The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism

Saraha. (T. Sa ra ha; C. Shaluohe; J. Sharaka; K. Saraha 沙羅訶). An eighth-century Indian tantric adept, counted among the eighty-four MAHĀSIDDHAs and renowned for his songs of realization (DOHĀ); also known as Sarahapāda. There are few historical facts regarding Saraha, but according to traditional sources he was born into a Bengali brāhmaṇa family. He is often known by the appellation “Great Brāhmaṇa.” In his youth he entered the Buddhist monastic order but later abandoned the clergy in favor of living as a wandering YOGIN. During a visionary experience, he was exhorted to train under a female arrowsmith, who, by means of symbolic instruction, taught Saraha the means for piercing through discursiveness and dualistic thought. Having realized the nature of MAHĀMUDRĀ, he earned the name Saraha, lit., “piercing arrow” or “he who has shot the arrow.” Saraha is an important member in Tibetan lineages for the instructions on mahāmudrā. He also composed numerous spiritual songs (dohā) popular among Newari and Tibetan Buddhists. Originally recorded in an eastern Indian APABHRAṂŚA dialect, these songs were later collected and translated into Tibetan as the well-known DO HA SKOR GSUM (“Three Cycles of Songs”).

śaraṇa. (P. saraṇa; T. skyabs; C. guiyi; J. kie; K. kwiŭi 歸依). In Sanskrit, “refuge,” “shelter,” or “haven”; referring specifically to the “three refuges” (TRIŚARAṆA) of the Buddha, DHARMA, and SAṂGHA, where Buddhists seek safe haven. The recitation of the three refuges is one of the foundational ritual practices in Buddhism: “I go for refuge to the Buddha (buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi). I go for refuge to the dharma (dharmaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi). I go for refuge to the saṃgha (saṃghaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi).” Reciting this formula three times was one of the first ways supplicants gained admittance to the Buddhist community, which initially began with wandering monks and later expanded into different levels of both clergy and lay. Separate rituals for each level of ordination developed, but the triśaraṇa recitation is found in them all. In general, after identifying the three objects of refuge through their special features and unique qualities, supplicants are instructed to keep a set of rules; the most basic rule is associated with the dharma (“the actual refuge”), i.e., not willfully hurting any living being (AHIṂSĀ). It is not clear how the triśaraṇa recitation became associated with conversion (see AMBEDKAR, BHIMRAO RAMJI), although in modern contexts it is often the formula associated with that religious event. See TRIŚARAṆA; RATNATRAYA.

Saraṇaṃkara. (1698–1778). Sinhalese monk instrumental in the founding of the SIYAM NIKĀYA. At the time of his youth, the tradition of full ordination (UPASAṂPADĀ) of monks had died out in Sri Lanka because there were not the requisite number of bhikkhus (S. BHIKṢU) on the island to ordain others. All monks were therefore novices (ŚRĀMAṆERA), many of whom do not wear saffron robes and had wives and children. Despite not having received a legitimate ordination, Saraṇaṃkara and a group of like-minded ascetics sought instead to live the life of the bhikkhu and maintain all 227 rules of the Pāli pāṭimokkha (S. PRĀTIMOKṢA). He eventually petitioned the king to allow monks from abroad to be invited so they could restore the tradition of full ordination (as had been done twice before in the previous five centuries) but his request was rejected and he was banished to a remote region of the island. Saraṇaṃkara eventually returned and became tutor to the next king. During the reign of the following king, Kīrti Śrī Rājasiṃha, a group of Thai monks, led by Upāli, was invited to Sri Lanka at the entreaty of Saraṇaṃkara, where they reestablished full ordination and began what became known as the Siyam Nikāya, since Upāli was from Siam (Thailand). Based at Kandy, it would become the largest of the Sinhalese monastic lineages. In 1760, Saraṇaṃkara was implicated in a plot to overthrow the Sinhalese king and install a Thai prince on the throne of Sri Lanka, but he was later cleared of any wrongdoing. Among his important writings is the Sāratthadīpanī.

Sarasvatī. (T. Dbyangs can ma; C. Biancaitian/Miaoyintian; J. Benzaiten/Myōonten; K. Pyŏnjaech’ŏn/Myoŭmch’ŏn 辯才天/妙音天). An Indian goddess revered in both Hinduism and Buddhism as the goddess of composition (including music and poetry) and of learning. She is often depicted playing a vīṇā lute and riding on a swan. She appears in a number of Buddhist sūtras, including the SUVARṆAPRABHĀSOTTAMASŪTRA. Because of that sūtra’s articulation of a role for Buddhism in “state protection” (see HUGUO FOJIAO), Sarasvatī came to be regarded as important goddess in Japan, where, as Benzaiten, she was included among the “seven gods of good fortune” (SHICHIFUKUJIN).

sārdhavihārin. (P. saddhivihārika [alt. saddhivihārī]; T. lhan cig gnas pa; C. gongxing dizi; J. gūgyō deshi; K. konghaeng cheja 共行弟子). In Sanskrit, lit. “one who lives with,” or “one who lives in accord with,” but often translated as “disciple” or “apprentice” (see ANTEVĀSIKA). Although the term can simply refer to one of the residents of a monastery, as “disciple” it refers to a novice or a monk who dwells with his UPĀDHYĀYA or preceptor for the purpose of receiving instruction in the dharma and training in the VINAYA. A disciple in residence with his preceptor is said to be under “guidance” (NIŚRAYA). The relationship of the sārdhavihārin and the upādhyāya is described as being like that of a son and a father. Accordingly, the disciple is required to serve the daily needs of his preceptor, by, for example, providing him with water, washing and preparing his robes and alms bowl, cleaning his residence, accompanying him on journeys, and attending him when he is sick. The sārdhavihārin requires the permission of the upādhyāya to attend others, to accompany others on alms rounds, to seek instruction from others, etc. The sārdhavihārin is required to seek pardon from his upādhyāya for any wrongdoing, and may be expelled for bad behavior. If he loses his upādhyāya while he is still in need of guidance, because the latter dies, goes away, secedes from the order, or changes religions, the disciple is to seek out a competent teacher (ĀCĀRYA) to serve in place of the upādhyāya. A fully ordained monk must remain under the guidance of either an upādhyāya or ācārya for a minimum of five years from the time of his ordination. A monk may be required to live under niśraya for a longer period, or for his whole life, if he is unable to become competent in dharma and vinaya.

Śāriputra. (P. Sāriputta; T. Shā ri bu; C. Shelifu; J. Sharihotsu; K. Saribul 舍利弗). In Sanskrit, “Son of Śārī”; the first of two chief disciples of the Buddha, along with MAHĀMAUDGALYĀYANA. Śāriputra’s father was a wealthy brāhmaṇa named Tiṣya (and Śāriputra is sometimes called Upatiṣya, after his father) and his mother was named Śārī or Śārikā, because she had eyes like a śārika bird. Śārī was the most intelligent woman in MAGADHA; she is also known as Śāradvatī, so Śāriputra is sometimes referred to as Śāradvatīputra. Śāripūtra was born in Nālaka near RĀJAGṚHA. He had three younger brothers and three sisters, all of whom would eventually join the SAṂGHA and become ARHATs. Śāriputra and Mahāmaudgalyāyana were friends from childhood. Once, while attending a performance, both became overwhelmed with a sense of the vanity of all impermanent things and resolved to renounce the world together. They first became disciples of the agnostic SAÑJAYA VAIRĀṬĪPUTRA, although they later took their leave of him and wandered through India in search of the truth. Finding no solution, they parted company, promising one another that whichever one should succeed in finding the truth would inform the other. It was then that Śāriputra met the Buddha’s disciple, AŚVAJIT, one of the Buddha’s first five disciples (PAÑCAVARGIKA) and already an arhat. Śāriputra was impressed with Aśvajit’s countenance and demeanor and asked whether he was a master or a disciple. When he replied that he was a disciple, Śāriputra asked him what his teacher taught. Aśvajit said that he was new to the teachings and could only provide a summary, but then uttered one of the most famous statements in the history of Buddhism, “Of those phenomena produced through causes, the TATHĀGATA has proclaimed their causes (HETU) and also their cessation (NIRODHA). Thus has spoken the great renunciant.” (See YE DHARMĀ s.v.). Hearing these words, Śāriputra immediately became a stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA) and asked where he could find this teacher. In keeping with their earlier compact, he repeated the stanza to his friend Mahāmaudgalyāyana, who also immediately became a streamenterer. The two friends resolved to take ordination as disciples of the Buddha and, together with five hundred disciples of their former teacher Sañjaya, proceeded to the VEṆUVANAVIHĀRA, where the Buddha was in residence. The Buddha ordained the entire group with the EHIBHIKṢUKĀ (“Come, monks”) formula, whereupon all except Śāriputra and Mahāmaudgalyāyana became arhats. Mahāmaudgalyāyana was to attain arhatship seven days after his ordination, while Śāriputra reached the goal after a fortnight upon hearing the Buddha preach the Vedanāpariggahasutta (the Sanskrit recension is entitled the Dīrghanakhaparivrājakaparipṛcchā). The Buddha declared Śāriputra and Mahāmaudgalyāyana his chief disciples the day they were ordained, giving as his reason the fact that both had exerted themselves in religious practice for countless previous lives. Śāriputra was declared chief among the Buddha’s disciples in wisdom, while Mahāmaudgalyāyana was chief in mastery of supranormal powers (ṚDDHI). Śāriputra was recognized as second only to the Buddha in his knowledge of the dharma. The Buddha praised Śāriputra as an able teacher, calling him his dharmasenāpati, “dharma general” and often assigned topics for him to preach. Two of his most famous discourses were the DASUTTARASUTTA and the SAṄGĪTISUTTA, which the Buddha asked him to preach on his behalf. Sāriputra was meticulous in his observance of the VINAYA, and was quick both to admonish monks in need of guidance and to praise them for their accomplishments. He was sought out by others to explicate points of doctrine and it was he who is said to have revealed the ABHIDHARMA to the human world after the Buddha taught it to his mother, who had been reborn in the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven; when the Buddha returned to earth each day to collect alms, he would repeat to Śāriputra what he had taught to the divinities in heaven. Śāriputra died several months before the Buddha. Realizing that he had only seven days to live, he resolved to return to his native village and convert his mother; with this accomplished, he passed away. His body was cremated and his relics were eventually enshrined in a STŪPA at NĀLANDĀ. Śāriputra appears in many JĀTAKA stories as a companion of the Buddha, sometimes in human form, sometimes in animal form, and sometimes with one of them a human and the other an animal. Śāriputra also plays a major role in the MAHĀYĀNA sūtras, where he is a common interlocutor of the Buddha and of the chief BODHISATTVAs. Sometimes he is portrayed as a dignified arhat, elsewhere he is made the fool, as in the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA when a goddess turns him into a woman, much to his dismay. In either case, the point is that the wisest of the Buddha’s arhat disciples, the master of the abhidharma, does not know the sublime teachings of the Mahāyāna and must have them explained to him. The implication is that the teachings of the Mahāyāna sūtras are therefore more profound than anything found in the canons of the MAINSTREAM BUDDHIST SCHOOLS. In the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀHṚDAYA (“Heart Sūtra”), it is Śāriputra who asks AVALOKITEŚVARA how to practice the perfection of wisdom, and even then he must be empowered to ask the question by the Buddha. In the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA, it is Śāriputra’s question that prompts the Buddha to set forth the parable of the burning house. The Buddha predicts that in the future, Śāriputra will become the buddha Padmaprabha.

śarīra. (P. sarīra; T. lus/sku/ro/ring bsrel; C. sheli; J. shari; K. sari 舍利). In Sanskrit, a common term for “body” in both the literal and metaphoric sense (as in the “main body” of a text as opposed to a commentary). The term is also used to refer to a corpse, especially that of a monk or of the Buddha, both before and after cremation; in the latter case, the term is often translated as “relic” (śarīra). However, this is not always the meaning in the mortuary context, and the term śarīrapūjā, “worship of the śarīra,” often seems to mean the funeral ceremony for the Buddha or a monk, rather than the worship of relics. Relics entombed in a STŪPA were indeed worshipped; in those contexts, the term generally appears in the plural. In general, relics include whole-body relics (C. QUANSHEN SHELI; J. zenshin shari; K. chŏnsin sari)—e.g., the mummified remains of eminent masters—and partial-body relics (C. SUISHEN SHELI; J. saishin shari; K. swaesin sari)—e.g., portions of the physical body, such as a finger bone, TOOTH RELIC, or crystalline substances that are presumed to be the condensation of the sanctified remains of an enlightened person that occurs during cremation. Such physical remains were believed to represent the Buddha’s or the sages’ ongoing presence and power and have been objects of worship since the time of the Buddha’s own PARINIRVĀṆA. According to written sources, the śarīra left after the cremation of the Buddha were apportioned by the brāhmaṇa DROṆA, who divided the relics into eight shares and distributed them among the kingdoms of north India. Nevertheless, the “war of the relics” that was supposed to have broken out over the disposition of the relics—depicted on two friezes appearing on architraves on the southern and western gateways of the great STŪPA of SĀÑCĪ—probably never occurred. Emperor AŚOKA is said to have subsequently collected and redistributed these relics by erecting eighty-four thousand STŪPAs throughout his realm to enshrine them. Nineteen such stūpas were “discovered” in China before the Tang dynasty, among them one at Changgansi on Ayuwangshan and another on WUTAISHAN. Major śarīra like the finger bone of the buddha at FAMENSI also became the objects of fervent cults in medieval China. Buddhist scriptures, which were the “relics of the DHARMAKĀYA” (C. fashen sheli; J. hosshin shari; K. pŏpsin sari), also came to be enshrined in stūpas and Buddhists worshipped them just as they worshipped physical remains. See also DHARMAŚARĪRA; DHĀTU.

Sārnāth. The modern place name for a site approximately four miles outside of Vārāṇasī and the location of the Deer Park (MṚGADĀVA) in ṚṢIPATANA where the Buddha is said to have first “turned the wheel of dharma” (DHARMACAKRAPRAVARTANA), viz., delivered his first sermon. Sārnāth is thus considered one of the holiest sites in the Buddhist world and has long been an important place of pilgrimage. Seven weeks after the Buddha became enlightened at BODHGAYĀ, he started out for the Deer Park at Ṛṣipatana, where he met and preached to his five former ascetic companions, the PAÑCAVARGIKA. To these five men, the Buddha preached the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni). Of the five, the first to become enlightened was ĀJÑĀTAKAUṆḌINYA, followed shortly thereafter by the other four. Soon after the Buddha began teaching, a young man named YAŚAS arrived from Vārāṇasī with fifty-four other people, who all asked to be ordained. Later, Emperor AŚOKA had a large STŪPA and other monuments erected at the spot. When FAXIAN visited Sārnāth during his fifth-century pilgrimage, the site was an active religious center, with two monasteries and four stūpas. The monastic community was still thriving during the seventh century when XUANZANG visited. Today, the Dhamek stūpa is the major surviving architectural structure, likely the restoration of a stūpa dating back to the Aśokan period. Ruins of the monastery are also visible, along with an important edict on an Aśokan pillar forbidding activities that might cause a schism in the order (SAṂGHABHEDA).

Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra. (T. Ngan song thams cad yongs su sbyong ba’i rgyud; C. Zuisheng foding tuoluoni jingchu yezhang zhou jing; J. Saishōbutchōdarani jōjogōshōjukyō; K. Ch’oesŭng pulchŏng tarani chŏngje ŏpchang chu kyŏng 最勝佛頂陀羅尼淨除業障呪經). In Sanskrit, “Tantra on the Complete Purification of All Negative Places of Rebirth,” an important Indian tantra classified sometimes as a CARYĀTANTRA, but most commonly as a YOGATANTRA, associated with the SARVATATHĀGATATATTVASAṂGRAHA. In the text, ŚAKRA asks the Buddha ŚĀKYAMUNI about the fate of a deity named Vimalamaṇiprabha, who is no longer living in the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven. The Buddha explains that he has been reborn in the AVĪCI hell. The gods then ask the Buddha how to avoid rebirth in the three “evil destinies” (DURGATI) of animals, ghosts, and hell denizens. The Buddha sets forth a variety of rituals, including rituals for the four kinds of activities (ŚĀNTIKA, PAUṢṬIKA, VAŚĪKARAṆA, ABHICĀRA) as well as rituals for the dead. The text was widely commented upon in Tibet, where it was a major source of rituals for the fortunate rebirth of the dead.

sarvajñatā. (P. sabbaññu; T. kun shes/thams cad mkhyen pa; C. yiqie zhi; J. issaichi; K. ilch’e chi 一切智). In Sanskrit, “all-knower,” “all-knowledge,” or “omniscience”; in early versions of the perfection of wisdom (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) sūtras, the name for a buddha’s knowledge; later, the term was used for the knowledge of a ŚRĀVAKA or PRATYEKABUDDHA, in contrast to a buddha’s knowledge of all aspects (SARVĀKĀRAJÑATĀ), which is reached by cultivating a bodhisattva’s knowledge of the paths (MĀRGAJÑATĀ). The “all” (sarva) means all the grounds (vastu) of the knowledge of defiled (SAṂKLIṢṬA) and pure (viśuddha, see VIŚUDDHI) dharmas systematized in the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS. In the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA and VIMUKTISENA’s commentary to that text, sarvajñatā has both a positive and a negative meaning. In the opening verses of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, for example, sarvajñatā is called the mother of the perfection of wisdom. In such cases it is a positive term for the part of a buddha’s knowledge that is shared in common with śrāvakas, and so on. In the third chapter of the same work, sarvajñatā is a negative term used to identify the absence of skillful means (UPĀYA) and the lack of the total absence of subject-object conceptualization (GRĀHYAGRĀHAKAVIKALPA) in śrāvakas, in order to point clearly to the superiority of the BODHISATTVA path.

sarvajñatājñāna. (P. sabbaññutāñāṇa; T. thams cad mkhyen pa’i ye shes; C. yiqiezhi zhi; J. issaichichi; K. ilch’eji chi 一切智智). In Sanskrit, “omniscient knowledge”; a buddha’s knowledge of all the grounds (vastu) of the knowledge of defiled (SAṂKLIṢṬA) and purified (viśuddha, see VIŚUDDHI) dharmas systematized in the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS. In the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA and its commentarial tradition, sarvajñatājñāna also refers to the knowledge of the four noble truths in the mental continuum of a bodhisattva or buddha. See SARVAJÑATĀ.

sarvākārajñatā. (T. rnam pa thams cad mkhyen pa; C. yiqiezhong zhi; J. issaishuchi; K. ilch’ejong chi 一切種智). In Sanskrit, “knowledge of all aspects,” the preferred term in the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA and its commentaries for the omniscience of a buddha, which simultaneously perceives all phenomena in the universe and their final nature. When explained from the perspective of the goal that bodhisattvas will reach, the knowledge of all aspects is indicated by ten dharmas, among which are cittotpāda (cf. BODHICITTOTPĀDA), defining all the stages of all the Buddhist paths; AVAVĀDA, defining all the instructions relevant to those stages, the stages leading to the elimination of the subject-object conceptualization (GRĀHYAGRĀHAKAVIKALPA) along the entire range of accomplishments up to and including the state of enlightenment itself (see also NIRVEDHABHĀGĪYA); the substratum (GOTRA), objective supports (ĀLAMBANA) and aims (uddeśa) of the practice; and the practices (PRATIPATTI) incorporating the full range of skillful means (UPĀYAKAUŚALYA) necessary to turn the wheel of the dharma (DHARMACAKRAPRAVARTANA) in all its variety. When described from the perspective of the bodhisattva’s practice that leads to it, sarvākārajñatā has 173 aspects: twenty-seven aspects of a ŚRĀVAKA’s knowledge of the four noble truths (SARVAJÑATĀ), thirty-six aspects of a BODHISATTVA’s knowledge of paths (MĀRGAJÑATĀ) and one hundred ten aspects that are unique to a buddha. These are again set forth as the thirty-seven aspects of all-knowledge, thirty-four aspects of the knowledge of the paths, and the thirty-nine aspects of the knowledge of all aspects itself. See also ĀKĀRA.

