that has continued for the entirety of time...dependent upon perceived objects."
This worldly mind is mistaken by sentient beings as being their true nature. Meanwhile, the "pure enlightened mind" is the underlying nature of all dharmas (phenomena). It is the ultimate reality which is also enlightenment, which has no beginning. It is the original and pure essence of nirvana. The true awakened mind is an unchanging awareness that remains still and independent of all sense objects, even while the discriminating mind changes. The pure mind then is the essential nature of awareness, not the ordinary awareness which is distorted and diseased.
This theme of the everlasting true mind which is contrasted with the samsaric mind is also a common theme of the Mahayana Awakening of Faith treatise.
The "everlasting true mind" is associated with the Mahayana teaching of tathÃÂgatagarbha or Buddha-nature. Rounds and Epstein explain the à Âà «raá¹ gama's conception of the tathÃÂgatagarbha, the "Matrix of the Thus Come One", as follows:
Thus, according to the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra the "Buddha-womb" or "Buddha-essence" is source of mind and world. This Buddha-nature is originally pure enlightenment, however, due to the deluded development of a subject-object separation, the whole world of birth and death arises.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra teaches about the à Âà «raá¹ gama SamÃÂdhi (the "meditative absorption of the heroic march"), which is associated with complete enlightenment and Buddhahood. This samÃÂdhi is also featured extensively in the à Âà «raá¹ gama SamÃÂdhi Sà «tra. It is equally praised in the MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra, where it is explained by the Buddha that this samÃÂdhi is the essence of the nature of the Buddha and is indeed the "mother of all Buddhas." The Buddha also comments that the à Âà «raá¹ gama SamÃÂdhi additionally goes under several other names, specifically PrajñÃÂpÃÂramità("Perfection of Wisdom"), the Vajra SamÃÂdhi, the Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda SamÃÂdhi ("Lion's Roar SamÃÂdhi"), and the Buddha-svabhÃÂva.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra contains various explanations of specific meditation practices which help one cultivate samadhi, including a famous passage in which twenty five sages discuss twenty five methods of practice. The main intent of these various methods is to detach one's awareness of all sense objects and to direct awareness inward, to the fundamental true nature. This leads to the experience of the disappearance of everything and finally to illumination.
The most well known part of this passage is the meditation taught by Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, the last of these sages to teach. Avalokiteshvara describes their method as follows:<blockquote>I began with a practice based on the enlightened nature of hearing. First I redirected my hearing inward in order to enter the current of the sages. Then external sounds disappeared. With the direction of my hearing reversed and with sounds stilled, both sounds and silence ceased to arise. So it was that, as I gradually progressed, what I heard and my awareness of what I heard came to an end. Even when that state of mind in which everything had come to an end disappeared, I did not rest. My awareness and the objects of my awareness were emptied, and when that process of emptying my awareness was wholly complete, then even that emptying and what had been emptied vanished. Coming into being and ceasing to be themselves ceased to be. Then the ultimate stillness was revealed. All of a sudden I transcended the worlds of ordinary beings, and I also transcended the worlds of beings who have transcended the ordinary worlds. Everything in the ten directions was fully illuminated, and I gained two remarkable powers. First, my mind ascended to unite with the fundamental, wondrous, enlightened mind of all Buddhas in all ten directions, and my power of compassion became the same as theirs. Second, my mind descended to unite with all beings of the six destinies in all ten directions such that I felt their sorrows and their prayerful yearnings as my own.</blockquote>The other section of the sà «tra which is influential in Chinese Buddhism is the passage which details the meditation method of Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva. This section is considered to be a major text of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, since it discusses the practice of nianfo (recollection of the Buddha). This passage states:<blockquote>beings who are always mindful of the Buddha, always thinking of the Buddha, are certain to see the Buddha now or in the future. They will never be far from Buddhas, and their minds will awaken by themselves without any special effort. Such people may be said to be adorned with fragrance and light, just as people who have been in the presence of incense will naturally smell sweet. The basis of my practice was mindfulness of the Buddha. I became patient with the state of mind in which no mental objects arise. Now when people of this world are mindful of the Buddha, I act as their guide to lead them to the Pure Land. The Buddha has asked us how we broke through to enlightenment. In order to enter samÃÂdhi, I chose no other method than to gather in the six faculties while continuously maintaining a pure mindfulness of the Buddha. This is the best method.</blockquote>
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra also focuses on the necessity of keeping traditional ethical precepts, especially the five precepts and the monastic vinaya. These precepts are said to be the basis to samadhi which in turn leads to wisdom. The Buddha describes the precepts as clear and unalterable instruction on purity which transverse time and place. If one breaks them (by killing, stealing, lying etc.) one will never reach enlightenment, no matter how much one meditates.
