Saṃghabhadra. (T. ’Dus bzang; C. Zhongxian; J. Shugen; K. Chunghyŏn 衆賢) (c. fifth century CE). In Sanskrit, “Auspicious to the Community”; the proper name of an influential Indian master of the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA. Historical sources suggest that Saṃghabhadra hailed from KASHMIR and was a younger contemporary of his principal rival VASUBANDHU. The historical records of XUANZANG and PARAMĀRTHA agree that Saṃghabhadra publicly challenged Vasubandhu to debate, but his challenge was never accepted. Saṃghabhadra’s most famous works include the *NYĀYĀNUSĀRA, or “Conformity with Correct Principle,” and the *Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā (C. Xianzong lun), or “Exposition of Accepted Doctrine.” The *Nyāyānusāra is both a clarification of the ABHIDHARMA philosophy of the Vaibhāṣika school and a critical commentary on the presentation found in Vasubandhu’s ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA. The later Samayapradīpikā is a shorter explanation of the doctrines of the Vaibhāṣikas, which in large measure summarizes the positions explored in the *Nyāyānusāra. Neither of these works survives in their Sanskrit originals but only in their Chinese translations. Saṃghabhadra’s defense of Kashmir Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika positions ushered in the neo-Vaibhāṣika period of Sarvāstivāda thought, which took the *Nyāyānusāra and the Samayapradīpikā as its main texts.

saṃghabheda. (P. saṅghabheda; T. dge ’dun gyi dbyen byed pa; C. poseng; J. hasō; K. p’asŭng 破僧). In Sanskrit, “splitting the community”; the act of causing a schism in the community of Buddhist monks and nuns (SAṂGHA). Technically, a schism occurs when nine or more fully ordained monks separate themselves from the order; a faction of less than nine monks constitutes a “dissension” (saṃgharāji) rather than a schism. These schisms may occur over disagreements in the teachings (DHARMA) or details of monastic life (VINAYA). The ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ distinguishes two different types of saṃghabheda, one in which there are two separate saṃghas established within a single SĪMĀ boundary, the second in which a group attempts to establish a new dispensation with a different teacher. The first and most infamous example of this latter type of schism is the one caused by Buddha’s cousin DEVADATTA, who declared that he, and not GAUTAMA, was the real master and that his five practices were the correct dispensation. After failing in his attempts to take Gautama’s life, Devadatta convinced a group of monks in the city of VAIŚĀLĪ that the asceticism advocated by Gautama and his followers was not rigorous enough; five hundred monks chose to enlist in Devadatta’s new order. The act of causing or encouraging such a rift in the saṃgha is presented as the worst of the five “uninterrupted deeds” (ĀNANTARYAKARMAN) and is so heinous that it guarantees the perpetrator a KALPA-long lifetime in AVĪCI—the worst of the various Buddhist hells. According to the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā, the consequences of saṃghabheda are so odious that if the malefactor’s sentence in hell has not been completed by the time of the annihilation accompanying the end of the kalpa, he will be reborn into another world-system’s hell to complete his term. The seriousness of the saṃghabheda offense is also demonstrated by the fact that King AŚOKA himself warns against it in one of his rock edicts. Therein, he states that any monk who causes schism should be cast from the monastery and returned to the status of a layman. Despite this censure, the Buddhist tradition is full of instances of such divisions in the monastic community. As Buddhism spread through India, a host of different schools (NIKĀYA) emerged, some based on significant doctrinal distinctions, others on regional variations in monastic and ritual observances. Texts that document the proceedings of the third Buddhist council (SAṂGĪTI, see COUNCIL, THIRD), which occurred sometime around 250 BCE, list eighteen to twenty major schools.

saṃghakarman. (P. saṅghakamma; T. dge ’dun gyi las; C. seng jiemo; J. sōkonma; K. sŭng kalma 僧羯磨). In Sanskrit, an “ecclesiastical act,” such as admission into the order as novices (PRAVRAJITĀ), full ordination of monks and nuns (UPASAṂPADĀ); the fortnightly confession ceremony recitation of the PRĀTIMOKṢA (UPOṢADHA), the ceremony closing the rains retreat (PRAVĀRAṆĀ), giving cloth for robes (KAṬHINA), the adjudication of rules, the administration of punishments to transgressors of the precepts, and the settlement of disputes among the clergy. See KARMAN.

saṃgharājan. (S). See SAṄGHARĀJA.

saṃghāta. (P. saṅghāta; T. bsdus ’joms; C. zhonghe [diyu]; J. shugō[jigoku]; K. chunghap [chiok] 衆合[地獄]). In Sanskrit, lit. “crushing”; the name of the third of eight stratified hot hells that are detailed in many Buddhist cosmological models. The Sanskrit term saṃghāta has a variety of meanings and the exact nature and method of the torment experienced in this hell varies from source to source. One of its meanings is “crushing” and thus saṃghāta is often rendered in English as the “crushing hell.” Creatures unfortunate enough to be reborn in this destiny are commonly described as being continually crushed together between mountain ranges. Alternatively, they may be crushed by iron rollers, plates, and even iron elephants that come at them from the four directions while they are trapped waist-deep in a thick sheet of iron. This form of the saṃghāta hell is most often associated with sexual misconduct. However, the Sadgatikārikā describes saṃghāta in altogether different terms. It takes the Sanskrit term saṃghāta as meaning “heap” or “collection,” and beings reborn in that hell are piled into heaps and slaughtered together as punishment for having killed living creatures.

saṃghāṭī. (P. saṅghāṭi; T. snam sbyar; C. sengqieli/dayi; J. sōgyari/daie; K. sŭnggari/taeŭi 僧伽梨/大衣). In Sanskrit, “outer robe”; the largest of the “three robes” (TRICĪVARA) worn by a monk or nun, along with the “lower robe” or waistcloth (S. ANTARVĀSAS, P. antaravāsaka), and the upper robe (S. UTTARĀSAṂGA, P. uttarāsaṅga). This particular robe was in two layers and was required to be tailored in patches, numbering from nine up to twenty-five, depending on the account in the various VINAYA recensions. This use of patches of cloth is said to have been modeled after plots of farmland in MAGADHA that the Buddha once surveyed. See also CĪVARA; KĀṢĀYA.

saṃghātiśeṣa. (S). See SAṂGHĀVAŚEṢA.

Saṃghavarman. (C. Sengqiebamo; J. Sōgyabatsuma; K. Sŭnggabalma 僧伽跋摩) (fl. c. fifth century). Sanskrit proper name of an Indian monk who in 433 presided over the first ordination of nuns (BHIKṢUṆĪ) in China performed according to the correct ecclesiastical act (SAṂGHAKARMAN) of the VINAYA. At this time, SENGGUO and over three hundred other nuns were ordained with both an assembly of monks and an assembly of nuns in attendance, thereby officially instituting the monastic order for women in China. Saṃghavarman also translated DHARMATRĀTA II’s SAṂYUKTĀBHIDHARMAHṚDAYA into Chinese. See SENGGUO.

saṃghāvaśeṣa. [alt. saṃghātiśeṣa] (P. saṅghādisesa; T. dge ’dun lhag ma; C. sengcanzui/sengcanfa; J. sōzanzai/sōzanhō; K. sŭngjanjoe/sŭngjanpŏp 僧殘罪/僧殘法). In Sanskrit, “probationary offense”; a category of offenses in the roster of monastic rules (PRĀTIMOKṢA) that require penance and/or probation. The saṃghāvaśeṣa offenses are the second most serious category of offense in the VINAYA, second only to the “defeats” (PĀRĀJIKA), which render a monk or nun “not in communion” (ASAṂVĀSA) with the community. A saṃghāvaśeṣa infraction requires either an open confession of the offense before a gathering of monks or else expulsion from the order (SAṂGHA) if the offender refuses to confess. According to one paranomastic gloss, because the remedy for these offenses requires the intervention of the saṃgha at both the beginning (ādi) and the end (śeṣa) of the expiation process, these offenses are known collectively as saṃghādiśeṣa. The probationary offender receives two different kinds of punishments: penance (MĀNATVA) and temporary probation (PARIVĀSA). The mānatva penance is imposed on a monk who commits a saṃghāvaśeṣa offense when that monk immediately confesses the infraction to another monk. In the Pāli vinaya, the penance imposed in this circumstance is called “penance for unconcealed offenses” (apaṭicchannamānatta), which entails the loss of the usual privileges of monkhood for a set period of six nights. If a monk instead conceals a saṃghāvaśeṣa offense for a period of time before confessing it, he must undergo a “probationary penance” called either parivāsa or, in Pāli, “penance for concealed offenses” (paṭicchannamānatta). This probationary penance likewise entails the loss of privileges, but in this case that probation must last for as long as the offense was concealed. After the parivāsa penance is completed, the monk must then undergo mānatta penance for six nights. These penances are similar in some vinaya traditions to those meted out to “pārājika penitents” (ŚIKṢĀDATTAKA). During his probationary period, the offender is stripped of his seniority and expected to observe certain social constraints. For example, the VINAYAPIṬAKA states that such offenders may not leave the monastery grounds without being accompanied by at least four monks (BHIKṢU) who are not themselves on probation. Also, every day of his probation, the offending monk must inform the other monks of the offense for which he is being punished. The exact number of precepts that fall under the category of saṃghāvaśeṣa varies somewhat among the different vinaya traditions; a typical list of thirteen rules for monks includes (1) willingly emitting semen, (2) engaging in lustful physical contact with a woman, (3) using sexually inappropriate language toward a woman, (4) praising sexual intercourse as a religious act, (5) acting as the liaison in the arrangement of a marriage, (6) building a personal hut that is larger than the prescribed dimensions, (7) building a monastery (VIHĀRA) for the community that does not meet the prescribed specifications, (8) falsely and maliciously accusing another monk of an infraction, (9) taking up an issue as a ploy to falsely accuse another monk of an infraction, (10) taking any action that may result in a schism within the community (SAṂGHABHEDA), (11) siding with or following a monk who has created a schism in the order, (12) refusing to acknowledge and to heed the admonishments of training given by other monks, and finally (13) corrupting families. Nuns are typically subject to seventeen rules, including a few additional restrictions enumerated in the bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa. After completing the parivāsa penance and his six nights of mānatva, the monk approaches the saṃgha, which in this case means a quorum of monks consisting of at least twenty members, and requests to be “called back into community” (S. ABHYĀYANA, P. abbhāna). If the saṃgha agrees, the monk is declared free of the saṃghāvaśeṣa offense and is restored to his former status.

saṃgīti. (P. saṅgīti; T. bka’ bsdu; C. jieji; J. ketsujū; K. kyŏlchip 結集). In Sanskrit, “chant,” “recitation,” and, by extension, “council.” The term is used to refer to both the recitation of scripture and a communal gathering of monks held for the purpose of such recitation; for this reason, the term is often translated as “council,” or “synod,” such as the first council, second council, etc., following the death of the Buddha. These councils were held to resolve questions of orthodoxy and typically involved the recitation and redaction of the Buddhist canon (TRIPIṬAKA). At such Buddhist councils, the Buddhist canon was communally rehearsed, agreed upon, and codified; in the Pāli account, the same procedure was followed for redacting the exegetical commentaries, called AṬṬHAKATHĀ. In this same Pāli narrative, a saṃgīti was convened at the conclusion of a successful purification of the dispensation (P. sāsanavisodhana) in which false monks and heretics are expelled, schism healed, and the SAṂGHA reunified. A saṃgīti is conducted by representatives of that newly purified saṃgha, who in a public forum unanimously affirm the authority of a common canon. For a detailed description of the major councils, see COUNCIL (s.v.). ¶ The term saṃgīti may also be used to refer to the “recitation” of a specific scripture itself. A famous such text is the MAÑJUŚRĪNĀMASAṂGĪTI or “Recitation of the Names of Mañjuśrī.”

saṃgītikāra. [alt. saṃgītikāraka] (T. bka’ sdud pa po; C. jiejizhe; J. ketsujūsha; K. kyŏlchipcha 結集者). In Sanskrit, “rapporteur,” the person who recites a discourse that they have heard spoken by the Buddha, e.g., the “I” in “thus have I heard” (EVAṂ MAYĀ ŚRUTAM). This person is typically identified as ĀNANDA (for the SŪTRAPIṬAKA) or UPĀLI (for the VINAYAPIṬAKA), but the identity of the saṃgītikāra became a topic of discussion in the MAHĀYĀNA, which asserted that the Buddha also delivered discourses outside the physical presence or mental comprehension of Ānanda. In those cases, the saṃgītikāra was usually a BODHISATTVA, such as MAÑJUŚRĪ.

Saṃgītiparyāya[pādaśāstra]. (T. ’Gro ba’i rnam grangs; C. Jiyimen zulun; J. Shūimonsokuron; K. Chibimun chok non 集異門足論). In Sanskrit, “Treatise on Pronouncements,” one of the earliest books of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA; it is traditionally listed as the last of the six ancillary texts, or “feet” (pāda), of the JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA, the central treatise, or body (śarīra), of the Sarvāstivāda abhidharmapiṭaka. The text is a commentary on the Saṃgītisūtra (“Discourse on Communal Recitation”; see SAṄGĪTISUTTA) and is attributed either to Mahākauṣṭhila (according to YAŚOMITRA and BU STON) or to ŚĀRIPUTRA (according to Chinese tradition). Following closely the structure of the Saṃgītisūtra, the author sets out a series of dharma lists (MĀTṚKĀ), given sequentially from ones to tens, to organize the Buddha’s teachings systematically. The sets of twos, for example, cover name and form (NĀMARŪPA); the threes, the three unwholesome faculties (AKUŚALAMŪLA) of greed (LOBHA), hatred (DVEṢA), and delusion (MOHA); the fives, the five aggregates (SKANDHA), etc. Its ten sections (nipāta) cover a total of 203 sets of factors (DHARMA). Sanskrit fragments of the Saṃgītiparyāya were discovered at BĀMIYĀN and TURFAN, but the complete text is only extant in a Chinese translation made by XUANZANG and his translation team between 660 and 664. The Saṃgītiparyāyaderives from the earliest stratum of Sarvāstivāda abhidharma literature, along with the DHARMASKANDHA and the PRAJÑAPTIBHĀṢYA. The Saṃgītiparyāya’s closest analogue in the Pāli ABHIDHAMMA literature is the DHAMMASAṄGAṆI.

saṃgrahavastu. (T. bsdu ba’i dngos po; C. si sheshi; J. shishōji; K. sa sŏpsa 四攝事). In Sanskrit, translated variously as “grounds for assembling,” “means of conversion,” or “articles of sympathy”; in the Mahāyāna sūtras, these are four methods by which bodhisattvas attract and retain students. The four are: (1) generosity (DĀNA), (2) kind words (priyavādita), (3) helpfulness, viz., teaching others to fulfill their aims (arthacaryā), and (4) acting in accordance with one’s own teachings, viz., consistency between words and deeds, or perhaps even the “common good” (SAMĀNĀRTHATĀ). There is an extensive description of these four qualities in the sixteenth chapter of the MAHĀYĀNASŪTRĀLAṂKĀRA, an important Mahāyāna ŚĀSTRA said to have been presented to ASAṄGA by the bodhisattva MAITREYA in the TUṢITA heaven (see also MAITREYANĀTHA).

Samguk yusa. (三國遺事). In Korean, “Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms”; a collection of historical records and legends from the Three Kingdoms period in Korea, attributed to the Korean monk IRYŎN (1206–1289), although the extant version may well have been expanded and emended by one of his disciples. The Samguk yusa was written c. 1282–1289, during the period of Mongol suzerainty over Korea, which began in 1259. In his miscellany, Iryŏn includes a variety of hagiographies of eminent monks in the early Korean Buddhist tradition, often drawing from local accounts of conduct (haengjang) rather than official biographies, and from stories of early Korean Buddhist miracles and anomalies drawn from regional lore. In its emphasis on local narrative, where Buddhism dominated, over official discourse, Iryŏn’s Samguk yusa contrasts with Kim Pusik’s (1075–1151) earlier Samguk sagi (“Historical Annals of the Three Kingdoms”), which included little information on Buddhism. The text is divided into nine sections, in five rolls: a dynastic chronology of early Korean kingdoms; “wonders” from the three kingdoms of Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla and their predecessor states; the rise of Buddhism; STŪPAs and images; exegetes; divine spells; miraculous responses of bodhisattvas; the lives of recluses; and expressions of filial piety. The dynastic chronology that appears at the beginning of the definitive 1512 edition of the text contains several discrepancies with information that appears later in the text and may be a later addition from the fourteenth century. The Samguk yusa also makes one of the earliest references to the Tan’gun foundation myth of the Korean state and contains many indigenous Korean songs known as hyangga.

saṃjīva. (P. sañjīva; T. yang gsos; C. denghuo [diyu]; J. tōkatsu [jigoku]; K. tŭnghwal [chiok] 等活[地獄]). In Sanskrit, “revival,” or “repetition”; the name of one of the many hells in Buddhist cosmology, usually listed as the first of eight hot or burning hells. The exact punishment meted out on those unfortunate enough to be reborn in this hell varies depending on how the Sanskrit term saṃjīva is understood. First, saṃjīva may be interpreted as “reanimation” or “regeneration.” Thus, beings born into this realm are injured—in some versions by each other—in a variety of cruel ways, e.g., mangled, stabbed, pounded, and crushed. After meeting their demise so cruelly, they are then brought back to life and their bodies revived by a cool wind that sweeps over the entire realm; the same tortures are then repeated. Second, the term saṃjīva may be understood as “repetition,” and beings in this hell are understood to undergo the sufferings they inflicted upon others.