Sarvamaṇḍalasāmānyavidhiguhyatantra. (T. Gsang ba spyi rgyud; C. Ruixiye jing; J. Suikiyakyō; K. Yuhŭiya kyŏng 蕤

耶經). In Sanskrit, “Secret Tantra for the Common Ritual for all MAṆḌALAs”; a text that belongs, according to Tibetan categorization of tantras, to the KRIYĀTANTRA class.

Sarvāstivāda. (T. Thams cad yod par smra ba; C. Shuo yiqieyou bu/Sapoduo bu; J. Setsuissaiubu/Satsubatabu; K. Sŏrilch’eyu pu/Salbada pu

一切有部/薩婆多部). In Sanskrit, “Teaching that All Exists,” one of the most influential of all the mainstream (that is, non-Mahāyāna) schools of Indian Buddhism, named after its doctrine that all conditioned factors (DHARMA) continue to exist (sarvam asti) throughout all three time periods (TRIKĀLA) of past, present, and future. The Sarvāstivāda had one of the most elaborate ABHIDHARMA canons (ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA) in all of Buddhism and the school was especially known for its distinctive and influential dharma theory. The Sarvāstivāda identified seventy-five dharmas that the school held were substantially existent (dravyasat) and endowed with intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA): viz., the five sense organs (INDRIYA), the five sense objects, nonmanifest materiality (AVIJÑAPTIRŪPA), mind (CITTA), forty-six mental concomitants (CAITTA), fourteen conditioned forces dissociated from thought (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA), and three unconditioned (ASAṂSKṚTA) factors. Although the conditioned dharmas always existed, they still were impermanent and thus still moved between temporal periods because of specific “forces dissociated from thought” (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA): the “compounded characteristics” (SAṂSKṚTALAKṢAṆA, CATURLAKṢAṆA) of origination (JĀTI), continuance (STHITI), “senescence” or decay (JARĀ), and “desinence,” viz., extinction (ANITYATĀ). In the Sarvāstivāda treatment of causality, these four characteristics were forces that exerted real power over compounded objects, escorting those objects along the causal path until the force “desinence” finally extinguished them; this rather tortured explanation was necessary in order to explain how factors that the Sarvāstivāda school posited continued to exist in all three time periods yet still appeared to undergo change. Even after enlightenment, those dharmas still continued to exist, although they were then effectively “canceled out” through the force of the “nonanalytical suppressions” (APRATISAṂKHYĀNIRODHA), which kept in check the production of all types of dharmas, ensuring that they remained positioned in future mode forever and were never again able to arise in the present. This distinctive dharma theory of the Sarvāstivāda was probably what the MADHYAMAKA philosopher NĀGĀRJUNA was reacting against in his clarion call that all dharmas were devoid of intrinsic existence (NIḤSVABHĀVA) and thus characterized by emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). The Sarvāstivāda school’s elaborate abhidharma was also the inspiration for the still more intricate “Mahāyāna abhidharma” of the YOGĀCĀRA school (see BAIFA), which drew much of its classification scheme and many of its specific dharmas directly from the Sarvāstivāda. In describing the path of the ARHAT, the Sarvāstivāda set forth a five-stage path system (PAÑCAMĀRGA, of accumulation/equipment, preparation, vision, cultivation, and no further learning) for the ARHAT and asserted that the BODHISATTVA practices six perfections (PĀRAMITĀ) in the course of his training. This five-stage path was also adopted by the Yogācāra in its own theory of the bodhisattva MĀRGA. The Sarvāstivāda developed an elaborate view of the Buddha and the events of his life, as represented in the famous LALITAVISTARA. In its view of death and rebirth, Sarvāstivāda accepted the reality of the “intermediate state” (ANTARĀBHAVA) between rebirths, which in the Sarvāstivāda analysis could range from instantaneous rebirth, to rebirth after a week, indeterminate duration, and as many as forty-nine days; the latter figure seems to have become dominant in later traditions, including Mahāyāna, after it was adopted by the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA and the YOGĀCĀRABHŪMI. The Sarvāstivāda was one of the main subgroups of the STHAVIRANIKĀYA (School of the Elders), which split with the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA in the first centuries following the Buddha’s death. The Sarvāstivāda evolved as one of the three major subdivisions of the Sthaviranikāya, perhaps as early as a century or two following the first schism, but certainly no later than the first century CE. Sarvāstivāda was one of the most enduring and widespread of the mainstream Buddhist schools. It was especially important in northern India in such influential Buddhist regions as KASHMIR and GANDHĀRA and eventually along the SILK ROAD in some of the Indo-European petty kingdoms of the Tarim River basin, such as KUCHA. Its geographical location along the major overland trade routes also led to it becoming the major mainstream school known to East Asian Buddhism. The Sarvāstivāda school includes an important subgroup, the VAIBHĀṢIKA (“Followers of the Vibhāṣā”), who were the ĀBHIDHARMIKAs associated with the Sarvāstivāda school, especially in Kashmir in northwestern India but also in Gandhāra and even BACTRIA. Because these masters considered their teachings to be elaborations of doctrines found in the encyclopedic Sarvāstivāda abhidharma treatise, the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ, they typically referred to themselves as Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika or simply Vaibhāṣika. This group was later also distinguished from the MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA (“Root Sarvāstivāda”), a distinction that may have originated in a dispute over VINAYA recensions between the northwestern Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika school in Kashmir and Gandhāra and the Sarvāstivāda school of MATHURĀ in north-central India. The Mūlasarvāstivāda is best known for its massive MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA VINAYA, one of the oldest and by far the largest (by up to a factor of four) of the major monastic codes (see VINAYAPIṬAKA) of the mainstream Buddhist schools; because of its eclectic content, it functioned almost as a proto-canon. The Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya is the monastic code still followed today in the Tibetan traditions of Buddhism. See also SAUTRĀNTIKA.

Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha. (T. De bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi de kho na nyid bsdus pa; C. Yiqie rulai zhenshishe dasheng xianzheng sanmei dajiaowang jing; J. Issainyorai shinjitsushō daijōgenshōzanmai daikyōōgyō; K. Ilch’e yŏrae chinsilsŏp taesŭng hyŏnjŭng sammae taegyowang kyŏng 一切如來眞實攝大乘現證三昧大敎王經). In Sanskrit, “Compendium of Principles of All the Tathāgatas”; one of the most important Buddhist tantras, whose influence extended through India, China, Japan, and Tibet. Likely dating from the late seventh century, the text presented a range of doctrines, themes, and practices that would come to be regarded as emblematic of tantric practice. These include the the view that ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha did not actually achieve enlightenment under the BODHI TREE but did so through ritual consecration. The commentaries to the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha recount that Prince SIDDHĀRTHA was meditating on the banks of the NAIRAÑJANĀ River when he was roused by the buddha VAIROCANA and all the buddhas of the ten directions, who informed him that such meditation would not result in the achievement of buddhahood. He thus left his physical body behind and traveled in a mind-made body (MANOMAYAKĀYA) to the AKANIṢṬHA heaven, where he received various consecrations and achieved buddhahood. He next descended to the summit of Mount SUMERU, where he taught the YOGATANTRAs. Finally, he returned to the world, reinhabited his physical body, and then displayed to the world the well-known defeat of MĀRA and the achievement of buddhahood under the Bodhi tree. The tantra also include the violent subjugation of Maheśvara (Śiva) by the wrathful bodhisattva VAJRAPĀṆI, suggesting competition between Hindu and Buddhist tantric practitioners at the time of its composition and the increasing importance of violent imagery in Buddhist tantra. Such important elements as the five buddha families (PAÑCATATHĀGATA) and the practice of visualizing oneself as a deity also appear in the text. The tantra is also important for the prominment role given to the buddha Vairocana. In East Asia, the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha was particularly influential in the form of the VAJRAŚEKHARA, the reconstructed Sanskrit title derived from the Chinese translations of the first chapter of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha made by VAJRABODHI and AMOGHAVAJRA during the Tang dynasty. This would become a central text for the esoteric traditions of China and Japan. The full text of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha was not translated into Chinese until Dānapāla completed his version in 1015. Ānandagarbha (fl. c. 750) wrote an important commentary on the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha called Tattvālokakarī (“Illumination of the Compendium of Principles Tantra”), and Śākyamitra (fl. c. 750) wrote a commentary called Kosalālaṃkāra (“Ornament of Kosala”). Ānandagarbha’s maṇḍala ritual called Sarvavajrodayamaṇḍalavidhi is a ritual text based on the first chapter of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha. The tantra was very influential in Tibet during both the earlier dissemination (SNGA DAR) and the later dissemination (PHYI DAR) periods. Classified as a yogatantra, it was an important source during the later period, for example, for such scholars as BU STON RIN CHEN GRUB and TSONG KHA PA in their systematizations of tantra.

sarvatraga. (T. kun ’gro; C. bianxing; J. hengyō; K. p’yŏnhaeng 遍行). In Sanskrit, “all-pervasive” or “omnipresent”; referring specifically to the five omnipresent (sarvatraga) mental concomitants (CAITTA) that are present to varying degrees in all conscious states according to the analysis of the YOGĀCĀRA ABHIDHARMA. These five factors are: sensory contact (SPARŚA), sensation (VEDANĀ), volition (CETANĀ), perception or discrimination (SAṂJÑĀ), and attention (MANASKĀRA). It is not possible to identify consciousness or mind (CITTA) except through these omnipresent factors; each has a specific mental function, and when these functions operate together they produce what is conventionally called a conscious state or mind. Thus manaskāra functions as a basic level of mental activity; cetanā functions to make consciousness nonarbitrary, giving consciousness intention relative to its object; sparśa functions to connect consciousness with its object; vedanā extends mere contact into the realm of sentient experience; and saṃjñā functions to differentiate and identify a particular object. These five factors are included among the ten MAHĀBHŪMIKA dharmas in the seventy-five dharmas of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school. In the Pāli ABHIDHAMMA, there are seven mental factors (P. cetisika) that are associated with all states of consciousness, these five together with concentration (SAMĀDHI) and mental vitality (JĪVITA).

sarvatragahetu. (T. kun ’gro’i rgyu; C. bianxing yin; J. hengyōin; K. p’yŏnhaeng in 遍行因). In Sanskrit, “allpervasive,” or “universally active,” “cause,” the fifth of the six types of causes (HETU) outlined in the JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA, the central text of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA. This type of cause refers to the fact that the unwholesome proclivities (ANUŚAYA) of mind produce not only identical types of subsequent proclivities, but also serve as the root cause of all other types of afflictions, thus obstructing a person’s capacity to understand the true nature of reality. The unwholesome cause and effect must occur in the same realm (such as the RŪPADHĀTU), but the cause and effect can be different types of unwholesome states, e.g., ignorance can produce attachment.

Sarvodaya. Also known as Sarvodaya Shramadana, a reform movement founded in Sri Lanka in 1958 by A. T. Ariyaratne. This lay Buddhist movement sought to promote, as its name suggests, “the welfare of all” through “the donation of labor,” especially at the local level, through various public works and relief projects, such as building roads, digging wells, and bringing better healthcare and farming techniques to the village. Sarvodaya also sought to reestablish what it considered to be the traditional relationship between the village and its monastery.

Sasaki, Ruth Fuller. (1892–1967). An influential Western scholar of the CHAN (ZEN) Buddhist tradition. Ruth Fuller Everett had been married to Charles Everett, who died in 1940. She was introduced to Asian religions while living in Nyack, New York, and more specifically to Buddhism while on a world cruise that took her and her husband to Japan in 1930. There, she met DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI. Two years later, she returned to Japan and spent more than three months at the monastery of NANZENJI, where she was allowed to practice with the monks. She met ALAN WATTS when she traveled to London with her daughter Eleanor, who married Watts in 1938, the same year that Fuller joined Sokei-an, Shigetsu Sasaki’s Buddhist Society of America, and began to edit the Society’s Journal (The Cat’s Yawn). Fuller and Sasaki translated the YUANJUE JING (“Perfect Enlightenment Sūtra”) together. Sasaki was imprisoned in 1942 during the American internment of Americans of Japanese heritage in World War II. In prison, his health deteriorated. Fuller and Sasaki were married in 1944, but he died in 1945, at which time Fuller became the leader of the Zen Institute in New York City. She moved to Japan in 1949 in order to find a teacher for the Institute and finish translating her husband’s work. Fuller was ordained in 1958, and traveled between Japan and the United States until her death in 1967. She published Zen Dust with Miura Isshū, and Zen: A Method for Religious Awakening.

śāsana. (P. sāsana; T. bstan pa; C. shengjiao; J. shōgyō; K. sŏnggyo 聖教). In Sanskrit, “dispensation,” “teachings”; the Buddha’s teachings especially as conceived historically as an institutionalized religion; a common term for the teachings of the Buddha, or what is typically known in the West as “Buddhism.” The Pāli commentaries analyze the teachings of the Buddha according to both a twofold and threefold system of classification. The twofold dispensation is comprised of the “teaching for monks” (P. bhikkhusāsana) and “teaching for nuns” (P. bhikkhunīsāsana). The threefold dispensation is comprised of the “teaching on scriptural study” (P. pariyattisāsana), “teaching on practice” (P. paṭipattisāsana), and the “teaching on realization” (P. paṭivedhasāsana). According to this system, scriptural study constitutes the foundation of the Buddha’s teaching, without which there can be no successful practice of the path (MĀRGA) and hence no realization of the Buddhist truths or of enlightenment. The same Pāli commentaries state that the teachings of GAUTAMA Buddha will last for five thousand years and propose a variety of scenarios as to how it will suffer gradual decline until its complete disappearance (see ANTARADHĀNA). According to the THERAVĀDA calculation, the śāsana reached its halfway point in 1956.

Sāsanavaṃsa. In Pāli, “Chronicle of the Dispensation,” an ecclesiastical history written by the Burmese (Myanmar) scholiast Paññāsāmi at Mandalay in 1861. Written from the perspective of the royally sponsored THUDHAMMA Council, the text purports to record the history of the THERAVĀDA saṅgha from the time of the Buddha, through its introduction into Burma in ancient times, up to the author’s own period. Based on the earlier Burmese-language Buddhist chronicle, Thathanalinkara Sadan (1831), the Sāsanavaṃsa was the last of a series of such chronicles, all representing the Thudhamma point of view, to be produced during the Konbaung dynasty (1752–1885). The text was edited for the PALI TEXT SOCIETY by Mabel Bode in 1897, and was translated as The History of the Buddha’s Religion by B. C. Law in 1952.

sāsanavisodhana. In Pāli, “purification of the Buddha’s teaching”; referring specifically to the expulsion of malefactors and heretics from the congregation of Buddhist monks and nuns (P. saṅgha; S. SAṂGHA). It is typically, but not necessarily followed by a communal recitation (SAṂGĪTI) of the Buddhist canon (P. tipiṭaka; S. TRIPIṬAKA) by the newly purified and reunited saṅgha. The monastic code (VINAYA) severely limits the ability of the saṅgha as a body or its leaders to force the secession of false monks, monks guilty of PĀRĀJIKA offenses, schismatics, or heretics. For this reason this authority has been ceded by historical precedent and tradition (but not by vinaya law) to the state, embodied ideally in the person of the pious Buddhist king. In the Pāli tradition, the ultimate paradigm for royal interventionism in saṅgha affairs is King Dhammāsoka (see AŚOKA), who is portrayed in the Pāli chronicles of Sri Lanka and the Pāli commentaries as having purged the saṅgha of malefactors at the behest of the saṅgha and under the guidance of the elder MOGGALIPUTTATISSA. After the saṅgha was purified, Moggaliputtatissa convened the third Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, THIRD) to rehearse and reaffirm the Buddha’s true teachings. Cf. SIKKHĀPACCAKKHĀNA; ŚIKṢĀDATTAKA.

