Sujātā. (T. Legs skyes ma; C. Xusheduo; J. Shujata; K. Susada 須闍多). The Sanskrit and Pāli proper name of a female lay disciple declared by the Buddha to be foremost among laywomen who had taken refuge in the three jewels (RATNATRAYA). According to the Pāli account, Sujātā was the daughter of a landowner named Senānī who lived in a village near Uruvelā. She had petitioned the spirit (YAKṢA) of a banyan tree for a son and when she gave birth to a boy she resolved to make an offering of rice milk to the spirit in gratitude. On the day of her offering, she sent her servant Puṇṇā to prepare a place beneath the tree. There, the servant encountered the bodhisattva SIDDHĀRTHA sitting in meditation, soon after he had decided to give up the practice of strict asceticism. Seeing the bodhisattva’s emaciated body, the servant mistook him for the tree spirit and informed Sujātā of his physical presence. Sujātā prepared rice milk and offered it to the bodhisattva in a golden bowl. This offering was praised by the gods as important and praiseworthy, for it enabled the bodhisattva to regain his strength so that he could make the final push to achieve enlightenment as a perfect buddha (SAMYAKSAṂBUDDHA). One of Sujātā’s sons was YAŚAS (P. Yasa), who became the Buddha’s sixth convert after the enlightenment. Yaśas attained arhatship and was ordained, after which he received alms at his parents’ house in the company of the Buddha. At that time, having listened to the Buddha’s sermon, Sujātā and Yaśas’ former wife became stream-enterers (SROTAĀPANNA) and took refuge in the three jewels, thus becoming the first female disciples to do so.

sūkaramaddava. (S. sūkaramārdava; C. zhantanshu’er; J. sendanjuni; K. chŏndansui 栴檀樹耳). In Pāli, lit., “soft pig,” the last meal of the Buddha before his passage into PARINIRVĀṆA. According to the MAHĀPARINIBBĀNASUTTA, the Buddha and his disciples were invited to a meal by CUNDA, the son of a goldsmith. He served them sweet rice, cakes, and sūkaramaddava. The Buddha told Cunda to serve the sūkaramaddava only to him and to bury the rest in the ground because no one other than the Buddha would be able to digest it. The Buddha praised Cunda for the meal but shortly thereafter suffered an attack of dysentery. He proceeded to KUŚINAGARĪ, where he instructed ĀNANDA to visit Cunda and tell him that he should not feel remorse; he had in fact gained great merit by serving the Buddha his last meal. There has been much debate as to the meaning of sūkaramaddava. It is unclear whether this means something soft that is consumed by pigs, such as a type of mushroom or truffle, or perhaps bamboo shoots that had been trampled by pigs. The compound could also be the name of some kind of pork dish. The Indian and Sinhalese commentators prefer, although not unanimously, the latter interpretation. The Chinese rendering for the term means “sandalwood tree fungus,” implying perhaps a kind of truffle, and the passage in the DĪRGHĀGAMA recension of the sūtra suggests that the dish was a delicate broth boiled with this ingredient. Some modern interpreters, trying to avoid the suggestion that the Buddha consumed pork, have insisted, following the Chinese, that it was a mushroom dish.

sukha. (T. bde ba; C. le; J. raku; K. nak 樂). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “bliss,” “ease,” or “joy”; the fourth of the five constituents of meditative absorption (DHYĀNĀṄGA). A sustained sense of sukha is obstructed by restlessness and worry (AUDDHATYA-KAUKṚTYA), the fourth of the five hindrances (NĪVARAṆA) to DHYĀNA. Sukha is the maturation of the physical and mental tranquillity (PRAŚRABDHI) that is associated with the coarser experience of physical “rapture” (PRĪTI). Sukha always appears in conjunction with prīti, but not necessarily the converse; whereas sukha is part of the perception aggregate (SAṂJÑĀ), prīti is instead grouped with the conditioning factors aggregate (SAṂSKĀRA). Sukha leaves one “feeling well” and catalyzes the development of expansive mental states. Sukha is present in the first, second, and third of the meditative absorptions (dhyāna) associated with the realm of subtle materiality (RŪPĀVACARADHYĀNA), but fades into equanimity (UPEKṢĀ) in the even subtler fourth dhyāna, wherein the meditator experiences neither pleasure nor pain and is left only with one-pointedness of mind (CITTAIKĀGRATĀ). The term sukha is also important in Buddhist TANTRA, especially ANUTTARAYOGATANTRA, where the movement of winds (PRĀṆA) and drops (BINDU) up and down the central channel generate various forms of bliss; the bliss created by the upward movement of the winds and drops are particularly powerful. In order to achieve buddhahood, the bliss consciousness is used to understand emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ).

sukhāvatī. (T. bde ba can; C. jile jingtu; J. gokurakujōdo; K. kŭngnak chŏngt’o 極樂淨土). In Sanskrit, “blissful” or “full of happiness” (the Chinese translates the name as “ultimate bliss”); the name of the buddha-field (BUDDHAKṢETRA) or PURE LAND of the buddha AMITĀBHA as described in what are referred to in East Asia as the three pure land sūtras (JINGTU SANBUJING): the larger and smaller SUKHĀVATĪVYŪHASŪTRAs (see AMITĀBHASŪTRA) and GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING (*Amitāyurdhyānasūtra). Although many buddha-fields are enumerated and described in the Mahāyāna sūtras, sukhāvatī is the most famous and is often referred to as “the western pure land” in East Asia. In India, rebirth in sukhāvatī appears to have been something of a generalized soteriological goal, disconnected from devotion to the buddha Amitābha; references to sukhāvatī appear in a number of important Mahāyāna sūtras, including the SAMĀDHIRĀJASŪTRA, which likely dates to the second century CE. The most detailed description of sukhāvatī appears in the larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, discussed in the next entry. See also PURE LAND and ANLE GUO.

Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra. (T. Bde ba can gyi bkod pa’i mdo; C. Wuliangshou jing; J. Muryōjukyō; K. Muryangsu kyŏng 無量壽經). Literally, the “Sūtra Displaying [the Land of] Bliss,” the title of the two most important Mahāyāna sūtras of the “PURE LAND” tradition. The two sūtras differ in length, and thus are often referred to in English as the “larger” and “smaller” (or “longer” and “shorter”) Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtras; the shorter one is commonly called the AMITĀBHASŪTRA. Both sūtras are believed to date from the third century CE. The longer and shorter sūtras, together with the GUAN WULIANGSHOU JING (*Amitāyurdhyānasūtra), constitute the three main texts associated with the pure land tradition of East Asia (see JINGTU SANBUJING). There are multiple Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan versions of both the longer and shorter sūtras, with significant differences among them. ¶ The longer Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra begins with ĀNANDA noticing that the Buddha is looking especially serene one day, and so asks him the reason. The Buddha responds that he was thinking back many millions of eons in the past to the time of the buddha LOKEŚVARARĀJA. The Buddha then tells a story in the form of a flashback. In the audience of this buddha was a monk named DHARMĀKARA, who approached Lokeśvararāja and proclaimed his aspiration to become a buddha. Dharmākara then requested the Buddha to describe all of the qualities of the buddha-fields (BUDDHAKṢETRA). Lokeśvararāja provided a discourse that lasted one million years, describing each of the qualities of the lands of trillions of buddhas. Dharmākara then retired to meditate for five eons, seeking to concentrate all of the marvelous qualities of the millions of buddha-fields that had been described to him into a single pure buddha-field. When he completed his meditation, he returned to describe this imagined land to Lokeśvararāja, promising to create a place of birth for fortunate beings and vowing that he would follow the bodhisattva path and become the buddha of this new buddha-field. He described the land he would create in a series of vows, stating that if this or that marvel was not present in his pure land, may he not become a buddha: e.g., “If in my pure land there are animals, ghosts, or hell denizens, may I not become a buddha.” He made forty-eight such vows. These included the vow that all the beings in his pure land will be the color of gold; that beings in his pure land will have no conception of private property; that no bodhisattva will have to wash, dry, or sew his own robes; that bodhisattvas in his pure land will be able to hear the dharma in whatever form they wish to hear it and whenever they wish to hear it; that any woman who hears his name, creates the aspiration to enlightenment (BODHICITTA), and feels disgust at the female form, will not be reborn as a woman again. Two of these vows would become the focus of particular attention. In the eighteenth vow (seventeenth in the East Asian versions), Dharmākara vows that when he has become a buddha, he will appear at the moment of death to anyone who creates the aspiration to enlightenment, hears his name, and remembers him with faith. In the nineteenth vow (eighteenth in the East Asian versions), he promises that anyone who hears his name, wishes to be reborn in his pure land, and dedicates their merit to that end, will be reborn there, even if they make such a resolution as few as ten times during the course of their life. Only those who have committed one of the five inexpiable transgressions bringing immediate retribution (ĀNANTARYAKARMAN, viz., patricide, matricide, killing an ARHAT, wounding a buddha, or causing schism in the SAṂGHA) are excluded. The scene then returns to the present. Ānanda asks the Buddha whether Dharmākara was successful, whether he did in fact traverse the long path of the bodhisattva to become a buddha. The Buddha replies that he did indeed succeed and that he became the buddha Amitābha (Infinite Light). The pure land that he created is called sukhāvatī. Because Dharmākara became a buddha, all of the things that he promised to create in his pure land have come true, and the Buddha proceeds to describe sukhāvatī in great detail. It is carpeted with lotuses made of seven precious substances, some of which reach ten leagues (YOJANA) in diameter. Each lotus emits millions of rays of light and from each ray of light there emerge millions of buddhas who travel to world systems in all directions to teach the dharma. The pure land is level, like the palm of one’s hand, without mountains or oceans. It has great rivers, the waters of which rise as high or sink as low as one pleases, from the shoulders to the ankles, and vary in temperature as one pleases. The sound of the river takes the form of whatever auspicious words one wishes to hear, such as “buddha,” “emptiness,” “cessation,” and “great compassion.” The words “hindrance,” “misfortune,” and “pain” are never heard, nor are the words “day” and “night” used, except as metaphors. The beings in the pure land do not need to consume food. When they are hungry, they simply visualize whatever food they wish and their hunger is satisfied without needing to eat. They dwell in bejeweled palaces of their own design. Some of the inhabitants sit cross-legged on lotus blossoms while others are enclosed within the calyx of a lotus. The latter do not feel imprisoned, because the calyx of the lotus is quite large, containing within it a palace similar to that inhabited by the gods. Those who dedicate their merit toward rebirth in the pure land yet who harbor doubts are reborn inside lotuses where they must remain for five hundred years, enjoying visions of the pure land but deprived of the opportunity to hear the dharma. Those who are free from doubt are reborn immediately on open lotuses, with unlimited access to the dharma. Such rebirth would become a common goal of Buddhist practice, for monks and laity alike, in India, Tibet, and throughout East Asia. ¶ The “shorter” Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra was translated into Chinese by such famous figures as KUMĀRAJĪVA and XUANZANG. It is devoted largely to describing this buddha’s land and its many wonders, including the fact that even the names for the realms of animals and the realms of hell-denizens are not known; all of the beings born there will achieve enlightenment in their next lifetime. In order to be reborn there, one should dedicate one’s merit to that goal and bear in mind the name of the buddha here known as AMITĀYUS (Infinite Life). Those who are successful in doing so will see Amitāyus and a host of bodhisattvas before them at the moment of death, ready to escort them to sukhāvatī, the land of bliss. In order to demonstrate the efficacy of this practice, the Buddha goes on to list the names of many other buddhas abiding in the four cardinal directions, the nadir, and the zenith, who also praise the buddha-field of Amitāyus. Furthermore, those who hear the names of the buddhas that he has just recited will be embraced by those buddhas. Perhaps to indicate how his own buddha-field (that is, our world) differs from that of Amitāyus, Śākyamuni Buddha concludes by conceding that it has been difficult to teach the dharma in a world as degenerate as ours.