saṃjñā. (P. saññā; T. ’du shes; C. xiang; J. sō; K. sang 想). In Sanskrit, “perception,” “discrimination,” or “(conceptual) identification.” The term has both positive and negative connotations. As one of the five omnipresent factors (SARVATRAGA) among the listings of mental concomitants (CAITTA, P. CETASIKA) in the VAIBĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA and in the YOGĀCĀRA school, saṃjñā might best be translated as “discrimination,” referring to the mental function of differentiating and identifying objects through the apprehension of their specific qualities. Saṃjñā perceives objects in such a way that when the object is perceived again it can be readily recognized and categorized conceptually. In this perceptual context, there are six varieties of saṃjñā, each derived from one of the six sense faculties. Thus we have perception of visual objects (rūpasaṃjñā), perception of auditory objects (śabdasaṃjñā), perception of mental objects (dharmasaṃjñā), and so on. As the third of the five aggregates (SKANDHA), saṃjñā is used in this sense, particularly as the factor that perceives pleasant or unpleasant sensations as being such, giving rise to attraction, aversion and other afflictions (KLEŚA) that motivate action (KARMAN). In the compound “equipoise of nonperception” (ASAṂJÑĀSAMĀPATTI), saṃjñā refers to mental activities that, when temporarily suppressed, bring respite from tension. Some accounts interpret this state positively to mean that the perception aggregate itself is no longer functioning, implying a state of rest with the cessation of all conscious thought. In other accounts, however, asaṃjñāsamāpatti is characterized as a nihilistic state of mental dormancy, which some non-Buddhist teachers had mistakenly believed to be the ultimate, permanent quiescence of the mind and to have become attached to this state as if it were final liberation. In Pāli materials, saññā may also refer to “concepts” or “perceptions” that may be used as objects of meditation. The Pāli canon offers several of these meditative objects, such as the perception of impermanence (aniccasaññā, see S. ANITYA), the perception of danger (ĀDĪNAVA-saññā), the perception of repugnance (paṭighasaññā, see PRATIGHA), and so on.

saṃjñāvedayitanirodha. (P. saññāvedayitanirodha; T. ’du shes dang tshor ba ’gog pa; C. xiangshou mie; J. sōjumetsu; K. sangsu myŏl 想受滅). In Sanskrit, lit. “the suppression (NIRODHA) of perception (SAṂJÑĀ) and sensation (vedayita)”; an experience specific to states of deep meditative attainment (e.g., SAMĀPATTI). The term refers to the last in a series of nine stratified meditative attainments (samāpatti), which involve the progressive suppression (S. anupūrvanirodha, P. anupubbanirodha) of subtle elements that constitute conscious experience. The series begins with the first DHYĀNA, in which the awareness of all sense objects is temporarily allayed, and culminates in a state “beyond” the last of the four immaterial absorptions (ĀRŪPYĀVACARADHYĀNA), where there is the cessation of all sensations and perceptions. Saṃjñāvedayitanirodha is understood to be an experience of consciousness in its purest form, without any attributes or objects to distort it. Despite being free of content and/or objects, however, consciousness is still said to persist in some form. In VASUBANDHU’s Mahāyānaśatadharmavidyādvāraśāstra (“Mahāyāna Treatise on Entry into Knowledge of the Hundred Dharmas”), Vasubandhu lists saṃjñāvedayitanirodha as one of six unconditioned factors (ASAṂSKṚTADHARMA). See also NIRODHASAMĀPATTI.

saṃkakṣikā. (P. saṅkacchika; T. rngul gzan; C. sengzhizhi; J. sōgishi; K. sŭnggiji 僧祇支). In Sanskrit, “undershirt,” “vest,” or “waistcloth”; an article of clothing worn by Buddhist monks, which is a standard part of a monk’s accoutrements in some, but not all, Buddhist monastic traditions. Although the exact function and details of the garment vary slightly, the saṃkakṣikā is generally described as a kind of undershirt that leaves one shoulder (usually the right one) bare. Often this garment is completely covered by other robes (see CĪVARA) that are worn over it, especially when monks and nuns are outside the precincts of the monastery. The Tibetan translation of this term, rngul gzan, literally means “shawl for sweat,” and refers to a garment intended for use during the day; a “night sweatshirt” (rngul gzan gyi gzan, which is a translation of the Sanskrit term pratisaṃkakṣikā) is intended for use in the evening. In some traditions, the saṃkakṣikā is also known as the aṃsavaṭṭaka; in others, it is known as the UTTARĀSAṂGA.

Śaṃkarasvāmin. (T. Bde byed bdag po; C. Shangjieluozhu; J. Shōkarashu; K. Sanggallaju 商羯羅主) (c. sixth century CE). Sanskrit proper name of an Indian philosopher and logician, who was a student of the Indian logician DIGNĀGA. Śaṃkarasvāmin is credited with the authorship of the Nyāyapraveśa, or “Primer on Logic,” which became an important work in many Asian schools. Some have argued, based on the Tibetan tradition, that the Nyāyapraveśa was actually written by Śaṃkarasvāmin’s teacher Dignāga, and that the recension translated into Chinese is a version that Śaṃkarasvāmin later edited. The Nyāyapraveśa provides an introduction to the logical system of Dignāga, covering such subjects as valid and invalid methods of proof, methods of refutation, perception, erroneous perception, inference, and erroneous inference. Although Śaṃkarasvāmin’s work was not as extensive, detailed, or original as Dignāga’s, it proved to be popular within the tradition, as attested by its extensive commentarial literature, including exegeses by non-Buddhists. Large parts of the work survive in the original Sanskrit. See NYĀYAPRAVEŚA.

Sāṃkāśya. (P. Saṅkassa; T. Sang kha sa; C. Sengqieshi; J. Sōgyase; K. Sŭnggasi 僧伽施). City in northern India, near ŚRĀVASTĪ, renowned as the site where the Buddha descended to earth from the heaven of the thirty-three (TRĀYASTRIṂŚA), after spending the rains retreat (VARṢĀ) there teaching ABHIDHARMA to his mother, MĀYĀ; also known as Kapitha. At the time for his descent, ŚAKRA and BRAHMĀ made three ladders or staircases—one of gold, one of silver, and one of jewels—with the Buddha descending from heaven on the staircase of jewels, Śakra on the staircase of gold, and Brahmā on the staircase of silver. This descent is often depicted in Buddhist iconography and the city of Sāṃkāśya, said to be the place where all buddhas descend to earth from the heaven of the thirty-three, was one of the eight “great sites” (MAHĀSTHĀNA) and an important place of pilgrimage. The event is often referred to as the DEVĀVATĀRA, or “descent of the divinities,” which is another alternate name for Sāṃkāśya.

saṃkleśa. (P. saṃkilesa; T. kun nas nyon mongs pa; C. ran; J. zen; K. yŏm 染). In Sanskrit, “impurity,” “defilement,” or “pollution,” sometimes used interchangeably with the more frequent term “affliction” (KLEŚA). There are two basic kinds of impurities (saṃkleśa): craving (TṚṢṆĀ) and ignorance (AVIDYĀ). These impurities lead to a whole host of more specific impurities, such as the desire for sensual pleasure, and erroneous views, such as the views of eternalism and annihilationism. The goal of the Buddhist path is to cleanse the mind of these impurities. Saṃkleśa is frequently seen used in contrast to the term purity (VYAVADĀNA) and indicates a mode of causation that inevitably leads one to suffering. Beings are constantly engaged in the process of either purification (vyavadāna) or defilement (saṃkleśa), depending upon their actions and thoughts at any given moment. In some MAHĀYĀNA texts, it is understood that the ultimate result of the process of purification is the realization that all phenomena (DHARMA) are ultimately devoid of any distinction between pure and impure.

saṃkliṣṭa. [alt. saṃkleśika] (T. kun nas nyon mongs pa; C. bujing; J. fujō; K. pujŏng 不淨). In Sanskrit, “afflicted,” “defiled,” “soiled,” a polysemous term used to describe the predominate characteristic of SAṂSĀRA, applied in a variety of contexts related to the cause and fact of suffering. More specifically, saṃkliṣṭa is used to describe the truth of suffering (DUḤKHASATYA) and the truth of origination (SAMUDAYASATYA). In the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ literature, dharmas are divided into two classes, the afflicted and the pure (viśuddha), often referred to by the abbreviation rūpādi (“form and so on”), where form is the first term in the list of the afflicted class, viz., the first of the five skandhas that are associated with suffering. The list includes the SKANDHAs, ĀYATANAs, DHĀTUs, the twelvefold chain of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), and so on, all of which are saṃkliṣṭa (“afflicted”) dharmas. In the prajñāpāramitā, the list of dharmas goes on to the list of pure dharmas as well, ending with the fruits of the noble path, the unshared qualities of a buddha (ĀVEṆIKA[BUDDHA]DHARMA), and the knowledge of all aspects (SARVĀKĀRAJÑATĀ).

Saṃkusumitarājendra. (T. [Rgyal dbang] Me tog cher rgyas; C. Kaifuhua wang [rulai]; J. Kaifukeō [nyorai]; K. Kaebuhwa wang [yŏrae] 開敷華王[如來]). In Sanskrit, “Flowering [viz., Fully-Manifested] King,” the name of a TATHĀGATA who is mentioned in the MAÑJUŚRĪMŪLAKALPA, an influential tantric text from India composed around the seventh century; also known as Saṃkusumitarājan. At one point in the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, the buddha ŚĀKYAMUNI enters into a deep state of concentration, and causes a ray of light to shoot from his head. The light travels to Kusumāvatī, where dwells the tathāgata Saṃkusumitarājendra with a host of BODHISATTVAs. MAÑJUŚRĪ sees the light and understands that it is a beacon from Śākyamuni. Saṃkusumitarājendra encourages Mañjuśrī to visit Śākyamuni, ostensibly to inquire about his well-being, which is a pretext for Mañjuśrī to learn a MANTRA from him. Saṃkusumitarājendra is one of the five buddhas who appears in the GARBHADHĀTUMAṆḌALA; he usually sits to the right of VAIROCANA, the cosmic buddha at the center of the MAṆḌALA. One interpretation of his name is that Saṃkusumitarājendra spreads virtue and compassion through the universe as if they were flowers.

Sammādiṭṭhisutta. In Pāli, “Discourse on Right View,” the ninth sutta in the MAJJHIMANIKĀYA (a somewhat similar SARVĀSTIVĀDA recension appears as the twenty-ninth sūtra in the Chinese translation of the MADHYAMĀGAMA, although with a different title and interlocutor; there is also an untitled Sarvāstivāda recension in the Chinese translation of the SAṂYUKTĀGAMA); preached by ŚĀRIPUTRA (P. Sāriputta) to a group of monks in the JETAVANA grove in the town of ŚRĀVASTĪ (P. Sāvatthi). Śāriputra explains that when actions of body, speech, and mind are motivated by greed, hatred, and delusion they are deemed unwholesome (P. akusala; S. AKUŚALA). When they are motivated by nongreed, nonhatred and nondelusion they are deemed wholesome (P. kusala; S. KUŚALA). He further explains the significance of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, the twelve links of dependent origination (P. paṭiccasamuppāda, S. PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), and the afflictions.

Saṃmitīya. (T. Mang bkur ba; C. Zhengliang bu; J. Shōryōbu; K. Chŏngnyang pu 正量部). One of the “mainstream” (that is, non-Mahāyāna) schools of Indian Buddhism, a subsect of the VĀTSĪPUTRĪYA, and remembered primarily for its affirmation of the notion of a “person” (PUDGALA) that is neither the same as nor different from the aggregates (SKANDHA). Because of their assertion of such an “inexpressible” (avācya) person, the adherents of the school were dubbed PUDGALAVĀDA (“proponents of the person”) and were criticized by other Buddhist schools for asserting the existence of a self, a position anathema to the mainstream Buddhist position of nonself (ANĀTMAN). Despite this apparent heresy, the school enjoyed considerable popularity in India; the seventh-century Chinese pilgrim XUANZANG describes it as the largest of the mainstream Buddhist schools in India, representing one quarter of all active monks. See VĀTSĪPUTRĪYA.

Sammohavinodanī. In Pāli, “The Dispeller of Delusion,” a commentary by the influential Pāli scholar BUDDHAGHOSA on the VIBHAṄGA, the second book of the Pāli ABHIDHAMMAPIṬAKA. This work covers much of the same material found in Buddhaghosa’s VISUDDHIMAGGA, which is thought to be the earlier of the two works. In his introduction to Sammohavinodanī, Buddhaghosa claims to have drawn his analysis from more ancient commentaries. The work is divided into eighteen sections, beginning with an exposition on the five aggregates (P. khandha, S. SKANDHA). Each subsequent section covers a different element of the Vibhaṅga’s content, including analyses of the sense spheres (ĀYATANA), elements (DHĀTU), stages of meditative absorption (P. JHĀNA, S. DHYĀNA), the path (P. magga, S. MĀRGA), rules of training (P. sikkhāpada, S. ŚIKṢĀPADA), and so on. This commentary is particularly well known for its analysis of conditioned origination (P. paṭiccasamuppāda, S. PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), which offers perhaps the most detailed examination of this doctrine found in the Pāli abhidhamma; there, Buddhaghosa represents the entire chain of causes and effects as occurring in both an entire lifetime as well as in single moment of consciousness. The Sammohavinodanī itself became the subject of extensive exegesis in the Pāli tradition.

sammutisaṅgha. (S. saṃvṛtisaṃgha; T. kun rdzob pa’i dge ’dun; C. shisu seng; J. sezokusō; K. sesok sŭng 世俗僧). In Pāli, “conventional order”; the community of legally ordained monks and nuns. A technical term used in the Pali commentaries, the sammutisaṅgha is comprised of monks and nuns who are still puthujjana (S. PṚTHAGJANA), or ordinary unenlightened persons. This contrasts with the PARAMATTHASAṄGHA, or “ultimate order,” comprised of noble (P. āriya, S. ĀRYA) monks and nuns.

saṃnāha. (T. go cha; C. beijia; J. hikō; K. p’igap 被甲). In Sanskrit, “armor”; a term that occurs especially in the tradition of the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA, where the term “armor practice” (saṃnāhapratipatti) refers both to the bodhisattva path in general as well as to specific practices begun on the path of accumulation or equipment (SAṂBHĀRAMĀRGA). In the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtras (which are termed the jinajananī, “mother of victors”), bodhisattvas are said to be armed with a great armor (saṃnaddhasaṃnāha), an equipment made out of the interwoven six perfections (PĀRAMITĀ); and to set out (prasthāna) for the difficult work (duṣkaracaryā) necessary to become “victors” (JINA). This “difficult work” involves activities done for the sake of others. Each of the perfections is said to subsume all the other perfections, so that, for example, when bodhisattvas engage in exceptional acts of giving away their wealth or limbs (DĀNA), the act is informed by the bodhisattva’s morality (ŚĪLA); done with forbearance (KṢĀNTI) that can withstand the difficulty involved; propelled by perseverance (VĪRYA), and informed by concentration (SAMĀDHI), which enables the bodhisattva to stay focused on the aim of enlightenment while remaining tranquil and at ease; and is grounded on the wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) that understands that the act of giving, the carrying out of the act, and the donor are all interdependent and without any inherent nature (SVABHĀVA). When bodhisattvas are armed with this great armor, they do not become discouraged by the long and difficult task of looking after the welfare of others (PARĀRTHA) who are “numberless like the sands of the Ganges” (GAṄGĀNADĪVĀLUKĀ). Buckling on the armor (saṃnāha) and setting out (prasthāna) on their quest, bodhisattvas ultimately accumulate all their necessary equipment (SAṂBHĀRA) and go forth (niryāṇa) to the final goal of buddhahood.

saṃpannakrama. (S) (T. rdzogs rim). See NIṢPANNAKRAMA.

Sampasādanīyasutta. (C. Zihuanxi jing; J. Jikangikyō; K. Chahwanhŭi kyŏng 自歡喜經). In Pāli, “Discourse on Serene Faith”; the twenty-eighth sutta of the DĪGHANIKĀYA (a separate DHARMAGUPTAKA recension appears as the eighteenth SŪTRA in the Chinese translation of the DĪRGHAGĀMA; there is also a separate but untitled SARVĀSTIVĀDA recension in the Chinese translation of the SAṂYUKTĀGAMA); addressed to ŚĀRIPUTRA at NĀLANDĀ in Pāvārika’s mango grove. Śāriputra declares that there has never been nor will there ever be anyone equal to the Buddha in wisdom. When questioned by the Buddha whether he had ever met a buddha of the past or had been able to fathom the Buddha's own mind, Śāriputra admits he had done neither but nevertheless proceeds to justify his faith on the basis of the Buddha’s unsurpassable qualities. The Buddha approves of Śāriputra’s explanation and advises him to preach it often to others.

saṃprajanya. (P. sampajañña; T. shes bzhin; C. zhengzhi; J. shōchi; K. chŏngji 正知). In Sanskrit, “clear comprehension,” “circumspection,” “introspection”; a term that is closely related to, and often appears in compound with, mindfulness (S. SMṚTI, P. sati). In descriptions of the practice of developing meditative absorption (DHYĀNA), smṛti refers to the factor of mindfulness that ties the mind to the object, while saṃprajanya is the factor that observes the mind to determine whether it has strayed from its object. Specifically, Pāli sources refer to four aspects of clear comprehension, which involve the application of mindfulness in practice. The first is purpose (P. sātthaka), viz., whether the action will be in the best interests of oneself and others; its principal criterion is whether it leads to growth in dharma. Second is suitability (P. sappāya): whether an action is in accord with the appropriate time, place, and personal capacity; its principal criterion is skillfulness in applying right means (P. upāyakosalla; S. UPĀYAKAUŚALYA). Third is the domain of meditation (gocara): viz., all experiences should be made a topic of mindful awareness. Fourth is nondelusion (asammoha): viz., recognizing that what seem to be the actions of a person are in fact an impersonal series of mental and physical processes; this aspect of saṃprajanya helps to counteract the tendency to view all events from a personal point of view. Saṃprajanya thus expands upon the clarity of thought generated by mindfulness by incorporating the additional factors of correct knowledge (JÑĀNA) or wisdom (PRAJÑĀ).

saṃprayukta. (T. mtshungs ldan; C. xiangying; J. sōō; K. sangŭng 相應). In Sanskrit, literally “yoked,” “harnessed,” “joined together.” This term is used in the ABHIDHARMA in the sense of “concomitant” or “associated”; its nominal counterpart saṃprayoga may be translated as “concomitance.” The term saṃprayukta is used to describe the relationship between mind (CITTA) and mental concomitants (CAITTA). This relationship is described as “concomitant” in that the origination and specific features of one are closely related to the origination and specific features of the other. The SARVĀSTIVĀDA enumerated five ways in which the mind and mental functions are concomitant by listing five features that they share: sense base (ĀŚRAYA), object (ĀLAMBANA), aspect of the object (ĀKĀRA), moment of arising (KĀLA), and substance (DRAVYA).

saṃprayuktahetu. (T. mtshungs ldan gyi rgyu; C. xiangying yin; J. sōōin; K. sangŭngin 相應因). In Sanskrit, “conjoined” or “associative” “cause”; the third of the six kinds of causes (HETU) outlined in the JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA, the central text of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, which accounts for the fact that mental events cannot exist in isolation but instead mutually condition, or are “associated” with, one another. This type of cause is effectively a subsection of the coexistent cause (SAHABHŪHETU). Mind (CITTA) or consciousness (VIJÑĀNA) cannot exist in isolation; they are always conjoined with various related mental concomitants (CAITTA). Thus the conjoined causes exist in a relationship of mutuality or reciprocation, e.g., mind causes mental concomitants, but mental functions also cause mind. Because of this reciprocity, the functioning of the visual organ (viz., the eye) leads to an associated visual consciousness (CAKṢURVIJÑĀNA) and associated mental concomitants, such as visual sensations (VEDANĀ), perceptions (SAṂJÑĀ), emotions that derive from those perceptions, and so forth.

saṃprayuktasaṃskāra. In Sanskrit, “forces conjoined [with thought].” See CITTASAṂPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA.