Sa skya. (Sakya). In Tibetan, lit. “gray earth”; a principal sect and monastery of the Tibetan tradition. The Sa skya was politically powerful during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and renowned for its scholastic training and emphasis on the tantric system of LAM ’BRAS, or “path and result.” Its name is derived from the sect’s original institution of Sa skya monastery (see infra), which was named after a place by that name, meaning “gray earth”; the monastery is painted with a distinctive gray-blue wash. Sa skya doctrinal history extends back to the Indian adept VIRŪPA, who is considered a primary source for the instructions on the HEVAJRATANTRA and lam ’bras, and the Tibetan translator ’BROG MI SHĀKYA YE SHES, who carried these teachings to Tibet. The founding of the Sa skya sect in Tibet is attributed to members of the ancient ’Khon family including DKON MCHOG RGYAL PO, a disciple of ’Brog mi. Dkon mchog rgyal po founded Sa skya monastery in 1073, with its tantric practice based on the new tantras that were then being brought from India; Sa skya is thus one of the “new translation” (GSAR MA) sects. His son SA CHEN KUN DGA’ SNYING PO promulgated the seminal Sa skya instructions on the Hevajratantra and lam ’bras. In 1247 the acclaimed scholar SA SKYA PAṆḌITA KUN DGA’ RGYAL MTSHAN fashioned an agreement with the Mongol ruler Godan Khan, in which the Tibetan monk was granted supreme political authority in Tibet. Later, Sa skya Paṇḍita’s nephew, ’PHAGS PA BLO BROS RGYAL MTSHAN formed a similar agreement with Qubilai Khan, establishing Sa skya rule into the fourteenth century. The principal leaders of the Sa skya were traditionally chosen from among members of the ’Khon family and the position of SA SKYA KHRI ’DZIN, or “Sakya Throne Holder,” continues to be a hereditary, as opposed to an incarnation-based, position. Beginning in the fifteenth century several branches of the Sa skya sect developed. The NGOR subsect was established by KUN DGA’ BZANG PO, known as Ngor chen (“great man of Ngor”), who founded a seat at NGOR E WAM CHOS LDAN in 1429. Blo gsal rgya mtsho (Losel Gyatso, 1502–1566), called Tshar chen (“great man of Tshar”), established the Tshar Sa skya lineage. Also counted among the greatest Sa skya masters are the SA SKYA GONG MA RNAM LNGA, the so-called “five Sa skya forefathers.” ¶ Sa skya is also the name of the monastery that is the monastic seat of the Sa skya sect of Tibetan Buddhism, located in Gtsang (Tsang) in central Tibet, and founded in 1073 by the Sa skya hierarch Sa chen kun dga’ snying po. It served as the site of Tibetan political power during the period of Sa skya dominance in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The central monastic complex is a massive, imposing structure, renowned for its extensive library.

Sa skya gong ma rnam lnga. (Sakya Gongma Namnga). In Tibetan, “five Sa skya forefathers,” or “five hierarchs of Sa skya.” Five great masters, the most illustrious scholar-saints of the aristocratic ’Khon family, revered as early founders and teachers of the SA SKYA sect of Tibetan Buddhism.

1. SA CHEN KUN DGA’ SNYING PO (1092–1158)

2. BSOD NAMS RTSE MO (1142–1182)

3. Grags pa rgyal mtshan (Drakpa Gyaltsen, 1147–1216)

4. SA SKYA PAṆḌITA KUN DGA’ RGYAL MTSHAN (1182–1251)

5. ’PHAGS PA BLO GROS RGYAL MTSHAN (1235–1280)

Kun dga’ snying po (called Sa chen) was instrumental in making the LAM ’BRAS tradition a central pillar of the Sa skya sect, Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (called Sa paṇ) was one of the greatest scholars Tibet has produced, and ’Phags pa (called Dharmarāja, T. Chos rgyal) forged an alliance with the Mongolian rulers of China and instituted Sa skya rule over much of Tibet in the thirteenth century. The different subsects of Sa skya all give the five an iconic role in their practices and rituals.

Sa skya khri ’dzin. (Sakya Tridzin). In Tibetan, lit. “throne holder of SA SKYA,” used as a title for the principal religious leader of the Sa skya sect of Tibetan Buddhism. It is a hereditary position assumed by male members (often a son or nephew) of the ancient ’Khon family that traces its lineage back to ’Khon DKON MCHOG RGYAL PO, who founded Sa skya monastery in 1073. The forty-first holder of the Sa skya throne, Ngag dbang kun dga’ theg chen dpal ’bar (Ngawang Kunga Tekchen Pelbar) (b. 1945), was born in southern Tibet. Following his enthronement at Sa skya monastery in 1959, he escaped the Chinese communist invasion by fleeing to India where he established a new seat near the former British hill station of Dehradun. He continues to travel throughout Asia, Europe, and North America, where he teaches to a wide audience.

Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan. (Sakya Paṇdita Kunga Gyaltsan) (1182–1251). Although associated primarily with the SA SKYA sect, Sa skya Paṇḍita is traditionally considered one of the greatest savants and religious luminaries in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. He authored a number of seminal philosophical treatises, and beyond his role as scholar and logician, played an instrumental role in forging a relationship with the Mongol court. The name Sa skya Paṇḍita is an honorific title, meaning “Scholar of Sa skya,” often abbreviated as Sa paṇ. Born into a renowned family, he was the grandson of SA CHEN KUN DGA’ SNYING PO and the nephew of the Sa skya BSOD NAMS RTSE MO and Grags pa rgyal mtshan (Drakpa Gyaltsen, 1147–1216), from whom he received teachings. Sa paṇ began his studies at a young age, and was quickly recognized as a prodigy. He studied extensively with the leading masters of his day, including scholars from the great centers of learning in India, such as ŚĀKYAŚRĪBHADRA, from whom he received BHIKṢU ordination in 1208. He excelled in all fields of Buddhist knowledge, especially Sanskrit grammar and poetics and the logical treatises on epistemology (PRAMĀṆA). In 1216, Grags pa rgyal mtshan passed away, and Sa paṇ became the principal religious master of Sa skya. The next twenty-eight years of his career were highly productive. It was during this time that he composed his pramāṇa masterpiece, TSHAD MA RIGS GTER (“Treasury of Logical Reasoning”) circa 1219, and his great synthetic doctrinal tract, SDOM GSUM RAB DBYE (“Clear Differentiation of the Three Vows”), in about 1232. He was renowned as both a debater (famously defeating a renowned Hindu scholar) and a polemicist, composing works critical of various doctrines of the rival BKA’ BRGYUD, RNYING MA, and JO NANG sects. In 1244 Sa paṇ received a summons to the court of the Mongol prince Godan for the purpose of negotiating the submission of Tibet to Mongol authority. Traveling slowly across Tibet together with his nephew and eventual successor ’PHAGS PA BLO GROS RGYAL MTSHAN, he reached the Mongol court and met with Godan in 1247. The prince was greatly impressed by Sa paṇ’s erudition, as well as his magical and medical powers; the prince is said to have converted to Buddhism after Sa paṇ cured him of a skin disease. Tibet was subsequently spared Mongol occupation, and the Sa skya sect, with Sa paṇ as its chief prelate, was granted political authority within Tibet, a position that was later passed on to ’Phags pa by Qubilai Khan. The relation of Sa paṇ, and later ’Phags pa, with the Mongol ruler would be cited as the paradigm of the so-called “priest-patron” (YON MCHOD) relationship. Sa paṇ did not live to return to Tibet, passing away at the capital of Godan’s court. Sa paṇ authored more than a hundred works and translated many texts from Sanskrit into Tibetan. Among his compositions, the five most famous are, including the two listed above: Legs bshad (“Elegant Sayings”), Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo (“Entrance Gate for the Wise”), and Thub pa’i dgongs gsal (“Elucidating the Intention of the Sage”).

sāsrava. (P. sāsava; T. zag bcas; C. youlou; J. uro; K. yuru 有漏). In Sanskrit, lit. “with outflows,” hence, “contaminated,” “tainted.” Just as a leaky roof lets in rain that destroys a residence and all its contents, the edifice of the five aggregates (SKANDHA) is a ruin dampened by the afflictions (KLEŚA) of greed, hatred, and delusion and riddled with the rot of KARMAN (viz., the formative forces left by the actions motivated by the afflictions). Sāsrava is similar in meaning to SAṂKLIṢṬA (defilement, affliction), although wider in application because unwholesome (AKUŚALA) and wholesome (KUŚALA) states are sāsrava if they lead to a future state with outflows, even if that is a fortunate state of happiness in this lifetime or the next. In this sense, sāsrava is a common designation for the aggregates (skandha) and refers to those objects that may serve as an occasion for the increase of kleśa. Thus, even an inanimate object can be considered “contaminated” in the sense that it can serve as a cause for the increase of the afflictions, such as greed. According to the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, only four dharmas are uncontaminated. Three of these are permanent: space (ĀKĀŚA), nonanalytical cessation (APRATISAṂKHYĀNIRODHA), and analytical cessation (PRATISAṂKHYĀNIRODHA), which would include NIRVĀṆA. The only impermanent dharma that is uncontaminated is the truth of the path or true path (MĀRGASATYA); technically, this would refer to the equipoise of nonperception (ASAṂJÑĀSAMĀPATTI) when absorbed in a perfect vision of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, or, in the MAHĀYĀNA, in the perfect vision of the emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) of all dharmas. The SĀSRAVASKANDHA (contaminated aggregates) is the entire heap of dharmas that make up a person (PUDGALA), with the sole exception of the NIRVĀṆA element, or in Mahāyāna the pure element (DHĀTU) that locates the lineage (GOTRA) of all beings destined for the final perfect enlightenment. The ABHIDHARMASAMUCCAYA gives six meanings for sāsrava, which it says can be (1) a contaminant (ĀSRAVA) itself, i.e., an actual kleśa, (2) the other parts of the mind that are necessarily present when obscuration (ĀVARAṆA) is present, (3) the aggregates when kleśa is operating, (4) the future contaminated aggregates that arise from the earlier cause, (5) the higher stages of the path because, although not governed by kleśa, they are tied up with thought construction, and (6) even the very final stage of the bodhisattva path, because it is affected by residual impressions left by earlier contaminated states.

sāsravaskandha. (P. sāsavakhandha; T. zag bcas kyi phung po; C. youlou yun; J. uroun; K. yuru on 有漏蘊). In Sanskrit, “aggregates associated with the contaminants,” the entire heap of dharmas, systematized as the “five aggregates that are the objects of clinging” (pañcopādānaskandha) that comprise the person (PUDGALA). See SĀSRAVA; SKANDHA.

śāstṛ. (P. satthar; T. ston pa; C. shi; J. shi; K. sa 師). In Sanskrit, “teacher”; referring to any teacher and a common epithet for the Buddha, who is often referred to as the “teacher of gods and men [or princes and people]” (śāstā devamanuṣyāṇām; see discussion in the conclusion to DEVA, s.v.). Among the various terms for a teacher in Buddhist literature, including GURU, ĀCĀRYA, and UPĀDHYĀYA, śāstṛ was a term of particular respect. In early Buddhist literature, it seems to have been reserved exclusively for the Buddha and past buddhas and not for disciples (ŚRĀVAKA) of the Buddha; thus, whenever the term “teacher” appears, it typically refers to the Buddha himself. To recognize the Buddha as the true teacher and to declare him as such is regarded as a central determinant of Buddhist identity. Outside the Buddhist community, the term was also used to refer to the so-called “six heterodox teachers,” such as PŪRAṆA KĀŚYAPA.

śāstra. (T. bstan bcos; C. lun; J. ron; K. non 論). In Sanskrit, “treatise,” a term used to refer to works contained in the various Buddhist canons attributed to various Indian masters. In this sense, the term is distinguished from SŪTRA, a discourse regarded as the word of the Buddha or spoken with his sanction. In the basic division of Buddhist scripture in the Tibetan canon, for example, the translations of śāstra (BSTAN ’GYUR) are contrasted with the words of the Buddha (or a buddha) called BKA’ ’GYUR. A Buddhist śāstra can be in verse or prose, and of any length, and it includes the different Sanskrit compositional genres (vṛtti, vārttika, bhāṣya, ṭīkā, vyākhyā, pañjikā, and so on) often rendered by the single English word “commentary.” In the Buddhist context, the genre is typically a form of composition that explains the words or intention of the Buddha. The word śāstra is found in the actual title of a number of works, for example, the Prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrakārikā, an alternate title of the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA, and the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhyā, another name for the RATNAGOTRAVIBHĀGA.

śāstṛsaṃjñā. (T. ston par ’du shes; C. dashi xiang; J. daishisō; K. taesa sang 大師想). In Sanskrit, “recognition as the teacher,” a term that appears especially in the MAHĀYĀNA sūtras in a variety of contexts. In addition to its denotation of recognizing the Buddha as the true teacher (ŚĀSTṚ), the Mahāyāna also claims that a bodhisattva should regard all other bodhisattvas as his teachers, as if they were the Buddha himself; one should regard as one’s teacher the person from whom one hears the perfection of wisdom (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ); one should regard the text of the prajñāpāramitā itself as one’s teacher; and one should regard all sentient beings as one’s teacher.

*śāstrapiṭaka. (C. lunzang; J. ronzō; K. nonjang 論藏). In Sanskrit reconstruction, “treatise basket,” a more inclusive designation for the ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA, the third “basket” of the Buddhist canon (TRIPIṬAKA), which expands this section of the canon to take in scholastic treatises (ŚĀSTRA) from the MAHĀYĀNA exegetical schools in addition to the ABHIDHARMA texts of the MAINSTREAM BUDDHIST SCHOOLS. The Sanskrit term appears in Western literature on the canon, but seems not to be attested in Indian sources (or in their Tibetan translation) and may be a back-translation from the Chinese locution lunzang. Since virtually the inception of Buddhism in China, the Mahāyāna tradition dominated. This allegiance is apparently why Chinese scriptural catalogues (JINGLU), since at least the time of the definitive KAIYUAN SHIJIAO LU (730), had listed Mahāyāna materials first in their respective rosters of SŪTRA and śāstra texts. This same order is subsequently followed in the traditional printed versions of the Chinese Buddhist canon (DAZANGJING; see also KORYŎ TAEJANGGYŎNG). To the Chinese, who proudly identified with the Mahāyāna, it must have seemed anathema to treat as canonical ABHIDHARMA works by the ARHAT-ĀBHIDHARMIKAs (such as KĀTYĀYANĪPUTRA or VASUMITRA) but not the scholastic treatises by the Indian BODHISATTVA-exegetes of Mahāyāna (such as NĀGĀRJUNA and ASUBANDHU) who were much more renowned to the Chinese. In order to give pride of place to the works of these influential Mahāyāna scholiasts, the Chinese listed them before abhidharma texts in the roster of śāstra materials collected in the Chinese Buddhist canon, and referred to this third basket more expansively as a “treatise basket” (lunzang) rather than merely an abhidharmapiṭaka.

śāśvatadṛṣṭi. (P. sassatadiṭṭhi; T. rtag lta; C. changjian; J. jōken; K. sanggyŏn 常見). In Sanskrit, “eternalism,” one of the two “extreme views” (ANTAGRĀHADṚṢṬI), along with “annihilationism” (UCCHEDADṚṢṬI). Eternalism is the mistaken belief or view that a self (ĀTMAN) exists independently of the five aggregates (SKANDHA) and that it continues to exist eternally, transmigrating from one rebirth to the next. Annihilationism (ucchedadṛṣṭi) is, by contrast, the mistaken belief that the self is the same as the aggregates and that the continuum (SAṂTĀNA) of consciousness ceases to exist at death. See also ŚĀŚVATĀNTA.

śāśvatānta. (P. sassata; T. rtag pa’i mtha’; C. changbian; J. jōhen; K. sangbyŏn 常邊). In Sanskrit, “extreme of eternalism”; one of the two extremes (along with the extreme of annihilationism, or UCCHEDĀNTA) included in the ANTAGRĀHADṚṢṬI, or “extreme views.” There are six root afflictions (MŪLAKLEŚA), according to the hundred-dharma list (BAIFA) of the YOGĀCĀRA ABHIDHARMA, the last of which is DṚṢṬI ([wrong] views); dṛṣṭi is further subdivided into five types of wrong views, which in turn include antagrāhadṛṣṭi. The “extreme view” refers specifically to the mistaken notion that (1) there is a perduring soul that continues to be reborn unchanged from one lifetime to the next, or (2) the continuum (SAṂTĀNA) of consciousness is annihilated at death and thus not subject to rebirth. The former view is called the extreme of eternalism (ŚĀŚVATADṚṢṬI; P. sassatadiṭṭhi); the latter, the extreme of annihilationism (UCCHEDADṚṢṬI; P. ucchedadiṭṭhi). The praise of the Buddha by NĀGĀRJUNA at the opening of his MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ says that the Buddha avoided these two and six other extremes (the extremes of cessation and production, coming and going, difference and sameness) by teaching that all dharmas are products of a process of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA) and are thus free from any essential nature (SVABHĀVA). Although variously defined, the term sāśvānta is generally used in descriptions of the view that phenomena possess a greater degree of permanence and reality than they in fact do, a tenet that is often ascribed to non-Buddhist schools, such as Sāṃkhya. The various schools of Buddhist philosophy also deploy the term polemically to denigrate the tenets of a rival. The SAUTRĀNTIKA school, for example, could claim that the Sarvāstivāda position that dharmas exist throughout all three time periods represented a mistaken attachment to the extreme of permanence; the MADHYAMAKA school could claim that the YOGĀCĀRA assertion that all objects have the nature of consciousness represented a mistaken attachment to the extreme of permanence. The extremes (anta) are contrasted with the middle (madhyama) that defines freedom from SAṂSĀRA, or, in Mahāyāna works, freedom from the extremes of both SAṂSĀRA and NIRVĀṆA. The Buddhist middle way (MADHYAMAPRATIPAD) between these two extremes posits that there is no permanent, perduring soul (countering eternalism), and yet there is karmic continuity from one lifetime to the next (countering annihilationism). See also SATKĀYADṚṢṬI.