Sukhothai. The first Thai polity in mainland Southeast Asia. Located in the central Menam valley, it began as a frontier outpost of the Khmer empire. In 1278 two local princes raised a successful rebellion to create a new kingdom with the city of Sukhothai as its capital. Under King Ramkhamhaeng (r. 1279–1298), Sukhothai brought several neighboring states under its sway and by the early 1300s enjoyed suzerainty over entire the Menam river basin, and westward across the maritime provinces of Lower Burma. Ramkhamhaeng established diplomatic and commercial relations with China and its envoys twice visited the Chinese capital on tributary missions to the emperor. Having won independence, the kings of Sukhothai chose a new cultural orientation to buttress their rule. The former Khmer overlords were votaries of Hinduism and MAHĀYĀNA Buddhism and the earliest CAITYAs in the city display the architectural features of traditional Khmer tower pyramids. The Thai ruling house abandoned these traditions in favor of Sinhalese-style Pāli Buddhism. In the 1330s a charismatic monk named Si Satha introduced a Sinhalese ordination lineage into the kingdom along with a collection of buddha relics around which was organized a state cult. The shift in religious affiliation is reflected in the lotus-bud and bell-shaped caityas built during the period, which have their prototypes in Sri Lanka. Sukhothai is upheld as a golden age in Thai cultural history. Known for its innovations in architecture and iconography, the kingdom also gave definitive form to the modern Thai writing system which is based on Mon and Khmer antecedents. By the mid-fourteenth century, with the rise of the kingdom of AYUTHAYA to its south, Sukhothai entered a period of decline from which it never recovered. In 1378, Ayuthaya occupied Sukhothai’s border provinces, reducing it to the status of a vassal state. After unsuccessful attempts to break free from her southern overlord, Sukhothai was finally absorbed as a province of the Ayuthaya kingdom in the fifteenth century.

sukkhavipassaka. In Pāli, lit., “dry insight worker,” i.e.,“one supported by insight alone.” It refers to a person who has attained any of the four fruits of recluseship (ŚRĀMAṆYAPHALA)—stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA), once-returner (SAKṚDĀGĀMIN), nonreturner (ANĀGĀMIN), or ARHAT—by mere insight (P. VIPASSANĀ, S. VIPAŚYANĀ) without reliance on any of the meditative absorptions (P. JHĀNA, S. DHYĀNA). Some contemporary Burmese VIPASSANĀ meditation theory emphasizes this style of practice.

Sule Paya. A famous Burmese (Myanmar) pagoda complex located in the center of Rangoon (Yangon), with entrances in the four cardinal directions. It likely was first constructed by the Mon people, but has been restored and expanded repeatedly. The central STŪPA, which is octagonal in shape, is 152 feet tall, is said to contain one of the hairs that the Buddha gave to his first lay disciples, the merchants TRAPUṢA and BHALLIKA. The name Sule comes from a Burmese word for “gathering.” The location of the pagoda is said to mark the place where divinities and humans gathered to ask an ancient NAT where the hairs of the Buddha should be enshrined. His answer led to construction of the pagoda of SHWEDAGON. When the British redesigned the surrounding city in the 1880s, they used the central pagoda as the center point of the grid design. The pagoda served as an important gathering place for monks during the uprisings of 1988 and 2007.

Sumaṅgala. (Venerable Hikkaduva Sri Sumaṅgala Nayaka Mahāthera) (1827–1911). Sumaṅgala, whose given name was Niclaus, was born in the town of Hikkaduwa in the Galle District of southern Sri Lanka. Sumaṅgala received his early education at the local village temple and, at age thirteen, began his monastic education at Totagamuwa. He received full ordination from the Malwatte chapter in Kandy in 1848. Sumaṅgala is considered to be one of the most influential Pāli scholars of his time. He took a significant role in the Sinhalese Buddhist revival, especially in Colombo. He helped GUṆĀNANDA prepare for the famous Panadura debate. An accomplished scholar, Sumaṅgala studied Buddhist history, arithmetic, and archeology; he also knew Sinhala, Pāli, Sanskrit, and English. In 1867 he received the title Sripada from the British government, making him the high priest of Adam’s Peak (Mt. Sumanakūta). The principal and founder of Vidyodaya College, Sumaṅgala worked with Colonel HENRY STEEL OLCOTT and together they established Ananda College and Mahinda College in Colombo and Dharmaraja College in Kandy during the early 1890s. These schools helped to revitalize Buddhist education, which had dwindled under British colonialism. In 1891, Sumaṅgala became the president of the Bodh Gaya Maha Bodhi Society in Colombo. SUMAṄGALA was an inspirational figure for ANAGĀRIKA DHARMAPĀLA and the next generation of Sinhalese Buddhist scholars.

Sumaṅgalavilāsinī. A Pāli commentary on the DĪGHANIKĀYA written by BUDDHAGHOSA. It is quoted in the AṄGUTTARANIKĀYA commentary, MANORATHAPŪRAṆĪ.

Sumedha. [alt. Sumegha] (C. Shanhui; J. Zen’e; K. Sŏnhye 善慧). Sanskrit and Pāli name of the BODHISATTVA who would become GAUTAMA Buddha. He was an ascetic at the time of DĪPAṂKARA Buddha. Sumedha was born into a wealthy brāhmaṇa family of AMARĀVATĪ. Disenchanted with the vanities of the householders’ life, he renounced the world and took up his abode in the Himalaya mountains as an ascetic. There, he practiced assiduously and ultimately gained great yogic power. Once, when flying over the town of Ramma Nagara, he saw a crowd. He landed and asked a member of the crowd why they had gathered and was told that Dīpaṃkara Buddha was approaching. When he heard the word “buddha,” he was overcome with joy. Seeing that people of the town were festooning the road Dīpaṃkara would be using with decorations, Sumedha decided to prepare and decorate a portion of the road himself. The Buddha arrived before his work was completed and, seeing that the Buddha was walking toward a mud puddle, Sumedha lay facedown and spread his long matted locks over the mud. While lying in the mud, Sumedha realized that, were he to follow Dīpaṃkara’s teachings, he could become an ARHAT in that very lifetime. However, he resolved instead to achieve enlightenment at a time when there was no other buddha in the world, vowing to become a fully enlightened buddha (SAMYAKSAṂBUDDHA) like Dīpaṃkara himself. Dīpaṃkara, using his supranormal powers, looked into the future and confirmed that Sumedha’s vow (PŪRVAPRAṆIDĀNA) would be fulfilled and he would one day become GAUTAMA Buddha, the fourth of five perfect buddhas of the present age. It was with this vow, and with this confirmation by Dīpaṃkara Buddha, that the bodhisattva began the path to buddhahood, which, according to the Pāli tradition, he would complete four innumerable plus one hundred thousand eons later.

Sumeru, Mount. (T. Ri rab; C. Xumishan/Miaogaoshan; J. Shumisen/Myōkōsen; K. Sumisan/Myogosan 須彌山/妙高山). The central axis of the universe in Buddhist cosmology; also known as Mount Meru. Mount Sumeru stands in the middle of the world as its axis and is eight leagues (YOJANA) high. It is surrounded by seven mountain ranges of gold, each separated from the other by an ocean. At the foot of the seventh range, there is a great ocean, contained at the perimeter of the world by a circle of iron mountains (CAKRAVĀḌA). In this vast ocean, there are four island continents in the four cardinal directions, each flanked by two island subcontinents. The northern continent is square, the eastern semicircular, the southern triangular, and the western round. Although humans inhabit all four continents, the “known world” is the southern continent, named JAMBUDVĪPA, where the current average height is four cubits and the current life span is one hundred years. The four faces of Mount Sumeru are flat, and are each composed of a different precious stone: gold in the north, silver in the east, lapis lazuli in the south, and crystal in the west. The substance determines the color of the sky over each of the four continents. The sky is blue in the southern continent of Jambudvīpa because the southern face of the Mount Sumeru is made of lapis. The slopes of Sumeru are the abode of demigods (ASURA), and its upper reaches are the heavens of the four heavenly kings (see CĀTURMAHĀRĀJAKĀYIKA, LOKAPĀLA). At the summit of the mountain is the heaven of the thirty-three (TRĀYASTRIṂŚA), ruled by the king of the gods, ŚAKRA. Above Mount Sumeru are located the remaining heavens of the sensuous realm (KĀMADHĀTU). Different Buddhist traditions identify Mount Sumeru with different local mountains, including Mount KAILĀSA in the Indian and Tibetan traditions, NAMSAN in the Korean tradition, etc. See also SHUMIDAN.