Indeed, according to the à Âà «raá¹ gama:<blockquote>No matter how much you may practice samÃÂdhi in order to transcend the stress of entanglement with perceived objects, you will never transcend that stress until you have freed yourself from thoughts of killing. Even very intelligent people who can enter samÃÂdhi while practicing meditation in stillness are certain to fall into the realm of ghosts and spirits upon their rebirth if they have not renounced all killing.</blockquote>Similarly, the sà «tra also claims that unless one frees oneself from sensual desire, sexual activity, meat eating (which it associated with killing), stealing or lying, one will not reach enlightenment. According to the à Âà «raá¹ gama, even though one may have some wisdom and meditative absorption, one is certain to enter bad rebirths, even the hells, if one does not cease lust, killing, stealing and making false claims.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama also warns against heterodox teachers who practice meditation without being properly prepared and then fall under the influence of demons. These teachers then begin to spout heterodoxies, such as the idea that practitioners should stop revering stupas and temples, wishing to destroy sà «tras and Buddha statues and engaging in sex while saying that "the male and female organs are the true abodes of bodhi and nirvana". James A. Benn notes that the first teaching may be a reference to certain radical Chan masters of the time, while the second one may refer to certain esoteric Buddhist practices which made use of ritual sex.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra argues for strict dietary rules, including vegetarianism and the avoidance of the five pungent roots (radish, leek, onion, garlic, asafoetida). The sà «tra argues that these dietary choices "drive away Bodhisattvas, gods, and xian [immortals], who protect the practitioner in this life, and attracts instead hungry ghosts." The sà «tra also states that eating meat can have dire consequences:<blockquote>You should know that those who eat meat, although their minds maybe opened and realize a semblance of samadhi, will become great raksasas (demons). When that retribution is over, they will sink back into the bitter ocean of samsara and will not be able to be disciples of the Buddha. </blockquote>The à Âà «raá¹ gama goes even further with its ascetic injunctions, recommending the avoidance of animal products such as silk, leather, furs, milk, cream, and butter and arguing that this abstention can be a cause of enlightenment: <blockquote>Bodhisattvas and pure monks walking on country paths will not even tread on living grasses, much less uproot them. How then can it be compassionate to gorge on other beings' blood and flesh? Monks who will not wear silks from the East, whether coarse or fine; who will not wear shoes or boots of leather, nor furs, nor birds' down from our own country; and who will not consume milk, curds, or ghee, have truly freed themselves from the world. When they have paid their debts from previous lives, they will roam no longer through the three realms. "Why? To wear parts of a being's body is to involve one's karma with that being, just as people have become bound to this earth by eating vegetables and grains. I can affirm that a person who neither eats the flesh of other beings nor wears any part of the bodies of other beings, nor even thinks of eating or wearing these things, is a person who will gain liberation.</blockquote>The sà «tra also teaches the practice of the burning of the body as an offering to the Buddhas.
In addition to the sà «tra's doctrinal content, it also contains a long dhÃÂraá¹Âë (chant, incantation) which is known in Chinese as the Léngyán Zhòu (æ¥Âå´åÂÂ), or à Âà «raá¹ gama Mantra. It is well-known and popularly chanted in East Asian Buddhism. In Sanskrit, the dhÃÂraá¹Âë is known as the SitÃÂtapatra Uá¹£á¹Âëṣa DhÃÂraá¹Âë (Ch. 大ç½åÂÂèÂÂéÂÂç¾ å°¼). This is sometimes simplified in English to White Canopy DhÃÂraá¹Âë or White Parasol DhÃÂraá¹Âë. In Tibetan traditions, the English is instead sometimes rendered as the "White Umbrella Mantra." The dhÃÂraá¹Âë is extant in three other translations found in the Chinese Buddhist canon, and is also preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan.