śatadharma. In Sanskrit, “hundred factors”; the normative roster of factors (DHARMA) recognized in the YOGĀCĀRA school’s system of MAHĀYĀNA ABHIDHARMA. See BAIFA; and, for the full roster, the List of Lists.

Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa; C. Shiwansong bore; J. Jūmanju hannya; K. Simmansong panya 十萬頌般若). In Sanskrit, the “Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines,” the longest of the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtras. Some scholars regard the AṢṬASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ (eight thousand lines) to be the earliest of the prajñāpāramitā sūtras, which was then expanded into the Aṣṭadaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra (eighteen thousand lines) and the PAÑCAVIṂŚATISĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA (twenty-five thousand lines). According to this explanation, the most extensive of the expansions is the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, sometimes referred to as the “great mother [of the victors].” The composition sequence of these different sūtras is not as clear as once thought, however, and there appear to be parts of the Śātasāhasrikā not found in the Aṣṭa, which may go back to very early material. The text is in three major sections, with the first two expanding on the contents of the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā. The third section, which seems to be an independent text, contains discussions of topics such as the nature of enlightenment, the Buddha’s omniscience, the body of the Buddha, and the six perfections. Unlike the other two briefer expansions, the version in one hundred thousand lines omits four chapters that occur in the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā. It is said that after the Buddha taught the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, he entrusted it to the NĀGAs, who kept it in a jeweled casket in the bottom of the ocean, where it was eventually retrieved and brought to the human world by NĀGĀRJUNA.

*Śataśāstra. (C. Bai lun [alt. Bo lun]; J. Hyakuron; K. Paek non 百論). In Sanskrit, lit., “The Hundred Treatise,” a work attributed to the MADHYAMAKA master ĀRYADEVA, and counted as one of the “three treatises” of the SAN LUN ZONG of Chinese Buddhism, together with the Zhong lun (“Middle Treatise”) and SHI’ERMEN LUN (“Twelve Gate Treatise”), both attributed to NĀGĀRJUNA. The Zhong lun is ostensibly a translation of Nāgārjuna’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ; however, KUMĀRAJĪVA’s translation (dated 409) also contains his own annotation and a commentary to Nāgārjuna’s text by Piṅgala (fl. fourth century CE). The Shi’ermen lun (*Dvādaśamukhaśāstra) is also attributed to Nāgārjuna and is purportedly an introductory manual to the Zhong lun. The Śataśāstra was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva in 404. No Sanskrit or Tibetan recensions of the work are known to exist; the Sanskrit title is a reconstruction. Some have speculated that the work is an abbreviated version of Āryadeva’s most famous work, the CATUḤŚATAKA. The two works consider many of the same topics, including the nature of NIRVĀṆA and the meaning of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) in a similar fashion and both refute Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika positions, but the order of their treatment of these topics and their specific content differ; the Śatakaśāstra also contains material not found in the Catuḥśataka. The Śataśāstra is therefore probably not a mere summary of the Catuḥśataka, but may instead represent Kumārajīva’s interpretation of Āryadeva’s text.

śāṭhya. (P. sāṭheyya; T. g.yo; C. kuang; J. ō; K. kwang 誑). In Sanskrit, “dissimulation” or “deception”; the sixth of the twenty secondary afflictions (UPAKLEŚA) in the SARVĀSTIVĀDA list of seventy-five dharmas. Śāṭhya is the attempt to conceal one’s faults out of a desire to receive goods or services from others. Dissimulation is said to prevent one from meeting spiritual mentors (KALYĀṆAMITRA) in this or subsequent lives. Dissimulation differs from deceit (MĀYĀ) in that deceit is the pretension to have good qualities that one in fact lacks, while dissimulation is the concealment of faults that one possesses.

Satipaṭṭhānasutta. (S. *Smṛtyupasthānasūtra; T. Dran pa nye bar bzhag pa’i mdo; C. Nianchu jing; J. Nenjogyō; K. Yŏmch’ŏ kyŏng 念處經). In Pāli, “Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness”; the tenth sutta in the MAJJHIMANIKĀYA (a separate SARVĀSTIVĀDA recension appears as the ninety-eighth SŪTRA in the Chinese translation of the MADHYAMĀGAMA; there is another unidentified recension in the Chinese translation of the EKOTTARĀGAMA). An expanded version of the same sutta, titled the “Great Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness” (MAHĀSATIPAṬṬHĀNASUTTANTA), which adds extensive discussion on mindfulness of breathing (P. ānāpānasati, S. ĀNĀPĀNASMṚTI), is the twenty-second sutta in the Pāli DĪGHANIKĀYA. This sutta is one of the most widely commented upon texts in the Pāli canon and continues to hold a central place in the modern VIPASSANĀ (S. VIPAŚYANĀ) movement. The sutta was preached by the Buddha to a gathering of disciples in the town of Kammāsadhamma in the country of the Kurus. The discourse enumerates twenty-one meditation practices for the cultivation of mindfulness (P. sati, S. SMṚTI), a term that refers to an undistracted watchfulness and attentiveness, or to recollection and thus memory. In the text, the Buddha explains the practice under a fourfold rubric called the four foundations of mindfulness (P. satipaṭṭhāna, S. SMṚTYUPASTHĀNA). The four foundations are comprised of “contemplation of the body” (P. kāyānupassanā, S. KĀYĀNUPAŚYANĀ); “contemplation of sensations” (P. vedanānupassanā, S. vedanānupaśyanā), that is, physical and mental sensations (VEDANĀ) that are pleasurable, painful, or neutral; “contemplation of mind” (P. cittānupassanā, S. cittānupaśyanā), in which one observes the broader state of mind (CITTA) as, e.g., shrunken or expanded, while under the influence of various positive and negative emotions; and “contemplation of phenomena” (P. dhammānupassanā, S. dharmānupaśyanā), which involves the contemplation of several key doctrinal categories, such as the five aggregates (P. khandha, S. SKANDHA) and the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS. The first of the four, the mindfulness of the body, involves fourteen exercises, beginning with the mindfulness of the inhalation and exhalation of the breath (P. ānāpānasati, S. ĀNĀPĀNASMṚTI). Mindfulness of the breath is followed by mindfulness of the four physical postures (P. iriyāpatha, S. ĪRYĀPATHA) of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down. This is then extended to a full general awareness of all physical activities. Thus, mindfulness is something that is also meant to accompany all of one’s actions in the course of the day, and is not restricted to formal meditation sessions. This discussion is followed by mindfulness of the various components of the body, an intentionally revolting list that includes fingernails, bile, spittle, and urine. Next is the mindfulness of the body as composed of the four great elements (MAHĀBHŪTA) of earth, water, fire, and air. Next are the “contemplations on the impure” (P. asubhabhāvanā, S. AŚUBHABHĀVANĀ), viz., contemplation of a corpse in nine successive stages of decomposition. The practice of the mindfulness of the body is designed to induce the understanding that the body is a collection of impure elements that arise and cease in rapid succession, utterly lacking any kind of permanent self. This insight into the three marks of existence—impermanence, suffering, and no-self—leads in turn to enlightenment. Mindfulness of the body is presented as the core meditative practice, with the other three types of mindfulness applied as the meditator’s attention is drawn to those factors. The sutta calls the foundations of mindfulness the ekayānamagga, which in this context might be rendered as “the only path” or “the one way forward,” and states that correct practice of the four foundations of mindfulness will lead to the stage of the worthy one (P. arahant, S. ARHAT), or at least the stage of the nonreturner (P. anāgāmi, S. ANĀGĀMIN), in as little as seven days of practice, according to some interpretations. See also ANUPASSANĀ.

satkāyadṛṣṭi. (P. sakkāyadiṭṭhi; T. ’jig tshogs la lta ba; C. youshenjian; J. ushinken; K. yusin’gyŏn 有身見). In Sanskrit, “[wrong] view of a real person,” “view of a existent body”; the wrong view that the impermanent components of the body (KĀYA) are in fact real (sat). This wrong view is related to the (mis)conceptions of I (AHAṂKĀRA) and mine (MAMAKĀRA). It is classed as a type of afflicted view (kliṣṭadṛṣṭi), that is, a mistaken belief about a self in relation to the five aggregates (SKANDHA). In mainstream Buddhist materials, satkāyadṛṣṭi is listed as the first of ten fetters (SAṂYOJANA) that keep beings bound to the cycle of rebirth (SAṂSĀRA) and as the sixth of ten fundamental afflictions (MŪLAKLEŚA). Pāli materials delineate four types of satkāyadṛṣṭi for each of the five aggregates (P. khandha, S. SKANDHA), for a total of twenty varieties in all. The four types are: (1) the belief that the self is the same as the aggregates; i.e., the same as materiality (RŪPA), sensations (VEDANĀ), perception (SAṂJÑĀ), conditioning factors (SAṂSKĀRA), and consciousness (VIJÑĀNA); (2) the belief that the self is contained in the aggregates, (3) the belief that the self is different from the aggregates, and (4) the belief that the self is the owner of the aggregates. Satkāyadṛṣṭi is permanently eradicated by attaining the state of a stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA), the first of four degrees of sanctity (see ĀRYAPUDGALA).

satori. (悟). In Japanese, “awakening,” “enlightenment.” See WU; DUNWU; BODHI.

sattva. (P. satta; T. sems can; C. youqing/zhongsheng; J. ujō/shujō; K. yujŏng/chungsaeng 有情/衆生). In Sanskrit, “living being,” commonly translated into English as “sentient being”; a generic term for any being in the cycle of rebirth (SAṂSĀRA), including the five or six rebirth destines (GATI) of divinities (DEVA), demigods or titans (ASURA), humans (MANUṢYA), animals (TIRYAK), ghosts (PRETA), and hell denizens (NĀRAKA). Buddhism, unlike the JAINA tradition, does not generally accept that plants are endowed with consciousness and thus does not typically include plant life among sentient beings (although this claim later becomes a matter of debate within the tradition, especially in East Asia). The term sattva technically does not include buddhas and ARHATs, because they are no longer subject to rebirth. In the word BODHISATTVA and MAHĀSATTVA, sattva may retain a meaning closer to its mainstream Indian usage as “spiritual essence,” as in the Sāṃkhya school, where sattva is conceived as the spiritual, enlightening “strand” (guṇa) that interacts with tamas (dullness) and rajas (energy) to explain the dispositions of people and the changes that occur in the environment.

sattvakaṣāya. (T. sems can snyigs ma; C. zhongsheng zhuo; J. shujōjoku; K. chungsaeng t’ak 衆生濁). In Sanskrit, “degeneracy of beings,” one of the five signs of the degeneration of a world system that, according to Buddhist cosmology, occur between the time when the average human life span is one hundred years and when it is ten years. The term sattvakaṣāya refers to the fact that the intelligence and moral character of the beings who populate the world deteriorate during this period. See KĀṢĀYA; SAṂVARTAKALPA.

sattvaloka. (P. sattaloka; T. sems can ’jig rten; C. zhongsheng shijian/youqing shijian; J. shujō seken/ujōseken; K. chungsaeng segan/yujŏng segan 衆生世間/有情世間). In Sanskrit, “world of sentient beings”; a term used to refer to the sentient beings (SATTVA) who are the inhabitants of the realms of SAṂSĀRA. The sattvaloka is used in distinction to, and in conjunction with, its companion term BHĀJANALOKA, the “receptacle world” that is the physical environment or “container” for those sentient beings. The inanimate bhājanaloka and the animate sattvaloka together make up the three realms of existence (TRILOKA[DHĀTU]). The bhājanaloka is formed during the first of the twenty intermediate-length eons (KALPA) that make up the one great eon (MAHĀKALPA), called the “kalpa of creation” (VIVARTAKALPA); the sattvaloka comes into existence during the remaining nineteen intermediate-length kalpas as sentient beings begin to be reborn in the bhājanaloka, beginning in the heavens and ending in the hells. The disappearance of the sattvaloka takes the form of a gradual depopulation of the bhājanaloka during the “kalpa of dissolution” (SAṂVARTAKALPA). This process begins with the cessation of those beings’ rebirth in hell, which is followed by the dissolution of the hells themselves. (Those beings whose time in hell is not yet exhausted will be reborn in a hell in another universe.) The same twofold process then occurs for the realms of animals and ghosts. After that, seven suns appear in the sky, incinerating the remaining bhājanaloka, including Mount SUMERU, the four continents, and the subtle-materiality heavens of the first DHYĀNA. Beings in the first DHYĀNA who can achieve the second dhyāna escape destruction. When the kalpa of creation begins again, the bhājanaloka and the sattvaloka reappear due to the inertial force of the KARMAN of sentient beings. These two worlds and the world of the five aggregates (C. WUYUN SHIJIAN) together constitute the three types of world systems (C. SANZHONG SHIJIAN).

sattvaparyaṅka. (T. skyil krung). In Sanskrit, “heroic cross-legged posture,” the sattvaparyaṅka is a seated pose formed with both legs bent horizontally with the shins lying flat on the seat and one foot lying slightly in front of the other. See also ĀSANA.

sattvārdhaparyaṅka. (T. skyil krung phyed pa). In Sanskrit, “heroic half cross-legged posture,” the sattvārdhaparyaṅka is a seated pose similar to SATTVAPARYAṄKA, where one leg is bent horizontally with the shin lying flat on the seat and the other leg bent and hanging somewhat pendant. See also ĀSANA.

sattvārtha. (T. sems can gyi don; C. raoyi youqing; J. nyōyakuujō; K. yoik yujŏng 饒益有情). In Sanskrit, the “welfare of sentient beings,” a term that occurs in Buddhist morality in the phrase sattvārthakriyāśīla, “the precept of acting for the welfare of sentient beings,” the third of the bodhisattva’s “three sets of pure precepts” (trividhāni śīlāni, see ŚĪLATRAYA) as systematized in the BODHISATTVABHŪMI. This set refers to practices that accrue to the welfare of others, in distinction to the saṃvaraśīla, or “restraining precepts,” which refers to the HĪNAYĀNA rules of discipline (PRĀTIMOKṢA) that help adepts restrain themselves from all types of unwholesome conduct; and practicing all types of virtuous deeds (kuśaladharmasaṃgrāhakaśīla), which accumulates the various sorts of wholesome conduct. The welfare of sentient beings emphasizes a more active involvement in the lives of others through such deeds as nursing the sick, offering charity to the poor, protecting the helpless from harm, comforting the afflicted, and providing hospitality to travelers. It also includes more unusual forms of aid, such as using one’s supranormal powers to reveal to potential transgressors the consequences of suffering in hell. The welfare of sentient beings is ultimately achieved by teaching them the dharma. In the case of the bodhisattva, sarvasattvārtha, the “welfare of all sentient beings,” is one of the two goals that bodhisattvas have vowed to achieve, the other being buddhahood. It is said that by achieving buddhahood, the bodhisattva fulfills two aims or goals, his own welfare (SVĀRTHA) and the welfare of others (PARĀRTHA), the latter term being a synonym of sattvārtha. Of the three buddha bodies (BUDDHAKĀYA), the SAṂBHOGAKĀYA and NIRMĀṆAKĀYA are described as bodies that serve the welfare of others, and the DHARMAKĀYA is described as completing one’s own aims or welfare.

satya. (P. sacca; T. bden pa; C. di; J. tai; K. che 諦). In Sanskrit, “truth,” in the sense of that which is nondeceptive and exists as it appears. The term appears in two famous lists: the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni) that were set forth in the Buddha’s first sermon, the DHAMMACAKKAPPAVATTANASUTTA (S. DHARMACAKRAPRAVARTANASŪTRA); and the two truths (SATYADVAYA) discussed in the Buddhist philosophical schools and especially in MADHYAMAKA, viz., the conventional truth, or SAṂVṚTISATYA, and the ultimate truth, or PARAMĀRTHASATYA. In Madhyamaka, satya is also used in the compound satyasiddha, “truly existent” or “truly established,” to refer to a false degree of truth or autonomy imagined by ignorance. It is also found in the compound SATYAVACANA (“statement of truth”), where magical powers derive from the truth inherent in one’s words. In the MAHĀYĀNA, such solemn asseverations of truth reflect the power of a bodhisattva’s aspiration to bring about the welfare of all sentient beings. See also SANDI.

satyadvaya. (P. saccadvaya; T. bden pa gnyis; C. erdi; J. nitai; K. ije 二諦). In Sanskrit, “the two truths,” viz., “ultimate truth” (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) and “conventional truth” (SAṂVṚTISATYA). The two truths are central terms in Buddhist philosophy for categorizing the phenomena of the universe. Regardless of the school, the two truths are presumed to be exhaustive, with everything that exists, that is, all DHARMAs, falling into one of the two categories. This bifurcation is associated especially with the MADHYAMAKA school, but it occurs in other schools as well, with each providing its own view of what constitutes the two truths. In each case, however, conventional truths might be described as the objects of ordinary experience that tend to be misperceived by the unenlightened, by mistakenly ascribing to them a greater degree of reality than they in fact possess. Thus, despite being “truths,” conventional truths are falsely perceived, as implied in the term saṃvṛti, with its connotation of deception. Ultimate truths, literally “supreme object truths,” might be described as those realities that exist as they appear and whose direct perception can lead to liberation from rebirth. For the VAIBHĀṢIKA branch of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, a conventional truth is any phenomenon that can be either physically or mentally broken down into parts; an ultimate truth is a partless particle of matter or an indivisible moment of consciousness. For the YOGĀCĀRA, conventional truths are dependent phenomena (PARATANTRA) as well as permanent phenomena such as space (ĀKĀŚA); ultimate truths are consummate natures (PARINIṢPANNA). In Madhyamaka, conventional truths are all phenomena other than emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), which is the ultimate truth. The Chinese SAN LUN ZONG(Madhyamaka) master JIZANG (549–623) discusses the three stages of the two truths, in which each of these stages serves to correct any possible reification of Buddhist truth.