Sum rtags. (Sumtak). In Tibetan, lit. “the Thirty and Signs”; a common abbreviation for two works on Tibetan grammar, the Lung du ston pa rtsa ba sum cu pa (“Root Grammar in Thirty Verses”) and Lung du ston pa rtags kyi ’jug pa (“Grammatical Guide to Signs”). The former is often called simply Sum cu pa (“The Thirty”) and the latter Rtags ’jug (“Guide to Signs”). These works are traditionally said to have been composed c. 650, and are the only two extant treatises of eight works on grammar attributed to Thon mi Saṃbhota, the scholar who, according to legend, was dispatched to India by the Tibetan king SRONG BTSAN SGAM PO in order to devise an alphabet and grammar for the Tibetan language. The remaining six works in his oeuvre are said to have been destroyed during the persecution of Buddhism under the Tibetan king GLANG DAR MA. Both texts are still included as a part of the Tibetan Buddhist curriculum. The traditional dating of the texts as we now have them has been called into question because neither appears in its present redaction until about the twelfth century.

Sunakṣatra. (P. Sunakkhatta; T. Legs pa’i skar ma; C. Shanxing; J. Zenshō; K. Sŏnsŏng 善星). The Sankrit proper name of the man who, according to some sources, was the Buddha’s half-brother and personal attendant prior to that position being held by ĀNANDA. Despite his personal connection to the Buddha and his extensive knowledge of his teachings, Sunakṣatra had no respect for the Buddha, saying that in his twenty-four years of service to him, he saw no difference whatsoever between the Buddha and himself apart from the fact that the Buddha had a six-foot aura. One week after resigning from his position, he died and was reborn as a PRETA. His story is often told as a cautionary tale about disparaging one’s teacher. He appears in several Pāli suttas, both before and after he left the order, living longer than seven days after disparaging the Buddha. There, he is described as a Licchavi prince from Vesāli (S. VAIŚĀLĪ), who served as the Buddha’s personal attendant but then left the order to become a disciple of the naked ascetic Korakkhattiya, the “dog man” who walked on all fours, barked like a dog, and ate like a dog without using his hands. Sunakṣatra (P. Sunakkhatta) disparaged the Buddha and said that the dharma did not put an end to suffering, criticizing the Buddha for not performing miracles and showing the origin of things. The Buddha warned him that Korakkhattiya would die in seven days and be reborn as an ASURA, which in fact occurred. Sunakṣatra then became the disciple of another naked ascetic, who also died according to the Buddha’s prediction. In the MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆASŪTRA, Sunakṣatra is described as a monk who achieved the four levels of DHYĀNA but later, under the influence of other teachers, came to lose faith in the Buddha.

Sundarananda. (T. Mdzes dga’; C. Suntuoluonantuo; J. Sondarananda; K. Sondaranant’a 孫陀羅難陀). In Sanskrit and Pāli, “Handsome Nanda,” an epithet of NANDA, either the cousin or a younger half-brother of the buddha GAUTAMA. In the second century CE, the Indian poet AŚVAGHOṢA wrote a famous verse retelling of Nanda’s journey from enamored paramour and fiancé to enlightened ascetic in his verse narrative SAUNDARANANDA. See NANDA.

Sundarīnandā. (T. Mdzes dga’ mo; C. Suntuoli; J. Sondari; K. Sondari 孫陀利). In Pāli and Sanskrit, “Gorgeous Nandā”; one of three prominent nuns named Nandā mentioned in the Pāli canon (the others being ABHIRŪPĀ-NANDĀ and JANAPADAKALYĀṆĪ-NANDĀ), all of whom share similar stories. She is also called simply Sundarī. According to the Pāli account, she was an eminent ARHAT declared by the Buddha to be foremost among his nun disciples in meditative powers. She was the daughter of ŚUDDHODANA and MAHĀPRAJĀPATĪ and so the sister of the arhat NANDA and the half-sister of the Buddha. Most of her male and female relatives had joined the order of monks and nuns, and so out of loyalty to them rather than strong faith she also joined. She received the sobriquet Sundarī because of her extraordinary beauty. She was by nature extremely vain about her looks and so reluctant to visit the Buddha lest he rebuke her for her vanity. When finally one day she accompanied other nuns to hear the Buddha preach, he, knowing her disposition, created an apparition of a most beautiful woman fanning him. Sundarī was entranced by the beauty of the conjured female, whom the Buddha then caused to age, grow haggard, die, and rot. Having shocked her with this horrible vision, the Buddha then preached to her of the frailty of physical beauty, whereupon Sundarī became a stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA). He then gave her a suitable subject of meditation (P. KAMMAṬṬHĀNA) through which, after intense practice, she gained insight into the impermanence (ANITYA), suffering (DUḤKHA) and absence of self (ANĀTMAN) of all conditioned things and attained arhatship. She won preeminence through the strength of her meditation, a distinction she had resolved to earn during the time of Padmottara Buddha.

Sundo. (C. Shundao 順道) (c. late-fourth century). In Korean, “In Accordance with the Way”; proper name of the Chinese monk to whom Korean historical sources attribute the official introduction of Buddhism into the Korean peninsula. In 372, King Fu Jian (337–385) of the Former Qin dynasty (351–394) is said to have sent Sundo as his personal envoy to the court of King Sosurim (r. 371–384) of the northern Korean kingdom of Koguryŏ. Sundo’s mission appears to have been an expression of gratitude for Koguryŏ’s help in vanquishing their common foe, the Former Yan (337–370) state. Sundo is said to have brought Buddhist images and scriptures with him to Koguryŏ. We have no record of specifically which images or texts Sundo may have brought; however, since Fu Jian actively supported the dissemination of MAITREYA images throughout his realm, we may assume Sundo’s gifts would probably have included such images. This hypothesis is also supported by the prevalence of Maitreya piety in the early Korean tradition. The scriptures he brought were probably early texts of the MAHĀYĀNA tradition, or perhaps SARVĀSTIVĀDA materials. The Former Qin kingdom had established hegemony over eastern Turkestan, which exposed northern China, and thus Koguryŏ, to influences from across the Asian continent. Three years after his arrival in Korea, Sundo is said to have collaborated with two other monks in founding a Buddhist monastery in the new Koguryŏ capital near present-day P’yŏngyang, the first such monastery established on Korean soil. See also ZHI DUN.

sŭngkwa. (C. sengke; J. sōka 僧科). In Korean, “ecclesiastical examinations,” a clerical examination system used in Korea from the early Koryŏ through early Chosŏn dynasties to exert state control over the ecclesiastical institution, by selecting monks who would hold official monastic positions. The examination system was established in 958 during the reign of the Koryŏ king Kwangjong (r. 949–975) and the examinations were originally administered every three years. There is no direct Chinese analogue for this kind of selective examination system conducted at the state level and it seems to have been a distinctively Korean creation. There were two separate examinations to select official monks: the Doctrinal (KYO, C. Jiao) school selection (KYOJONG SŎN) and the Meditation (SŎN, C. CHAN) school selection (SŎNJONG SŎN). The selection examination for the Doctrinal (Kyo) school was held at WANGNYUNSA, one of the ten major monasteries built in the Koryŏ capital of Kaesŏng by Wang Kŏn (T’aejo, r. 918–943), the first king of the Koryŏ dynasty; the Meditation (Sŏn) exams were held at KWANGMYŎNGSA, also located in the capital. Monks who passed the examination were qualified to hold official ecclesiastical status. Monks in both the Kyo and Sŏn schools who passed the examinations were appointed, in ascending order, to the positions of taedŏk (great virtue), taesa (great master), ijungdaesa (second-grade great master), and samjungdaesa (third-grade great master). Beyond these positions common to both schools, there were two supreme positions exclusive to each school: sujwa (head seat) and SŬNGT’ONG for Kyo monks; and sŏnsa (Sŏn master) and taesŏnsa (great Sŏn master) for Sŏn monks. State preceptors (KUKSA) and royal preceptors (WANGSA), the highest ecclesiastical offices during the Koryŏ dynasty and the symbolic religious teachers to the state and the king, were appointed from monks who held the positions of sŭngt’ong or taesŏnsa. The subject matter for the Kyo examination was derived from the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA (Huayan jing) and the DAŚABHŪMIVYĀKHYĀNA (SHIDIJING LUN); for the Sŏn examination, materials were taken from the JINGDE CHUANDENG LU and the SŎNMUN YŎMSONG CHIP. The examination system continued during the Chosŏn dynasty despite the state suppression of Buddhism, but was abolished during the reign of King Chungjong (r. 1506–1544). The monastic examinations were subsequently revived in 1550 during the reign of King Myŏngjong (r. 1545–1567), but again abolished in 1565.

sŭngmu. (僧舞). In Korean, “monk’s dance”; a form of Korean Buddhist ritual dance that was originally performed by monks. During the Chosŏn dynasty (1392–1910), the sŭngmu gradually transformed into a dance performed primarily for artistic and entertainment purposes and is nowadays regarded as one of the major types of Korean traditional folk dance. The dance is typically performed to the accompaniment of a single drum. Modern professional solo dancers wear a white jacket with long and trailing sleeves, a white hood, a blue skirt, and a red sash crossing from shoulder to waist. The sophisticated gestures and delicate rhythmic sequences, as well as the mobile lines created by the long sleeve extension that cover the dancer’s hands, create a peaceful yet dynamic composition. The delicate unison of dynamism and stillness in the sŭngmu is emblematic of Korean dance aesthetics. The T’AEGO CHONG of modern Korean Buddhism has sought to revive the sŭngmu as a specifically Buddhist dance form.