Saṃpuṭa Tantra. (S). See HEVAJRATANTRA.

saṃsāra. (T. ’khor ba; C. lunhui/shengsi lunhui; J. rinne/shōjirinne; K. yunhoe/saengsa yunhoe 輪迴/生死輪迴). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “wandering,” viz., the “cycle of REBIRTH.” The realms that are subject to rebirth are typically described as composed of six rebirth destinies (GATI): divinities (DEVA), demigods or titans (ASURA), humans (MANUṢYA), animals (TIRYAK), ghosts (PRETA), and hell denizens (NĀRAKA). These destinies are all located within the three realms of existence (TRAIDHĀTUKA), which comprises the entirety of our universe (see also AVACARA; LOKADHĀTU). At the bottom of the sensuous realm (KĀMADHĀTU; kāmāvacara) are located the denizens of the hells (NĀRAKA), the lowest of which is named the interminable (AVĪCI). This most ill-fated of existences is followed by ghosts, animals, humans, demigods, and the divinities of the six heavens of the sensuous realm. Higher levels of the divinities occupy the upper two realms of existence, the subtle-materiality realm (RŪPADHĀTU) and the immaterial realm (ĀRŪPYADHĀTU). The bottom three destinies, of hell denizens, hungry ghosts, and animals, are referred to as the three evil bournes (DURGATI); these are destinies where suffering predominates because of the past performance of unwholesome (AKUŚALA) actions (KARMAN). In the various levels of the divinities, happiness predominates, because of the past performance of wholesome (KUŚALA) actions. By contrast, the human destiny is thought to be ideally suited for religious training, because it is the only bourne where both suffering and happiness can be readily experienced, allowing the adept to recognize more easily the true character of life as impermanent (ANITYA), suffering (DUḤKHA), and nonself (ANĀTMAN). Saṃsāra is said to have no beginning and to come to end only for those individuals who achieve liberation from rebirth through the practice of the path (MĀRGA) to NIRVĀṆA. Saṃsāra is depicted iconographically as a “wheel of existence” (BHAVACAKRA), which shows the six rebirth destinies, surrounding a pig, a rooster, and a snake, which symbolize ignorance (AVIDYĀ), desire (LOBHA), and hatred (DVEṢA), respectively. Around the edge of the wheel are scenes representing the twelve links of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA). The relation between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is discussed at length in Buddhist texts, with NĀGĀRJUNA famously declaring that there is not the slightest difference between them, because the true nature of both is emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ).

saṃskāra. (P. saṅkhāra; T. ’du byed; C. xing; J. gyō; K. haeng 行). In Sanskrit, a polysemous term that is variously translated as “formation,” “volition,” “volitional action,” “conditioned,” “conditioning factors.” In its more passive usage (see SAṂSKṚTA, P. saṅkhata), saṃskāra refers to anything that has been formed, conditioned, or brought into being. In this early denotation, the term is a designation for all things and persons that have been brought into being dependent on causes and conditions. It is in this sense that the Buddha famously remarked that “all conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent” (anityāḥ sarvasamskārāḥ), the first of the four criteria that “seal” a view as being authentically Buddhist (see CATURNIMITTA). In its more active sense, saṃskāra as latent “formations” left in the mind by actions (KARMAN) refers to that which forms or conditions other things. In this usage, the term is equivalent in meaning to action. It is in this sense that saṃskāra serves as the second link in the twelvefold chain of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA). There, saṃskāra refers specifically to volition (CETANĀ) and as such assumes the karmically active role of perpetuating the rebirth process; alternatively, in the YOGĀCĀRA school, saṃskāra refers to the seeds (BĪJA) left in the foundation or storehouse consciousness (ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA). Saṃskāra is also the name for the fourth of the five aggregates (SKANDHA), where it includes a miscellany of phenomena that are both formed and in the process of formation, i.e., the large collection of factors that cannot be conveniently classified with the other four aggregates of materiality (RŪPA), sensation (VEDANĀ), perception (SAṂJÑĀ), and consciousness (VIJÑĀNA). This fourth aggregate includes both those conditioning factors associated with mind (CITTASAṂPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA), such as the mental concomitants (CAITTA), as well as those conditioning forces dissociated from thought (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA), such as time, duration, the life faculty, and the equipoise of cessation (NIRODHASAMĀPATTI).

saṃskāraduḥkhatā. (T. ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; C. xingku; J. gyōku; K. haenggo 行苦). In Sanskrit, “suffering inherent in conditioning,” the third of the three types of suffering, together with DUḤKHADUḤKHATĀ and VIPARIṆĀMADUḤKHATĀ. This is the most subtle and most pernicious of the three types of suffering, since it conditions all of SAṂSĀRA. Saṃskāraduḥkhatā is identified as neutral sensations and their objects, which, due to impermanence, can turn into sensations of pain in the next instant. It is said that this form of suffering generally goes unnoticed by ordinary beings (PṚTHAGJANA), where it is like a wisp of wool in the palm of the hand, but it cannot be ignored by noble beings (ĀRYAPUDGALA), where it is like a wisp of wool in the eye. An example for the three types of suffering is a burn: as a conditioned event, it is suffering just because of what it is (saṃskāraduḥkhatā); when soothed with a cooling ointment it feels better, but when the temporary relief ends it will inevitably become suffering again (vipariṇāmaduḥkhatā); and when jabbed, it causes excruciating pain (duḥkhaduḥkhatā).

saṃskṛta. (T. ’dus byas; C. youwei; J. ui; K. yuwi 有爲). In Sanskrit, “conditioned,” a term that describes all impermanent phenomena, that is, all conditioned factors (saṃskṛtadharma) that are produced through the concomitance of causes and conditions; these phenomena are subject to the four characteristics (CATURLAKṢAṆA) governing all conditioned objects (SAṂSKṚTALAKṢAṆA), viz., “origination,” or birth (JĀTI), “continuance,” or maturation (STHITI), “senescence,” or decay (JARĀ), and “desinence,” or death (ANITYA). Saṃskṛta is contrasted with ASAṂSKṚTA, “unconditioned,” a common adjective of NIRVĀṆA, but also a category that in some traditions includes space (ĀKĀŚA) and other types of absence and cessation. The fact that the objects of ordinary experience are conditioned is commonly cited as a reason why they are unreliable and thus should be abandoned, and why the unconditioned state should be sought. See also SAṂSKĀRA.

saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa. (T. ’dus byas kyi mtshan nyid; C. youwei xiang; J. uisō; K. yuwi sang 有爲相). In Sanskrit, “compounded characteristics”; according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA analysis of causality, four “forces dissociated from thought” (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA) that govern conditioned existence: viz., origination or birth (JĀTI), continuance or maturation (STHITI), “senescence” or decay (JARĀ), and “desinence” or extinction, viz., death (ANITYA). See CATURLAKṢAṆA.

saṃtāna. (P. santāna; T. rgyud / rgyun; C. xiangxu; J. sōzoku; K. sangsok 相續). In Sanskrit, “continuum,” a term used to designate an uninterrupted sequence of cause and effect, especially a sequence of mental moments. Because there is nothing permanent in the mind and body, but there is continuity in the ways in which they are made manifest, they are described as a continuum. The term is used most commonly to refer to the mental continuum, both within a single lifetime and as it extends over many lifetimes. In the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, the “immediate-antecedent condition” (SAMANANTARAPRATYAYA) accounts for the immediately preceding moment in the saṃtāna, which by coming to an end, enables a subsequent moment of thought to arise. All types of thought in the conditioned (SAṂSKṚTA) realm serve as immediate-antecedent conditions that enable the mental continuum to persist. The only exception is the final thought-moment in the mental continuum of an ARHAT: the immediate-antecedent condition does not function at the specific moment, because the arhat’s next thought-moment involves the experience of the unconditioned (ASAṂSKṚTA); thus, no further thoughts from the conditioned realm can ever again recur and the arhat is liberated from SAṂSĀRA. This notion of a mental continuum also serves to counter annihilationist interpretations (see UCCHEDAVĀDA, UCCHEDĀNTA) of the quintessential Buddhist doctrine of nonself (ANĀTMAN): there may be no permanent, underlying substratum of being that can be designated as a self or soul (ĀTMAN), but this fact does not controvert the continuity that pertains in the flow of moral cause and effect (KARMAN) or the possibility of REBIRTH.

samucchinnakuśalamūla. (T. dge rtsa bcad pa; C. duanshangen; J. danzengon; K. tansŏn’gŭn 斷善根). In Sanskrit, “those whose wholesome roots are eradicated,” referring to beings who have performed the most heinous of acts, or who are unable to engage in even the most basic of wholesome activities. Their wholesome roots (KUŚALAMŪLA) being thereby eradicated, they are thus condemned to subsequent rebirth in the hells (see NĀRAKA), where they may spend an “indefinite” period. The samucchinnakuśalamūla is related to the MAHĀYĀNA term for the spiritual bereft, or incorrigibles (ICCHANTIKA), who also may be condemned to a virtual eternity in the hells. A person can become samucchinnakuśalamūla through lack of faith (ĀŚRADDHYA), wrong views (MITHYĀDṚṢṬI), or by being swayed by the afflictions (kleśasaṃyoga). It is said that the inability to engage in charity (DĀNA), the foundation of Buddhist ethical practice, is the determining factor that leads to a person becoming samucchinnakuśalamūla.

samudācāra. (T. kun tu spyod pa; C. xianxing; J. gengyō; K. hyŏnhaeng 現行). In Sanskrit, the term has two important denotations: “proper conduct,” or “intention, purpose, habitual idea”; and “manifest action.” Samudācāra designates religious action that is undertaken for the sake of attaining liberation for oneself and either liberation or an improved state of rebirth for others. Thus, the term can refer to a buddha’s unceasing effort and the influence he exerts to help beings attain liberation. In its description of the first BHŪMI, the MAHĀVASTU lists eight types of samudācāra for a BODHISATTVA. These are generosity (tyāga), compassion (KARUṆĀ), relentlessness (aparikheda), humility (amāna), study of all the treatises (sarvaśāstrādhyāyitā), courage (vikrama), social skills (lokānujñā), and resolve (dhṛti). Deriving from its denotation of volitional impulse, samudācāra also comes to be used in the YOGĀCĀRA school to indicate the emergence of conditioned factors (saṃskṛtadharma) from the ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA, since, once they have arisen and are no longer dormant, they influence conscious action. In the context of Yogācāra thought, then, samudācāra is often translated as “manifest action.” The term is also used in the sense of the special qualities of the practice of bodhisattvas, who are habituated to the ultimate nature of things (TATHATĀ, literally, “suchness”). The dependent origination of an action and the ultimate way in which that action occurs are inseparable; hence samudācāra, and in particular actions prompted by the aspiration for enlightenment, are “manifest actions.” In tantric literature, the term is used for the four types of activities, also known as the CATURKARMAN.

samudānītagotra. (T. yang dag par bsgrub pa’i rigs; C. xizhongxing; J. shūshushō; K. sŭpchongsŏng 習種性). In Sanskrit, “the [karmic] lineage that is conditioned by habits.” In the YOGĀCĀRA school, a distinction is made between the indestructible, inherent “naturally endowed lineage” (PRAKṚTISTHAGOTRA) and this changeable, continuously acquired “lineage conditioned by habits” (samudānītagotra). In contrast to the former, which predetermines a person’s orientation toward the two vehicles of either MAHĀYĀNA or HĪNAYĀNA, the latter allows for some leeway for personal adaptations and change through doctrinal study, practice, and exposure (these are what are meant by “habits”). According to this controversial Yogācāra tenet, whereas a person cannot effect change in terms of his highest spiritual potential and vehicular predisposition because of his “naturally endowed lineage,” he can nevertheless influence the speed with which he is able to attain enlightenment, and other extrinsic variations within his predetermined “lineage.” This flexibility is the lineage that is conditioned, and can be altered, by “habits.” Together and in contrast with the “naturally endowed lineage,” they are known as “the two lineages: intrinsic and acquired” (xingxi er[zhong]xing). ¶ In another interpretation based on the BODHISATTVABHŪMI and MAHĀYĀNASAṂGRAHA, the naturally endowed (prakṛtistha) lineage is present since time immemorial (anādikālika) and is called śrutavāsanā (the residual impression left by listening). In Yogācāra, where there are no external objects, and the ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA is the storehouse of all seeds (BĪJA), the śrutavāsanā is a seed planted in the deepest recesses of the ālaya (see AMALAVIJÑĀNA) and helps explains how those who first hear the different branches of the Buddha’s doctrine thereby learn and reach the goal of full enlightenment. In this interpretation, the difference between the prakṛtisthagotra and the samudānītagotra is only one of time: when the lineage (understood on the analogy of a seed or capacity) is dormant it is the naturally endowed lineage; when, nutured by the practices leading up to the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA), it comes closer to the ĀŚRAYAPARĀVṚTTI (fundamental transformation of the basis) on the eighth bodhisattva bhūmi, it is samudānītagotra.

samudaya. (T. kun ’byung; C. ji; J. jū; K. chip 集). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “origination” or “arising.” In the Samudayasutta, the 132nd sutta of the twenty-second section of the Pāli SAṂYUTTANIKĀYA, samudaya refers to the origination of the five aggregates (P. khandha; S. SKANDHA), which is followed by their subsistence and passing away. In this basic sense, samudaya conveys the sense that the aggregates that make up a person are not miraculously there, or there permanently, but arise as the result of specific causes and conditions. The term is most widely used in the compound SAMUDAYASATYA (“truth of the origin [of suffering]”) the second of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS. In the more detailed explanation of the truth of origination, samudaya is the second of four aspects (ĀKĀRA), each of which counteract a mistaken view about the origin of suffering (see SAMUDAYASATYA). It counteracts the view that suffering is created only once, in a single act by a creator god, because the skandhas arise continually in a stream or continuum (SAṂTĀNA).

samudayasatya. (P. samudayasacca; T. kun ’byung gi bden pa; C. jidi; J. jittai; K. chipche 集諦). In Sanskrit, “truth of origination”; the second of the so-called FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni) promulgated by the Buddha in his first sermon (see DHAMMACAKKAPPAVATTANASUTTA) in the Deer Park at SĀRNĀTH. In this context, SAMUDAYA refers to the origination or cause of the first truth, suffering (DUḤKHA; DUḤKHASATYA). The origination of suffering is identified as KARMAN and KLEŚA. Karman or past actions, in this case unwholesome (AKUŚALA) actions, are identified as the immediate cause of suffering, with negative deeds fructifying as experiences of mental and physical pain. The afflictions (kleśa), often enumerated in this context as greed, hatred, and delusion, are the mediate causes of suffering, motivating the nonvirtuous deeds that result in future suffering. Among these three, delusion, understood as the mistaken conception of a perduring self (ĀTMAGRAHA), is the root cause of suffering, and produces greed and hatred. The implication of the second truth is that if one can eliminate the cause or origin of suffering, one can then put an end to suffering itself. This truth of the origin of suffering has four aspects (ĀKĀRA): it is the cause (HETU), origination (SAMUDAYA), producer (saṃbhava), and condition (PRATYAYA). These four aspects counteract respectively the mistaken views that (1) suffering is arbitrary and has no cause, (2) there is only a single cause for suffering even though it is diverse and ongoing, (3) suffering is just the imaginary transformations of reality, and (4) suffering is the result of a particular mental focus, not the inexorable result of a mind governed by kleśa and karman. These four aspects of the truth of origination are like a disease (in the sense that kleśa and karman are the root cause of suffering), like a boil that is the origin of ongoing pain, like a thorn that produces intense suffering immediately, and like misfortune, in that the unbroken continuum (SAṂTĀNA) of the aggregates (SKANDHA) is the condition for a life that is governed by suffering.