Satyadvayavibhaṅga. (T. Bden pa gnyis rnam par ’byed pa). In Sanskrit, “Distinction Between the Two Truths,” a work by the eighth-century MADHYAMAKA master JÑĀNAGARBHA. According to Tibetan classification, the work belongs to the SVĀTANTRIKA-MADHYAMAKA, and within that, the SAUTRĀNTIKA-SVĀTANTRIKA-MADHYAMAKA. This work, together with the MADHYAMAKĀLAṂKĀRA by ŚĀNTARAKṢITA and the MADHYAMAKĀLOKA of KAMALAŚĪLA are known in Tibet as the “three works of the eastern *SVĀTANTRIKAs” (rang rgyud shar gsum) because the three authors were from Bengal. The Satyadvayavibhaṅga is composed in verses (kārikā) and includes a prose autocommentary (vṛtti) by the author. There is also a commentary (pañjikā) by Śāntarakṣita, who is said to have been a student of Jñānagarbha. The text presumably takes its title from Nāgārjuna’s statement in his MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ: “Those who do not comprehend the distinction between these two truths do not know the nature of the profound doctrine of the Buddha.” The ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) is nondeceptive; its nature accords not with appearance, but with valid knowledge gained through reasoning (nyāya). It is also free from discursive thought (NIRVIKALPA). The conventional truth (SAṂVṚTISATYA) includes ordinary appearances, or as the text says, “whatever appears even to cowherds and women.” Within the category of the conventional, there are true and false conventions, which are distinguished based on their ability to perform a function (ARTHAKRIYĀ) in accordance with their appearance; thus water is a true convention and a mirage is a false convention. The work ends with a discussion of the three bodies (TRIKĀYA) of a buddha.

satyavacana. (P. saccavacana, [alt. saccakiriyā]; T. bden pa’i ngag; C. shiyu; J. jitsugo; K. sirŏ 實語). In Sanskrit, “asseveration of truth,” or “statement of truth”; a solemn declaration or oath in which the truth inherent in its words generates magical or protective powers (see PARITTA). For example, when Prince SIDDHĀRTHA first renounced the world and cut off his hair, he threw it into the air and said, “If I am to become a buddha, may it stay in the sky.” Due to this asseveration of truth, his hair was caught by the chief of the gods ŚAKRA, who enshrined it in a CAITYA in the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven. The Buddha’s disciple AṄGULIMĀLA offered a well-known asseveration of truth to help ease a woman’s labor pains: “Since I was born of āryan birth, O sister, I am not aware of having intentionally deprived any living being of its life. By this asseveration of truth, may you be well and may your unborn child be well.” (There is intentional irony in this statement, since Aṅgulimāla was a murderer before he became a monk; his “āryan birth” here refers to his ordination into the SAṂGHA.) In Buddhist literature, miraculous events are said to be a result of an asseveration of truth. Often, when a bodhisattva has given away some body part as an act of DĀNA (see DEHADĀNA; SHESHEN) that body part is restored as a result of one’s solemn declaration, as in the case of SADĀPRARUDITA. In the JĀTAKAMĀLĀ of Āryaśūra, Śakra appears in the form of a blind brāhmaṇa to test the generosity of King ŚIBI, one of the Buddha’s previous lives. The king goes blind when he donates his eyes to the brāhmaṇa, but his sight is restored when he makes a solemn statement of truth that his charity is sincere, articulating, in effect, the bodhisattva’s aspiration to seek the welfare of all beings (SATTVĀRTHA). According to another story, a young boy was bitten by a poisonous snake. The distraught parents stopped a passing monk and asked him to use his medical knowledge to save the child. The monk replied that the situation was so grave that the only possible cure was an asseveration of truth. The father said, “If I have never seen a monk that I did not think was a scoundrel, may the boy live.” The poison left the boy’s leg. The mother said, “If I have never loved my husband, may the boy live.” The poison retreated to the boy’s waist. The monk said, “If I have never believed a word of the dharma, but found it utter nonsense, may the boy live.” The boy rose, completely cured. Such is the power of the truth.

Saundarananda. (T. Mdzes dga’ bo). In Sanskrit, “Handsome Nanda,” the Indian philosopher-poet AŚVAGHOṢA’s verse recounting of NANDA’s transformation from enamored husband, to ascetic, and finally to enlightened ARHAT, written c. second century CE. “Handsome Nanda” is the epithet of NANDA, the younger half brother of the Buddha. The first half of this ornate poem provides a elaborate retelling of Nanda’s forced ordination into the Buddhist order, his humiliation due to his erotic attachments to both his wife Sundarī (a.k.a. JANAPADAKALYĀṆĪ NANDĀ) and various heavenly nymphs (APSARAS), and finally his decision to abandon carnality and seek enlightenment. In the second half of the poem, the Buddha offers Nanda instruction in moral and sensory restraint, leading up to the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS, and finally the achievement of the “deathless,” a synonym for NIRVĀṆA. The poem ends with the now-enlightened Nanda compassionately teaching to others the path to liberation. Aśvaghoṣa’s elaborate kāvya version of this well-known tale of conversion is a classic of early Indian Buddhist literature. There is some controversy over its influence and popularity, however, since unlike most of Aśvaghoṣa’s other works, there are no Indian commentaries, and the poem was never translated into either Chinese or Tibetan.

Sautrāntika. (T. Mdo sde pa; C. Jingliang bu; J. Kyōryōbu; K. Kyŏngnyang pu 經量部). In Sanskrit, “Followers of the Sūtras,” one of the “mainstream” (that is, non-MAHĀYĀNA) schools of Indian Buddhism, which may have been a dissenting offshoot of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school. Its name was apparently meant to distinguish this school from those ĀBHIDHARMIKAs who based themselves on ABHIDHARMA treatises, such as the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ. The Sautrāntika were “Followers of the Sūtras” because they were said to have rejected the validity of the abhidharma as being the word of the Buddha (BUDDHAVACANA) and advocated a doctrine of momentariness (KṢAṆIKAVĀDA), in which (again in distinction to the Sarvāstivāda) only present activity exists. No texts of the school are extant, but its positions are represented in the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, which presents the SARVĀSTIVĀDA-VAIBHĀṢIKA positions in detail, and as deficient relative to a putative Sautrāntika position. According to Tibetan accounts, VASUBANDHU, the author of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, wrote from the perspective of the Sautrāntika position even while he himself was a YOGĀCĀRA adherent. Similarly, some of the chapters of the Yogācāra DHARMAKĪRTI’s explanation of Dignāga’s logical system are written from the Sautrāntika perspective. According to ŚĀNTARAKṢITA and his student KAMALAŚĪLA, one major difference between the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika schools is their respective rejection or acceptance of SVASAṂVEDANA (“self-cognizing awareness”). Although both schools accept that atoms (PARAMĀṆU) build up to form external objects that are perceived by consciousness, the Vaibhāṣika say that the mind knows these objects directly, while the Sautrāntika position is that it knows them through images (ākāra). In late Indian and Tibetan classifications, the Sautrāntika and Vaibhāṣika are called the two ŚRĀVAKA schools (T. nyan thos sde pa), to distinguish them from the two Mahāyāna schools of YOGĀCĀRA and MADHYAMAKA.

sayadaw. In Burmese, an honorific used for a respected monk. The term was originally used specifically to designate the senior monk (mahathera) who was selected to serve as royal preceptor, but it eventually came to be used more generically as a term of respect for any eminent monk.

Sba bzhed. (Bashe). In Tibetan, the “Annals of Sba,” a ninth-century history of the early Tibetan dynastic period and the activities of King KHRI SRONG LDE BTSAN, traditionally attributed to the author Sba Gsal snang (Ba Salnang, c. late-eighth century)—a leading member of the Sba (Ba) clan and abbot of BSAM YAS monastery during the years leading up to the BSAM YAS DEBATE. The text thus discusses the founding of Bsam yas, the debate, and other events surrounding the establishment of Buddhism during the period. It contains the earliest reference to PADMASAMBHAVA, describing him as a water diviner. Modern scholarship tends to date the complete version of the work to the twelfth or even fourteenth century, although there are extant fragments that are likely earlier. The complete title is Sba bzhed ces bya ba las sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs.

sbas yul. (beyul). In Tibetan, “hidden land,” often translated as “hidden valley,” a paradisaical land whose existence is not often known until the land is “opened” by a lama (BLA MA). Such lands are typically located in southern Tibet, northern Nepal, and Sikkim and are associated especially with the RNYING MA sect as sites where PADMASAMBHAVA hid treasure texts (GTER MA). After converting the local gods to Buddhism, Padmasambhava “sealed” the lands so that they could be discovered at a time in the future and serve as a refuge from the vicissitudes of the world; the weather is clement, the harvests are good, and there is no disease or conflict. They are special places for the practice of TANTRA during the degenerate age of the dharma, where an adept can make rapid progress on the path; in this regard, they are akin to Buddhist PURE LANDs, even though they are located on earth. Hidden lands are considered safe havens, inaccessible to the enemies of the dharma and of Tibet, where one may live a long and peaceful life. According to some traditions, there are 108 hidden lands. In addition to concealing treasure texts in the hidden lands, Padmasambhava also left guidebooks for their discovery. One of the most famous of the hidden lands is PADMA BKOD.

Sde dge. (Derge). A region on the Tibet-China border, which until the 1950s was one of the most famous kingdoms in Khams; now incorporated into China’s Sichuan province. The kingdom with its twenty-five districts enjoyed the autonomy of an independent state throughout much of its existence. Included among its famous monasteries are DPAL SPUNGS, KAḤ THOG, RDZOGS CHEN, ZHE CHEN, and DPAL YUL. From the eighteenth century onward, its royal family supported a famous printery that became the repository of hundreds of thousands of woodblock prints. The printing of the entire BKA’ ’GYUR and BSTAN ’GYUR edited by TAI SI TU Gstug lag chos kyi ’byung gnas (1700–1774) and of the foundational texts of the SA SKYA and RNYING MA sects, among others, were started there in 1729 and completed in 1744. In the nineteenth century, the region became the center of the Khams RIS MED (nonsectarian) movement; many of the modern traditions of Tibetan Buddhism can be traced back to its founders ’JAM MGON KONG SPRUL, ’JAM DBYANGS MKHYEN BRTSE, and DPAL SPRUL RIN PO CHE.

Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho. (Desi Sangye Gyatso) (1653–1705). The third and final regent of the fifth DALAI LAMA NGAG DBANG BLO BZANG RGYA MTSHO, serving as regent of Tibet from 1679 until his death. He successfully concealed the death of the fifth Dalai Lama in 1682 for some fifteen years, in part to allow for the completion of the PO TA LA Palace. During this time, he served as ruler of Tibet, overseeing (and keeping secret) the discovery of the sixth Dalai Lama, TSHANGS DBYANGS RGYA MTSHO. In addition to being a skilled politician, Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho was one of the most learned and prolific authors in the history of Tibet, composing important treatises on all manner of subjects, including statecraft, ritual, astrology and calendrics, poetics, architecture, and court etiquette. He had a special interest in medicine, composing his famous treatise entitled BAIḌŪRYA SNGON PO and founding a medical college on Lcag po ri near the Po ta la. His largest literary project was his seven-thousand page work on the life of the fifth Dalai Lama and his previous incarnations. More than any other author, he was responsible for solidifying the mythic identity of the Dalai Lama as an incarnation of the bodhisattva AVALOKITEŚVARA and establishing the line of incarnations over the centuries in India and Tibet, which culminated in the person of the fifth Dalai Lama. He was a staunch supporter and active promoter of the DGE LUGS sect, greatly increasing the number of its monasteries and the size of its monastic population. After the Mongol chieftain Lha bzang Khan claimed rulership over Tibet in 1700, Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho agreed to share power with him, but was soon deposed. Armed conflict occurred between the factions despite a series of truces. Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho was captured and beheaded by Mongol troops in 1705.

sdom gsum. (domsum). In Tibetan, “three vows” or “three codes”; variously the three sets of vows or restraints (TRISAṂVARA) set forth in the śīlaparivarta (morality chapter) of the BODHISATTVABHŪMI; or (1) the seven sets of VINAYA rules that make up the PRĀTIMOKṢA code of the HĪNAYĀNA, (2) the three sets of vows or restraints defining bodhisattva morality in the BODHISATTVABHŪMI, and (3) the nineteen SAMAYAs that codify tantric morality, particularly as found in the Tibetan version of the VAJRAŚEKHARATANTRA. See also TRISAṂVARA, SAṂVARA, ŚĪLATRAYA.

Sdom gsum rab dbye. (Domsum Rapye). In Tibetan, “Clear Differentiation of the Three Vows,” an important work by the Tibetan master SA SKYA PAṆḌITA KUN DGA’ RGYAL MTSHAN. Composed in verse, around 1232, it deals with the three vows or codes: the PRĀTIMOKṢA vows, the BODHISATTVA vows, and the tantric vows (SAMAYA). In Tibet, it was considered possible, and in some cases ideal, for the Buddhist practitioner to receive and maintain all three sets of precepts: the monk’s precepts (prātimokṣa), which from the Tibetan perspective derived from the HĪNAYĀNA; the bodhisattva precepts, which derived from the MAHĀYĀNA, and the tantric precepts, which derived from the VAJRAYĀNA. However, there was a wide range of opinion on the relation among these three and how to resolve contradictions among them. The “Clear Differentiation of the Three Vows” is not an exposition of the three sets of precepts, but rather a polemical work in which Sa skya Paṇḍita criticizes interpretations of the three then current in the other sects of Tibetan Buddhism. Sa skya Paṇḍita’s own view, in brief, was that the prātimokṣa and the bodhisattva precepts provided the foundation for the tantric precepts, such that someone receiving tantric initiation should already hold the other two sets. The work provoked hostile responses from those whose views were criticized in the text, leading Sa skya Paṇḍita to reply to his critics in a series of letters. His text sparked the development in subsequent centuries of a genre of texts on the three vows or codes (SDOM GSUM).

Sdom gsum rnam nges. (Domsum Namnge). A work in the SDOM GSUM (three codes) genre by Mnga’ ris paṇ chen Padma dbang rgyal (Ngari Panchen Pema Wangyel, 1487–1542). It is a work of the RNYING MA sect, but is influenced both by the SDOM GSUM RAB DBYE and by works on ethics by TSONG KHA PA. It became widely known through LO CHEN DHARMA SHRI’s detailed explanation, which is a central part of the curriculum of many Rnying ma BSHAD GRWA (monastic schools).

seiban. (西班). In Japanese, “west rank”; the offices of the prefects (C. TOUSHOU) at a CHAN or ZEN monastery. These offices are often located on the west side of the monastery and are hence referred to as the west rank. On the east are the stewards (C. ZHISHI), who are thus referred to as the east section or rank. The CHANYUAN QINGGUI, for instance, refers to the stewards as the east section (C. dongxu) and the prefects as the west section (C. xixu).

Sekhasutta. In Pāli, “Discourse on the Disciple in Higher Training,” the fifty-third sutta in the MAJJHIMANIKĀYA (no precise equivalent appears in the Chinese translations of the ĀGAMAs, but the sūtra is cited in the DAZHIDU LUN, indicating it was known in other mainstream Buddhist traditions); preached by the Buddha’s attendant ĀNANDA to the leader of the Sakiya (ŚĀKYA) tribe, Mahānāma, and his entourage in the meeting hall of the Sakiyans in the city of Kapilavatthu (S. KAPILAVASTU). Ānanda teaches them about the higher training practiced by the disciple who has entered the path. Such a disciple practices morality (P. sīla, S. ŚĪLA) which includes observance of the monastic code, guarding the sense faculties, moderation in all things, and wakefulness. He is further possessed of seven wholesome qualities, including faith, a sense of shame, fear of blame, learning, energy, mindfulness, and wisdom. He is master of the four meditative absorptions (P. JHĀNA, S. DHYĀNA) and possesses the three knowledges (P. tevijja, S. TRIVIDYĀ). The three knowledges are comprised of (1) recollection of one’s previous existences (P. pubbenivasanusati, S. PŪRVANIVĀSĀNUSMṚTI); (2) the divine eye (P. dibbacakkhu, S. DIVYACAKṢUS) or the ability to see the demise and rebirth of beings according to their good and evil deeds; and (3) knowledge of the extinction of contaminants (P. āsavakkhayañāna, S. ĀSRAVAKṢAYAJÑĀNA), which encompasses knowledge of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS and is equivalent to arhatship.

sekishu kōan. (隻手公案). In Japanese, “the case of one-hand [clapping]”; a famous kōan (C. GONG’AN) attributed to the Japanese RINZAI ZEN master HAKUIN EKAKU (1685–1768), in which he asks, “What is the sound of one hand [clapping]?” The kōan is included in his 1752 collection Yabukōji, along with Hakuin’s autocommentary. The sekishu kōan came to be used within some Rinzai kanna Zen (see KANHUA CHAN) systems as the first case given to neophytes in Zen training and, along with the mu kōan (C. WU GONG’AN), continues to be one of the emblematic kōans used in Japanese Rinzai Zen circles.

sems sde. (sem de). In Tibetan, literally “mind class,” one of the three divisions of RDZOGS CHEN, together with KLONG SDE, or “expanse class,” and the MAN NGAG SDE, or “instruction class.” It appears that the three classes were created simultaneously rather than sequentially, probably dating to the PHYI DAR, or later period of the dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet, that began in the eleventh century. It is possible that the classification scheme was invented by members of the Zur clan, who were involved in codifying the RNYING MA texts that were circulating at that time. Within the threefold division, the texts classified do not necessarily share a single set of characteristics. However, it can be said that the works in the sems sde are often earlier than those in the other two classes. The root tantra of the sems sde is the KUN BYED RGYAL PO, where a number of short early-period rdzogs chen texts were gathered into a single new tantra. The sems sde works tend toward simple, evocative statements that deny the need for any practice or moral concerns.