Sŭngnang. (C. Senglang; J. Sōrō 僧朗) (c. 450–c. 520). A monk putatively from the early Korean kingdom of Koguryŏ, whom JIZANG (549–623) credits with being an important vaunt courier in the development of the Chinese SAN LUN ZONG (K. Sam non chong), the Chinese counterpart of the MADHYAMAKA branch of Indian philosophical exegesis. Sŭngnang is claimed to have taught the notion of “three truths” or “three judgments” (SANDI)—the truths of emptiness, provisional reality, and their mean—an exegetical schema that was influential in the subsequent development of both the San lun and TIANTAI schools. It is uncertain whether Sŭngnang actually hailed from Koguryŏ, or was instead either a Koguryŏ hostage of the Northern Wei dynasty or a person of Chinese ancestry from the Liaodong region (which had been captured in 397 CE by the Koguryŏ king Kwanggaet’o).

sŭngt’ong. (僧統). In Korean, “SAṂGHA overseer,” the highest ecclesiastical position that could be achieved by KYO (Doctrine) monks in the Korean monastic examination system (SŬNGKWA), especially during the Koryŏ dynasty. The position was first established in 551 by the Silla king Chinhŭng (r. 540–576) for the monk Hyeryang (c. sixth century). Initially, the appointee’s major role was to help protect the court by hosting such national Buddhist services as the Inwang Paekkojwa hoe (Renwang Assembly of One-Hundred Seats) (see HUGUO FOJIAO). Later, as the Silla institution developed, the saṃgha overseer took actual charge of the national ecclesiastical affairs. During the Koryŏ dynasty, sŭngt’ong was the highest of the six positions that could be achieved by Kyo monks through the monastic examinations (sŭngkwa) (the equivalent in the Sŏn school of great Sŏn master, or taesŏnsa). The six Kyo positions in descending order were sŭngt’ong, sujwa (head seat), samjung taesa (third-grade great master), ijung taesa (second-grade great master), taesa (great master), and taedŏk (great virtue). Appointing an official national leader of the saṃgha became a long-standing Chinese tradition starting in the Six Dynasties period, when the Emperor Daowu (r. 386–409) of the Northern Wei dynasty appointed Faguo (fl. fourth century) as overseer of religion (daoren tong) probably around 396 and 397. During the Northern Dynasties, the position was called shamen tong (ŚRAMAṆA overseer) or zhaoxuan tong (luminous mystery overseer); under the Southern Dynasties, it was called sengzheng (saṃgha rectifier), sengzhu (saṃgha head), or daseng tong (great saṃgha overseer). Many later dynasties, including the Sui and Tang, had an equivalent ecclesiastical post.

sŭnim. (). In Korean, lit. “honored monastic”; a generic term used to refer to any ordained monk, nun, or novice. These different categories of the saṃgha are distinguished as pigu (BHIKṢU) sŭnim, piguni (BHIKṢUṆĪ) sŭnim, etc. Individual monastics in Korea are always referred to by their ordained names followed by sŭnim, thus Kusan sŭnim, Hyemyŏng sŭnim, etc. The term is a contraction of the Korean pronunciation of sŭng, the Sinograph that transcribes SAṂGHA (monastic congregation), plus the vernacular honorific suffix -nim.

śūnyatā. (T. stong pa nyid; C. kong; J. kū; K. kong 空). In Sanskrit, “emptiness”; the term has a number of denotations, but is most commonly associated with the perfection of wisdom (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) sūtras and the MADHYAMAKA school of Mahāyāna philosophy. In its earlier usage, “emptiness” (as śūnya) is the third of the four aspects of the truth of suffering (DUḤKHASATYA), the first of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS: viz., the aggregates (SKANDHA) are (1) impermanent, (2) associated with the contaminants, (3) empty of cleanliness, and (4) nonself. There are a number of explanations of emptiness in this early usage, but most suggest the absence of cleanliness or attractiveness in the body that would lead to grasping at the body as “mine” (S. ātmīya, mama). This misapprehension is counteracted by the application of mindfulness with regard to the body (KĀYĀNUPAŚYANĀ), which demonstrates the absence or emptiness of an independent, perduring soul (ĀTMAN) inherent in the skandhas. In its developed usage in the Madhyamaka school, as set forth by NĀGĀRJUNA and his commentators, emptiness becomes an application of the classical doctrine of no-self (ANĀTMAN) beyond the person (PUDGALA) and the skandhas to subsume all phenomena (DHARMA) in the universe. Emptiness is the lack or absence of intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA) in any and all phenomena, the final nature of all things (DHARMATĀ), and the ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA). Despite its various interpretations among the various Madhyamaka authors, emptiness is clearly neither nothingness nor the absence of existence, but rather the absence of a falsely imagined type of existence, identified as svabhāva. Because all phenomena are dependently arisen, they lack, or are empty of, an intrinsic nature characterized by independence and autonomy. Nāgārjuna thus equates śūnyatā and the notion of conditionality (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA). The YOGĀCĀRA school introduces the concept of the “three natures” (TRISVABHĀVA) to give individual meanings to the lack of intrinsic existence (NIḤSVABHĀVA) in the imaginary nature (PARIKALPITASVABHĀVA), the dependent nature (PARATANTRASVABHĀVA), and the consummate nature (PARINIṢPANNASVABHĀVA). Pariniṣpanna in this Yogācāra interpretation is emptiness in the sense of the absence of a difference of entity between object and subject; it is the emptiness of the parikalpitasvabhāva or imagined nature in a paratantra or dependent nature. In Tibet, the question of the true meaning of emptiness led to the RANG STONG GZHAN STONG debate.

Śūnyatāsaptati. (T. Stong pa nyid bdun cu pa). In Sanskrit, “Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness”; one of the major works of NĀGĀRJUNA, and counted by Tibetans as part his philosophical corpus (YUKTIKĀYA). It is a work in seventy-three stanzas, which serves as a kind of appendix to the MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ, summarizing what is said there while adding some new topics. It declares that all phenomena, including the twelve links in the chain of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA) exist only conventionally; the statement that everything is impermanent does not imply the existence of entities that have the property of impermanence. Reasoning (YUKTI) demonstrates that ultimately everything is unproduced (ANUTPANNA), including NIRVĀṆA. All entities (BHĀVA) are dependently arisen and empty (śūnya), including KARMAN and the five aggregates (SKANDHA). Ignorance (AVIDYĀ) disappears when it is understood that there is no self. The ultimate (PARAMĀRTHA) is emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) but this realization is gained through the conventional (SAṂVṚTTI); the person endowed with faith (ŚRADDHĀ) who investigates dependent origination with reasoning will achieve tranquility. There is an autocommentary (svavṛtti) to the text ascribed to Nāgārjuna. There is also a commentary by CANDRAKĪRTI, the Śūnyatāsaptativṛtti. The Śūnyatāsaptati is not included in the Chinese canon.

śūnyatāśūnyatā. (T. stong pa nyid kyi stong pa nyid; C. kongkong; J. kūkū; K. konggong 空空). In Sanskrit, lit. the “emptiness of emptiness,” the most famous of the sixteen, eighteen, or twenty types of emptiness, indicating that emptiness is itself devoid of intrinsic nature (NIḤSVABHĀVA) and is therefore itself empty. YOGĀCĀRA-influenced interpretations of śūnyatāśūnyatā associate it with the emptiness of knowledge (jñānaśūnyatā). According to these interpretations, the first three in the list of emptinesses are inner (adhyātma) emptiness, outer (bahirdhā) emptiness, and the emptiness of both (ubhaya), where inner is a word for the six sense bases (INDRIYA), outer for their six sensory objects (VIṢAYA) and both for the physical receptacles (the physical eye and so on) of the six sense bases. Having understood the emptiness of all those elements, only the knowledge of emptiness remains; hence, the emptiness of that knowledge is called the emptiness of emptinesses, the fourth in the list.

Śūnyavāda. (T. Stong pa nyid smra ba; C. Kong zong; J. Kūshū; K. Kong chong 空宗). In Sanskrit, “Proponent of the Empty,” another name for the MADHYAMAKA school, one usually used by the Buddhist and non-Buddhist opponents of Madhyamaka, who regarded the Madhyamaka view as a form of nihilism. However, it is important to note that CANDRAKĪRTI uses the term śūnyatādarśana, “the philosophical school of emptiness.” The term also indicates that, although the terms śūnya and ŚŪNYATĀ are employed in all schools of Buddhist philosophy, they were associated particularly with the Madhyamaka.

Suppavāsā-Koḷiyadhītā. (S. Supravāsā-Koliyadhītṛ). The Pāli name of an eminent lay disciple of the Buddha declared by him to be foremost among laywomen who give choice alms food. According to the Pāli account, she was the daughter of the king of Koḷiya and was married to a Licchavi chieftain named Mahāli. She lived in the village of Sajjanela and later moved to ŚRĀVASTĪ. On a visit to Sajjanela, the Buddha once preached to her on the merits of giving alms food. She was always careful to give the best of foods to the Buddha and his monks, for which reason she attained preeminence in this regard, an honor she aspired to in a previous life during the time of Padmottara Buddha. She is praised along with the renowned donors ANĀTHAPIṆḌADA and VIŚĀKHĀ for her exceptional gifts, which were always welcomed by members of the order. Suppavāsā is most famous as the mother of the arhat SĪVALI. She was pregnant with him for seven years and for seven days she was suffering through protracted labor. Believing that she would not survive the ordeal, she sent a gift to the buddha through her husband so that she could earn merit before her death. The buddha received the gift and she immediately gave birth to her son. Sīvali was compelled to stay in her womb for so long in retribution for having once laid siege to the city of Vārāṇasī for seven days while he was a prince in a previous existence. Suppavāsā had been his mother in that life as well.