saṃvara. (P. saṃvara; T. sdom pa; C. lüyi/sanbaluo; J. ritsugi/sanbara; K. yurŭi/samballa 律儀/三跋羅). In Sanskrit, “restraint,” referring generally to the restraint from unwholesome (AKUŚALA) actions (KARMAN) that is engendered by observance of the monastic disciplinary code (PRĀTIMOKṢA), the BODHISATTVA precepts, and tantric vows. In the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, three specific types of restraint (SAṂVARA) against unwholesomeness (akuśala) are mentioned, which are all associated with “unmanifest material force” or “hidden imprints” (AVIJÑAPTIRŪPA): (1) the restraint proffered to a monk or nun when he or she accepts the disciplinary rules of the order (PRĀTIMOKṢASAṂVARA); (2) the restraint that is engendered by mental absorption (dhyānajasaṃvara); and (3) the restraint that derives from being free from the contaminants (anāsravasaṃvara). The restraint inherent in the disciplinary code (prātimokṣasaṃvara) creates a special kind of protective force field that helps to dissuade monks and nuns from unwholesome activity, even when they are not consciously aware they are following the precepts or even when they are asleep. This specific type of restraint is what makes a person a monk, since just wearing robes or following an ascetic way of life would not in themselves be sufficient to instill in him the protective power offered by the prātimokṣa. The restraint engendered by DHYĀNA (dhyānajasaṃvara) refers to the fact that absorption in meditation was thought to confer on the monk protective power against physical harm: the literature abounds with stories of monks who discover tiger tracks all around them after withdrawing from dhyāna, thus suggesting that dhyāna itself was a force that provided a protective shield against accident or injury. Finally, anāsravasaṃvara is the restraint that precludes someone who has achieved the extinction of the contaminants (ĀSRAVA)—that is, enlightenment—from committing any action (karman) that would produce a karmic result (VIPĀKA), thus ensuring that their remaining actions in this life do not lead to any additional rebirths. ¶ In MAHĀYĀNA materials, such as the BODHISATTVABHŪMI, the first of three types of morality that together codify the moral training of a bodhisattva is called saṃvaraśīla (“restraining morality”); under this heading is included the different sets of rules for BHIKṢU, BHIKṢUṆĪ and so on in the prātimokṣa, taken as a whole; two further codifications of rules called the morality of collecting wholesome factors (kuśalasaṃgrāhakaśīla), and the morality that acts for the welfare of beings (sattvārthakriyāśīla; see ARTHAKRIYĀ); together, these three constitute the definitive and exhaustive explanation of bodhisattva morality, known as TRISAṂVARA, the “three restraints” or “triple code.” The original meaning of saṃvara as “restraint” remains central in the Bodhisattvabhūmi’s account, but the text expands the scope of morality (ŚIKṢĀPADA) widely, incorporating all altruistic acts under the rubric of skillful means employed for the sake of others, in essence formulating a code for bodhisattvas who are committed to acting like buddhas. In Indian and Tibetan tantra, the meaning of trisaṃvara undergoes yet further expansion. Each of the five buddha KULA (in one list AKṢOBHYA, VAIROCANA, RATNASAMBHAVA, AMITĀBHA, and AMOGHASIDDHI) has a vowed morality, called SAMAYA. This tantric code is the third of the three codes, the other two being the prātimokṣa codes and the Bodhisattvabhūmi’s code for bodhisattvas. These three, then, are called the prātimokṣasaṃvara, the bodhisattvasaṃvara, and the guhyamantrasaṃvara (“secret mantra vows”) (see SDOM GSUM RAB DBYE). ¶ In tantric literature, saṃvara also has the sense of “union,” a meaning that is conveyed in the proper name of (CAKRA)SAṂVARA (see also HERUKA), a principal deity of the VAJRAYĀNA ANUTTARAYOGATANTRA tradition. A god named Saṃvara appears in the Ṛg Veda as an enemy of the gods who hoarded the precious soma (the divine nectar) and kept it from INDRA, who eventually destroyed Saṃvara’s mountain fortress. The myth suggests the possibility that Saṃvara or Cakrasaṃvara began his existence as a pre-Vedic Indian deity preserved in Buddhist tantra in a subordinated position. With his adoption into the Buddhist pantheon, Saṃvara (likely the Buddhist version of Śiva) himself vanquishes the Vedic god—he is commonly depicted trampling BHAIRAVA (Śiva) and/or his consort. Alternate Indian names for him include Śambara and Paramasukha Cakrasaṃvara. The Tibetan Bde mchog, or “supreme bliss,” is a translation of paramasukha. Tantric cycles connected to Saṃvara were introduced to Tibet by the translator MAR PA in the eleventh century CE. He is said to reside at the mountain of TSHA RI in Rdza yul, southern Tibet, as well as in the Bde mchog pho brang on Mount KAILĀSA, where the nearby Lake Manasarovar is sacred to him. His consort is VAJRAVĀRĀHĪ.

saṃvartakalpa. (P. saṃvaṭṭakappa; T. ’jig pa’i bskal pa; C. huaijie; J. ekō; K. koegŏp 壞劫). In Sanskrit, “eon of dissolution,” one of the four periods in the cycle of the creation and destruction of a world system, according to Buddhist cosmology. These are: the eon of creation (VIVARTAKALPA); the eon of abiding (VIVARTASTHĀYIKALPA); the eon of dissolution (saṃvartakalpa); and the eon of nothingness (SAṂVARTASTHĀYIKALPA). According to the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, each of the four eons lasts twenty intermediate eons. After the complete dissolution of the previous world system, an eon of nothingness occurs, during which the universe remains in a state of vacuity, with the sentient beings who had populated that world system reborn in other worlds or in the second absorption (DHYĀNA) of the subtle-materiality realm (RŪPADHĀTU). The eon of creation begins when a wind begins to blow in space, impelled by the previous actions (KARMAN) of sentient beings. A circle of wind forms, followed by a circle of water, followed by a circle of golden earth. The entire world-system of the sensuous realm (KĀMADHĀTU) then forms, including Mount SUMERU, the four continents and their subcontinents, the heavens, and the hells. These are then populated by beings, reborn in the various realms as a result of their previous actions. When all realms of the world system have been populated, the eon of creation ends and the eon of abiding begins. At the beginning of the eon, the human life span is said to be “infinite” and decreases until it eventually reaches ten years of age. It then increases to eighty thousand years, before decreasing again to ten years. It takes one intermediate eon for the life span to go from ten years to eighty thousand years to ten years again. The eon of abiding is composed of twenty eons, beginning with the intermediate eon of decrease (in which the life span decreases from “infinite” to ten years), followed by eighteen intermediate eons of increase and decrease, and ending with an intermediate eon of increase, when the life span increases from ten years to eighty thousand years, at which point the next eon, the eon of dissolution begins. Buddhas only appear during periods of decrease. ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha appeared when the life span was one hundred years. It is said that MAITREYA will come when the human life span next reaches eighty thousand years. The eon of dissolution begins when sentient beings are no longer reborn in the hell realms of that world system. After that point, the hell realms of that world then disappear. (Beings who subsequently commit deeds warranting rebirth in hell are reborn into the hell realms of other universes.) The realms of ghosts and animals then disappear. Through the practice of meditation, humans are reborn in the first DHYĀNA and then into the second dhyāna. When the karman that has caused beings to be reborn in that world is exhausted, such that the physical world is depopulated, seven suns appear in the sky and incinerate the entire world system, including Mount Sumeru and all of the first dhyāna. This is followed by another eon of nothingness. See also SATTVALOKA.

saṃvartasthāyikalpa. (P. saṃvaṭṭaṭṭhāyīkappa; T. stong pa’i bskal pa; C. kongjie; J. kūkō; K. konggŏp 空劫). In Sanskrit, “eon of nothingness”; one of the four periods in the cycle of the creation and destruction of a world system, according to Buddhist cosmology. These are: the eon of creation (VIVARTAKALPA); the eon of abiding (VIVARTASTHĀYIKALPA); the eon of dissolution (SAṂVARTAKALPA); and the eon of nothingness (saṃvartasthāyikalpa). According to the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, each of the four eons lasts twenty intermediate eons. After the complete dissolution of the previous world system, an eon of nothingness occurs in which the universe remains in a state of vacuity, with the sentient beings who had populated that world system reborn in other worlds or in the second concentration (DHYĀNA) of the realm of subtle materiality (RŪPADHĀTU). (For the remainder of this cosmology, see the preceding entry SAṂVARTAKALPA, s.v.) After successive eons of formation, abiding, and dissolution, the karma that had caused beings to be reborn into the world is exhausted, such that the physical world is depopulated; seven suns then appear in the sky and incinerate the entire world system, including Mount SUMERU and all of the first dhyāna. Thus begins a new eon of nothingness, a period of twenty intermediate eons of vacuity. See also BHĀJANALOKA.

saṃvṛti. (P. sammuti; T. kun rdzob; C. shisu/su; J. sezoku/zoku; K. sesok/sok 世俗/俗). In Sanskrit, “conventional” or “relative”; a term used to designate the phenomena, concepts, and understanding associated with unenlightened, ordinary beings (PṚTHAGJANA). Saṃvṛti is akin to the Sanskrit term LAUKIKA (mundane), in that both are used to indicate worldly things or unenlightened views, and is typically contrasted with PARAMĀRTHA, meaning “ultimate” or “absolute.” In Sanskrit the term carries the connotation of “covering, concealing,” implying that the independent reality apparently possessed by ordinary phenomena may seem vivid and convincing, but is in fact ultimately illusory and unreal. Much analysis and debate has occurred within the various philosophical schools regarding the questions of if, how, and in what way saṃvṛti or conventional phenomena exist. For example, in his PRASANNAPADĀ, the seventh-century scholar CANDRAKĪRTI lists the following three characteristics of saṃvṛti. First, they conceal reality (avacchādana). Second, they are mutually dependent (anyonyasamāśraya), meaning that saṃvṛti phenomena are dependent on causes and conditions. Finally, they are concerned with worldly activities or speech (lokavyavahāra). Buddhas and BODHISATTVAs use their understanding of conventional reality to help them convey the DHARMA to ordinary beings and lead them away from suffering. See also SAṂVṚTISATYA.

saṃvṛtibodhicitta. (T. kun rdzob byang chub kyi sems). In Sanskrit, “conventional (or relative) aspiration to enlightenment.” In Indian MAHĀYĀNA scholastic literature, this term is contrasted with the “ultimate aspiration to enlightenment” (PARAMĀRTHABODHICITTA). The term saṃvṛtibodhicitta is used to refer to BODHICITTA in its more common usage, as the aspiration to achieve buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. It is the generation of this aspiration for enlightenment (BODHICITTOTPĀDA) that marks the beginning of the bodhisattva path and the Mahāyāna path of accumulation (SAṂBHĀRAMĀRGA). The ultimate aspiration or mind of enlightenment refers to the bodhisattva’s direct realization of the ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA). In the case of the MADHYAMAKA school’s interpretation, this would be the direct realization of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). Such realization, and hence the ultimate aspiration to enlightenment, occurs beginning on the Mahāyāna path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA) and is further developed on the path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA). These two types of bodhicitta explain how bodhicitta is present both during periods of concentration or equipoise (see SAMĀPATTI, SAMĀHITA) on the ultimate truth and during all the other stages of the path, called subsequent attainment (pṛṣṭhalabdha; cf. PṚṢṬHALABDHAJÑĀNA). These two terms inform the presentation of bodhicitta in the BODHICITTAVIVARAṆA, attributed to NĀGĀRJUNA, and are widely employed in Tibetan BLO SBYONG literature.

saṃvṛtisaṃgha. (S). See SAMMUTISAṄGHA.

saṃvṛtisatya. (P. sammutisacca; T. kun rdzob bden pa; C. shisu di/sudi; J. sezokutai/zokutai; K. sesok che/sokche 世俗諦/俗諦). In Buddhist Sanskrit, “conventional truth” or “relative truth”; the term carries the pejorative connotation of deception, concealment, and obscuration. Conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya) and ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) constitute the “two truths” (SATYADVAYA), a philosophical bifurcation that is widely referenced and analyzed in Buddhism. All dharmas are said to be included in one of these two categories. Saṃvṛtisatya is variously defined by the Buddhist philosophical schools, but it is generally understood to refer to objects of ordinary experience that involve misperceptions tainted by ignorance, in distinction to the true or ultimate nature of those objects, which are ultimate truths (paramārthasatya). It is important to note that conventional truths, although misperceived, nonetheless exist conventionally or have conventional utility. The object of the most consequential misconception, a perduring self (ĀTMAN), is not a conventional truth because it is utterly nonexistent. Saṃvṛtisatya is also understood to mean the unavoidable domain through which sentient beings must navigate and communicate with one another in the mundane world. Thus buddhas and BODHISATTVAs use their knowledge of conventional truths to teach unenlightened beings and lead them away from suffering. Some Buddhist schools further subdivide saṃvṛtisatya into two categories: tathyasaṃvṛtisatya (correct conventional truth) and atathyasaṃvṛtisatya (or mithyāsaṃvṛtisatya, incorrect or false conventional truth), a distinction based upon whether or not the object can perform functions in accordance with their appearance. For example, a face would be a tathyasaṃvṛtisatya but a reflection of a face in a mirror would be a mithyāsaṃvṛtisatya.

samyagājīva. (P. sammājīva; T. yang dag pa’i ’tsho ba; C. zhengming; J. shōmyō; K. chŏngmyŏng 正命). In Sanskrit, “right livelihood” or “correct livelihood”; the fifth constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). “Right” (samyak) in this context is interpreted as “resulting in a decrease in the net suffering experienced by oneself and others.” Of the three divisions of the eightfold path—morality (ŚĪLA), concentration (SAMĀDHI), and wisdom (PRAJÑĀ)—samyagājīva is the third of the three aspects of moral training. It involves abstention from engaging in occupations that are considered to be incompatible with morality because they bring harm to other beings, either directly or indirectly. Such inappropriate occupations include selling weapons, or working as a butcher, fisherman, or soldier. Right livelihood also involves abstention from any occupation that may cause oneself, or encourage others, to break precepts associated with right speech (SAMYAGVĀC) and right action (SAMYAKKARMĀNTA). For this reason, selling intoxicants is considered to be a breach of right livelihood. The tradition provides examples of wrong livelihoods for both monastics and the laity. In Pāli literature, the BRAHMAJĀLASUTTA and SĀMAÑÑAPHALASUTTA of the DĪGHANIKĀYA list several “wrong livelihoods” for monks. These include performing divination and astrology as well as casting spells. MAHĀYĀNA interpretations stress the absence of absolutes, and the relative merits or demerits of any occupation based on the situation at hand and its value to the larger goal of promoting the welfare of others. In the inversion of categories that is characteristic of much of tantric literature, many of the MAHĀSIDDHAs are involved in professions that do not constitute right livelihood according to mainstream Buddhist definitions.

samyagdṛṣṭi. (P. sammādiṭṭhi; T. yang dag pa’i lta ba; C. zhengjian; J. shōken; K. chŏnggyŏn 正見). Often translated as “right view” or “correct view,” the first constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). It is described as the correct understanding of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni); namely, the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path leading to the end of suffering. The last truth is itself the same as the eightfold path. Right view is also identified as the correct understanding of nonself (ANĀTMAN). In the MADHYĀNTAVIBHĀGA, right view refers to the understanding of the vision of truth that has just been witnessed, the unique formulation of the inexpressible in the mind of the awakened one who has just emerged from equipoise (SAMĀHITA).

samyagvāc. (P. sammāvācā; T. yang dag pa’i ngag; C. zhengyu; J. shōgo; K. chŏngŏ 正語). In Sanskrit, “right speech” or “correct speech,” the third constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), described as refraining from the four types of unwholesome verbal action: viz., lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, and frivolous prattle. See KARMAPATHA.

samyagvyāyāma. (P. sammāvāyāma; T. yang dag pa’i rtsol ba; C. zhengjingjin; J. shōshōjin; K. chŏngjŏngjin 正精進). In Sanskrit, “right effort” or “correct effort”; the sixth constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), which is divided into four progressive endeavors: (1) preventing the arising of unwholesome (AKUŚALA) mental states that have not yet arisen, (2) continuing to abandon unwholesome mental states that have already arisen, (3) generating wholesome (KUŚALA) mental states that have not yet arisen, and (4) continuing to cultivate wholesome mental states that have already arisen. These wholesome mental states are characterized by mindfulness (SMṚTI), energy (VĪRYA), rapture (PRĪTI), concentration (SAMĀDHI), and equanimity (UPEKṢĀ), with the emphasis on energy or vigor (vīrya), here called effort (vyāyāma). In a more technical sense, as the sixth constituent of the eightfold noble path as set forth in the MADHYĀNTAVIBHĀGA, MAHĀYĀNASŪTRĀLAṂKĀRA, and parts of the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, samyagvyāyāma is the right effort required to eliminate the specific sets of afflictions (KLEŚA) that are to be abandoned on the path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA). The same force, required right from the start of the development of the path to enlightenment, is systematized as the four pradhāna (effort) or PRAHĀṆA (abandonments). Like smṛti and samādhi (see ṚDDHIPĀDA), effort is singled out for special treatment because of its importance at all stages of the path. The word SAMYAKPRADHĀNA (correct effort) is synonymous with samyakvyāyāma when it describes pradhāna that is fully developed. See also SAMYAKPRADHĀNA.

samyakkarmānta. (P. sammākammanta; T. yang dag pa’i las kyi mtha’; C. zhengye; J. shōgō; K. chŏngŏp 正業). In Sanskrit, lit. “correct ends of actions,” commonly translated as “right action” or “correct action” and is the fourth constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). Of the three divisions of the eightfold path—morality (ŚĪLA), concentration (SAMĀDHI), and wisdom (PRAJÑĀ)—samyakkarmānta is the second of the three types of moral training. It is described as refraining from the three unwholesome physical actions of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. Thus three of the five most fundamental Buddhist precepts (PAÑCAŚĪLA) are encompassed by samyakkarmānta (the other two being abstinence from false speech and abstinence from intoxicants). Action is considered to be particularly significant in the Buddhist tradition because it is understood to be a product of mental volition (CETANĀ). Various schools variously interpret the nuances of right action. For example, East Asian Buddhism has generally concluded that meat-eating inevitably causes animals to suffer and is therefore inconsistent with samyakkarmānta, even though meat-eating is not specifically proscribed in the mainstream Buddhist VINAYAs.

samyakpradhāna. (P. sammāpadhāna; T. yang dag par spong ba; C. zhengqin; J. shōgon; K. chŏnggŭn 正勤). In Sanskrit, “right effort” or “correct effort”; in Tibetan (which reads the term as PRAHĀṆA), “right abandonment.” There are four right efforts, which are set forth within the presentation of the second set of dharmas making up the thirty-seven constituents of enlightenment (BODHIPĀKṢIKADHARMA). The four pradhānas (efforts or, as prahāṇa, abandonments) describe effort at incipient stages of the path or religious training; by contrast, right effort (SAMYAKVYĀYĀMA), the sixth constituent of the eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), denotes the effort or abandonment that occurs during the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA) or the path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA), when the path is more fully developed. Pradhāna involves the effort to abandon unwholesome (AKUŚALA) mental states—and their resulting actions via body, speech, and mind—that are conducive to suffering. Simultaneously, samyakpradhāna encompasses the effort to cultivate those wholesome (KUŚALA) mental states that are conducive to happiness for both oneself and others. These wholesome mental states are characterized by mindfulness (SMṚTI), energy (VĪRYA), rapture (PRĪTI), concentration (SAMĀDHI), and equanimity (UPEKṢĀ). At the first stage of practice, the focus is on SMṚTI, which, as the foundations of mindfulness (SMṚTYUPASTHĀNA), involves mindfulness of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS as applied to the body, sensations, states of mind, and wholesome and unwholesome dharmas. At the second stage of the practice, the focus is on the effort needed to develop samādhi. When fully developed in the mind of the awakened person, the practice of mindfulness is called right mindfulness; concentration, rapture, and equanimity are included under right concentration; and energy is called right effort (samyakvyāyāma).

samyaksamādhi. (P. sammāsamādhi; T. yang dag pa’i ting nge ’dzin; C. zhengding; J. shōjō; K. chŏngjŏng 正定). In Sanskrit, “right concentration” or “correct concentration,” the eighth constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). It is defined generally as the concentration of the mind on wholesome objects. When fully developed, such concentration results in the attainment of the four levels of meditative absorption (DHYĀNA) associated with the realm of subtle materiality (RŪPADHĀTU). In this context, two types of samyaksamādhi are described. The first, called mundane, or LAUKIKA, is associated with all forms of ordinary concentration up to and including the four stages of dhyāna. The second type is associated with the attainment of the four supramundane (LOKOTTARA) paths of the stream-enterer, once-returner, nonreturner, and arhat.