Senart, Émile. (1847–1928). French Indologist who made significant contributions to the study of Indian Buddhism. His knowledge of Middle Indic languages allowed him to do important work on Indian epigraphy, most notably the edicts of AŚOKA, in his Les inscriptions de Piyadasi, first published in a series of articles in Journal Asiatique between 1881 and 1886. His research suggested that the Aśoka inscriptions represented a popular Buddhism in which following an ethical code led to rebirth in heaven, with less emphasis on NIRVĀṆA. His most famous and controversial work was on the biography of the Buddha, presented in his Essai sur la légende du Buddha (1882). There, he argued that the life of the Buddha was not a series of originally historical events that over time became encrusted with legendary elements, but rather that those mythological elements of the Buddha’s life formed a coherent whole that was fully formed in India before the Buddha’s birth, with the Buddha as a solar deity. His argument was famously opposed by HERMANN OLDENBERG. Senart also argued that a pre-classical version of Yoga played a significant role in the formation of Buddhist thought and practice. Senart also made major contributions through his editing of Buddhist texts. Among his editions, the most substantial was his three-volume edition of the MAHĀVASTU, published between 1882 and 1897. He was also among the first to study the KHAROṢṬHĪ fragments of the DHARMAPADA. See also DHAMMAPADA.

Senchakushū. (選擇集). In Japanese, “Collection of Selections,” composed by the Japanese PURE LAND monk HŌNEN in 1198; also known as Senjakushū or Senchaku hongan nenbutsushū (“Collection of Selections on Nenbutsu and the Original Vow”). Hōnen’s Senchakushū is one of the most influential texts in Japan on the practice of nenbutsu (see NIANFO), i.e., the invocation of the name of the buddha AMITĀBHA; it is also traditionally regarded as the founding scripture of the JŌDOSHŪ tradition of Japanese pure land. Relying on the three pure land sūtras (JINGTU SANBUJING, viz., the longer and shorter SUKHĀVATĪVYŪHASŪTRA and the GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING) and a number of important commentaries by SHANDAO and TANLUAN, Hōnen attempted to elucidate the importance of the practice of nenbutsu in the context of Amitābha’s original vows as described in the Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra. He first cites DAOCHUO’s division of Buddhist practice into that of the sacred path (that is, the traditional Buddhist path) and the pure land path, and then cites SHANDAO’s division into proper and miscellaneous. These divisions are used as an argument for the practice of exclusive nenbutsu. Hōnen then demonstrates that exclusive nenbutsu is the practice advocated by Amitābha in his original vows. In the next few sections of his text, Hōnen also mentions the benefits of exclusive nenbutsu and explains why this practice is most appropriate for those in the age of the final dharma (J. mappō; see MOFA). The other sections of the Senchakushū provide further scriptural evidence for the importance of nenbutsu and discuss the proper method for practicing it. At Hōnen’s request, the work was not widely circulated until after his death. Numerous commentaries on this text exist in Japanese.

Sengai Gibon. (仙崖義梵) (1750–1837). Japanese ZEN monk in the RINZAISHŪ, known for his whimsical teachings, his poetry, and especially for his calligraphy and sumi-e paintings. His best-known work in the West is a simple ink drawing of a circle, triangle, and square. He spent much of his life at SHŌFUKUJI, where he served as abbot.

Sengcan. (J. Sōsan; K. Sŭngch’an 僧粲) (d. 606?). Chinese monk and reputed third patriarch of the CHAN tradition. Although the influential Chan poem XINXIN MING (“Faith in Mind”) is attributed to Sengcan, little is actually known of this mysterious figure, and he may simply have been a later invention created to connect the BODHIDHARMA-HUIKE line of early Chan with the East Mountain teachings (DONGSHAN FAMEN) of DAOXIN (580–651) and HONGREN (602–675). Most of what is known of Sengcan is constructed retrospectively in such early Chan genealogical histories as the BAOLIN ZHUAN, LENGQIE SHIZI JI, CHUAN FABAO JI, and LIDAI FABAO JI, and in later Chan histories known as “transmission of the lamplight records” (CHUANDENG LU). Sengcan is claimed to have studied under Huike, the first Chinese disciple of the Chan founder, Bodhidharma, and the second patriarch of the Chan school. During Emperor Wu’s (r. 502–549) persecution of Buddhism, Sengcan is said to have gone into hiding and later resided on Mt. Sikong in Shuzhou (present-day Anhui province). The Lengqie shizi ji and Chuan fabao ji claim that Daoxin became Sengcan’s disciple sometime in the late-sixth century, but Daoxin’s connection to this dubious figure is tenuous at best and most probably spurious. Sengcan was later given the posthumous title Chan Master Jingzhi (Mirror-like Wisdom).

Sengguo. (J. Sōka; K. Sŭngkwa 僧果) (b. 408). In Chinese, “Fruition of the Saṃgha”; a Buddhist nun from Xiuwu in northern China during the Liu-Song dynasty (420–479), the first of the four short-lived southern dynasties that formed during the Six Dynasties period. Her biography, contained in the BIQIUNI ZHUAN, exemplifies several prevalent characteristics of early Chinese Buddhist nuns’ hagiographies. She engaged in a strict observance of the monastic rules (VINAYA), which inspired her disciples. Her contemplative practice, which began from a young age, was reputed to be so intense that it often produced trance states resembling death. She left secular life as an adult and practiced at a convent near the Song capital, where a number of Ceylonese nuns resided. Upon conversing with them, Sengguo discovered that while Chinese nuns had previously accepted monastic obligations from an assembly of monks (BHIKṢU), they had not received them from an assembly of nuns (BHIKṢUṆĪ), as was required by the VINAYA. After consulting with the Indian monk GUṆAVARMAN (367–431) on the issue, she resolved that she and her fellow nuns should be reordained. Thus in 433, in an ordination ceremony presided over by SAṂGHAVARMAN, 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.

Sengmeng. (J. Sōmō; K. Sŭngmaeng 僧猛) (418–489). A Buddhist nun (BHIKṢUṆĪ) from Yanguan County in southeastern China during the Qi dynasty (479–502). As was common in the biographies collected in the BIQIUNI ZHUAN, she left secular life at a young age. Despite her family’s long fealty to Daoism, Sengmeng alone rejected Daoism in favor of Buddhism, strictly adhering to the monastic precepts. Sengmeng demonstrated a penetrating grasp of scripture and was extremely diligent in her study. In addition, she could recite from memory extraordinary amounts of text, often after only a single reading. Sengmeng demonstrated her Buddhist compassion in many ways, including dramatic moments when she used her own body as a barricade to protects animals from predators, enduring pecks and bites as a result. Her exemplary deeds were cited as ideal models for Buddhist monastics and laity alike.

sengtang. (J. sōdō; K. sŭngdang 僧堂). In Chinese, the “SAṂGHA hall,” or “monks’ hall”; also known as the yuntang (lit. cloud hall; J. undō) or xuanfochang (site for selecting buddhas). The saṃgha hall was the center of monastic practice in the Chinese CHAN school. The hall, often large enough to hold hundreds of monks, was traditionally built on the west side of a Chan monastery. The foundation of the saṃgha hall is traditionally attributed to the Chan master BAIZHANG QINGGUI (749–814). According to Baizhang’s CHANMEN GUISHI, Chan monks were obligated throughout the day and night to eat, sleep, and meditate in the saṃgha hall. There, they would sit according to seniority on a long platform. A similar description of the saṃgha hall is also found in the CHANYUAN QINGGUI of CHANGLU ZONGZE (d.u.; fl. c. late-eleventh to early-twelfth century). During the Song dynasty, the saṃgha hall became incorporated into the monastic plans of all large public monasteries (SHIFANG CHA) in China, regardless of sectarian affiliation. The saṃgha hall was introduced into Japan by the SŌTŌSHŪ master DŌGEN KIGEN (1200–1253), who built the first sōdō in 1236 at the monastery of Kōshōji; for this reason, the sōdō is most closely associated with the Sōtō tradition. Dōgen also wrote detailed instructions in his BENDŌHŌ (“Techniques for Pursuing the Way,” 1246) on how to practice in the sōdō. Stemming from a practice initiated by DAO’AN, an image of the ARHAT PIṆḌOLA was usually placed in the middle of the saṃgha hall. Sometimes an image of MAÑJUŚRĪ, ĀJÑĀTAKAUṆḌINYA, or MAHĀKĀŚYAPA was installed in lieu of Piṇḍola. The Sōtō Zen tradition, for instance, often places a statue of Mañjuśrī in the guise of a monk in its saṃgha halls. The Japanese RINZAISHŪ chose to call their main monks’ hall a zendō (meditation hall) rather than a saṃgha hall. Unlike the Sōtō sōdō, which was used for eating, sleeping, and meditating, the Rinzai zendō was reserved solely for meditation (J. ZAZEN). Japanese ŌBAKUSHŪ, following Ming dynasty (1368–1644) Chinese customs, also called their main hall a zendō. In Korea, the term sŭngdang is no longer used and the main meditation hall is typically known as a sŏnbang (lit. meditation room). See also PRAHĀṆAŚĀLĀ.

Sengyou. (J. Sōyū; K. Sŭngu 僧祐) (445–518). Early Chinese VINAYA teacher and scriptural cataloguer, whose career is indicative of early Chinese Buddhism’s concerns to preserve the integrity of the dispensation and to transmit its beliefs and practices accurately. According to his biography in the GAOSENG ZHUAN (“Biographies of Eminent Monks”), Sengyou was born in Jianye (present-day Nanjing, Jiangsu province), the capital of the Liu-Song dynasty (420–479), the first of the four short-lived southern dynasties that formed during the Six Dynasties period. He became a monk at an early age, and studied under vinaya master Faying (416–482). Later, Sengyou himself gained a reputation as a vinaya master; the Gaoseng zhuan says that, whenever he was invited by the prince Wenxuan (406–494) of the Qi dynasty (479–502) to lecture on the vinaya, typically seven or eight hundred people would attend. During the Yongming era (483–493) of the Qi dynasty, Sengyou received an imperial order to travel to the Wu region (in present-day Jiangnan) to lecture on the Shisong lü, the SARVĀSTIVĀDAVINAYA, as well as to explain the methods for receiving the precepts. In addition to his vinaya-related activities, Sengyou also tried to establish an authoritative canon of Buddhist texts by compiling the CHU SANZANG JIJI (“Compilation of Notices on the Translation of the TRIPIṬAKA”), the earliest extant Buddhist scriptural catalogue (JINGLU). In his catalogue, Sengyou introduced three criteria for distinguishing an apocryphal scripture (see APOCRYPHA) from a genuine one: (1) the meanings and expressions found in a text were “shallow and coarse”; (2) a text did not come from “foreign regions”; (3) a text was not translated by a “Western guest.” While the first criterion was a more subjective form of internal evidence, the latter two were important pieces of external evidence that all subsequent cataloguers adopted as objective standards for determining textual authenticity. Sengyou’s other extant major works include the Shijia pu (“Genealogy of ŚĀKYAMUNI”), in five rolls, and the Buddhist apologetic HONGMING JI (“Collection for the Propagation and Clarification [of Buddhism]”), in fourteen rolls.

Sengzhao. (J. Sōjō; K. Sŭngjo 僧肇) (374–414). Influential early Chinese monk and exegete, whose writings helped to popularize the works of the MADHYAMAKA school in China. Sengzhao is said to have been born into an improverished family but was able to support himself by working as a copyist. Thanks to his trade, he was able to read through much of traditional Chinese literature and philosophy, including such Daoist classics as the Zhuangzi and Laozi, and is said to have resolved to become a monk after reading the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA. He later became a disciple of KUMĀRAJĪVA and served as the Chinese-language stylist for Kumārajīva’s translations. After Yao Xing (r. 394–416) of the Latter Qin dynasty (384–417) destroyed the state of Liang in 401, Sengzhao followed his teacher to Chang’an, where he and his colleague Sengrui (352–436) were appointed as two of the main assistants in Kumārajīva’s translation bureau there. Yao Xing ordered them to elucidate the scriptures Kumārajīva had translated, so Sengzhao subsequently wrote his BORE WUZHI LUN to explicate the PAÑCAVIṂŚATISĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA that Kumārajīva and his team had translated in 404. This and other influential treatises by Sengzhao were later compiled together as the ZHAO LUN. Sengzhao’s treatises and his commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa played a crucial role in the development of MAHĀYĀNA thought in China. Sengzhao is treated retrospectively as a vaunt courier in the SAN LUN ZONG, the Chinese analogue of the Madhyamaka school, which was formally established some two centuries later by JIZANG (549–623). The influential BAOZANG LUN is also attributed to Sengzhao, although that treatise is probably a later work of the early CHAN tradition.

Sensōji. (淺草寺). In Japanese, “Low Grass Monastery,” located in the Asakusa (lit. Low Grass) district of Tōkyō; it is the oldest monastery in the current Japanese capital. Legend says that in 628 a statue of the BODHISATTVA Kannon (AVALOKITEŚVARA) was found by fishermen in the Sumida River and the village elder turned his home into a shrine for the image; this image remains an important object of veneration in Japanese Buddhism. Originally called Komagatadō, the current monastery was built in 645 and is the oldest in Tōkyō. Sensōji was formerly associated with the TENDAISHŪ (C. TIANTAI ZONG), but has been independent since after World War II. The monastery is entered through the Kaminarimon, or Thunder Gate, which is graced by a gigantic paper lantern that is vividly painted to evoke storm clouds and lightning. This gate was built by the governor of the Musashi District, Tairano Kinmasa, in 942, as was the inner Hōzō gate; both have subsequently been reconstructed following fires. The main Kannondō hall at Sensōji is devoted to Avalokiteśvara; it burned down during a World War II air raid but has been rebuilt. The monastery grounds also include a five-story pagoda, a beautiful garden, and many oracle stalls (omikuji). Next door is an important SHINTŌ shrine, the Asakusa Jinja, which may partially explain why Sensōji is the site of the biggest festival in Tōkyō, the Sanja Matsuri, which is held annually in the late spring.

Se ra. A large monastic complex counted among the “three seats” (GDAN SA GSUM) of the DGE LUGS sect of Tibetan Buddhism, located at the north end of the LHA SA valley. TSONG KHA PA wrote Rtsa she ṭik chen rigs pa’i rgya mtsho, his commentary on NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ, in a hermitage above the future site of the monastery and predicted that it would become a great seat of learning. Foundations for the complex were laid in 1419 by Byams chen chos rje Shākya ye shes (Jamchen Chöje Shākya Yeshe, 1354–1435), a disciple of Tsong kha pa. Begun as a center for tantric studies, four colleges were later established, which were later consolidiated into two: Se ra smad (Sera Me) and Se ra byes (Sera Je). Se ra byes, the larger of the two, was constructed by Kun mkhyen blo gros rin chen seng ge (Künkyen Lodrö Rinchen Senge, fl. fifteenth century), a disciple of both Tsong kha pa and Byams chen chos rjes. A third college, the Sngags pa drwa tshang (Ngakpa Dratsang) or tantric college, was established in the eighteenth century, most likely under the patronage of the Mongolian ruler Lha bzang Khan. Traditionally said to house 5,500 monks, Se ra was home to roughly eight thousand monks at its peak, with some thirty-five regional dormitories (khams tshan). Monks from Se ra participated in the 1959 uprising against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, which led to the monastery being closed and used as an army barracks. It also suffered significant damage during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. After that, it reopened as a monastery, but with a much smaller monastic population. Following the exodus of Tibetans into exile after 1959, a new Se ra monastery was also established in south India, near the town of Bylakuppe.

Sesshū Tōyō. (雪舟等楊) (1420–1506). A Japanese monk-painter of the Muromachi (1337–1573) period, best known for his use of realism in landscape painting. He was born to a warrior family in Bitchū province (present-day Okayama Prefecture, in the southwestern part of the main Japanese island of Honshū) and became a ZEN monk in the RINZAISHŪ tradition in 1431. From early in his monastic career, however, Sesshū (lit. Snow Boat) showed more interest in painting than in Zen training. Around 1440, he moved to SHŌKOKUJI, one of the GOZAN (five mountains) temples of Kyōto, where he received formal training in Chinese painting of the Song-dynasty (960–1279) style from Tenshō Shūbun (d. c. 1444–1450), the most famous monk-painter of his time. In 1467, Sesshū traveled to China, where he studied the emerging Ming style of painting. After returning to Japan in 1469, he established an atelier in present-day Ōita Prefecture in Kyūshū; subsequently, he moved to present-day Yamaguchi prefecture in the far west of Honshū in 1486. Using his “splashed-ink” (haboku) style, he established a style of realism in landscape painting, which included bold brush strokes and splashes of ink, with subtle tones. Many students gathered around him, later forming what became known as the Unkoku-rin (Cloud Valley) school, after the name of the monastery where Sesshū served as abbot. Sesshū’s best-known works include his 1486 Sansui chōkan (“Long Landscape Scroll”), a fifty-foot-long scroll depicting the four seasons; Haboku sansui (“Splashed-Ink Landscape”) of 1495; and the Ama-no-Hashidate zu (“View of Ama-no-Hashidate”) of c. 1501–1505, which offers an unusual bird’s-eye view of a picturesque sandbar, bay, and mountains in Tango province facing the Sea of Japan/East Sea. Sesshū is often judged to be the greatest of all Japanese painters.