Supriyā. (P. Suppiyā; T. Rab dga’ ba; C. Xupiye nü; J. Shubiyanyo; K. Subiyanyŏ 須毘耶女). Sanskrit name of an eminent lay disciple (UPĀSIKĀ) of the Buddha, whom he declared foremost among laywomen who comfort the sick. Supriyā lived in Vārāṇasī with her husband Supriya. Both were devoted followers of the Buddha and generous patrons of the order. Once, while visiting a monastery, Supriyā encountered a sick monk in need of meat broth. She sent a servant to market to fetch some meat but none was to be had in all of Vārāṇasī. She therefore cut a piece of flesh from her thigh and gave it to her servant to make into broth, after which, ill from her injury, she lay on her bed. Her husband rejoiced at her piety and invited the Buddha to the morning meal the next day. When the Buddha was informed of her deed, he praised her for her generosity and through his supranormal powers magically healed her wounds. As a consequence of Supriyā’s offering, however, the Buddha passed a rule forbidding monks to eat human flesh, even when it is freely given.

Sūra Ambaṭṭha. (S. Śūra Āmraṣṭha; C. Yongjian zhangzhe; J. Yūken chōja; K. Yonggŏn changja 勇健長者). The Pāli name of an eminent lay disciple (UPĀSAKA) of the Buddha declared by him to be foremost among laymen in unwavering trust. Sūra Ambaṭṭha in Pāli means “hero who stays by the mango tree”; he was born into the family of a wealthy banker dwelling in ŚRĀVASTĪ. According to the Pāli account, he was originally the follower of a rival sect of recluses (ŚRAMAṆA). One day, the Buddha saw Sūra and, noting that he was ripe for conversion, went to his door for alms. Although his allegiance was to another teacher, out of deference Sūra invited the Buddha into his home to partake of his morning meal. When the Buddha spoke to him after the meal, Sūra became a stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA), thus marking his conversion. MĀRA, hoping to shake Sūra’s newfound faith, appeared at his door in the guise of the Buddha. He said he had returned to correct a mistake he had made when preaching to him earlier. Believing Māra’s conjured body to be the Buddha, Sūra let him in. Māra stated that whereas he had explained that all conditioned things were impermanent, he should have said that only some were impermanent. Since Sūra was already a stream-enterer, he easily saw through the ruse and promptly drove Māra from his house.

śūraṃgamasamādhi. (T. dpa’ bar ’gro ba’i ting nge ’dzin; C. shoulengyan sanmei; J. shuryōgon zanmai; K. sunŭngŏm sammae 首楞嚴三昧). In Sanskrit, “heroic-march concentration,” a SAMĀDHI in which the mind becomes free and unimpeded like the “march” (gama) of a “hero” (śūra), who “walks alone, fearlessly, like a lion.” The śūraṃgama concentration (samādhi) as taught in the ŚŪRAṂGAMASAMĀDHISŪTRA, an eponymously titled early MAHĀYĀNA sūtra, not only enables BODHISATTVAs quickly to attain complete, perfect enlightenment (ANUTTARASAMYAKSAṂBODHI), but also ensures that even ŚRĀVAKAs, PRATYEKABUDDHAs, and ARHATs who benightedly believe themselves to be practicing correctly by following the HĪNAYĀNA are actually put on the right path leading to buddhahood. In addition, the śūraṃgamasamādhi also permits enlightened beings to manifest themselves in any variety of forms in order to teach sentient beings, so that ultimately anyone one encounters in life may in fact be an enlightened buddha. In the Chinese apocryphon, Shoulengyan jing (*ŚŪRAṂGAMASŪTRA), the Buddha also teaches a different version of the śūraṃgamasamādhi, where the concentration counters the false views about the aggregates (SKANDHA) and consciousness (VIJÑĀNA) and reveals the TATHĀGATAGARBHA that is inherent in all sentient beings. This tathāgatagarbha, or buddha-nature, is made manifest through the śūraṃgamasamādhi, which constitutes the “heroic march” forward toward enlightenment.

Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. (T. Dpa’ bar ’gro ba’i ting nge ’dzin gyi mdo; C. Shoulengyan sanmei jing; J. Shuryōgon zanmaikyō; K. Sunŭngŏm sammae kyŏng 首楞嚴三昧經). In Sanskrit, “Sūtra on the Heroic-March Concentration,” an early MAHĀYĀNA sūtra that explains how the mind becomes free and unimpeded like the “march” (gama) of a “hero” (śūra), who “walks alone, fearlessly, like a lion.” (This translated sūtra should be distinguished from the *SŪRAṂGAMASŪTRA, a Chinese apocryphal scripture of similar name, which dates from the early eighth century.) The ŚŪRAṂGAMASAMĀDHI as taught in this sūtra not only enables BODHISATTVAs quickly to attain complete, perfect enlightenment (ANUTTARASAMYAKSAṂBODHI), but also ensures that even ŚRĀVAKAs, PRATYEKABUDDHAs, and ARHATs are put on the right path leading to buddhahood. In addition, the śūraṃgamasamādhi also permits enlightened beings to manifest themselves in any variety of forms in order to teach sentient beings. The sūtra also includes descriptions of the world systems of many other buddhas (BUDDHAKṢETRA), including ABHIRATI, the buddha-land of AKṢOBHYA. Although some fragments of the Sanskrit recension of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra have survived, the full sūtra is extant only in an early-fifth-century translation attributed to the eminent Kuchean translator KUMĀRAJĪVA, in two rolls, and in an early-ninth-century Tibetan translation.

*Śūraṃgamasūtra. (T. Dpa’ bar ’gro ba’i mdo; C. Shoulengyan jing; J. Shuryōgongyō; K. Sunŭngŏm kyŏng 首楞嚴經). A Chinese indigenous scripture (see APOCRYPHA), usually known in the West by its reconstructed Sanskrit title Śūraṃgamasūtra, meaning “Heroic March Sūtra.” Its full title is Dafoding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyi zhu pusa wanxing Shoulengyan jing; in ten rolls. (This indigenous scripture should be distinguished from an early-fifth century Chinese translation of the ŚŪRAṂGAMASAMĀDHISŪTRA, attributed by KUMĀRAJĪVA, in two rolls, for which Sanskrit fragments are extant.) According to the account in the Chinese cataloguer Zhisheng’s Xu gujin yijing tuji, the Śūraṃgamasūtra was brought to China by a ŚRAMAṆA named Pāramiti. Because the Śūraṃgamasūtra had been proclaimed a national treasure, the Indian king had forbidden anyone to take the sūtra out of the country. In order to transmit this scripture to China, Pāramiti wrote the sūtra out in minute letters on extremely fine silk, then he cut open his arm and hid the small scroll inside his flesh. With the sūtra safely hidden away, Pāramiti set out for China and eventually arrived in Guangdong province. There, he happened to meet the exiled Prime Minister Fangrong, who invited him to reside at the monastery of Zhizhisi, where he translated the sūtra in 705 CE. Apart from Pāramiti’s putative connection to the Śūraṃgamasūtra, however, nothing more is known about him and he has no biography in the GAOSENG ZHUAN (“Biographies of Eminent Monks”). Zhisheng also has an entry on the Śūraṃgamasūtra in his KAIYUAN SHIJIAO LU, but there are contradictions in these two extant catalogue accounts of the sūtra’s transmission and translation. The Kaiyuan Shijiao lu merely records that the śramaṇa Huidi encountered an unnamed Western monk at Guangdong, who had with him a copy of the Sanskrit recension of this sūtra, and Huidi invited him to translate the scripture together. Since the names of this Western monk and his patron Fangrong are not mentioned, the authenticity of the scripture has been called into question. Although Zhisheng assumed the Śūraṃgamasūtra was a genuine Indian scripture, the fact that no Sanskrit manuscript of the text is known to exist, as well as the inconsistencies in the stories about its transmission to China, have led scholiasts for centuries to questions the scripture’s authenticity. There is also internal evidence of the scripture’s Chinese provenance, such as the presence of such indigenous Chinese philosophical concepts as yin-yang cosmology and the five elements (wuxing) theory, the stylistic beauty of the literary Chinese in which the text is written, etc. For these and other reasons, the Śūraṃgamasūtra is now generally recognized to be a Chinese apocryphal composition. The sūtra opens with one of the most celebrated stories in East Asian Buddhist literature: the Buddha’s attendant ĀNANDA’s near seduction by the harlot Mātaṅgī. With Ānanda close to being in flagrante delicto, the Buddha sends the bodhisattva MAÑJUŚRĪ to save him from a PĀRĀJIKA offense, by employing the śūraṃgama DHĀRAṆĪ to thwart Mātaṅgī’s seductive magic. The Buddha uses the experience to teach to Ānanda and the congregation the ŚŪRAṂGAMASAMĀDHI, which counters the false views about the aggregates (SKANDHA) and consciousness (VIJÑĀNA) and reveals the TATHĀGATAGARBHA that is inherent in all sentient beings. This tathāgatagarbha, or buddha-nature, is made manifest through the śūraṃgamasamādhi, which constitutes the “heroic march” forward toward enlightenment. The Śūraṃgamasūtra was especially influential in the CHAN school during the Song and Ming dynasties, which used the text as the scriptural justification for the school’s distinctive teaching that Chan “points directly to the human mind” (ZHIZHI RENXIN), so that one may “see the nature and achieve buddhahood” (JIANXING CHENGFO). Several noted figures within the Chan school achieved their own awakenings through the influence of the Śūraṃgamasūtra, including the Ming-dynasty master HANSHAN DEQING (1546–1623), and the sūtra was particularly important in the writings of such Ming-dynasty Chan masters as YUNQI ZHUHONG (1535–1615). The leading Chan monk of modern Chinese Buddhism, XUYUN (1840–1959), advocated the practice of the Śūraṃgamasūtra throughout his life, and it was the only scripture that he ever annotated. As a mark of the sūtra’s influence in East Asian Buddhism, the Śūraṃgamasūtra is one of the few apocryphal scriptures that receives its own mention in another indigenous sūtra: the apocryphal Foshuo fa miejin jing (“The Sūtra on the Extinction of the Dharma”) states that the first sūtra to disappear from the world during the dharma-ending age (MOFA) will in fact be the Śūraṃgamasūtra. The Tibetan translation of this Chinese apocryphon was produced during the Qianlong era (1735–1796) of the Qing dynasty; the scripture was apparently so important in contemporary Chinese Buddhism that it was deemed essential for it to be represented in the Tibetan canon as well.