samyaksaṃbodhi. (P. sammāsaṃbodhi; T. yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub; C. zhengdengjue; J. shōtōgaku; K. chŏngdŭnggak 正等覺). In Sanskrit, “complete, perfect enlightenment.” The term, along with its synonym, ANUTTARASAMYAKSAṂBODHI, is commonly used to refer to the enlightenment of a buddha, achieved under the BODHI TREE. Different schools of Buddhist thought distinguish this samyaksaṃbodhi from the simple enlightenment (BODHI) of an ARHAT in a variety of ways, with the MAHĀYĀNA schools asserting, for example, that a buddha has destroyed both the afflictive obstructions (KLEŚĀVARAṆA) and the obstacles to omniscience (JÑEYĀVARAṆA), while an arhat has only destroyed the former.

samyaksaṃbuddha. (P. sammāsaṃbuddha; T. yang dar par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas; C. zhengbianzhi; J. shōhenchi; K. chŏngp’yŏnji 正遍知). In Sanskrit, “complete and perfect buddha” or “complete and perfect enlightened one,” a common epithet of a buddha, emphasizing that he has achieved the ultimate enlightenment, one that surpasses all others, including the enlightenment of the ARHAT.

samyaksaṃkalpa. (P. sammāsaṅkappa; T. yang dag pa’i rtog pa; C. zhengsiwei; J. shōshiyui; K. chŏngsayu 正思惟). In Sanskrit, “right attitude” or “right intention”; the second constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), described as the intention to avoid thoughts of attachment, hatred, and harmful intent, and to promote loving-kindness and nonviolence. Alternatively, it is the mental articulation or conceptualization (SAṂKALPA) of the content of the inexpressible vision of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS that occurs on the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA) and that motivates one to teach it to others; SAMYAGDṚṢṬI (right view) is, by contrast, the nonconceptual understanding of that content.

samyaksmṛti. (P. sammāsati; T. yang dag pa’i dran pa; C. zhengnian; J. shōnen; K. chŏngnyŏm 正念). In Sanskrit, “right mindfulness” or “correct mindfulness,” the seventh constituent of the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). It is defined as the full development of the cultivation of the four foundations of mindfulness (SMṚTYUPASTHĀNA) on the body (KĀYA; KĀYĀNUPAŚYANĀ), sensations (VEDANĀ), mind (CITTA), and various factors (DHARMA).

samyaktvaniyāmāvakrānti. (P. sammattaniyāma-okkanti; T. yang dag pa nyid skyon med pa la zhugs pa; C. zhengxing lisheng; J. shōshōrishō; K. chŏngsŏng isaeng 正性離生). In Sanskrit, “access to the certainty that one will eventually win liberation” or “entering the stage of certainty that one is destined for enlightenment.” In the five-stage path structure (PAÑCAMĀRGA) of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school of ABHIDHARMA, the third stage, the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA), is marked by single thought-moments of realization regarding the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni), divided into four insights for each of the four truths. The second of these sixteen moments involves the “knowledge of the fact of suffering” (duḥkhe dharmajñāna) with regard to the sensuous realm of existence (KĀMADHĀTU). This acceptance marks the access to the stage of certainty that one is destined for enlightenment (samyaktvaniyāmāvakrānti). This certainty is catalyzed by the highest worldly dharmas (LAUKIKĀGRADHARMA), the fourth and last of the four aids to penetration (NIRVEDHABHĀGĪYA). This process leads to stream-entry (SROTAĀPANNA), the first of the four stages of sanctity (ĀRYAMĀRGA).

saṃyojana. (T. kun tu sbyor ba; C. jie; J. ketsu; K. kyŏl 結). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “fetter.” There are ten fetters that are commonly listed as binding one to the cycle of rebirth (SAṂSĀRA): (1) SATKĀYADṚṢṬI (P. sakkāyadiṭṭhi) is the mistaken belief in the existence of a self in relation to the five aggregates (SKANDHA). (2) VICIKITSĀ (P. vicikicchā) is doubt about the efficacy of the path (MĀRGA). Such skeptical doubt is also classified as one of five hindrances (NĪVARAṆA) that prevent the mind from attaining meditative absorption (DHYĀNA). (3) ŚĪLAVRATAPARĀMARŚA (P. sīlabbataparāmāsa), “attachment to rules and rituals,” one of four kinds of clinging (UPĀDĀNA), is the mistaken belief that, e.g., purificatory rites, such as bathing in the Ganges River or performing sacrifices, can free a person from the consequences of unwholesome (AKUŚALA) actions (KARMAN). (4) KĀMARĀGA (“craving for sensuality”), or KĀMACCHANDA (“desire for sense gratification”), and (5) VYĀPĀDA (“malice”), synonymous with DVEṢA (P. dosa; “hatred”), are both also classified as hindrances to meditative absorption; along with greed (LOBHA) and ignorance (AVIDYĀ, P. avijjā; see the tenth fetter below), dveṣa is also one of the three unwholesome faculties (AKUŚALAMŪLA). (6) RŪPARĀGA (“craving for existence in the realm of subtle-materiality”) is the desire to be reborn as a divinity in the realm of subtle materiality (RŪPADHĀTU), where beings are possessed of refined material bodies and are perpetually absorbed in the bliss of meditative absorption (dhyāna). (7) ĀRŪPYARĀGA (“craving for immaterial existence”) is the desire to be reborn as a divinity in the immaterial realm (ĀRŪPYADHĀTU), where beings are comprised entirely of mind and are perpetually absorbed in the meditative bliss of the immaterial attainments (SAMĀPATTI). (8) MĀNA (“pride”) arises from comparing oneself to others and manifests itself in three ways, in the feeling that one is superior to, equal to, or inferior to others. (9) AUDDHATYA (P. uddhacca) is the mental restlessness or excitement that impedes concentration. (10) AVIDYĀ is ignorance regarding the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS whereby one sees what is not self as self, what is not profitable as profitable, and what is painful as pleasurable. The first three fetters vanish when one reaches the level of stream-enterer; there is a reduction in the other fetters when one reaches the level of once-returner and nonreturner; and all the fetters vanish when one reaches the stage of arhatship. See also ANUŚAYA; ĀRYAMĀRGAPHALA; ANĀGĀMIN.

Samyŏng Yujŏng. (四溟惟政) (1544–1610). Influential Korean SŎN master during the Chosŏn dynasty and important resistance leader during the Japanese Hideyoshi invasions of the late sixteenth century. Yujŏng was a native of Miryang in present-day South Kyŏngsang province. He was ordained by a monk named Sinmuk (d.u.) at the monastery of CHIKCHISA on Mt. Hwanghak (in present-day North Kyŏngsang province). In 1561, he passed the clerical examinations (SŬNGKWA) for Sŏn monks and was appointed the abbot of Chikchisa in 1573. He later became the disciple of the eminent Sŏn master CH’ŎNGHŎ HYUJŎNG (a.k.a. SŎSAN TAESA). When the Japanese invaded the Korean peninsula in 1592, Yujŏng took over his teacher Hyujŏng’s place as leader of the monks’ militia (ŭisŭnggun) against the invading troops. Leading several thousand monk-soldiers, Yujŏng’s army played a crucial role in several battles where the Japanese were defeated. After the war ended, Yujŏng is also said to have gone to Japan as an emissary of the Korean king to negotiate peace with the new shōgun Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616); he also helped to negotiate the release of some three thousand Korean hostages and prisoners of war taken during the invasion. For his valor during the war, Yujŏng was appointed prelate (p’ansa) of the SŎN (Meditation) and KYO (Doctrine) schools of the Chosŏn-dynasty ecclesia. By the eighteenth century, Yujŏng had become the object of a popular cult in Korea, and shrines to Yujŏng and his teacher Hyujŏng were erected around the country.

Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya. (C. Za apitan xin lun; J. Zōabidon shinron; K. Chap abidam sim non 雜阿毘曇心論). In Sanskrit, “Heart of Abhidharma with Miscellaneous Additions”; the last of a series of expository treatises that summarized the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA as it was prevailing in BACTRIA and GANDHĀRA. The treatise was based on Dharmaśresthin’s ABHIDHARMAHṚDAYA and includes material adapted from the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ. The text is available only in a Chinese translation made by SAṂGHAVARMAN in the Liu Song capital of Jiankang in 434 CE; it is divided into eleven rolls, which correspond to separate chapters, on such topics as the elements (DHĀTU), conditioned factors (SAṂSKĀRA), KARMAN, etc. This treatise was composed during the early fourth century CE by the Sarvāstivāda ĀBHIDHARMIKA DHARMATRĀTA II (d.u.). The text was probably composed during a third major stage in the development of Sarvāstivāda abhidharma literature, following the JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA and its six traditional ancillary treatises, or “feet” (pādaśāstra), and then the major Vibhāṣā exegeses; this stage eventually culminated in the composition of VASUBANDHU’s celebrated ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA. This Dharmatrāta is often designated in the scholarly literature as Dharmatrāta II, to distinguish him from the Dārṣtāntika Dharmatrāta I, who was one of the four great ābhidharmikas whom XUANZANG says participated in the fourth Buddhist council (SAṂGĪTI; see COUNCIL, FOURTH) convened by the KUSHAN king KANIṢKA (r. c. 127–151 CE). Dharmatrāta II also composed the Pañcavastuvibhāṣā (C. Wushi piposha lun; “Exposition of the Fivefold Classification”), a commentary on the first chapter of Vasumitra’s PRAKARAṆAPĀDA, one of the seven major texts of the Sarvāstivāda ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA, which was translated by Xuanzang in 663; it involves a discussion of the mature Sarvāstivāda school’s fivefold classification system for dharmas: materiality (RŪPA), mentality (CITTA), mental concomitants (CAITTA), forces dissociated from thought (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA), and the unconditioned (ASAṂSKṚTA).

Saṃyuktāgama. (P. Saṃyuttanikāya; T. Yang dag par ldan pa’i lung; C. Za ahan jing; J. Zōagongyō; K. Chap aham kyŏng 雜阿含經). In Sanskrit, “Connected Discourses,” a division of the ĀGAMAs corresponding roughly to the Pāli SAṂYUTTANIKĀYA. The collection was probably compiled sometime between 200 and 400 CE. Some Sanskrit fragments, especially of the nidānasaṃyukta section, were discovered in TURFAN, but the full collection is only preserved in a Chinese translation, in fifty rolls, made by GUṆABHADRA between 435 and 443 CE, with a second partial Chinese translation (in sixteen rolls) made by an anonym and a brief one-roll version (with only twenty-seven sūtras) apparently translated by AN SHIGAO. The longer Chinese translation is presumed to belong to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school, with the shorter partial translation perhaps attributed to the KĀŚYAPĪYA school. The Saṃyuktāgama collects 1,362 sūtras (compared to 2,872 for the Pāli Saṃyuttanikāya), with some nascent attempts at a subject-matter arrangement, but nothing nearly as systematic as that found in the Saṃyuttanikāya. The Chinese translated title of Za Ahan jing (lit. “Miscellaneous Āgama”) corresponds more closely to a Sanskrit *Kṣudrakāgama (cf. P. KHUDDAKANIKĀYA), a “miscellaneous” collection of sūtras that is not known to have existed in the Sarvāstivāda school, although the content is more closely aligned with the Saṃyuttanikāya.

Saṃyuttanikāya. (S. Saṃyuktāgama; T. Yang dag par ldan pa’i lung; C. Za ahan jing; J. Zōagongyō; K. Chap aham kyŏng 雜阿含經). In Pāli, “Collection of Related Discourses” (or in its nineteenth-century translation Book of Kindred Sayings); the third of the five divisions of the Pāli SUTTAPIṬAKA and corresponds roughly to the SAṂYUKTĀGAMA of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA and KĀŚYAPĪYA schools, which is now extant only in its Chinese translations. The Pāli recension is comprised of some 2,872 individual suttas. Because of questions as to what constitutes a sutta in this case (some are only one sentence in length), enumerations of the number of suttas in the various saṃyutta/saṃyukta collections vary widely, from just under three thousand to over seven thousand (the longer of the two Chinese recensions contains 1,362 sūtras). The Saṃyuttanikāya is divided into five chapters, or vaggas, which are subdivided into fifty-six saṃyuttas, arranged largely by subject matter. The collection derives its title from this classificatory system. The five vaggas are devoted to: (1) verses (sagātha), suttas that in the majority of cases contain verses; (2) causation (NIDĀNA), suttas that deal primarily with epistemology and psychology; (3) the aggregates (P. khandha, S. SKANDHA) on the five aggregates; (4) the six sense-fields (P. saḷāyatana, S. ṢAḌĀYATANA), dealing with the six sources of consciousness; and (5) the great division (mahāvagga), which contains suttas on the noble eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), the states of concentration (DHYĀNA), the establishments of mindfulness (SMṚTYUPASTHĀNA), and other important doctrines.

Śāṇakavāsin. (T. Sha na’i gos can; C. Shangnahexiu/Shangnuojiafusuo; J. Shōnawashu/Shōnyakabasha; K. Sangnahwasu/Sangnakkabaksa 商那和修/商諾迦縛娑). In Sanskrit, “Linen Wearer” [alt. Śāṇakavāsa]; the third (or fourth according to SARVĀSTIVĀDA sources) successor to the Buddha in some of the traditional dharma lineages preserved in Nepal, Tibet, and East Asia. His name derives from a legend that, from the moment he was born following a six-year-long period of gestation in his mother’s womb, he was always dressed in linen garments. Before becoming a monk, he was a rich merchant in RĀJAGṚHA, who frequently offered alms to the SAṂGHA. He entered the religious order on the recommendation of ĀNANDA, and eventually succeeded him. After mastering all the canons, Śāṇakavāsin traveled around India, propagating Buddhism. He converted many people to the religion, including UPAGUPTA, who became his successor. He also played a role in the second Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, SECOND). He is believed to have died in MATHURĀ.

Sanbōe. (三宝絵). In Japanese, “The Three Jewels,” a work composed by Minamoto Tamenori (d. 1011); also known as Sanbōekotoba. In this preface, Tamenori laments the fact that the world has now entered into the age of the final dharma (J. mappō; see C. MOFA) and speaks of the need to honor the DHARMA. Tamenori’s text largely consists of three sections corresponding to the three jewels (RATNATRAYA), namely the Buddha, dharma, and saṃgha. In the buddha-jewel section, Tamenori provides JĀTAKA stories from various sources. In the dharma-jewel section, he describes the history of Buddhism in Japan from the rise of SHŌTOKU TAISHI (574–622) to the end of the Nara period. In the saṃgha-jewel section, Tamenori relies on many temple records and texts to speak of the representative ceremonies and rituals of Japanese Buddhism, their provenance, and the biographies of some important monks who carried out these events. The Sanbōe serves as a valuable source for studying the history of Buddhism during the Nara period.

Sāñcī. A famous STŪPA or CAITYA about six miles southwest of Vidiśā in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh; often seen transcribed as Sanchi. The Sāñcī stūpa and its surrounding compound is one of the best-preserved Buddhist archeological sites in the world and is well known for its many monasteries, reliquaries, pillars, and stone relief carvings. Sāñcī was an active site of worship and pilgrimage in India between the third century BCE and the twelfth century CE. However, unlike other pilgrimage sites such as SĀRNĀTH and BODHGAYĀ, Sāñcī is not known to be a place that was associated with the historical Buddha and there are no records or stories of the Buddha himself ever visiting the site. The emperor AŚOKA is credited with laying the foundation of the compound by erecting a stūpa and a pillar on the site. Other stories mention a Vidiśā woman whom Aśoka married, called Vidiśā Devī, who was a devout Buddhist; according to tradition, she was the one who initiated construction of a Buddhist monastery at the site. When Aśoka ascended the throne at PĀṬALIPUTRA, she did not accompany him to the capital, but remained behind in her hometown and later became a nun. Sāñcī and the nearby city of Vidiśā were located near the junction of two important trading routes, and the city’s wealthy merchants munificently supported its monasteries and religious sites. Structures erected during the rule of the Śuṅgas and the Śātavāhanas still stand today, and the area flourished after 400 CE during the reign of the Guptas. Sāñcī subsequently fell into a lengthy decline and seems to have been completely deserted at least by the end of the thirteenth century. The site was rediscovered in 1818 by a certain British General Taylor, who excavated the western section of the stūpa; his archeological work was continued by F. C. Maisay and Alexander Cunningham, who discovered relics (ŚARĪRA) believed to be those of the Buddha’s two major disciples ŚĀRIPUTRA and MAHĀMAUDGALYĀYANA in the center of the dome of the main stūpa. There was ongoing controversy within different divisions of the British colonial government over whether or not Sāñcī artifacts should be shipped to British museums; finally, in 1861, the Archeological Survey of India was established and the area was preserved and protected. See also NĀSIK.

sandaihihō. (三大秘法). In Japanese, “three great esoteric laws,” three secret teachings that are presumed to have been hidden between the lines of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”) until NICHIREN (1222–1282) discovered them and revealed them to the world. The three are: (1) the DAI-GOHONZON (J. honmon no honzon), the main object of worship in the NICHIREN SHŌSHŪ school, which is a cosmological chart (MAṆḌALA) of the universe surrounding an inscription of homage to the title of the “Lotus Sūtra” and Nichiren’s own name; (2) the sanctuary (J. honmon no kaidan) where the dai-gohonzon is enshrined at KAISEKIJI, the head temple of Nichiren Shōshū; and (3) the teaching of NAM MYŌHŌRENGEKYŌ (J. honmon no DAIMOKU), “Homage to the ‘Lotus Sūtra,’” the recitation that is central to Nichiren practice.

sandao. (J. sandō; K. samdo 三道). In Chinese, lit. “three destinies,” in East Asian Buddhist iconography, the “triple fold” of skin at the base of the neck on images of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, which is intended to indicate the inevitability of rebirth and the operation of cause and effect. These three folds of skin are interpreted to represent the “three destinies” that inevitably accrue to life in the realm of SAṂSĀRA, viz., the afflictions (S. KLEŚA, C. fannao dao), actions (S. KARMAN, C. ye dao), and suffering (S. DUḤKHA, C. ku dao).