Sgam po pa Bsod nams rin chen. (Gampopa Sönam Rinchen) (1079–1153). A principal disciple of the Tibetan YOGIN MI LA RAS PA and leading figure in the early formation of the BKA’ BRGYUD sect of Tibetan Buddhism. At an early age, Sgam po pa trained as a physician but renounced his career and received monastic ordination at the age of twenty-five following the death of his wife and child. He is often known as Dwags po lha rje (Dakpo Lhaje), “the physician from Dakpo,” because of his vocation. Sgam po pa initially trained in the BKA’ GDAMS tradition under the master Snyug rum pa Brtson ’grus rgyal mtshan (Nyukrumpa Tsöndru Gyaltsen, b. eleventh century) as well as Po to ba Rin chen gsal. At the age of thirty-one, he heard three beggars discussing Mi la ras pa and experienced a strong feeling of faith. He asked permission of his Bka’ gdams teachers to study with him, which they granted under the condition that he not renounce his monk’s precepts. When he met Mi la ras pa in 1109, Sgam po pa offered him gold and tea, which he refused. Mi la ras pa offered him a skullcup full of wine, which Sgam po pa initially declined but then drank, even though it was a violation of his monk’s vows. He received a number of teachings from Mi la ras pa, first concerning VAJARVĀRĀHĪ, and later the transmission of MAHĀMUDRĀ instructions and the “six yogas of Nāropa” (NĀ RO CHOS DRUG), stemming from the Indian MAHĀSIDDHAs TILOPA and NĀROPA. Later, Sgam po pa developed his own system of exposition, fusing elements of his Bka’ gdams pa training with the perspectives and practices of mahāmudrā. This has been called the “confluence of the two streams of Bka’ gdams pa and mahāmudrā” (bka’ phyag chu bo gnyis ’dres). Unlike Mi la ras pa, he kept the practices of mahāmudrā and sexual yoga separate, teaching the latter only to select disciples. Sgam po pa remained a monk, founding his monastic seat at DWAGS LHA SGAM PO in southern Tibet and composing numerous works on Buddhist doctrine and practice. His work entitled THAR PA RIN PO CHE’I RGYAN (“Jewel Ornament of Liberation”), remains a seminal Bka’ rgyud textbook. He also promulgated the controversial system of mahāmudrā instructions known as the DKAR PO CHIG THUB, or “self-sufficient white [remedy].” The lineage of Bka’ brgyud masters and teachings following Sgam po pa came to be known collectively as the DWAGS PO BKA’ BRGYUD. The division of the lineage into numerous subsects called the BKA’ BRGYUD CHE BZHI CHUNG BRGYAD or “four major and eight minor Bka’ brgyud subsects” stem from the disciples of Sgam po pa and his nephew Dwags po Sgom tshul (Dakpo Gomtsul, 1116–1169). Sgam po pa’s principal disciples included the first KARMA PA DUS GSUM MKHYEN PA and PHAG MO GRU PA RDO RJE RGYAL PO.

Sgam po pa’i chos bzhi. (Gampope chöshi). In Tibetan, “the four dharmas of Sgam po pa,” a series of brief instructions encompassing the entirety of the Buddhist path composed by the BKA’ BRGYUD founder SGAM PO PA BSOD NAMS RIN CHEN. The instructions are often recited in the form of a prayer: Grant your blessings that my mind may turn toward the dharma. / Grant your blessings that the dharma may follow the path. / Grant your blessings that the path may clarify confusion. / Grant your blessings that confusion may arise as wisdom.

Sgang steng. (Gangteng). A monastery located in the Shar district of central Bhutan, founded by Padma ’phrin las (Pema Trinle, b. sixteenth century), son of the great treasure revealer PADMA GLING PA. It serves as the principal monastic seat for Padma gling pa’s speech incarnation (gsung sprul) lineage.

Sgrag yang rdzong. (Drakyang Dzong). One of two labyrinthine cave complexes located near RDO RJE BRAG monastery, south of LHA SA in central Tibet; venerated as a site where the Indian adept PADMASAMBHAVA and his consort YE SHES MTSHO RGYAL remained in meditation retreat.

Sgrol ma lha khang. (Drölma Lhakhang). In Tibetan, “Tārā Temple,” a temple in the central Tibetan region of Snye thang (Nyetang) where the Bengali scholar ATIŚA DĪPAṂKARAŚRĪJÑĀNA lived for much of his time in Tibet, where he made his principal seat, and later died. The primary image is a statue of TĀRĀ (T. Sgrol ma), the female bodhisattva of compassion who served as Atiśa’s personal protector, after which the temple takes its name. Constructed in the mid-eleventh century, it was spared major damage during the Chinese Cultural Revolution due to the intervention of officials from the Indian state of Bengal, which was ruled at the time by the Communist Left Front. Consequently, the temple still houses Atiśa’s relics and original artwork of great value and beauty.

sgrub brgyud shing rta chen po brgyad. (drupgyü shingta chenpo gye). In Tibetan, literally “eight great conveyances that are lineages of achievement,” referring to a system of classifying the various tantric traditions and transmission lineages in Tibet. This schema developed in about the thirteenth century, during the initial period of the later dissemination (PHYI DAR) of Buddhism, based upon the preeminence of individual masters, their regional affiliations, and especially their traditions of esoteric instruction. The classification of Tibetan tantric traditions into “eight great conveyances” was adopted by later Tibetan historians and exegetes, perhaps most famously by the Tibetan master ’JAM MGON KONG SPRUL BLO GROS MTHA’ YAS in his GDAMS NGAG MDZOD (“Treasury of Practical Instructions”). According to his reckoning, the eightfold classification consists of the following categories:

1. SNGA’ ’GYUR RNYING MA “Ancient Translation Tradition”

2. BKA’ GDAMS “Tradition of Precepts and Instructions”

3. LAM ’BRAS “Tradition of the Path and Result”

4. MAR PA BKA’ BRGYUD “Tradition of the Transmitted Precepts of Marpa”

5. SHANGS PA BKA’ BRGYUD “Tradition of the Transmitted Precepts of the Shang Valley”

6. ZHI BYED GCOD “Traditions of Pacification and Severence”

7. RDO RJE’I RNAL ’BYOR “Tradition of Vajrayoga”

8. RDO RJE’I GSUM GYI BSNYEN SGRUB “Propitiation and Attainment of the Three Adamantine States.”

sgrub pa bka’ brgyad. (drup pa ka gye). In Tibetan, “eight transmissions for attainment,” referring to the eight chief deities of the MAHĀYOGA class of RNYING MA doctrine together with their corresponding TANTRAs and SĀDHANAs. They are (1) ’Jam dpal sku, (2) Padma gsung, (3) Yang dag thugs, (4) Bdud rtsi yon tan, (5) Phur pa phrin las, (6) Ma mo rbod gtong, (7) Dmog pa drag snags, and (8) ’Jig rten mchod bstod.

shakumon. (C. jimen; K. chŏngmun 迹門). In Japanese, lit. “trace teaching,” or “teaching involving traces”; the provisional teaching of the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA (“Lotus Sūtra”), which appears in the first half of the twenty-four chapters of the scripture; in distinction to HONMON (fundamental teaching), the definitive final fourteen chapters of the scripture. The term is especially important in both the TIANTAI (J. TENDAI) and NICHIREN-oriented schools of East Asian Buddhism. The Tiantai master TIANTAI ZHIYI (538–597) first applied the two terms to refer to these two distinctive parts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, adapting the terms traces (C. ji, J. shaku) and root (C. ben, J. hon) that had originally been used by SENGZHAO (374–414), a disciple of KUMĀRAJĪVA (344–413), to explain the inconceivable relationship between skillful means (UPĀYA) and enlightened wisdom (PRAJÑĀ). Zhiyi made a distinction between the transient buddha who attained the buddhahood during his lifetime in India and the universal buddha who attained buddhahood infinite numbers of KALPAs ago. Zhiyi regarded shakumon to be the teaching of the transient buddha, and honmon the teaching of the universal buddha. The shakumon of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra is also called the practice or causal section of the sūtra, since it details the stages of BODHISATTVA practices over countless lifetimes that serve as the prerequisites of future buddhahood. The shakumon thus emphasizes the various skillful means that lead to the one buddha vehicle (see YISHENG; EKAYĀNA).

Shaku Sōen. (釋宗演) (1859–1919). Influential early ZEN figure in the West. Ordained as a novice in the RINZAISHŪ at the age of twelve, Shaku Sōen studied under the Rinzai master Imakita Kōsen (1816–1892). Shaku Sōen trained under Kōsen at the famous ENGAKUJI monastery in Kamakura, receiving dharma transmission, and the authority to teach, at the age of twenty-four. He attended Keiō University and then traveled to Ceylon to study Pāli and live as a THERAVĀDA monk. Upon his return, he became chief abbot of Engakuji in 1892. He gave instruction in Zen meditation to laymen and laywomen, both in Kamakura and Tōkyō. One of his most influential students was DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI. In 1893, Shaku Sōen was chosen to represent the Zen tradition at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. While in the United States, he met PAUL CARUS, and later arranged for D. T. Suzuki to work with Carus in LaSalle, Illinois. He served as Buddhist chaplain to the Japanese First Army Division after the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. He later lectured on Zen in Europe, America, India, and Ceylon. He spent the remainder of his life lecturing extensively on Zen to lay audiences. He served as president of Rinzai College of Hanazono University in Kyōto from 1914 to 1917, before returning as abbot of Engakuji. His 1906 Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot was the first book on Zen to appear in English.

Shākya mchog ldan. (Shākya Chokden) (1428–1507). A celebrated Tibetan scholar associated with the SA SKYA sect. A renowned scholar of MADHYAMAKA, he defended the GZHAN STONG (“other emptiness”) view of the JO NANG. He was a student of the Sa skya master Rong ston Shes bya kun rig (Rongtön Sheja Künrik, 1367–1149). His explanation of the SDOM GSUM RAB DBYE was intended as a defense of SA SKYA PAṆḌITA’s views, but later Sa skya writers rejected it as authoritative in favor of the works of his contemporary, the Sa skya master GO BO RAB ’BYAMS PA BSOD NAMS SENG GE. Shākya mchog ldan’s collected works fill twenty-four volumes and are known for their consistently high quality of scholarship and erudition. He was particularly critical of the views of TSONG KHA PA, and engaged in a polemical exchange with Rje btsun pa Chos kyi rgyal mtshan (Jetsünpa Chökyi Gyeltsen, 1469–1546) whose works became the standard textbooks of the Byes (Je) college of SE RA monastery.

Shamen bujing wangzhe lun. (J. Shamon fukyōōsharon; K. Samun pulgyŏng wangja non 沙門不敬王者論). In Chinese, “The ŚRAMAṆA Does Not Pay Homage to the Ruler Treatise.” In response to the anticlerical policy of the monarch Huanxuan (who reigned for less than three months as King of Chu in 404) LUSHAN HUIYUAN compiled this apologetical treatise in 404. It is preserved in the fifth roll of the HONGMING JI. The treatise is comprised of five sections. The first two sections, on householders and monks, detail the differences in their social status and way of life. The other three sections are concerned with more doctrinal and theoretical issues, which are presented in the form of a debate between imaginary opponents. In the third section, Huiyuan, as the “host,” argues that monks, unlike householders including the worldly ruler, seek the “truth” and thus strive to free the “spirit” from the realm of worldly desires and emotions, or SAṂSĀRA. In the fourth section, the opponent argues that there is no truth beyond that which has been revealed by the sages of the past. In the last section, Huiyuan replies that these sages are merely manifestations of the Buddha, or the immortal spirit. Although the immortal spirit “mutually resonates” (GANYING) with SAṂSĀRA, it is not, Huiyuan explains, a worldly thing itself. The argument for the immortality of the spirit also appears in Zongbing’s (375–443) Mingfo lun (“Treatise on Clarifying Buddhism),” the MOUZI LIHUO LUN, and various other treatises found in the Hongming ji.

Shandao. (J. Zendō; K. Sŏndo 善導) (613–681). In Chinese, “Guide to Virtue”; putative third patriarch of the Chinese PURE LAND tradition; also known as Great Master Zhongnan. At an early age, Shandao became a monk under a certain DHARMA master Mingsheng (d.u.), with whom he studied the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA and the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA; he later devoted himself to the study of the GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING, which became one of his major inspirations. In 641, Shandao visited the monk DAOCHUO (562–645) at the monastery of Xuanzhongsi, where he is said to have cultivated vaipulya repentance (fangdeng canfa). Shandao also continued to train himself there in the visualization practices prescribed in the Guan Wuliangshou jing, which led to a profound vision of the buddha AMITĀBHA’s PURE LAND (JINGTU) of SUKHĀVATĪ. Shandao subsequently eschewed philosophical exegesis and instead devoted himself to continued recitation of the Buddha’s name (NIANFO) and visualization of the pure land as detailed in the Guan jing. After Daochuo’s death, he remained in the Zongnan mountains before eventually moving to the Chinese capital of Chang’an, where he had great success in propagating the pure land teachings at the monastery of Guangmingsi. Shandao is also known to have painted numerous images of the pure land that appeared in his vision and presented them to his devotees. He was also famous for his continuous chanting of the AMITĀBHASŪTRA. Shandao’s influential commentary on the Guan Wuliangshou jing was favored by the Japanese monk HŌNEN, whose teachings were the basis of the Japanese pure land tradition of JŌDOSHŪ.

Shangs pa bka’ brgyud. (Shangpa Kagyü). In Tibetan, “Succession of the Transmitted Precepts of the Shang Valley”; a lineage of Tibetan Buddhism traced back to its founder KHYUNG PO RNAL ’BYOR TSHUL KHRIMS MGON PO who was active in the Shangs Valley of western Tibet. It is generally counted as one of the eight great conveyances that are lineages of attainment (SGRUB BRGYUD SHING RTA CHEN PO BRGYAD). The teachings and practice of the Shangs pa bka’ brgyud are in many ways similar to those of the MAR PA BKA’ BRGYUD and stem from two principal sources: (1) a tantric system of instruction known as the six doctrines of NIGUMA (Ni gu chos drug), similar to those associated with NĀROPA, of whom Niguma is said to have been the wife or sister; and (2) the MAHĀMUDRĀ text entitled PHYAG CHEN GA’U MA (“Amulet Box Mahāmudrā”). Few Shangs pa bka’ brgyud institutions were ever constructed, and the sect has almost disappeared as an independent entity. However, the Shangs pa bka’ brgyud was highly influential in Tibet and its most important instructions were also transmitted within the BKA’ BRGYUD, DGE LUGS, SA SKYA, JO NANG, and RNYING MA sects. Shangs pa teachings have been especially promulgated in modern times by the late contemporary master KALU RINPOCHE.

shangtang. (J. jōdō; K. sangdang 上堂). In Chinese, lit. “ascending the hall”; a public lecture or sermon delivered by a CHAN, SŎN, or ZEN master at the dharma hall. The master, often the abbot of the monastery, would typically ascend the dais in the dharma hall to deliver his sermon, hence the term shangtang, or “ascending the hall.” The dharma hall of a Chan monastery typically did not house any icons, for the master himself was considered a living buddha while he was preaching on the dais. These shangtang lectures came to be carefully recorded by the disciples of the master and were typically edited together with other minor sermons like the xiaocan into the “recorded sayings” (YULU) of the master. By the medieval period, shangtang became more formalized, taking place at regular intervals; thus there are several specific types of shangtang described in the literature. Those that occurred on a bi-monthly basis were called danwang shangtang, since the sermons were given on the first (dan) and the fifteenth (wang) of each lunar month. Those that took place on the fifth, tenth, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth of each lunar month were called wucan shangtang, because there were a total of five assemblies (wucan) each month. Those held once every three days were called jiucan shangtang, because there were approximately nine such assemblies (jiucan) each lunar month. Shangtang that occurred on the birthday of the reigning emperor were called shengjie (occasion of His Majesty) shangtang, while those that took place as funerary memorials and deliverance rituals for a recently deceased emperor were called daxing zhuiyan shangtang. Shangtang that occurred after the abbot of the monastery had returned from a begging round were called chudui (troupe on a mission) shangtang. Those that took place to resolve an ongoing issue in the monastic community, such as quarrels, disputes, or other emergencies, were called yinshi shangtang (ascending the hall due to an exigency). Those that occurred to honor monastery staff overseeing internal affairs were called xie bingfu shangtang, while shangtang to honor monastery staff overseeing external and financial affairs were called xie dusizhai shangtang.

Shang Tianzhusi. (上天竺寺). In Chinese, “Upper Tianzhu Monastery,” located on Mt. Tianzhu in Hangzhou, along the southern coast of China. (TIANZHU is one of the common Sinographic transcriptions of Sindu, or India.) Founded by King Qian Liu (852–932 CE) of the Kingdom of Wuyue (907–978 CE) during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period following the demise of the Tang dynasty. According to certain sources, before he became king, Qian Liu dreamed of a woman dressed in white robes, who promised to protect him and his descendants if he was compassionate and did not kill living creatures. She then informed him that she could be found on Mt. Tianzhu in Hangzhou twenty years hence. When Qian Liu ascended the throne, he dreamed once more of this white-robed woman, whom he realized was BAIYI GUANYIN (White-Robed AVALOKITEŚVARA). In this dream, she informed Qian Liu that she needed a residence, in return for which she would bestow her patronage on his kingdom. When the king discovered that, of all the monasteries on Mt. Tianzhu, only one housed a Baiyi Guanyin icon, he became its patron and named it the Tianzhu Kanjing Yuan (Tianzhu Center for Reading Scriptures). Later renamed Upper Tianzhu monastery, it became renowned as a GUANYIN pilgrimage site. The monastery is also known for its association with the Song-dynasty legend of Princess MIAOSHAN (first complete rendition 1100 CE) when Jiang Zhiqi (1031–1104 CE), prefect of Ruzhou in Henan province, was transferred to Hangzhou in 1104 CE. Upon his arrival, he had the Miaoshan legend inscribed on a stele to be enshrined in Upper Tianzhu monastery.