*Susiddhikarasūtra. (C. Suxidi jieluo jing; J. Soshijjikarakyō; K. Sosilchi kalla kyŏng 蘇悉地羯羅經). In Sanskrit, “Perfect Achievement Sūtra”; an important SŪTRA of the esoteric Buddhist traditions (see TANTRA and MIKKYŌ). No Sanskrit edition of the Susiddhikarasūtra is known to exist; the Sanskrit title is reconstructed from the Chinese translation (726) attributed to the Indian TREPIṬAKA ŚUBHAKARASIṂHA. The Susiddhikaramahātantrasādhanopāyikapaṭala found in the Tibetan canon is a translation in seventy-five folios (Legs par grub par byed pa’i rgyud chen po las sgrub pa’i thabs rim par phye pa) and is categorized by the editor BU STON as an important KRIYĀTANTRA. The Tibetan title means “SĀDHANA Section of the Susiddhikara Great Tantra.” The Susiddhikarasūtra, along with the MAHĀVAIROCANĀBHISAṂBODHISŪTRA and the SARVATATHĀGATATATTVASAṂGRAHA, is considered one of the three central texts of the esoteric branch of the TENDAI tradition known as TAIMITSU.

Susim kyŏl. (C. Xiuxin jue 修心訣). In Korean, “Secrets on Cultivating the Mind,” one of the most popular tracts on the practice of SŎN (C. CHAN), by the Korean Sŏn master POJO CHINUL (1158–1210); composed c. 1203–1205 at the newly established SUSŎNSA religious community. The tract provides a detailed outline of Chinul’s preferred soteriological stratagem of “sudden awakening/gradual cultivation” (K. tono chŏmsu; DUNWU JIANXIU), that is, an initial sudden awakening to one’s buddha-nature, followed by gradual cultivation of that awakening until one is able not only to be but also to act enlightened. Chinul also covers here the cultivation in tandem of concentration (SAMĀDHI) and wisdom (PRAJÑĀ), which treats these two meditative aids not as stages in a sequential series of meditative practices but instead as the calm and alert aspects of the mind-nature itself. The Susim kyŏl was lost in Korea following the Mongol invasions of the mid-thirteenth century and was not reintroduced to the peninsula (via a Northern Ming edition) until about two centuries later. It was translated into the Korean vernacular in 1467 and remains today one of the most widely read Korean Sŏn works.

Susŏnsa. (修禪社). In Korean, “SŎN Cultivation Community”; the later name for the meditation retreat known originally as the CHŎNGYE KYŎLSA or “SAMĀDHI and PRAJÑĀ Community,” established by the Korean Sŏn master POJO CHINUL (1158–1210) at the monastery of Kŏjosa on Mt. Kong in 1188. As the community grew, Chinul had to search for a more suitable location that would accommodate the large number of participants. In 1197, Chinul’s disciple Suu (d.u.) began reconstruction of a small, dilapidated temple known as Kilsangsa on Mt. Songgwang. The community was relocated to the new site in 1200, but because a nearby monastery was also called Chŏnghyesa (Samādhi and Prajñā Monastery), Chinul was forced to seek another name for his community. King Hŭijong (r. 1204–1211) gave the community its new name of Susŏnsa, or Sŏn Cultivation Community. Largely through the efforts of Chinul’s successor CHIN’GAK HYESIM, the Susŏnsa community became an influential Buddhist institution and remained so throughout the Koryŏ dynasty. Susŏnsa eventually became the influential monastery that has been known since the Chosŏn dynasty as SONGGWANGSA. The meditation hall at Songgwangsa is still called Susŏnsa.

sūtra. (P. sutta; T. mdo; C. jing; J. kyō; K. kyŏng 經). In Sanskrit, lit. “aphorism,” but in a Buddhist context translated as “discourse,” “sermon,” or “scripture”; a sermon said to be delivered by the Buddha or delivered with his sanction. A term probably used originally to refer to sayings of the Buddha that were preserved orally by his followers (and hence called “aphorisms”), the sūtra developed into its own genre of Buddhist literature, with a fairly standard set of literary conventions. The most famous of these conventions was the phrase used to begin a sūtra, “Thus have I heard” (EVAṂ MAYĀ ŚRUTAM), intended to certify that what was to follow was the first-person report of the Buddha’s attendant ĀNANDA (see SAṂGĪTIKĀRA) who was most often in the Buddha’s presence and was renowned for his prodigious memory. Also standard was the NIDĀNA, which describes the setting of the sūtra, noting where the Buddha was residing at the time, who was in the audience, who was the interlocutor, etc. According to tradition, the sūtras were first codified when Ānanda recited them at the first Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, FIRST), shortly after the Buddha’s death. This conceit of orality was maintained even for sūtras that were literary compositions, written long after the Buddha, most notably, the hundreds of MAHĀYĀNA sūtras that began to appear in India starting some four hundred years after the Buddha’s NIRVĀṆA. An important theme in these sūtras and their commentaries is the claim that they are indeed the word of the Buddha (BUDDHAVACANA). In the standard threefold division of the Buddha’s teachings, sūtra indicates the contents of the SŪTRAPIṬAKA, a grouping of texts that together with the VINAYA and ABHIDHARMA together constitute the TRIPIṬAKA, or “three baskets.” In tantric literature, sūtra is used to refer to the exoteric teachings of the Buddha, in contrast to the tantras, his esoteric teachings. It is also one of the nine (NAVAṄGA[PĀVACANA]) (Pāli) or twelve (DVĀDAŚĀṄGA[PRAVACANA]) (Sanskrit) categories (AṄGA) of Buddhist scripture, according to structure or literary style.

Sūtrālaṃkāra. (S). See MAHĀYĀNASŪTRĀLAṂKĀRA.

sūtrānta. (P. suttanta; T. mdo sde). A synonym for SŪTRA, used also to designate the category of sūtras. In Pāli, SUTTANTA is typically reserved for the longer suttas collected in the DĪGHANIKĀYA.

sūtrapiṭaka. (P. suttapiṭaka; T. mdo sde’i sde snod; C. jingzang; J. kyōzō; K. kyŏngjang 經藏). In Sanskrit, “basket of discourses,” one of the three constituents of the TRIPIṬAKA (together with the VINAYAPIṬAKA and the ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA). This basket is a disparate collection of thousands of texts attributed to the Buddha (or said to be spoken with his sanction), varying in length from extended narrative accounts to short epigrams. The Pāli suttapiṭaka is divided into five groups, or NIKĀYA. These are the DĪGHANIKĀYA, or “Long Group,” comprising thirty-four lengthier sūtras; the MAJJHIMANIKĀYA, or “Middle [Length] Group,” comprising 152 sūtras; the SAṂYUTTANIKĀYA or “Related Group,” comprising (by some counts) some seven thousand sūtras, organized largely by subject matter in fifty-six categories; the AṄGUTTARANIKĀYA, literally, the “Group Increasing by a Factor,” or more generally, the “Numerical Group,” an anthology of nearly ten thousand brief texts organized by the number of the subject, with the first group dealing with single things, the second dealing with pairs, the third dealing with things that occur in threes, up to things that occur in groups of eleven; and finally the KHUDDAKANIKĀYA, or “Small Group,” a diverse collection of miscellaneous texts, including such famous works as the Pāli DHAMMAPADA. Although the Khuddakanikāya contains some early works, as an independent nikāya, it appears to have been the last to be added to the tipiṭaka and is not mentioned in early accounts. The suttapiṭaka seems to have been preserved orally for centuries, before being committed to writing in Sri Lanka at the end of the first century BCE. The sūtrapiṭakas of other Indian NIKĀYAs (schools) translated from a number of Indian languages into Chinese and Tibetan use the word ĀGAMA (tradition) in place of nikāya (group) for the groupings of sūtras in their respective canons. In their Chinese translations, the DĪRGHĀGAMA or “Long Discourses,” belonging to the DHARMAGUPTAKA school, corresponds to the Pāli Dīghanikāya; the MADHYAMĀGAMA or “Middle-Length Discourses” of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school corresponds to the Pāli Majjhimanikāya; the SAṂYUKTĀGAMA or “Connected Discourses,” belonging to the Sarvāstivāda school (with a partial translation perhaps belonging to the KĀŚYAPĪYA school) corresponds to the Pāli Saṃyuttanikāya; and the EKOTTARĀGAMA or “Numerically Arranged Discourses,” variously ascribed to the DHARMAGUPTAKAs, or less plausibly the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA school or its PRAJÑAPTIVĀDA offshoot, corresponds to the Pāli Aṅguttaranikāya. Despite the similarities in the titles of these collections, there are substantial differences between the contents of the Sanskrit āgamas and the Pāli nikāyas. The Khuddakanikāya (“Miscellaneous Collection”), the fifth nikāya in the Pāli canon, has no equivalent in the extant Chinese translations of the āgamas; such miscellanies, or “mixed baskets” (S. kṣudrakapiṭaka), were however known to have existed in several of the mainstream Buddhist schools, including the Dharmaguptaka, Mahāsāṃghika, and MAHĪŚĀSAKA.