sandhyābhāṣā. [alt. saṃdhyābhāṣyā] (T. dgongs bshad/dgongs skad). In Sanskrit, “intentional language,” often mistranslated as “twilight language”; a kind of secret or coded speech, used especially, but not exclusively, in TANTRA. The term is used in a broader hermeneutical sense to explain how a difficult or otherwise problematic text requires commentary in order to bring out its doctrinally consistent meaning. The term is also used in an exclusively tantric sense to refer to a secret linguistic code that is understood and used by initiates of a particular tantric circle: e.g., “frankincense” means “blood” and “camphor” means “semen.” The Pradīpoddyotana commentary by the tāntrika Candrakīrti on the Guhyasamājamūlatantra explains sandhyābhāṣā with a scheme of six alternatives (ṣaṭkoṭi) in a series of four modes going from less to more profound. The six alternatives are provisional (NEYĀRTHA) and definitive (NĪTĀRTHA); requiring interpretation (ābhiprāyika) and not requiring interpretation (anābhiprāyika); and ayathāruta (when one cannot take words literally) and yathāruta (when one can take words literally). Complicated or obscure language (called VAJRA expression) that can be taken literally (yathāruta), or that can be taken at face value to convey meaning, provides a provisional meaning, i.e., a meaning that requires interpretation (neyārtha); this leads to what the statement does not say literally (ayathāruta), which is its definitive meaning (nītārtha). A passage about a topic not addressed in statements about lower stages of the tantric path, and therefore couched in words that are coded and apparently contradictory to other statements, in the sense that other passages about practices at lower stages of the tantric path contradict what it says, are ābhiprāyika, while straightforward statements about a topic that is not addressed at lower stages of the tantric path are anābhiprāyika; for example, direct statements about clear light (PRABHĀSVARA) and illusory bodies (māyākāya), the culminating attainments in the Guhyasamāja system. Finally, a statement couched in ordinary language about a topic that is relevant to both earlier and later stages of the tantric path is yathāruta (can be taken literally); statements using a specialized argot, using unusual words that are ordinarily meaningless, like some words in MANTRAs, are ayathāruta. See also ABHIPRĀYA; ABHISAṂDHI.

sandhyābhāṣita. (S). See SANDHYĀBHĀṢĀ.

sandi. (J. santai; K. samje 三諦). In Chinese, “three truths,” “threefold truth,” or “three judgments”; a tripartite exegetical description of reality as being empty, provisional, and their mean, used in both the SAN LUN ZONG and TIANTAI ZONG of Chinese Buddhist philosophy. The three truths are said to have been first taught by SŬNGNANG (c. 450–c. 520), whom tradition considers an important vaunt courier in the development of the Chinese San lun school, the Chinese counterpart of the MADHYAMAKA branch of Indian philosophical exegesis, and then developed by later thinkers in both the San lun and Tiantai traditions. This Chinese notion of three truths is said to derive from a verse appearing in the Chinese translation of NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ (C. Zhong lun): “All phenomena that are produced from causes and conditions,/These in fact are empty. /They are also provisional names. /This as well is the meaning of the middle way.” This account is then systematized by Chinese exegetes into: (1) the authentic truth of emptiness (kongdi), viz., all things are devoid of inherent existence and are empty in their essential nature: (2) the conventional truth of being provisionally real (jiadi), viz., all things are products of a causal process that gives them a derived reality; and (3) the ultimate truth of the mean (zhongdi), viz., all things, in their absolute reality, are neither real nor unreal, but simply thus. This three-truth schema may have been influenced by indigenous Chinese scriptures (see APOCRYPHA) such as the RENWANG JING and the PUSA YINGLUO BENYE JING. The Renwang jing, for example, discusses a three-truth SAMĀDHI (sandi sanmei), in which these three types of concentrations are named worldly truth (shidi), authentic truth (zhendi), and supreme-meaning truth (diyiyidi). In this treatment, worldly truth is the affirmation of the dualistic phenomena of ordinary existence, while authentic truth is presumed to be the denial of the reality of those phenomena; both are therefore aspects of what is typically called conventional truth (SAṂVṚTISATYA) in the two-truth schema (see SATYADVAYA). The supreme-meaning truth transcends all dichotomies, including affirmation and negation, to provide an all-embracing perspective and corresponds to ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA). This schema is peculiar, and betrays its Chinese origins, because “authentic truth” and “supreme-meaning truth” are actually just different Chinese renderings of the same Sanskrit term, paramāthasatya. Zhiyi also interprets the statement “neither the same nor different” in the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”) as referring implicitly to the three-truth schema: “different” is the conventional truth of provisional reality, “same” is the authentic truth of emptiness, and the whole phrase is the ultimate truth of the mean. These presentations demonstrate that the Chinese were grappling with what they considered to be an unresolved internal tension in Indian presentations of conventional and ultimate truth and were exploring a three-truth schema as one means of resolving that tension.

sanfen kejing. (J. sanbunkakyō; K. sambun kwagyŏng 三分科經). In Chinese, “threefold division of a scripture,” an exegetical technique developed by the pioneering scholiast and cataloguer DAO’AN (312–385) to analyze a specific SŪTRA’s narrative structure. Dao’an’s scriptural commentaries posited the following three major sections that were common to all sūtras: (1) the prefatory setting (C. xufen; S. nidāna), which specifies the time and place where the sūtra was delivered; (2) the “text proper” (zhengzongfen), viz., the main body of the sūtra, which relates the doctrines and practices that were the subject of the discourse; and (3) the “dissemination section” (liutongfen; S. parīndanā), which describes the confidence and insight the scripture inspired in its audience. This schema was frequently employed in subsequent scriptural exegesis of most of the major scholastic schools of East Asian Buddhism and is still widely used even today. See also NETTIPPAKARAṆA; PEṬAKOPADESA; VYĀKHYĀYUKTI; WUZHONG XUANYI.

saṅgha. Pāli and classical Sanskrit variant of “community.” See also the BUDDHIST HYBRID SANSKRIT form SAṂGHA and its various compound forms.

Saṅgha Administration Act. A law enacted in Thailand in 1902 designed to bring the entire Buddhist order (P. saṅgha, S. SAṂGHA) of Thailand under a single administrative authority. It was primarily an initiative of Prince Wachirayān, brother of King Chulalongkorn (RĀMA V) and the son of King Mongkut (RĀMA IV). The law was initially applied only to royal monasteries and several other important monasteries, but in 1908 it was extended to encompass the entire northeast region. It established a single system for monastic education and standardized the ordination procedure. Under this act, all abbots in Thailand were appointed by government officials or the king. The act was revised in 1941 and in 1962. It has not met with universal acceptance or compliance, being challenged especially by the tradition of the forest monks (ARAÑÑAVĀSI).

Saṅghamittā. (S. Saṃghamitrā; C. Sengqiemiduo; J. Sōgyamitta; K. Sŭnggamilta 僧伽蜜多). In Pāli, “Friend of the Community,” proper name of the nun (BHIKṢUṆĪ) who was the daughter of the Indian king Asoka (S. AŚOKA) and sister of MAHINDA (S. Mahendra). According to some accounts, Mahinda and Saṅghamittā were twins; others claim, instead, that Mahinda was one or two years her senior. According to Pāli sources, Saṅghamittā was born in Ujjeni (S. Ujjayinī) and married to Aggibrahmā (S. Agnibrahmā), with whom she had a son named Sumana. The most detailed account of her life comes to us in the MAHĀVAṂSA (c. fifth century CE). There, she is said to have been ordained when she was eighteen years old. When Mahinda went to Sri Lanka and converted King DEVĀNAṂPRIYATISSA, the king’s daughter Anulā asked to be ordained. Mahinda replied that monks cannot ordain women, but that his sister was a nun and that she should be invited to come from India. Saṅghamittā traveled to the island kingdom, bringing along with her eleven other nuns in order to establish her ordination lineage in that new region, as well as a branch from the BODHI TREE. The Mahāvaṃsa tells us that during her voyage to Sri Lanka, nineteen NĀGAs threatened to use their magic to steal the bodhi tree, but Saṅghamittā defended it by taking the form of a GARUḌA (the natural enemy of the nāgas). Tradition holds that the bodhi tree she brought took root in ANURĀDHAPURA and it remains to this day an object of worship. Neither Mahinda nor Saṅghamittā returned to India. Upon her death, her body was cremated and her remains were enshrined in a STŪPA in Cittasālā, near the site of the bodhi tree.

saṅgharāja. In Pāli, lit. “ruler of the community,” often rendered into English as “supreme patriarch”; a title used in the predominantly THERAVĀDA traditions of Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Cambodia. The title is given to one monk who serves as the head of a single monastic school (NIKĀYA), or the head of the entire national saṅgha (S. SAṂGHA). The procedure for appointing a saṅgharāja differs across traditions. At times, the title has been given to the most senior monk in the saṅgha, that is, the one who has been ordained the longest. At other times, designating a saṅgharāja has been the prerogative of the king, as was the case for the first saṅgharāja to be appointed in Southeast Asia: Mahākassapa, a forest-dwelling monk of Sri Lanka who, in the twelfth century, helped King PARĀKRAMABĀHU I reform the Ceylonese saṅgha. The duties of the saṅgharāja have varied widely. In some instances, the title is honorific and the office holder wields little or no administrative power; in such instances, the saṅgharāja serves as a figurehead and spokesman for the saṅgha. In other instances, such as with Mahākassapa, the saṅgharāja has the authority to enact dramatic changes in the order and structure of the Buddhist saṅgha. Another title related to the saṅgharāja is that of upasaṅgharāja, a deputy who is appointed to assist the saṅgharāja in carrying out his duties. The Burmese equivalent of saṅgharāja is thathanabaing. See also CHONGJŎNG.

Saṅgītisutta. (S. Saṃgītisūtra; C. Zhongji jing; J. Shushūkyō; K. Chungjip kyŏng 衆集經). In Pāli, “Discourse on Communal Recitation,” the thirty-third sutta of the DĪGHANIKĀYA (a separate DHARMAGUPTAKA recension appears as the ninth sūtra in the Chinese translation of the DĪRGHĀGAMA); preached by Sāriputta (S. ŚĀRIPUTRA) to a congregation of monks at Pāvā in Malla country. The followers of the JAINA leader Nigaṇṭha-Nātaputta (S. NIRGRANTHA-JÑĀTĪPUTRA) had begun to quarrel following the death of their master. Śāriputra related to the monks at Pāvā that this occurred because Jñātīputra was not enlightened and so his teachings were erroneous and not well taught, but the Buddha, by contrast, was enlightened and his teachings were well taught. Śāriputra suggested that the dharma be chanted by the congregation in unison as a means of preserving it. He then summarized the dharma under numerical classifications ranging from groups of ones to groups of tens as a device for memorization. This exegetical stratagem provides one of the first canonical recensions of the “matrices” (P. mātikā, S. MĀTṚKĀ) that are thought to mark the incipiency of the ABHIDHARMA, and its style of exposition is closely connected to that employed in the DASUTTARASUTTA (S. Daśottarasūtra); several of its exegetical categories are also reproduced in the SAṂGĪTIPARYĀYA of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA.

Saṅgītivaṃsa. In Pāli, “Chronicle of the Councils”; a history of nine THERAVĀDA (i.e., STHAVIRANIKĀYA) Buddhist councils, or saṅgīti (S. SAṂGĪTI), according to the Thai reckoning. Written in Pāli in Bangkok in 1789 by the monk Somdet Phra Wannarat, the text describes the three Buddhist councils held in ancient India, followed by an account of councils four through eight in Sri Lanka, and concludes with the ninth Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, NINTH) held in Bangkok under King Rāma I in 1788–1789. The work contains much information on the religion and polity of Thailand through the establishment of the Cakri dynasty (1782-present).

sangong. (三公). In Chinese, lit. “three gentlemen”; the three great lay masters of Chinese Buddhism recognized by PENG SHAOSHENG (1740–1796) in his JUSHI ZHUAN (“The Biographies of [Eminent] Laymen”): LIU CHENGZHI (354–410), for his mastery of PURE LAND (JINGTU) practice; LI TONGXUAN (635–730), for his scholarship on HUAYAN; and PANG YUN (740–803), for his practice of CHAN. See individual entries for the three.

sang rgyas. (sang gye). The Tibetan translation of buddha. In coining neologisms to render Buddhist terminology, Tibetan translators sometimes sought to evoke multiple meanings of a single Sanskrit term. In the case of buddha, they knew that the Sanskrit root √budh has the meaning of both “awaken” and “open” or “spread.” They therefore translated buddha as “awakened” and “spread,” meaning that a buddha has awakened from the sleep of ignorance and spread his mind to all objects of knowledge.

Sangs rgyas gling pa. (Sangye Lingpa) (1340–1396). Tibetan treasure revealer (GTER STON) and master of the RNYING MA sect of Tibetan Buddhism. He was born in the southern Tibetan region of Rkong po (Kongpo) and experienced visions of AVALOKITEŚVARA as a child. He was ordained as a BHIKṢU at Byang chub gling monastery on TSA RI. From the age of thirty-four onward, he is credited with discovering numerous treasure cycles, especially from the region of Rkong po. Foremost among these are the “six root tantras of the gathering intentions” (dgongs ’dus rtsa ba’i rgyud drug), which he later divided into thirteen volumes. These teachings were acclaimed by masters of varied sectarian affiliation including the fourth and fifth KARMA PAs, the latter transmitting them to the Ming emperor Yongle.

sanguan. (J. sangan; K. samgwan 三觀). In Chinese, “threefold contemplation”; several versions of such a threefold contemplation are elaborated in Chinese exegetical traditions, of which the most influential was the TIANTAI version outlined by TIANTAI ZHIYI in his MOHE ZHIGUAN. Zhiyi’s version entails a system of contemplative practice that leads to the attainment of insight into the nature of reality. Zhiyi’s “threefold contemplation” consists of the contemplations of the “three truths: (SANDI): emptiness, conventional existence, and their mean (C. kong jia zhong sanguan; J. kū ge chū sangan; K. kong ka chung samgwan). The first, “contemplation on emptiness” (kongguan), is the step of practice that advances beyond naïve realism by penetrating into the conditionally constructed, and therefore insubstantial, nature of all phenomena (see ŚŪNYATĀ). The second, the “contemplation on conventionality” (jiaguan), involves the reaffirmation of the conventional existence of all phenomena, whereby a bodhisattva actively engages the world in spite of his awareness of the reality of emptiness. The third, the “contemplation of their mean” (zhongguan), is understood as a dialectical transcendence of the previous two modes of practice. This transcendence has two aspects: it is transcendent because it is neither (“the middle that negates both,” C. shuangfei zhi zhong) and because it affirms both (“the middle that illuminates both,” C. shuangzhao zhi zhong). It is “neither” because the middle way is not fixed exclusively on either abiding in emptiness or on wallowing in mundane existence. It is “both” because it elucidates that “emptiness” and “conventionality” are not opposing realities but are in fact mutually validating. “The threefold contemplation” is understood variously as a gradual or a simultaneous practice (“two kinds of ‘threefold contemplation,’” C. erzhong sanguan; J. nishu no sangan; K. ijong samgwan). The gradual practice of the “threefold contemplation” begins with the contemplation of emptiness, advances to that of conventional existence, and culminates in the contemplation of their mean. Tiantai exegetes variously labeled this approach “the threefold contemplation” by either “graduated stages” (C. cidi sanguan; J. shidai sangan; K. ch’aje samgwan) or “differentiation” (C. biexiang sanguan; J. bessō no sangan; K. pyŏlsang samgwan). As a simultaneous practice, all three aspects of the reality are to be contemplated simultaneously within any given instant of thought: a true understanding of “emptiness” is the same as the correct understanding of “conventional existence,” for they are just different emphases of the same truth of conditionality; only an erroneous construction of “emptiness” and “conventional existence” would lead to the conclusion that they are separate, contradictory realities. This approach is variously referred to as “the threefold contemplation that does not involve graduated stages” (C. bucidi sanguan; J. fushidai sangan; K. pulch’aje samgwan), “the perfectly interfused threefold contemplation” (C. yuanrong sanguan; J. ennyū no sangan; K. wŏnyung samgwan), or “the threefold contemplation [that is to be conducted within] a single moment of thought” (C. yixin sanguan; J. isshin sangan; K. ilsim samgwan). See also SANZHI.

sanimitta. (T. mtshan bcas). In Sanskrit, literally “with marks” or “with signs,” a term that has at least two principal denotations. In the context of MADHYAMAKA, sanimitta is a pejorative term, implying that one perceives the world via the chimeric signs or marks of intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA). Because all phenomena are ultimately “signless” (ĀNIMITTA), to perceive them as having signs is a benighted form of ignorance. In the context of tantric meditation, however, the term has a more salutary meaning. Tantric texts and especially YOGATANTRAs, mention two forms of meditation, one called “yoga with signs” (SANIMITTAYOGA), the other “yoga without signs” (ANIMITTAYOGA). Yoga with signs refers to meditation in which one visualizes oneself as a deity, one’s environment as a MAṆḌALA, etc. Yoga without signs refers to meditation in which one meditates on emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). In certain tantric SĀDHANAs, both forms of meditation are performed.

sanimittayoga. (T. mtshan bcas kyi rnal ’byor). Literally, “yoga with signs,” a term that occurs in Buddhist tantric literature, and is especially associated with YOGATANTRA class of tantric texts. Yoga with signs refers to those meditation practices that entail dualistic appearances or “signs,” in the sense that the meditator visualizes seed syllables (BĪJA) and deities. It is contrasted with ANIMITTAYOGA, or “yoga without signs,” those meditation practices in which one meditates on emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) in such a way that there are no dualistic appearances or signs.

Sañjaya Vairāṭīputra. [alt. Saṃjayin Vairāṭīputra] (P. Sañjaya/Sañcaya Belaṭṭhiputta; T. Smra ’dod kyi bu mo’i bu yang dag rgyal ba can; C. Shansheye Piluozhizi; J. Sanjaya Birateishi; K. Sansaya Pirajija 刪闍耶毘羅胝子). One of the so-called “six heterodox teachers” often mentioned in Buddhist sūtras, whose views and/or practices were criticized by the Buddha, along with PŪRAṆA-KĀŚYAPA, MASKARIN GOŚĀLĪPUTRA, AJITA KEŚAKAMBALA, KAKUDA KĀTYĀYANA, and NIRGRANTHA-JÑĀTĪPUTRA. Sañjaya was a skeptic who doubted the possibility of knowledge and the validity of logic. On questions such as the presence of a world beyond the visible world, the nature of the postmortem condition, and whether actions done in this life had effects in the next, he found the four traditional answers—affirmation, negation, partial affirmation and partial negation, and neither affirmation or negative—to each be unacceptable, and therefore gave evasive answers when asked such speculative questions. The Buddha’s two foremost disciples, ŚĀRIPUTRA and MAHĀMAUDGALYĀYANA, were originally disciples of Sañjaya before encountering the teachings of the Buddha. They are said to have each taken 250 of Sañjaya’s followers with them when they abandoned him for the Buddha. Upon hearing the news of their departure, Sañjaya vomited blood and fainted.