Shanjia Shanwai. (J. Sange Sangai; K. San’ga Sanoe 山家山外). In Chinese, “On-Mountain, Off-Mountain”; two factions in a debate that engulfed the TIANTAI ZONG during the eleventh century over issues of the school’s orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The Shanjia (On-Mountain) faction was led by the monk SIMING ZHILI (960–1028) and his disciples; they pejoratively referred to their opponents within the Tiantai school, such as Ciguang Wu’en (912–988), Yuanqing (d. 997), Qingzhao (963–1017), Zhiyuan (976–1022) and their disciples, as Shanwai (Off-Mountain), for drawing on non-Tiantai elements in their exegeses. The debate began over an issue of textual authenticity, but soon came to cover almost all major facets of Tiantai doctrine and practice. The On-Mountain faction criticized their rivals for attempting to interpret Tiantai doctrine using concepts borrowed from texts such as the DASHENG QIXIN LUN, which had not previously been an integral text in Tiantai exegesis, and from rival exegetical traditions, such as the HUAYAN ZONG. These Shanwai monks argued that the doctrine of the “TRICHILIOCOSM in an single instant of thought” (YINIAN SANQIAN) should be understood in the Huayan framework of the suchness that is in accord with conditions (zhenru suiyuan): in this understanding, an instant of thought is identified with the true mind that in its essence is pure, unchanging, and inherently enlightened; subsequently, by remaining in accord with conditions, that suchness in turn produces the trichiliocosm in all its diversity. From this perspective, they argued that the true mind should be the focus of contemplative practice in Tiantai. Shanjia masters feared such interpretations were a threat to the autonomy of the Tiantai tradition and sought to remove these Huayan elements so that the orthodox teachings of Tiantai would be preserved. Zhili, the major proponent of the Shanjia faction, argued that the Shanwai concept of suchness involved the principle of separation (bieli), since it excluded the afflicted and the ignorant, and only encompassed the pure and the enlightened. According to Zhili, suchness does not produce the trichiliocosm only when it is in accord with conditions, as the Huayan-influenced Shanwai exegetes asserted, because suchness is in fact identical to the trichiliocosm; therefore the instant of thought that encompasses all the trichiliocosm, including both its pure and impure aspects, should be the true focus of contemplative practice in Tiantai. Zhili’s disciple Renyue (992–1064) and his fourth-generation successor Congyi (1042–1091) were subsequently branded the “Later Off-Mountain Faction,” because they accepted some of the Shanwai arguments and openly rejected parts of Zhili’s argument. Nevertheless, the Shanjia faction eventually prevailed, overshadowing their Shanwai rivals and institutionalizing Zhili’s interpretations as the authentic teachings of the Tiantai tradition. Two Tiantai genealogical histories from the Southern Song dynasty, the Shimen zhengtong (“Orthodox Transmission of Buddhism”) and the FOZU TONGJI (“Chronicle of the Buddhas and Patriarchs”), list Zhili as the last patriarch in the dharma transmission going back to the Buddha, thus legitimating the orthodoxy of the Shanjia faction from that point forward.

Shannüren zhuan. (善女人傳). In Chinese, lit., “Record of Good Women,” “Record of [Eminent] Laywomen,” by the Qing-dynasty author PENG SHAOSHENG (1740–1796), a Confucian literatus turned Buddhist layman; in two rolls. The “Record” is the only surviving collection in Chinese Buddhist literature of the biographies of exemplary laywomen disciples (UPĀSIKĀ). The collection compiles 138 biographies of Chinese Buddhist laywomen from the inception of Buddhism in China through the mid-Qing dynasty, including empresses, concubines, wives of officials, and commoners from various walks of life. The stories of these laywomen are characterized by their pious faith in the three jewels (RATNATRAYA) and their devout practice. Peng also explores the ways in which these exemplary Buddhist laywomen embodied such traditional Confucian values as filiality, chastity, and obedience to fathers, husbands, and eldest sons, in order to demonstrate how Buddhism was also concerned with women’s broader social roles. Peng Shaosheng adapts the entries included in the anthology from such biographical, historical, and genealogical works as the GAOSENG ZHUANs, FAYUAN ZHULIN, CHUANDENG LU, Wudeng huiyuan, FOZU TONGJI, Jingtu wen, and Mingxiang ji, as well as various literary works. Prior to completing this record of female lay disciples of Buddhism, Peng also authored a parallel collection of the biographies of Buddhist laymen, the JUSHI ZHUAN. The Shannüren zhuan is also included as the last chapter of the Moni zhukun jiyao by the Qing-dynasty laywoman Shanyi.

Shaolinsi. (J. Shōrinji; K. Sorimsa 少林寺). In Chinese, “Small Grove Monastery”; located at the foot of SONGSHAN in Dengfeng county, Henan province. According to the XU GAOSENG ZHUAN (“Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks”), the Xiaowen emperor (r. 471–500 CE) of the Northern Wei dynasty built the monastery in 496 CE for the Indian monk Fotuo (d.u.). Shaolinsi initially was an important center of translation activities, and many famous monks, including BODHIRUCI, RATNAMATI, JINGYING HUIYUAN, and XUANZANG, resided at the monastery. But the monastery is best known in the East Asian tradition as the putative center of martial arts in China. Fotuo, the monastery’s founder, is claimed to have had two disciples who displayed sublime acrobatic skills, perhaps a harbinger of later martial-arts exercises. Li Shimin (599–649; r. 626–649), second ruler and Taizong emperor of the Tang dynasty (618–907), is said to have used the Shaolin monks’ martial talents, especially with the heavy cudgel, to help his father found their new dynasty. Within another century, Shaolinsi became associated with the legend of the Indian monk BODHIDHARMA (c. early fifth century), the putative founder of the CHAN school, who is said to have practiced wall-gazing meditation (BIGUAN) for nine years in a cave above the monastery; according to later traditions, Bodhidharma also taught himself self-defense techniques both to protect himself against wild animals and for exercise, which he transmitted to his disciples at the monastery. In subsequent years, the monastery continued to be renowned as a center of both martial arts and Chan Buddhism. In 1245, the Yuan emperor Shizu (r. 1260–1294) appointed the Chan master Xueting Fuyu (1203–1275) abbot of Shaolinsi, and under Xueting’s guidance the monastery flourished. At least by the fifteenth century, the connection between Shaolinsi and the martial arts became firmly established in the Chinese popular imagination and “Shaolin monks” remain popular on the international performing-arts circuit.

shaoshen. (J. shōshin; K. sosin 燒身). In Chinese, “autocremation.” See SHESHEN.

Shasekishū. (沙石集). In Japanese, “Sand and Pebbles Collection”; an anthology of edifying folkloric tales from the Kamakura period (1185–1333). The collection was compiled by a RINZAISHŪ monk named MUJŪ ICHIEN (1227–1312) between 1279 and 1283 and contains 150 stories in a total of ten rolls. After finishing his initial compilation, Mujū continued to add the stories to the collection, so there are different editions of varying length. The preface to the collection explains the title: “Those who search for gold extract it from sand; those who treasure jewels gather pebbles that they then polish.” The collection, therefore, seeks to explain profound Buddhist truths as they are found in mundane affairs. Mujū demonstrates throughout the collection his belief in “crazy words and embellished phrases” (kyōgen kigo) as an expedient means of articulating ultimate religious goals. He even argues that the traditional waka style of Japanese poetry is in fact DHĀRAṆĪ, a mystic code that encapsulates the essence of Buddhist teachings. Most of the stories in the collection offer edifying lessons in such basic Buddhist beliefs as nonattachment and karmic retribution and in such ethical values as loyalty, filial piety, and fidelity. The idea of expedient means (UPĀYA) is also applied to the various Buddhist schools and to Japanese traditional religion: all the various teachings of Buddhism are depicted as expedient means of conveying the religion’s beliefs, and Mujū denounces Buddhist practitioners who exclusively promote the teachings of only their own sects. The collection also introduced the idea of the “unity of SHINTŌ and Buddhism” (SHINBUTSU SHŪGŌ) by describing Japanese indigenous spirits, or KAMI, as various manifestations of the Buddha. The humorous tone of the collection attracted many readers during the Tokugawa period (1603–1868), when it was reprinted several times.

sheliju. (J. sharigu; K. sarigu 舍利具). In Chinese, a “reliquary container” containing the relics (ŚARĪRA) of the Buddha or a sage; also written as SHELIQI. The relics were deposited in a set of nested caskets and were placed inside or buried below the foundation of a STŪPA. A tiny glass bottle placed inside several layered caskets served as the innermost container for the crystalline relic-grains remaining after cremation. The shape of the caskets differed according to time and region, from a stūpa shape to the shape of a bowl or tube, and the caskets were made of gold, silver, gilt bronze, lacquered wood, porcelain, or stone. The sides of the caskets were often incised with buddha images or guardian deities. In addition to the relic, the donors frequently deposited a multitude of objects of intrinsic or artistic value in the containers, including beads, pearls, jewelry, or coins. The earliest known reliquary is a steatite casket found in the stūpa of Piprāwā (fifth–fourth centuries BCE) in India. In China, the reliquary chamber excavated at the FAMENSI pagoda is the most widely researched. In contrast to most Chinese reliquary chambers, which were only accessible prior to the construction of a pagoda, the Famensi relic was escorted to and from the imperial palace. Further outstanding examples of reliquaries have been excavated at Songnimsa and Kamŭnsa in Korea. Both reliquaries date from the Silla period and show the refined amalgamation of foreign influences and native Silla craftsmanship. The center of the Songnimsa reliquary is a small green glass bottle, placed in a green glass cup decorated with twelve rings of coiled glass, which derives from Persian or Syrian prototypes. The Kamŭnsa reliquary contains a vessel in the shape of a miniature pavilion and an outer container decorated on each side with the four heavenly kings, pointing to the LOKAPĀLA cult that thrived in Silla society at that time.

sheliqi. (J. sharigu; K. sarigi 舍利器). In Chinese, “reliquary container.” See SHELIJU.

She lun zong. (J. Shōronshū; K. Sŏp non chong 攝論宗). In Chinese, “School of the MAHĀYĀNASAṂGRAHA”; one of the early Chinese indigenous doctrinal schools, focusing on YOGĀCĀRA philosophy. The school has its origins in exegetical traditions that began with PARAMĀRTHA’s (499–569) translation of ASAṄGA’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha (C. She Dasheng lun). The school played a central role in early Chinese doctrinal controversies concerning the interpretation of consciousness in two different Indian Buddhist systems of thought: Yogācāra and TATHĀGATAGARBHA. The controversies revolved around the issue of the nature of the eighth storehouse consciousness (ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA), based on VASUBANDHU’s ambiguous position in the SHIDIJING LUN (DAŚABHŪMIVYĀKHYĀNA), a commentary on the DAŚABHŪMIKASŪTRA. In some passages, Vasubandhu implied that the ālayavijñāna was the tainted source from which SAṂSĀRA arises; in others, he implied instead that the ālayavijñāna was coextensive with suchness (TATHATĀ) and thus fundamentally pure. The northern branch of the DI LUN ZONG argued that the storehouse consciousness was impure; it is a tainted source that produces only defiled dharmas. By contrast, the southern branch argued that the ālayavijñāna was fundamentally pure but came to be adventitiously associated with impure elements: it was the functioning of suchness and thus was pure, but it also was subject to the same laws of conditioned origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA) as the sensory consciousnesses and thus on that level was also impure. The She lun school sought to integrate these two interpretations by drawing on Paramārtha’s concept of an immaculate consciousness (AMALAVIJÑĀNA). Paramārtha in his personal writings condemned the ālayavijñāna as being fundamentally impure, positing instead that only a ninth mode of consciousness, which he termed the immaculate consciousness, was pure. Following Paramārtha, She lun exegetes treated the ālayavijñāna as impure, and instead established the amalavijñāna as the pure ninth consciousness. They identified this new consciousness with suchness (tathatā) by using it as a synonym for PARINIṢPANNA, the perfected nature described in Yogācāra philosophy. In the She lun zong interpretation, amalavijñāna thus came to be regarded as the absolute basis for all previous eight types of consciousness; the eighth consciousness, the ālayavijñāna, was instead seen as the provisional basis of afflictions (KLEŚA). Several She lun masters advocated this admixture between ālayavijñāna and tathāgatagarbha thought, including Huikai (518–568), Daoni (fl. 590), Huikuang (534–613), and Tanqian (542–607). Tanqian was especially influential and was even invited by the Sui emperor Wendi (r. 581–604) to the imperial capital of Chang’an in 587 to preach the She lun teachings. The emperor later built the monastery of Chandingsi in the capital and appointed Tanqian as its first abbot, which became the center of the She lun zong. Sengbian (568–642), a She lun master from Daoni’s lineage, was one of the teachers of the renowned Korean Yogācāra master WŎNCH’ŬK (613–696). Doctrinal positions held in the She lun zong were crucial in the evolution of the HUAYAN school of the mature Chinese tradition.

shenguang. (J. shinkō; K. sin’gwang 身光). In Chinese, lit. “body light”; a “mandorla” surrounding the body of holy figures in Buddhist painting and sculpture. See KĀYAPRABHĀ.

Shenxiu. (J. Jinshū; K. Sinsu 神秀) (606?–706). Chinese CHAN master of the Tang dynasty and putative founder of the “Northern school” (BEI ZONG) of early Chan Buddhism. Shenxiu was a native of Kaifeng in present-day Henan province. As an extraordinarily tall man with well-defined features, Shenxiu is said to have had a commanding presence. In 625, Shenxiu was ordained at the monastery of Tiangongsi in Luoyang, but little is known of his activities in the first two decades following his ordination. In 651, Shenxiu became a disciple of HONGREN (601–674), cofounder of the East Mountain Teachings (DONGSHAN FAMEN) and the monk later recognized as the fifth patriarch of the Chan school; indeed, by many early accounts, such as the CHUAN FABAO JI and LENGQIE SHIZI JI, Shenxiu became Hongren’s legitimate successor. According to the famous story in the LIUZU TANJING (“Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch”), however, Shenxiu lost a verse-writing contest to the unlettered HUINENG (638–713), whom Hongren then in secret sanctioned as the sixth patriarch. However, it is unclear how long Shenxiu studied with Hongren. One source states that it was for a period of six years, in which case he would have left Hongren’s monastery long before Huineng’s arrival, making the famous poetry contest impossible. Regardless of the date of his departure, Shenxiu eventually left Hongren’s monastery for Mt. Dangyang in Jingzhou (present-day Hubei province), where he remained for over twenty years and attracted many disciples. Shenxiu and his disciples were the subjects of a polemical attack by HEZE SHENHUI (684–758), who disparaged Shenxiu as representing a mere collateral branch of BODHIDHARMA’s lineage and for promoting what Shenhui called a “gradual” (jian) approach to enlightenment. Shenhui instead promoted a “sudden teaching” (DUNJIAO), which he claimed derived from a so-called “Southern school” (NAN ZONG) founded by Huineng, another (and relatively obscure) disciple of Hongren, whom Shenhui claimed was Hongren’s authentic successor and the true sixth patriarch (LIUZU). Later Chan historians such as GUIFENG ZONGMI (780–841) began to use the designation “Northern school” (Bei zong) to describe the lineage of Shenxiu and his disciples YIFU (661–736), PUJI (651–739), and XIANGMO ZANG (d.u.). While Shenhui’s characterization of Shenxiu and his supposed “gradualism” is now known to be misleading, subsequent histories of the Chan tradition (see CHUANDENG LU) more or less adopted Shenhui’s vision of early Chan; thus Huineng, rather than Shenxiu, comes to be considered the bearer of the orthodox Chan transmission. As one mark of Shenxiu’s high standing within the Chan tradition of his time, in 700, Shenxiu was invited to the imperial palace by Empress WU ZETIAN, where the empress prostrated herself before the nonagenarian monk. She was so impressed with the aged Chan master that she decided to build him a new monastery on Mt. Dangyang named Dumensi. She also gave him the title of state preceptor (GUOSHI). Upon his death, he was given a state funeral. He is one of only three Buddhist monks whose biography is included in the Tang shi (“Tang Annals”). This is clearly not the profile of an imposter within the Chan lineage. Shenxiu’s teachings are known to have focused on the transcendence of thoughts (linian) and the five expedient means (fangbian; S. UPĀYA); these teachings appear in “Northern school” treatises discovered at Dunhuang, such as the YUANMING LUN, Guanxin lun, and DASHENG WUSHENG FANGBIAN MEN. Shenxiu was an expert on the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA, a text favored by Hongren and the early Chan tradition, and is also thought to have written a substantial commentary on the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA. Despite the uncomplimentary portrayal of the “Northern school” in mainstream Chan materials, it is now recognized that Shenxiu and his disciples actually played a much more important role in the early growth and development of the Chan school than the mature tradition acknowledged.

Shes bya kun khyab mdzod. (Sheja Kunkyap Dzö). In Tibetan, “Treasury Embracing All Knowledge”; the title of a multivolumed encyclopedic compendium of Tibetan Buddhist thought, composed by the Tibetan luminary ’JAM MGON KONG SPRUL BLO GROS MKTHA’ YAS between 1862 and 1864. The work consists of a brief root text in verse together with an extensive prose autocommentary, and is one of the earliest examples of the author’s place in the nonsectarian (RIS MED) movement. The work is one of five “treasuries” (KONG SPRUL MDZOD LNGA) written and edited by the master.