Sūtrasamuccaya. (T. Mdo kun las btus pa; C. Dasheng baoyaoyi lun; J. Daijō hōyōgiron; K. Taesŭng poyoŭi non 大乘寶要義論). In Sanskrit, “Compendium of Sūtras,” a work attributed to NĀGĀRJUNA, an anthology of passages from sixty-eight mainly MAHĀYĀNA sūtras (or collections of sūtras), organized under thirteen topics. These topics extol the bodhisattva and the Mahāyāna path, noting the rarity and hence precious nature of such things as faith in the Buddha, great compassion, and laymen who are able to follow the bodhisattva path. The text is of historical interest because it provides evidence of the Mahāyāna sūtras that were extant at the time of Nāgārjuna. These include, in addition to various PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtras, such famous works as the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA, the DAŚABHŪMIKASŪTRA, the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA, and the VIMALAKĪRTINIRDEŚA. The Chinese translation was made by Dharmarakṣa (c. 1018–1058) during the Northern Song dynasty and was among the last stratum of Indian materials to be entered into the Chinese Buddhist canon (C. DAZANGJING).

sūtravibhaṅga. (P. suttavibhaṅga; T. mdo rnam par ’byed pa; C. jingfenbie; J. kyōfunbetsu; K. kyŏngbunbyŏl 經分別). In Sanskrit, “analysis of the SŪTRAs,” a section of the VINAYA that comments on the PRĀTIMOKṢA; also known as the VINAYAVIBHAṄGA. The prātimokṣa is a list of rules that monks and nuns must follow. The sūtravibhaṅga comments on each rule according to a fourfold structure. First, the text recounts the occasion for the formulation of the rule. According to the tradition, the Buddha did not initially impose rules on the SAṂGHA, but created the monastic code gradually as misconduct that required correction began to appear in the order. Thus, each rule was declared by the Buddha in a specific circumstance, only after a misdeed had occurred. The Buddha would then make a rule prohibiting that deed, without any retrospective sanction against the original perpetrator, since no rule was in place at the time of the misdeed. This section explains the circumstances that led to the Buddha’s announcement of the rule and may include more than one story. (In the case of subcategories of a misdeed, the Buddha is not always mentioned.) This section of the text provides important insights into monastic life in India at the time. Second, the specific prātimokṣa rule is stated. Third, the text provides a word-for-word commentary on the rule as it is set forth in the prātimokṣa. Finally, accounts are provided of circumstances under which the rule might be violated without sanction or with reduced sanction. The sūtravibhaṅga is organized according to the eight sections of the prātimokṣa. There are separate versions of the text for BHIKṢUs and BHIKṢUṆĪs, with the former also being known as the mahāvibhaṅga. In most vinaya traditions, a prātimokṣa exists as a separate text, but in the Pāli vinaya, the pāṭimokkha is embedded within the SUTTAVIBHAṄGA.

sutta. In Pāli, “discourses.” See SŪTRA.

Suttanipāta. In Pāli, “Sutta Collection”; the fifth book of the KHUDDAKANIKĀYA of the Pāli SUTTAPIṬAKA, which includes texts that derive from the earliest stratum of the Pāli canon. It is comprised of five VAGGAs or chapters, the Uragavagga, Cūḷavagga, MAHĀVAGGA, AṬṬHAKAVAGGA, and the Pārāyaṇavagga. The Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyaṇavagga are believed to have been early collections that circulated independently, as there is a canonical commentary on them, the NIDDESA, that ignores the other vaggas. They also include verse passages that metrical evidence places as among the most archaic in the canon.

suttanta. In Pāli, a synonym for SŪTRA, used also to designate the category of scriptural literature. In Pāli, suttanta is typically reserved for the longer suttas collected in the DĪGHANIKĀYA. See also SŪTRĀNTA.

suttapiṭaka. In Pāli, “basket of discourses,” the first of the “three baskets” (P. TIPIṬAKA; S. TRIPIṬAKA) of the Buddhist canon. See SŪTRAPIṬAKA.

suttavibhaṅga. In Pāli, “analysis of the suttas”; the first major section of the Pāli VINAYAPIṬAKA. Embedded within the suttavibhaṅga is the pāṭimokkha (S. PRĀTIMOKṢA), a collection of 227 rules (311 for nuns) that were to be followed by fully ordained members of the Buddhist monastic community. The bulk of the suttavibhaṅga contains narratives and commentaries related to the promulgation of the pāṭimokkha rules, which explain the events that led to the Buddha’s decision to establish a specific rule. Following the Buddha’s pronouncement of the rule, the rule may be interpreted with word-for-word commentary and/or details that might justify an exception to the rule. In the suttavibhaṅga, these narrative and commentarial treatments are organized in the same way as the pāṭimokkha itself, that is, according to the category of offense. Thus, the suttavibhaṅga begins with the PĀRĀJIKA (defeat) offenses and works its way through the remaining sections of the pāṭimokkha. See also SŪTRAVIBHAṄGA.

Suvaṇṇabhūmi. (S. Suvarṇabhūmi). In Pāli, “The Golden Land,” a territory generally identified with the Mon homeland of Rāmaññadesa in Lower Burma (Myanmar) lying along the coast of the Bay of Bengal from the Irrawaddy (Ayeyarwady) river delta in the west to Martaban in the east. Some chroniclers locate Suvaṇṇabhūmi to the east of the Isthmus of Kra along the southern Thai coast. According to Pāli sources, it was the destination of one of nine Buddhist missions dispatched during the reign of AŚOKA from Pātaliputta (S. PĀṬALIPUTRA, modern Patna) to adjacent lands by the elder MOGGALIPUTTATISSA after the convention of the third Buddhist council (see COUNCIL, THIRD) in the third century BCE. The elders SOṆA AND UTTARA were sent as missionaries to convert Suvaṇṇabhūmi. The third Buddhist council at Pātaliputta and the nine Buddhist missions are known only in Pāli sources and are first recorded in the fifth-century DĪPAVAṂSA.

Suvarṇadvīpa. (S). One of the twenty-four sacred sites associated with the CAKRASAṂVARATANTRA. See PĪṬHA.

Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra. (T. Gser ’od dam pa’i mdo; C. Jinguangming zuishengwang jing; J. Konkōmyō saishōōkyō; K. Kŭmgwangmyŏng ch’oesŭngwang kyŏng 金光明最勝王經). In Sanskrit, “Sūtra of Supreme Golden Light,” an influential MAHĀYĀNA sūtra, especially in East Asia. Scholars speculate that the text originated in India in the fourth century and was gradually augmented. It was translated into Chinese by YIJING in 703. The sūtra contains many DHĀRAṆĪ and is considered by some to be a proto-tantric text; in some editions of the Tibetan canon it is classified as a TANTRA. It is important in East Asian Buddhism for two main reasons. First was the role the sūtra played in conceptualizing state-protection Buddhism (HUGUO FOJIAO). The sūtra declares that deities will protect the lands of rulers who worship and uphold the sūtra, bringing peace and prosperity, but will abandon the lands of rulers who do not, such that all manner of catastrophe will befall their kingdoms. The sūtra was thus central to “state protection” practices in East Asia, together with the SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA and the RENWANG JING. Second, the sūtra provides the locus classicus for the “water and land ceremony” (SHUILU HUI), a ritual intended for universal salvation, but especially of living creatures who inhabit the most painful domains of SAṂSĀRA; the ceremony was also performed for a variety of this-worldly purposes, including state protection and rain-making. According to the sūtra, in a previous life, the Buddha was a merchant’s son named Jalavāhana, who one day encountered a dried-up pond in the forest, filled with thousands of dying fish. Summoning twenty elephants, he carried bags of water from a river into the forest and replenished the pond, saving the fish. He then sent for food with which to feed them. Finally, recalling that anyone who hears the name of the buddha Ratnaśikhin will be reborn in the heavens, he waded into the pond and pronounced the Buddha’s name, followed by an exposition of dependent origination. When the fish died, they were reborn in the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven. Recalling the reason for their happy fate, they visited the world of humans, where each offered a pearl necklace to Jalavāhana’s head, foot, right side, and left side. The sūtra also tells the story of Prince Mahāsattva who sees a starving tigress and her cubs. He throws himself off a cliff to commit suicide so that the tiger might eat his body (see NAMO BUDDHA). This is one of the most famous cases of DEHADĀNA, or gift of the body.

Suvarṣaka. (C. Shansui; J. Zensai; K. Sŏnse 善). In Sanskrit, the surname of the founder of the KĀŚYAPĪYA school, one of the eighteen traditional schools of mainstream Indian Buddhism. See KĀŚYAPĪYA.

*suvibhaktadharmacakra. (T. legs par rnam par phye ba dang ldan pa’i chos ’khor; C. zhengzhuan falun; J. shōtenpōrin; K. chŭngjŏn pŏmnyun 證轉法輪). In Sanskrit, lit., “the dharma wheel that makes a fine delineation”; the third of the three turnings of the wheel of the dharma described in the SAṂDHINIRMOCANASŪTRA, said to have been delivered in VAIŚĀLĪ. It is also known as the PARAMĀRTHAVINIŚCAYADHARMACAKRA, or “the dharma wheel for ascertaining the ultimate,” as the pravicayadharmacakra, or “the dharma wheel of investigation,” and simply as the antyadharmacakra or “final wheel of the dharma.” The sūtra identifies this as a teaching for bodhisattvas and classifies it as definitive (NĪTĀRTHA); this third turning of the wheel is the teaching of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra itself. According to the commentators, in this sūtra the Buddha, through his anamuensis Paramārthasamudgata, sets forth in clear and plain language what he means by his provisional statements in the first wheel of the dharma (see CATUḤSATYADHARMACAKRA), namely, that the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS exist; and his statement in his middle wheel of the dharma in the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ SŪTRAs (perfection of wisdom sūtras) (see ALAKṢAṆADHARMACAKRA) that no dharmas exist. Both of the first two wheels are declared to be provisional (NEYĀRTHA). Here, in this definitive teaching called “the dharma wheel that makes a fine delineation,” he says that dharmas have three natures (TRISVABHĀVA), and each of those in its own way lacks an intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA). The three natures are the PARIKALPITA or imaginary nature, the PARATANTRA or dependent nature, and the PARINIṢPANNA or consummate nature. ¶ In Tibet there were different schools of interpretation of the three wheels of doctrine. The third Karma pa RANG ’BYUNG RDO RJE, DOL PO PA SHES RAB RGYAL MTSHAN, and the nineteenth-century RIS MED masters assert that the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra’s third wheel of dharma is definitive and teaches a great MADHYAMAKA (DBU MA CHEN PO). They say this great Madhyamaka is set forth with great clarity in the ŚRĪMĀLĀDEVĪSIṂHANĀDASŪTRA and, particularly, in the RATNAGOTRAVIBHĀGA (“Delineation of the Jewel Lineage”; alt. title, Uttaratantra). They argue that in the second turning of the wheel, the prajñāpāramitā sūtras, the Buddha uses apophatic language to stress the need to eliminate KLEŚAs and false superimpositions. He does not clearly delineate, as he does in the third turning, the TATHĀGATAGARBHA, which is both empty (śūnya) of all afflictions (kleśa) and nonempty (aśūnya), viz., full of all the Buddha’s virtues. Hence they assert that the third turning of dharma in the Samdhinirmocanasūtra sets forth the “great Madhyamaka” (dbu ma chen po), and is a definitive teaching that avoids both apophatic and kataphatic extremes. Others, most notably TSONG KHA PA, disagree, asserting that the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra’s second turning of the wheel is the definitive teaching of the Buddha, and say that its third turning, i.e., the presentation of Buddhist tenets in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, is a Yogācāra teaching intended for those temporarily incapable of understanding Madhyamaka.