This dhÃÂraá¹Âë is often seen as having magical apotropaic powers, as it is associated with the deity SitÃÂtapatra, a protector against supernatural dangers and evil beings. The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra also states that the dhÃÂraá¹Âë can be used as an expedient means to enter into the à Âà «raá¹ gama samadhi. According to Rounds, the sà «tra also "gives precise instructions on the construction and consecration of a sacred space in which a practitioner can properly focus on recitation of the mantra."'
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Mantra is widely recited in China, Korea and Vietnam by Mahayana monastics on a daily basis and by some laypersons as part of the morning liturgical service. The mantra is also recited in some Japanese Buddhist traditions.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra also contains various explanations of Buddhist cosmology and soteriology. The sà «tra outlines various levels of enlightenment, the fifty-five Bodhisattva stages. It also contains explanations of the horrible sufferings that are experienced in the hells (narakas) as well as explanations of the other realms of rebirth.'
Another theme found in the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra is that of various MÃÂras (demonic beings) which are manifestations of the five skandhas (aggregates). In its section on the fifty skandha-mÃÂras, each of the five skandhas has ten skandha-mÃÂras associated with it, and each skandha-mÃÂra is described in detail as a deviation from correct samÃÂdhi. These skandha-mÃÂras are also known as the "fifty skandha demons" in some English-language publications. Epstein introduces the fifty skandha-mÃÂras section as follows:
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra has been widely studied and commented on in Chinese Buddhism. Ron Epstein has "found reference to 127 Chinese commentaries on the Sà «tra, quite a few for such a lengthy work, including 59 in the Ming dynasty alone, when it was especially popular".
Two principal factors underpinned its appeal. First, the text presents Buddha-nature through the concept of xin xing (å¿Âæ§), or mind-nature, aligning with the interpretive framework common to most Chinese Buddhist traditions. Second, its doctrinal content is thoroughly MahÃÂyÃÂna, resonating with the dominant philosophical orientation of Chinese Buddhism since the Tang. Once the sà «tra appeared during the Tang, it was swiftly integrated into various schools, especially the Chan tradition. Chan patriarch Baotang Wuzhu (ä¿ÂÃ¥ÂÂç¡ä½Â, 714âÂÂ774), founder of the Baotang lineage, was the first to extensively cite the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra to support Chan teachings. Prominent later Chan figures such as Guishan (æºÂå±±), Yangshan (ä»°å±±), and Fayan (æ³Âç¼) were also deeply familiar with the text. The earliest known commentary, by Weique (æÂÂæ¨), was produced in 766.
In the Tang and Song dynasties influential figures like Guifeng Zongmi (Ã¥ÂÂå³°å®Âå¯Â, 780âÂÂ841) and Yongming Yanshou (æ°¸æÂÂ延壽, 904âÂÂ975) helped advance the sà «tra's prestige. Zongmi, who bridged the Huayan and Chan schools, frequently cited it in his interpretation of the Sà «tra of Perfect Enlightenment and considered it a supreme expression of doctrine, emblematic of the unity of Chan and scriptural teaching. Similarly, Yanshou made extensive use of the sà «tra in his major treatise, Zongjing lu (å®Âé¡éÂÂ), to reinforce the same theme. Exegesis on the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra proliferated during the Song, especially among thinkers affiliated with the Huayan, Tiantai, and Chan traditions. Changshui Zixuan (é·水åÂÂç¿, 965âÂÂ1038), who revitalized the Huayan school, earned the epithet "Grand Master of the à Âà «raá¹Âgama" due to his influential commentary, Lengyan yishu (æ¥Âå´義çÂÂ). His disciple, Jinshui Jingyuan (æÂÂæ°´æ·¨æºÂ, 1011âÂÂ1088), composed the first ritual manual based on the sà «tra, Shoulengyan tanchang xiuzheng yi (é¦Âæ¥Âå´å£Âå ´ä¿®èÂÂÃ¥ÂÂ). Tiantai tradition also revered the sà «tra. Key Tiantai masters of the Song like Siming Zhili (Ã¥ÂÂæÂÂç¥禮, 960âÂÂ1028) and Ciyun Zunshi (æ Âé²éÂ憬Â, 964âÂÂ1032) drew upon the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra to support their positions. Commentaries by Gushan Zhiyuan (å¤山æºåÂÂ, 976âÂÂ1022) and Renyue Jingjue (ä»Â岳淨覺, 992âÂÂ1064) became especially influential.