Sanjie jiao. (J. Sangaikyō/Sankaikyō; K. Samgye kyo 三階教). In Chinese, often translated as the “Three Stages School,” but more probably referring to the “School of the Third Stage.” The Sanjie jiao was a Chinese religious movement that was inspired by the influential teachings of the Chinese monk XINXING (540–594). The community shared Xinxing’s belief in the decline of the DHARMA (MOFA) and the concomitant decay of one’s potential or capacity (genji) for attaining buddhahood. According to the Three Stages teachings, the capacities of sentient beings are roughly divided into the so-called three stages (sanjie). The first two stages, now past, are those of the one vehicle (YISHENG; cf. EKAYĀNA) or three vehicles (TRIYĀNA), during which correct views about Buddhism were still present in the world. The current “third stage” (i.e., the present) was characterized instead by the proliferation of false views and prejudices. Because people during this degenerate age of the dharma were inevitably mistaken in their perceptions of reality, it was impossible for them to make any correct distinctions, whether between right and wrong, good and evil, ordained and lay. To counter these inveterate tendencies toward discrimination, Sanjie jiao adherents were taught instead to treat all things as manifestations of the buddha-nature (FOXING), leading to a “universalist teaching” (pufa) of Buddhism that was presumed to have supplanted all the previous teachings of the religion. Xinxing advocated that almsgiving (DĀNA) was the epitome of Buddhist practice during the degenerate age of the dharma and that the true perfection of giving (DĀNAPĀRAMITĀ) meant that all people, monks and laypeople alike, should be making offerings to relieve the suffering to those most in need, including the poor, the orphaned, and the sick. In its radical reinterpretation of the practice of giving in Buddhism, even animals were considered to be a more appropriate object of charity than were buddhas, bodhisattvas, monks, or the three jewels (RATNATRAYA); members of the community were even said to bow down to dogs. As the only reliable practice during this degenerate third stage, the Sanjie jiao community institutionalized giving in the form of an “inexhaustible storehouse cloister” (WUJINZANG YUAN). Donations made to the inexhaustible storehouse established by the Three Stages community at the monastery Huadusi in Chang’an would be distributed again during times of famine. The offerings were also used to fund the restoration of monasteries and the performance of religious services (i.e., the reverence field of merit, C. jingtian), and to provide alms to the poor (i.e., the compassion field of merit, C. beitian; see PUṆYAKṢETRA). The inexhaustible storehouse also came to serve as a powerful money-lending institution. The Three Stages community was labeled a heresy during the persecution of Buddhism during the Tang dynasty and, in 713, the Tang emperor Xuanzong (r. 712–756) issued an edict closing the inexhaustible storehouse due to charges of embezzlement; its scriptures were eventually labeled spurious (see APOCRYPHA) and dropped out of circulation, only to be rediscovered in the DUNHUANG manuscript cache. Despite these persecutions, the school continued to be influential for several more centuries.

sanju. (J. sanku; K. samgu 三句). In Chinese, “three propositions,” a unique set of precepts taught by CHŎNGJUNG MUSANG (680–756, alt. 684–762) in the JINGZHONG ZONG lineage of the early CHAN school. Musang sought to summarize the method of practice taught by the founder of Chinese Chan school, BODHIDHARMA, in three propositions, which he described as “no-recollection” (wuyi), which he equated with morality (ŚĪLA); “no-thought” (WUNIAN), which corresponded to concentration (SAMĀDHI); and “not-forgetting” (mowang), which was the equivalent of wisdom (PRAJÑĀ). In other Jingzhong zong texts, Musang’s successor BAOTANG WUZHU later claims that he was in fact the creator of these three propositions and makes the explicit connection between them and the three trainings (TRIŚIKṢĀ) of mainstream Buddhism. GUIFENG ZONGMI later explains the first proposition, “no-recollection,” as not tracing back the past; the second “no-thought,” as not yearning for the future; and the third “not-forgetting” as “always conforming to this knowledge without confusion or mistake.”

Sanjūsangendō. (三十三間堂). In Japanese, “Hall of Thirty-Three Bays”; a Buddhist temple in Kyōto, Japan, also known as “Hall of the Lotus King” (J. Rengeōin); it is part of the Myōhōin (Sublime Dharma Hall), a temple affiliated with the Japanese TENDAISHŪ. The number thirty-three refers to the belief that the BODHISATTVA Kannon (S. AVALOKITEŚVARA) saves humanity by transforming himself into thirty-three different figures. Taira no Kiyomori (1118–1181) completed the temple at the command of former emperor Goshirakawa (1127–1192) in 1164. After a fire destroyed the temple hall in 1249, the reconstruction of the building was completed in 1266 by former emperor Gosaga (1220–1272). The principal image of the temple is the “Eleven-Headed and Thousand-Armed Kannon” (see S. EKĀDAŚAMUKHĀVALOKITEŚVARA and SĀHASRABHUJASĀHASRANETRĀVALOKITEŚVARA). This deity was made of Japanese cypress in the yosegi zukuri style (viz., using several blocks of wood) by the artist Tankei (1173–1256) during the Kamakura period. It has eleven faces on its head and twenty-one pairs of arms that symbolize his one thousand arms. On both sides of the central seated statue are one thousand more standing images of the same type of Kannon, in five rows, each about five feet five inches in height, each said to be different from the other. Along with these statues, the school of Unkei (1151–1223) and Tankei also made twenty-eight statues of guardian deities. Additionally, flanking the right and left side of this arrangement are the statues of the Wind God (J. Fūjin) and the Thunder God (J. Raijin), respectively.

saṅkhārupekkhāñāṇa. In Pāli, “knowledge arising from equanimity regarding all formations”; according to the VISUDDHIMAGGA, the eighth of nine knowledges (P. ñāṇa, S. JÑĀNA) cultivated as part of “purity of knowledge and vision of progress along the path” (PAṬIPADĀÑĀṆADASSANAVISUDDHI). This latter category, in turn, constitutes the sixth and penultimate purity (P. visuddhi, S. VIŚUDDHI) to be developed along the path to liberation. Knowledge arising from equanimity regarding all formations arises as a consequence of understanding all conditioned formations (S. SAṂSKĀRA) that comprise the individual and the universe as being characterized by the three marks (S. TRILAKṢAṆA) of impermanence (S. ANITYA), suffering (S. DUḤKHA) and nonself (S. ANĀTMAN). This understanding is the product of the immediately preceding (seventh) knowledge called “knowledge arising from contemplation of reflection” (PAṬISAṄKHĀNUPASSANĀÑĀṆA). Understanding the formations to be void (see ŚŪNYATĀ) in this way, the practitioner abandons both terror and delight, and, regarding them as neither “I” nor “mine,” he becomes indifferent and neutral towards them. The sixth, seventh, and eighth knowledges when taken together are called “insight leading to emergence” (vuṭṭhānagāmini vipassanā) because they stand at the threshold of liberation. The Visuddhimagga states that, at this stage in the practice, one can continue to contemplate the formations with equanimity, or, if the mind turns towards the nibbāṇa element (S. NIRVĀṆADHĀTU) as its object, one of three types of liberation (S. VIMUKTI) ensues. If liberation occurs while contemplating impermanence, it is called “signless liberation,” if it occurs while contemplating suffering it is called “wishless liberation,” and if it occurs while contemplating nonself it is called “empty liberation” (see VIMOKṢAMUKHA).

San lun xuanyi. (J. Sanron gengi; K. Sam non hyŏnŭi 三論玄義). In Chinese, “Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises,” composed by the monk JIZANG sometime around 597. Although the title mentions the so-called “three treatises” (see SAN LUN ZONG), the San lun xuanyi is actually a commentary on four influential texts, namely the Zhong lun (cf. S. MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ), BAI LUN (S. *ŚATAŚĀSTRA), SHI’ERMEN LUN (S. *Dvādaśamukhaśāstra), and DAZHIDU LUN (*Mahāprajñāpāramitāśastra). The San lun xuanyi systematically presents the teachings of NĀGĀRJUNA and provides a succinct explanation of the notion of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). Jizang’s treatise consists of two main sections, which he terms the destruction of heresies and the elucidation of truth. His first section discusses the non-Buddhist teachings of India and the traditions of Zhuangzi, Laozi, and the Zhouyi in China. He also condemns ABHIDHARMA as HĪNAYĀNA teachings, the *TATTVASIDDHI as provisional MAHĀYĀNA, and the teachings of the five periods (see WUSHI BAJIAO) as a misleading attachment to MAHĀYĀNA. In the second section, Jizang explains the appearance of Nāgārjuna and the teachings of the Zhong lun, Bai lun, Shi’ermen lun, and Dazhidu lun. Jizang’s explanations rely heavily upon the notion of the two truths (SATYADVAYA).

San lun zong. (J. Sanronshū; K. Sam non chong 三論宗). In Chinese, the “Three Treatises school,” a Chinese analogue of the MADHYAMAKA school of Indian Buddhism philosophy; a largely exegetical tradition that focused on three important texts translated by KUMĀRAJĪVA, namely the Zhong lun (“Middle Treatise”), BAI LUN (“Hundred [Verse] Treatise”), and SHI’ERMEN LUN (“Twelve [Chapter] Treatise”). The Zhong lun is ostensibly a translation of NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ. Kumārajīva’s translation (dated 409), however, also contains his own notes as well as a commentary on Nāgārjuna’s text by Piṅgala (fl. c. 4 CE). The Bai lun (*ŚATAŚĀSTRA) is attributed to ĀRYADEVA and was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva in 404. In this text, the author employs the apophatic language of the Madhyamaka school and refutes the arguments of rival traditions. The Shi’ermen lun (*Dvādaśamukhaśāstra) is also attributed to Nāgārjuna and is purportedly an introductory manual to the Zhong lun. In this text, the author provides an interpretation of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) in twelve chapters. No Sanskrit or Tibetan recensions of the Bai lun or Shi’ermen lun are extant. The “three treatises,” however, exerted much influence in East Asia, where they functioned as the central texts for students of emptiness and Madhyamaka doctrine. JIZANG (549–623) wrote influential commentaries on the three treatises and came to be regarded as the systematizer of the San lun school. He retrospectively traces the school to two important vaunt couriers: SENGZHAO (374–414), an influential early Chinese exegete and cotranslator of the perfection of wisdom (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) literature, whose writings helped to popularize the works of the Madhyamaka school in China; and SŬNGNANG (c. 450–c. 520), who is claimed to have taught the notion of “three truths” or “three judgments” (SANDI)—the truths of emptiness, provisional reality, and their mean—an exegetical schema that was influential in the subsequent development of both the San lun and TIANTAI schools. The writings of San lun exegetes were also influential in Korea during the Three Kingdoms period (where the tradition was known as Sam non) and during the Nara and Heian periods in Japan (where it was called Sanron).

sanmei jing. (S. samādhisūtra; J. sanmaikyō; K. sammae kyŏng 三昧經). In Chinese, “SAMĀDHI scriptures”; a category of MAHĀYĀNA sūtras that are primarily or exclusively concerned with the practice or experience of meditation (SAMĀDHI), or whose title contains the term sanmei. The earliest reference to sanmei jing as a scriptural category appears in the oldest extant Chinese scriptural catalogue, CHU SANZANG JIJI (“Compilation of Notices on the Translation of the TRIPIṬAKA”), compiled by SENGYOU (445–518) around 515; there, Sengyou remarks that Zhu Fahu (DHARMARAKṢA) translated several sanmei jings. The Chinese Buddhist canon (DAZANGJING) contains more than fifty sūtras that use the term sanmei in their titles. These include sanmei jings whose Sanskrit titles do not use the term samādhi and to which the term sanmei was added when these scriptures were translated into Chinese. There are also other scriptures of uncertain provenance whose titles in earlier Chinese translations did not contain the term sanmei. An examination of successive Chinese Buddhist scriptural catalogues (JINGLU) in fact reveals that there were several sūtras that circulated first with one title, and later with a revised title that added sanmei to the original. Furthermore, there are a number of indigenous Chinese Buddhist scriptures (see APOCRYPHA), that were not entered into the canon, which call themselves sanmei jing. This phenomenon began early in the history of Chinese Buddhism. DAO’AN’s 374 CE scriptural catalogue (ZONGLI ZHONG-JING MULU), which is no longer extant but portions of which are excerpted in Sengyou’s Chu sanzang jiji, lists twenty-six scriptures of dubious authenticity; of these, six are titled sanmei jing. Several sanmei jings, such as the Banzhou sanmeijing (S. PRATYUTPANNABUDDHASAṂMUKHĀVASTHITASAMĀDHISŪTRA), offer instruction regarding the full range of practices involved in cultivating a specific samādhi technique. The majority of sanmei jings, however, are instead concerned with the various states of mind that the Buddha or BODHISATTVAs attained through samādhi, praising that samādhi, and/or emphasizing the merit gained through keeping and transmitting the text of the sanmei jing. The popularity of the sanmei jing genre in Chinese Buddhism can be at least partially attributed to Chinese Buddhists’ faith and interest in the religious practice of copying and reciting scriptures, which most sanmei jings encourage as a means of attaining enlightenment. Higher meditative states like samādhi sometime seem ancillary to the topic of certain sanmei jings: the JINGDU SANMEI JING, for example, offers a detailed account of thirty separate levels of the hells and the incumbent punishments meted out there; in order to avoid the torments of hell, the scripture exhorts laypeople not to meditate, but instead to observe the five precepts (PAÑCAŚĪLA) and perform the “eight-restrictions fast” (BAGUAN ZHAI) on specific Chinese seasonal days.

sanmi. (三密). In Chinese, “three mysteries.” See SANMITSU.

sanmitsu. (C. sanmi, K. sammil 三密). In Japanese, “three secrets” or “three mysteries”; an esoteric Buddhist teaching that posits that the body, speech, and mind of sentient beings, which are understood to be the source of the three forms of KARMAN in standard Buddhist doctrine, abide in a nondual relationship with the body, speech, and mind of MAHĀVAIROCANA, the DHARMAKĀYA buddha. All speech is therefore in actuality the speech of this buddha, all forms are his body, and all mental formations are at their root the mind of Mahāvairocana. The doctrine of the three mysteries appears in various strata of MAHĀYĀNA materials, but is featured most prominently in esoteric literature. In China, TIANTAI thinkers such as TIANTAI ZHIYI and ZHANRAN argued that the Buddha taught via his NIRMĀṆAKĀYA, SAMBHOGAKĀYA, or dharmakāya, depending on the capacities of his audience. On another level, however, these three bodies of the Buddha were said to be nondual. In Japan, KŪKAI argued that all beings had the capacity to experience the teaching of the dharmakāya directly, a position that later Japanese TENDAI thinkers argued was implicit in the earlier Chinese Tiantai teachings on the three mysteries. Kūkai’s sanmitsu theory held that ordinary beings may rapidly realize their buddha-nature through ABHIṢEKA, or ritual initiation, and ADHIṢṬHĀNA, or ritual empowerment, which allowed for the efficacious performance of MUDRĀ, the chanting of MANTRA and DHĀRAṆĪ, and the contemplation of the MAṆḌALA of a chosen object of devotion. These forms of initiation and empowerment, when followed by these three modes of ritual comportment, were said to reveal that the sublime reality of buddhahood is alive within the mundane reality that beings ordinarily inhabit. Once the body, speech, and mind of beings and buddhas are recognized as nondual, an ordinary being is then able to acquire SIDDHI, or supernatural powers, which may be used to effect change in the world, up to and including achieving buddhahood in this very body (J. SOKUSHIN JŌBUTSU; C. JISHEN CHENGFO).

Sansheng yuanrong guan. (三聖圓融觀). In Chinese, “contemplation on the consummate interfusion of the Three Sages,” viz., VAIROCANA Buddha and the two bodhisattvas MAÑJUŚRĪ and SAMANTABHADRA. See treatment in YUANRONG.

Śāntarakṣita. (T. Zhi ba ’tsho) (725–788). Eighth-century Indian Mahāyāna master who played an important role in the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet. According to traditional accounts, he was born into a royal family in Zahor in Bengal and was ordained at NĀLANDĀ monastery, where he became a renowned scholar. He is best known for two works. The first is the TATTVASAṂGRAHA, or “Compendium of Principles,” a critical survey and analysis of the various non-Buddhist and Buddhist schools of Indian philosophy, set forth in 3,646 verses in twenty-six chapters. This work, which is preserved in Sanskrit, along with its commentary by his disciple KAMALAŚĪLA, remains an important source on the philosophical systems of India during this period. His other famous work is the MADHYAMAKĀLAṂKĀRA, or “Ornament of the Middle Way,” which sets forth his own philosophical position, identified by later Tibetan doxographers as YOGĀCĀRA-*SVĀTANTRIKA-MADHYAMAKA, so called because it asserts, as in YOGĀCĀRA, that external objects do not exist, i.e., that sense objects are of the nature of consciousness; however, it also asserts, unlike Yogācāra and like MADHYAMAKA, that consciousness lacks ultimate existence. It further asserts that conventional truths (SAṂVṚTISATYA) possess their own character (SVALAKṢAṆA) and in this regard differs from the other branch of Madhyamaka, the *PRĀSAṄGIKA. The Yogacāra-Madhyamaka synthesis, of which Śāntarakṣita is the major proponent, was the most important philosophical development of late Indian Buddhism, and the Madhyamakālaṃkāra is its locus classicus. This work, together with the MADHYAMAKĀLOKA of Śāntarakṣita’s disciple Kamalaśīla and the SATYADVAYAVIBHAṄGA of JÑĀNAGARBHA, are known in Tibet as the “three works of the eastern *Svātantrikas” (rang rgyud shar gsum) because the three authors were from Bengal. Śāntarakṣita’s renown as a scholar was such that he was invited to Tibet by King KHRI SRONG LDE BTSAN. When a series of natural disasters indicated that the local deities were not positively disposed to the introduction of Buddhism, he left Tibet for Nepal and advised the king to invite the Indian tantric master PADMASAMBHAVA, who subdued the local deities. With this accomplished, Śāntarakṣita returned, the first Buddhist monastery of BSAM YAS was founded, and Śāntarakṣita invited twelve MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA monks to Tibet to ordain the first seven Tibetan monks. Śāntarakṣita lived and taught at Bsam yas from its founding (c. 775) until his death (c. 788) in an equestrian accident. Tibetans refer to him as the “bodhisattva abbot.” The founding of Bsam yas and the ordination of the first monks were pivotal moments in Tibetan Buddhist history, and the relationship of Śāntarakṣita, Padmasambhava, and Khri srong lde btsan figures in many Tibetan legends, most famously as brothers in a previous life. Prior to his death, Śāntarakṣita predicted that a doctrinal dispute would arise in Tibet, in which case his disciple Kamalaśīla should be invited from India. Such a conflict arose between the Indian and Chinese factions, and Kamalaśīla came to Tibet to debate with the Chan monk Moheyan in what is referred to as the BSAM YAS DEBATE, or the “Council of Lhasa.”