In the Song era Chan school, the sà «tra was revered as âÂÂthe marrow of Chanâ and became a central text. Chan monks used its content to support and deepen the integration of meditative and doctrinal practice. Masters such as Dahui Zonggao (大栧å®Âæ², 1089âÂÂ1163) and Hongzhi Zhengjue (å®Âæºæ£覺, 1091âÂÂ1157) interpreted its teaching on the âÂÂear-organ entryâ as a model for Chan realization. During the Song dynasty the sà «tra was used in a ritual called the à Âà «raá¹ gama assembly which "was held semi-annually during monastic retreats, and there the participants chanted the long magical spell (dharani) contained in the sà «tra. The dharani was also recited at memorial services for Chan abbots and patriarchs." The sà «tra is cited in various Chan Buddhist texts, like the Blue Cliff Record (case 94). The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra also influenced the work of several Song intellectuals, like Su Shi (1037âÂÂ1101) and Su Zhe (1039âÂÂ1112).
Beyond Buddhism, the sà «tra also began to influence Daoist and Confucian intellectuals in the Song. It was a preferred text among literati with Buddhist interests. As noted by official Chen Guan (é³çÂÂ, 1042âÂÂ1106), lay scholars often limited their Buddhist reading to a few key works, including the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra. Distinguished figures such as Su Shi (èÂÂ軾), Su Che (èÂÂè½Â), Wang Anshi (çÂÂå®Âç³), Zhang Shangying (å¼µåÂÂè±), and Huang Tingjian (é»ÂåºÂå  ) were all familiar with it. Commentaries by Wang and Zhang were particularly esteemed by monastic readers.
The sà «tra retained its prominence during the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). Chan masters Zhongfeng Mingben (ä¸Âå³°æÂÂæ¬, 1263âÂÂ1323) and his disciple Tianru Weize (天å¦ÂæÂÂÃ¥ÂÂ, 1284âÂÂ1354) continued to promote its study. WeizeâÂÂs commentary, Lengyan huijie (æ¥Âå´æÂÂ解), became the most authoritative exegetical work on the sà «tra for the next two centuries. He asserted that no other scripture equaled the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra in elucidating mind-nature, making it essential for Chan practice. Although Huayan and Tiantai were in decline during the Yuan, figures like Biefeng Datong (å¥峰大åÂÂ, 1289âÂÂ1370) and Yuanmeng Yunze (é²夢å Â澤, 1232âÂÂ1297) sought to revitalize their respective schools through engagement with the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra. Even Pure Land master Pudu (æ®度, d. 1330) drew on the sà «tra to bolster his interpretation of Pure Land practice.
The Ming dynasty saw the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra at the height of its popularity in China. By the mid-Ming period, the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra retained significant influence, particularly among eminent monks and the educated elite. During this time, the Huayan monk Huijin æ §é² (1355âÂÂ1436) was invited to lecture on the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra in the imperial capital, drawing audiences exceeding ten thousand. During the late Ming period, the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra reached a peak in its influence and popularity among both Buddhist circles and the broader intellectual elite. Over the seventy-year span of the late Ming, more commentarial works on the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra were produced than in any other historical period. The Qing-era monastic scholar Tongli (éÂÂçÂÂ, 1701âÂÂ1782) recorded at least sixty-eight known commentaries between the sà «traâÂÂs appearance in the Tang and his own time, with thirty of these composed during the late Ming aloneâÂÂsurpassing the twenty produced in the Song. A more comprehensive modern count confirms this trend: out of 135 commentaries written from the Tang through the Qing, sixty originated in the Ming, with over fifty of those concentrated in the late Ming. The range of authors (including Buddhists, Confucians, and Daoists) indicates the textâÂÂs wide dissemination and popularity among the literati.