Santi Asoke. A modern reform movement in Thailand that began under the leadership of Bodhirak (P. Bodhirakka), a monk who had a storied past as a television entertainer, spirit medium, and bhikkhu (S. BHIKṢU). In 1975 he set up an independent saṅgha, ordaining monks and nuns himself, thereby ignoring the traditional requirement that a monk must have a minimum of ten years of seniority before ordaining others. For this reason, along with his violation of several other rules in the monastic code, Bodhirak was officially defrocked by the Supreme Saṅgha Council of Thailand. Santi Asoke emphasizes a semi-ascetic lifestyle for the laity and austerity for the monks, as opposed to what he criticized as the luxurious living conditions enjoyed by many popular monks around the country, some of whom live in modern buildings, travel in private cars, and have meals brought to their residences. Santi Asoke monks wear brown robes rather than the traditional saffron color commonly worn by many monks in Thailand, do not shave their eyebrows, and adhere to a strict vegetarian diet. Laypeople also observe vegetarianism and many observe the eight precepts (see ŚĪLA, AṢṬĀṄGASAMANVĀGATAṂ UPAVĀSAṂ) in their daily lives. The group criticizes lavish merit-making as lacking in moral virtue, which it feels can be attained by working hard, avoiding unnecessary consumption, and sharing one’s surplus with the rest of society. In addition to avoiding traditional metaphysical beliefs and practices, the group is also opposed to meditation. It views the concept of right concentration (SAMYAKSAMĀDHI), the eighth step of the eightfold path (ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA), as the culmination of the other steps, not as a separate stage of practice. Santi Asoke also differs from more mainstream forms of Buddhism in that its temples do not have any images of the Buddha, explaining that only the dharma can represent the Buddha. Its adherents view themselves as followers of “authentic Buddhism,” as opposed to: (1) occult Buddhism, whose followers believe in superstition, fortune-telling, and the power of amulets; (2) capitalistic Buddhism, which Santi Asoke contends is composed of business people who practice meditation in order to become more competitive; and (3) hermetic Buddhism, which encourages asceticism and which the Asoke group criticizes as selfish. Santi Asoke affords a somewhat higher status to its female renunciants than does the mainstream Thai saṅgha, granting female monastics status and title equivalent to that of novice monks, rather than the mainstream’s wholly lay MAE CHI designation. Bodhirak and scores of his followers were arrested in 1989 at the behest of Thailand’s Supreme Saṅgha Council for committing the criminal act of impersonating monks. All were convicted, but given suspended sentences. While opposed by the federal government and the saṅgha, Santi Asoke maintains its existence and influence through the efforts of a small number of politically connected lay followers, most notably a former governor of Bangkok.

śānticāra. (S). See ŚĀNTIKA.

Śāntideva. (T. Zhi ba lha). Eighth-century Indian monk of NĀLANDĀ monastery, renowned as the author of two influential MAHĀYĀNA texts: the BODHICARYĀVATĀRA (a long poem on the practice of the bodhisattva path) and the ŚIKṢĀSAMUCCAYA (a compendium of passages from Mahāyāna sūtras corroborating the explanations given in the Bodhicaryāvatāra). Nothing is known of his life apart from legends. According to these tales, he was of royal birth but renounced the world before his investiture as king. At Nālandā monastery, he was known as an indolent monk. In order to humiliate him, his fellow monks challenged him to recite sūtras before the assembly. He asked whether they wished to hear something old or something new. When they requested something new, he recited the Bodhicaryāvatāra. When he reached the ninth chapter, on wisdom (PRAJÑĀ), he began to rise into the air and disappeared, never to return. For this reason, there is some controversy as to how the ninth chapter ends, and indeed, there are different recensions of the text, one longer and one shorter. Based on the contents of the Bodhicaryāvatāra’s ninth chapter, Tibetan doxographers count Śāntideva as a proponent of the *PRĀSAṄGIKA-MADHYAMAKA. The Bodhicaryāvatāra was very influential in Tibet; particularly noteworthy is the BKA’ GDAMS tradition of dge bshes Po to ba, who lists it and the Śikṣāsamuccaya, along with the BODHISATTVABHŪMI, MAHĀYĀNASŪTRĀLAṂKĀRA, Āryaśūra’s JĀTAKAMĀLĀ, and the UDĀNAVARGA, as the six fundamental treatises of the Bka’ gdams tradition.

śāntika. (T. zhi ba’i las; C. xizai; J. sokusai; K. sikchae 息災). In Sanskrit, “pacifying activities,” (also seen written as śānticāra); one of the four types of activities (CATURKARMAN) set forth in the Buddhist TANTRAs. The other three are: activities of increase (PAUṢṬIKA) to increase prosperity, lengthen life, etc.; control or subjugation (VAŚĪKARAṆA) of the unruly or unwilling; and violent or drastic measures (ABHICĀRA), such as killing and warfare. Pacifying activities involve those rituals that purify baleful influences that appear in such forms as hindrances and illness.

sanyao. (J. san’yō; K. samyo 三要). In Chinese, the “three essentials,” of meditation practice in the CHAN school: (1) the faculty of great faith (da xingen; cf. ŚRADDHĀ and INDRIYA), (2) great ferocity or tenacity of purpose (da fenzhi), and (3) the sensation of great doubt (da YIQING). These essentials are specifically relevant to cultivation of the “Chan of observing the meditative topic” (KANHUA CHAN), or “questioning meditation.” This list was first compiled by the Yuan-dynasty Chan monk GAOFENG YUANMIAO (1238–1295) in his Gaofeng heshang chanyao, better known as simply the CHANYAO (“Essentials of Chan”; K. Sŏnyo); the list figures prominently in the presentation of SŎN in the SŎN’GA KWIGAM by the Korean Sŏn monk CH’ŎNGHŎ HYUJŎNG (1520–1604), whence it enters into the Japanese ZEN tradition. As Gaofeng explains them, the faculty of great faith (śraddhendriya) refers to the steadfastness of belief in the inherency of the buddha-nature (FOXING) as the ground of enlightenment. Great ferocity means intense passion toward practice, which he compares to the emotions you would feel if you came across your father’s murderer. Gaofeng describes the sensation of doubt (YIQING) regarding the intent behind Chan meditative topics (HUATOU) as like the anxiety and anticipation you feel when you are about to be exposed for some heinous act you committed. All three of these factors are essential, Gaofeng says, if the adept is to have any hope of mastering the kanhua Chan technique.

sanzhi. (J. sanshi; K. samji 三止). In Chinese, “threefold calming” or “threefold concentration”; a complement to the “threefold contemplation” (SANGUAN) taught by TIANTAI ZHIYI of the TIANTAI ZONG. These three types of calming or concentration are: (1) the “concentration that [leads to the] experience of reality” (tizhen zhi); (2) the “concentration that [leads to] expedient responses to conditions” (fangbian suiyuan zhi); and (3) the “concentration that [leads to the] cessation of the two discriminatory extremes” (xi erbian fenbie zhi). The first concentration corresponds to the “contemplation of emptiness” in the “threefold contemplation” scheme; this is because, by bringing to cessation the various forms of conceptual proliferation (PRAPAÑCA) and bringing the practitioner to a direct experience of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), it generates an insight into the fact that all things are dependent for their existence on conditions and therefore lack a “self” or any abiding substance. The second mode of concentration corresponds to the “contemplation of conventional existence”; this is because, by abiding in this concentration, the bodhisattva understands emptiness without becoming stuck in inactivity or unresponsiveness to worldly phenomena, such as the suffering of other sentient beings. He is able to function dynamically in the world without becoming disquieted or contaminated by those conditions he is responding to or participating in. The third complements the “contemplation of the mean” in the “threefold contemplation” scheme, and brings an end to such dualistic concepts as SAṂSĀRA and NIRVĀṆA. The “discriminatory extremes” are sometimes read as referring to the excesses that are potentially involved in practicing exclusively the first two modes of concentration.

sanzhi sanguan. (C) (三止三觀). See SANZHI and SANGUAN.

sanzhong shijian. (J. sanshuseken; K. samjong segan 三種世間). In Chinese, “the three types of world systems”: the world of sentient beings (SATTVALOKA), the receptacle world (BHĀJANALOKA), and the world of the five aggregates (C. WUYUN SHIJIAN). See SATTVALOKA.

sapakṣa. (T. mthun phyogs; C. tongpin; J. dōhon; K. tongp’um 同品). In Sanskrit, “similar instance”; one of three related Sanskrit terms used in Buddhist logic (HETUVIDYĀ): viz., PAKṢA (logical subject), sapakṣa (similar instance), and VIPAKṢA (dissimilar instance). For example, in the syllogism (PRAYOGA) “sound is impermanent because it is produced,” sound is the pakṣa; a pot is sapakṣa (similar instance or in the similar class), and space is vipakṣa (dissimilar instance or in the dissimilar class). The VYĀPTI (positive concomitance) is established based on the similar instance, i.e., the opponent’s knowledge that a pot breaks because it is produced is extended to sound; the VYATIREKA (negative concomitance) is established based on the dissimilar instance, i.e., the opponent’s knowledge that space is permanent because it is not produced is extended to exclude a sound from the dissimilar class because it is produced. See also PAKṢADHARMA, PRAYOGA.

Sa pan. (T). See SA SKYA PAṆḌITA KUN DGA’ RGYAL MTSHAN.

sap’ansŭng. (事判僧). In Korean, “administrative monk,” monks who are responsible for the administrative and financial affairs of a Korean monastery; one of the two major divisions of Korean monastic vocations, along with IP’ANSŬNG, practice monks who are engaged in scriptural study, meditative training, and ritual chanting. A large social organization like a monastery required a whole range of ecclesiastical positions to administer the monastic office, treasury, kitchen, etc.; the monks who occupied these offices are collectively referred to as sap’ansŭng. In the past, these monks would also have managed the various economic activities that took place in the monastery, including farming, book printing, paper making, and straw-sandal production. See also TOUSHOU; ZHISHI.

saptabuddha. (S). See SAPTATATHĀGATA.

saptadhana. (P. sattadhana; T. nor bdun; C. qi cai; J. shichizai; K. ch’il chae 七財). In Sanskrit, “seven kinds of riches [in the dharma].” They are: (1) faith or confidence (ŚRADDHĀ), (2) vigor or effort (VĪRYA), (3) virtue or moral restraint (ŚĪLA), (4) sense of shame (HRĪ) and fear of blame (APATRĀPYA), (5) listening to or learning the dharma (lit. “hearing,” śruta), (6) relinquishment (PRAHĀṆA), and (7) the wisdom arising from meditative training (BHĀVANĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ).

saptādhikaraṇaśamatha. (P. sattādhikaraṇasamatha; T. rtsod pa nye bar zhi ba bdun; C. qi miezheng fa; J. shichimetsujōhō; K. ch’il myŏlchaeng pŏp 七滅諍法). In Sanskrit, “seven methods of settling disputes.” In confronting monastic members who have transgressed the rules and regulations of the order (see PRĀTIMOKṢA), or when there are disputes about meting out the appropriate sanctions for such infraction, the VINAYA outlines seven methods for dealing with the transgressors and resolving the differences, respectively. According to the CŪḶAVAGGA section of the Pāli pāṭimokkha (using the Sanskrit name for each section): (1) Saṃmukha-vinaya involves the appeal to scriptural and vinaya laws or to direct evidence of transgression. (2) Smṛti-vinaya relies on character witness, testimony of witness[es] of the infraction, and the memory of the transgressor himself if he or she has a clean record and is of trustworthy temperament. In the latter case, an otherwise trustworthy suspect who claims to have no memory of the infraction is presumed innocent. (3) Amūḍha-vinaya is resorting to insanity claims. “Temporary insanity” or the loss of judgment due to different causes at the time of the infraction is considered mitigating and even exculpatory. The transgressor is only brought to the monastic hearing when his sanity or consciousness is restored. (4) Tatsvabhāvaiṣīya-vinaya is the postponement of appropriate punishment after the transgressor has offered a voluntary confession. (5) Yadbhūyasikīya-vinaya is used when a suspect intransigently refuses to confess. It is the citing of contrary evidence to, and self-contradictions and variances in, the suspect’s account. (6) Pratijñākāraka-vinaya is the verdict of the majority through voting. Typically elder monks of renowned virtue are assembled for the vote. (7) Tṛṇastāraka-vinaya is interpreted in two ways. One account explains this procedure as having the disputing parties each elect a senior representative to argue their respective cases. Another account has it that, in the case of ultimately irresolvable disputes, both parties should bow down to each other reverentially like “grass in the wind,” offering apologies and divulging how oneself could have possibly been more culpable. The Tibetan translation (rtswa bkram pa lta bur ’os pa) suggests a procedure “that strews grass over it [as a covering].” See also ADHIKARAṆAŚAMATHA.

saptakṛdbhavaparama. (T. re ltar thogs na srid pa lan bdun pa; C. jiqi fanyou; J. gokushippon’u; K. kŭkch’il panyu 極七返有). In Sanskrit, “one who takes up to seven existences” before NIRVĀṆA; a specific type of stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA), one of the twenty members of the ĀRYASAṂGHA (see VIṂŚATIPRABHEDASAṂGHA). According to the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, they are those who, on reaching the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA), have not yet eliminated even one of the set of nine levels of afflictions (KLEŚA) that cause rebirth in the sensuous realm (KĀMADHĀTU), these being the impediments to the first DHYĀNA that the mundane (LAUKIKA) path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA) removes; they will therefore take up to a maximum of seven rebirths in the sensuous realm before they reach the goal of ARHAT.

saptāṅgavidhi. (T. yan lag bdun pa’i cho ga; C. qizhi zuofa; J. shichishisahō; K. ch’ilchi chakpŏp 七支作法). In Sanskrit, “seven-branched worship,” a common component of MAHĀYĀNA Buddhist liturgy, often performed as a means of accumulating merit at the beginning of a Mahāyāna or tantric ritual or meditation session. The list may include more than seven items, but its standard form includes: obeisance (vandanā), offering (pūjana), confession of wrongdoing (PĀPADEŚANĀ), admiration or rejoicing (ANUMODANA), requesting the buddhas to turn the wheel of dharma (dharmacakrapravartanacodana), requesting the buddhas not to pass into PARINIRVĀṆA (aparinirvṛtādhyeṣaṇa), and the dedication of merit (PARIṆĀMANĀ). Obeisance includes reciting the three refuges (TRIŚARAṆA) formula and praising the excellent qualities of the Buddha, DHARMA, and SAṂGHA; the offering branch is expanded to include elaborate offerings to each of the senses, and, in tantric rituals, so-called inner and secret offerings. In the BHADRACARĪPRAṆIDHĀNA, the final part of the GAṆḌAVYŪHA (and itself the final chapter of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA), the bodhisattva SAMANTABHADRA reveals the worship in its fullest Mahāyāna formulation: he prefaces his famous ten vows with a version in which he imagines, on each atom in the universe, as many buddhas and bodhisattvas as there are atoms in the universe, and before each atom he imagines beings, as many as there are atoms in the universe, making obeisance, offering, confessing, and so on.

Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitā. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bdun brgya pa; C. Qibai song bore; J. Shichihyakuju hannya; K. Ch’ilbaek song panya 七百頌般若). In Sanskrit, the “Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines,” a PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtra in which the interlocutors include the Buddha, MAÑJUŚRĪ, MAITREYA, ŚĀRIPUTRA, ĀNANDA, and Nirālambā Bhaginī. It sets forth such topics as the true nature of the TATHĀGATA, the ultimate nonexistence of enlightenment and the stages leading to it, and the samādhi of the “single array” (ekavyūhasamādhi, see YIXING SANMEI). Like the VAJRACCHEDIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA, it emphasizes the paradoxical nature of the teachings of the perfection of wisdom.

saptatathāgata. (P. sattatathāgata; T. de bzhin gshegs pa bdun; C. qifo/guoqu qifo; J. shichibutsu/kako shichibutsu; K. ch’ilbul/kwagŏ ch’ilbul 七佛/過去七佛). In Sanskrit, the “seven buddhas [of antiquity]”; a list of seven past buddhas bridging the last two cyclical periods of the universe, which include ŚĀKYAMUNI and the six buddhas who preceded him, i.e., VIPAŚYIN (P. Vipassin), Śikhin (P. Sikhī), Viśvabhū (P. Vessabhū), Krakucchanda (P. Kondañña), Kanakamuni (P. Konāgamana) and KĀŚYAPA (P. Kassapa). The first three buddhas are the last three of the one thousand buddhas who appeared in the preceding “glorious eon” (vyūhakalpa), the cyclic period of a universe just prior to the present “auspicious eon” (BHADRAKALPA), and the remaining four buddhas are the first four of the one thousand buddhas during the present bhadrakalpa. Śākyamuni will be succeeded by MAITREYA, the fifth buddha in the current cycle. The seven buddhas of antiquity are widely discussed in the ĀGAMA literature and in such texts as the BHADRAKALPIKASŪTRA, where their activities, lineages, parents, offspring, disciples, residences, and teachings are recorded in great detail. Initially depicted symbolically, such as at BHĀRHUT and SĀÑCĪ in the form of a row of seven BODHI TREEs, the seven tathāgatas were shown in human form by the time of the Kushan dynasty and are common in monastic art across Central and East Asia. The buddhas are often differentiated only by the MUDRĀs they display. MAITREYA is often added as an eighth figure, distinguished by his bodhisattva guise.

Śāradvatīputra. (S). See ŚĀRIPUTRA.