The continued relevance of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra during the Ming is largely attributable to its sophisticated exposition of mind-nature (å¿Âæ§), a theme that resonated across the Chinese intellectual landscape in the Ming. As a tradition of foreign origin, Buddhism had long positioned itself in dialogue with native Chinese philosophies. It was only in the Ming dynasty, however, that the convergence of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism achieved a degree of philosophical integration around the principle that mind-nature is truth. This development reflected a broader trend of doctrinal synthesis among the three teachings. One key figure in this transformation was the Neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yangming çÂÂé½æ (1472âÂÂ1529), who reoriented Confucian metaphysics by emphasizing the concept of innate knowing (è¯çÂÂ¥ liang zhi). In his system, the mind supplanted Heavenly Principle (天çÂÂ) as the foundational reality, thereby identifying the mind as the source and substance of all phenomena. WangâÂÂs system gained wide acceptance in Confucian circles and served to dissolve longstanding boundaries between the three traditions. This philosophical convergence catalyzed the late Ming movement known as "Three Teachings in One" (ä¸ÂæÂÂÃ¥ÂÂä¸Â), which advocated the fundamental compatibility of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism.
Moreover, the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra became a tool through which Buddhists articulated the superiority of their doctrine over that of the other traditions. For example, one promoter of the sà «tra, the eminent monk Yunqi Zhuhong (é²棲袾å®Â), while acknowledging that the three teachings express a common principle with varying degrees of profundity, asserted that the teachings of Confucian and Daoist sages failed to attain the depth of insight found in the sà «traâÂÂs presentation of the Way (dao). As such, this influential monk held that would should begin one's studies with this sà «tra: "The à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra has the best order [in discussing Buddhist teaching], one should read it first." He also used the sà «tra to defend his promotion of the dual practice of Chan and Pure Land, as well as to argue for the unity of all Buddhist teachings (including Esoteric Buddhism and Vinaya).
In this period, scholarly engagement with the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra played a significant role in the broader Buddhist revival. Other influential figures who wrote commentaries on the à Âà «raá¹Âgama were Hanshan Deqing (æ¨山德渠, who is said to have attained enlightenment through the sà «tra), Zibo Zhenke (ç´«æ ¢çÂÂå¯), Ouyi Zhixu (è çÂÂæºæÂÂ), Jiaoguang Zhenjian (交å ÂçÂÂéÂÂ) and Youxi Chuandeng (幽溪å³çÂÂ). Chuandeng relied on the sà «tra to revive the Tiantai school and wrote various commentaries on it. Hanshan Deqing captured the spirit of the Ming era's attachment to the sà «tra when he wrote:<blockquote>[The à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra] has thorough insight into the origin of the one-mind and includes all the dharmas to the utmost extent. No scripture surpasses the extensiveness and completion of this sà «tra.</blockquote>The sà «tra continued to remain popular during the succeeding Qing dynasty (1644-1912) through to the modern era. For instance, the eminent monk, Venerable Yinguang, who is the Thirteenth Patriarch of the Chinese Pure Land tradition, promoted the "Chapter of Bodhisattva DashizhiâÂÂs (MahÃÂsthÃÂmaprÃÂpta) Perfect Realisation on Nianfo SamÃÂdhi" from the sà «tra as the fifth Pure Land sà «tra, together with the AmitÃÂbha Sà «tra, the AmitÃÂyus Sà «tra, the AmitÃÂyus Contemplation Sà «tra and "The Practices and Vow of the Bodhisattva Puxian (Samantabhadra)" (which constitutes the last chapter of the Avataá¹Âsaka Sà «tra). Commentaries also continued to be produced by various eminent monks during this period. For instance, during the early Qing dynasty, the eminent monk Boting Xufa (伯äºÂçºÂæ³Â), who was a dharma descendent of Yunqi Zhuhong and who specialized in the Huayan tradition, wrote a commentary titled the Shou lengyan jing guanding shu (é¦Âæ¥Âå´ç¶ÂçÂÂé ÂçÂÂ) which has remained influential in contemporary times. As another example, the eminent Chan master Venerable Xuyun, who was a mentor to many influential Buddhist teachers, wrote a commentary on the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra which was unfortunately lost in 1951 during the horrific persecution of monks under the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries. Other examples of influential commentaries written during this period are the Dafoding lengyan jing jiangji (大ä½Âé Âé¦Âæ¥Âå´ç¶Âè¬Âè¨Â) by Venerable Hairen (æµ·ä»Â), the similarly titled Dafoding lengyan jing jiangji (大ä½Âé Âé¦Âæ¥Âå´ç¶Âè¬Âè¨Â) by Venerable Tanxu (Ã¥ÂÂèÂÂ), the Dafoding lengyan jing miaoxin shu (大ä½Âé Âé¦Âæ¥Âå´ç¶Âå¦Âå¿ÂçÂÂ) by Venerable Shoupei (å®Âå¹) and the Dafoding lengyan jing jiangyi (大ä½Âé Âé¦Âæ¥Âå´ç¶Âè¬Â義) by Venerable Yuanying (Ã¥ÂÂçÂÂ).
Venerable Hsuan Hua, who was among the first to teach Chinese Buddhism in America, was another major modern proponent of the à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra. The sà «tra along with his commentary on it was translated and published in English in 2003 by the Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, which he founded. According to Hsuan Hua:
It remains a major subject of doctrinal study and practice in most contemporary Chinese Buddhist traditions, with many popular modern eminent monastics in China, Taiwan and overseas Chinese communities such as Sheng-yen (èÂÂå´), Chin Kung (淨空), Chengguan (æÂÂè§Â), Huilü (æ §å¾Â) and Jingjie (æ·¨çÂÂ) having written commentaries on the sà «tra or lectured on its teachings. The sà «tra in its entirety is usually chanted in rituals such as the Shuilu Fahui ceremony, and the à Âà «raá¹ gama mantra revealed in the sà «tra is typically chanted as part of the daily morning liturgical session in most Chinese Buddhist monasteries.
The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra was also important in Korean Buddhism. It became a required text for Korea's monastic examination system during the Joseon period. The à Âà «raá¹ gama Sà «tra remains one of the most influential sources in the advanced curriculum of Korean Sà Ân monasteries, along with the Awakening of Faith and the Vajrasamadhi sà «tra.
The Japanese Zen Buddhist Dà Âgen held that the sà «tra was not an authentic Indian text. But he also drew on the text, commenting on the à Âà «raá¹ gama verse "when someone gives rise to Truth by returning to the Source, the whole of space in all ten quarters falls away and vanishes" as follows: The sà «tra was influential in Japanese Buddhism as over seventy historical commentaries have been written on it, with the majority being from the Zen tradition. In addition, eminent monastics such as Kà Âbà  Daishi, the Eighth Patriarch and founder of the Shingon Buddhist tradition, and Dengyà  Daishi, the founder of the Tendai Buddhist tradition, have also written works based on it. For instance, Kà Âbà  Daishi wrote the Daibutchà Â-kyà  kaidai (大ä»Âé ÂçµÂéÂÂé¡Â, lit: "Introduction to the Sà «tra of the Great Buddha-Crown"), a commentary on the à Âà «raá¹Âgama Sà «tra in which he referred to it as a nëtÃÂrtha sà «tra, a class of sà «tras that contain the definitive and direct teachings of the Buddhas. In contemporary Japanese Buddhist practice, the à Âà «raá¹ gama mantra revealed in the sà «tra is still chanted across the three main Zen traditions of Rinzai, Sà Âtà  and à Âbaku.
Note: Several notes are Chinese, due to the international character of Wikipedia. Help in translation is welcome.
Chinese texts