Suvikrāntavikrāmiparipṛcchāprajñāpāramitā. (T. Rab kyi rtsal gyis rnam par gnon pas shus pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa; C. Shengtian wang bore boluomi jing; J. Shōtennō hannya haramikkyō; K. Sŭngch’ŏn wang panya paramil kyŏng 勝天王般若波羅蜜經). In Sanskrit, the “Perfection of Wisdom Requested by Suvikrāntavikrāmin.” A PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ (“perfection of wisdom”) sūtra in seven chapters, it is closely related to the first two chapters of the AṢṬASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ in its themes, and displays a great familiarity with the various categories of the ABHIDHARMA, more so than other prajñāpāramitā sūtras. In the fourth chapter, it uses twelve similes for dharmas and the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ, including a reflection, a mirage, an echo, the pith of a banana tree, and a bubble (cf. LIUYU, AṢṬAMĀYOPĀMA). The PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ is described as inaccessible and unestablished (apariniṣpannā) but pure and infinite. In the fifth chapter, ŚĀRIPUTRA asks SUBHŪTI to explain the dharma but Subhūti replies that there is nothing to explain.

Suvinda. (S). See SUBINDA.

Suyŏn. (K) (秀演). See MUYONG SUYŎN.

Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. (鈴木大拙[貞太郎]) (1870–1966). A Japanese scholar of Zen Buddhism, widely regarded as the person most responsible for introducing ZEN thought to the West. Born in Kanazawa, D. T. Suzuki, as he is usually known in Western writings, was the son of a physician. He taught English in primary schools before enrolling in what is now Waseda University in Tokyo. While he was a university student, he traveled to Kamakura to practice Zen meditation at the monastery of ENGAKUJI under the direction of the RINZAI master SHAKU SŌEN. He became Sōen’s disciple and translated into English Sōen’s lecture for the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions. Sōen subsequently arranged for Suzuki to travel to America to work with PAUL CARUS, author of The Gospel of Buddha and a leading proponent of Buddhism in America. Suzuki lived with Carus’ family in LaSalle, Illinois from 1897 to 1908, producing translations and writing his first book in English, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism (1907). He returned to Japan in 1909, where he taught English until 1921, when he accepted a chair in Buddhist philosophy at Ōtani University in Kyoto. In 1911, he married an American student of Buddhism, Beatrice Erskine Lane (1878–1939), who served as the coeditor of many of his books and published her own studies of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Suzuki remained in Japan during World War II, but in 1950, after the war, he returned to the United States and lectured on Zen Buddhism at a number of universities, including Columbia University, where he was a long-time visiting professor. Suzuki was a prolific author in both Japanese and English, and eventually came to be renowned in both academic traditions. Because Suzuki was something of an autodidact in Buddhism, he initially struggled to be accepted into the mainstream of Japanese academe, but his prodigious output (his writings in Japanese filled thirty-two volumes) and his emphasis on the Indian and Chinese foundations of Japanese Buddhism (at a time when Japanese nationalist interpretations of Buddhism were the order of the day) eventually brought him wide respect at home. In the West, he wrote on both Mahāyāna Buddhism and Zen. His writings on Mahāyāna Buddhism include his highly regarded English translation and study of the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA and a critical edition of the Sanskrit recension of the GAṆḌAVYŪHA. But Suzuki’s most influential works in English scholarship are his voluminous writings on the Zen tradition, including his three-volume Essays in Zen Buddhism, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, The Training of a Zen Buddhist Monk, and Zen and Japanese Culture. These books, for the first time, made Zen philosophy and history serious topics of Buddhological research, and also inspired many Zen popularizers, such as ALAN WATTS and JACK KEROUAC, whose works introduced the notion of “Zen” to the Western popular imagination. Suzuki also mentored many of the preeminent Western Buddhologists of the mid-twentieth century; even the notorious curmudgeon EDWARD CONZE gushed over Suzuki, such was his high regard for his Japanese colleague. Suzuki died in Tokyo at the age of ninety-six.

Suzuki Shōzan. [alt. Suzuki Shōsan] (鈴木正三) (1579–1655). Japanese ZEN monk of the Tokugawa period. Suzuki Shōzan was born into a samurai family in Mikawa, present-day Aichi prefecture. He is said to have fought under Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616) at Sekigahara in 1600 and again at Ōsaka fourteen years later. He retired from lay life at the age of forty-one, and during this retirement he studied under various teachers such as DAIGU SŌCHIKU and GUDŌ TŌSHOKU of the RINZAISHŪ and Bannan Eishu (1591–1654) of the SŌTŌSHŪ. Whether he inherited the lineages of any of these figures is unclear. He established several temples throughout the country, which are now registered with the Sōtō Zen sect. At these temples, he taught a unique form of Zen called Niōzen or Ninōzen, which emphasized the fearsome cultivation of Zen in everyday life. He left many writings including the Roankyō (“Donkey-Saddle Bridge”), Ninin bikuni (“Two Nuns”), Mōanjō (“A Safe Staff for the Blind”), and Banmin dokuyō (“Right Action for All”).

Suzuki Shunryū. (鈴木俊隆) (1904–1971). Japanese ZEN priest influential in American Buddhism during the mid-twentieth century. Suzuki Shunryū was born in a village forty miles southwest of Tokyo, the son of a poor Zen priest. After elementary school, he went to live at a temple run by a disciple of his father. He was ordained as a novice monk in 1917. After completing his secondary school education, where he excelled at English, he attended Komazawa University in Tokyo, the university affiliated with the Sōtō sect of Zen, graduating in 1930. He then went on to train at EIHEJI, the head temple of the SŌTŌSHŪ. In 1932, he took over as priest of his father’s temple before moving on to serve as abbot at the larger temple of Rinsōin. He married in 1935. He spent the war years at Rinsōin and, unlike many Buddhist priests, did not actively support the war, although his temple was used to house soldiers, Korean laborers, and children displaced by the bombing of Tokyo. After the war, he engaged in a common occupation of Zen priests: performing services for the dead, while also opening a kindergarten. In 1959, he accepted a post offered by the headquarters of the Sōtō sect to serve as priest at a Japanese-American Zen temple in San Francisco, where he performed religious services for a community of some sixty families. He began to give lectures in English and to lead meditation retreats at the San Francisco temple. He continued to serve as priest to the Japanese community until 1969, when the tensions between his Japanese parishioners and his American disciples led him to resign from his original position. He then founded the San Francisco Zen Center, which eventually established both a residential center in the city, a mountain center in Tassajara, and a farm at Green Gulch. In 1970, an edited version of some of his lectures were published as Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, a work that became a bestseller and classic of American Zen. Suzuki died in San Francisco in 1971.

svabhāva. (T. rang bzhin; C. zixing; J. jishō; K. chasŏng 自性). In Sanskrit, “self-nature,” “intrinsic existence,” or “inherent existence,” the term has a general sense of “essence” or “nature,” but is used in philosophical literature. It has at least three important, and different, usages, in MAHĀYĀNA Buddhist doctrine. In the MADHYAMAKA school, it refers to a hypostatized and reified nature that is falsely attributed to phenomena by ignorance, such that phenomena are mistakenly conceived to exist in and of themselves. In this sense, it is used as a synonym for ĀTMAN. Therefore, there is no svabhāva, nothing possesses svabhāva, and all phenomena are said to lack, or be empty of, svabhāva. This doctrine is sufficiently central to Madhyamaka that the school is also called NIḤSVABHĀVAVĀDA, the “Proponents of No Svabhāva.” In YOGĀCĀRA, as represented in the SAṂDHINIRMOCANASŪTRA, all phenomena can be categorized into three natures (TRISVABHĀVA): the imaginary (PARIKALPITA), the dependent (PARATANTRA), and the consummate (PARINIṢPANNA). In the LAṄKĀVATĀRASŪTRA, seven forms of svabhāva or natures are enumerated to account for the functioning of phenomena: (1) samudayasvabhāva (C. jixing zixing), the nature of things that derives from the interaction between various conditions; (2) bhāvasvabhāva (C. xing zixing), the nature that is intrinsic to things themselves; (3) lakṣaṇasvabhāva (C. xiangxing zixing), the characteristics or marks (LAKṢAṆA) that distinguish one thing from another; (4) mahābhūtasvabhāva (C. dazhongxing zixing), the nature of things that derives from being constituted by the four physical elements (MAHĀBHŪTA); (5) hetusvabhāva (C. yinxing zixing), the nature of things that is derived from the “proximate causes” (HETU) that are necessary for their production; (6) pratyayasvabhāva (C. yuanxing zixing), the nature derived from the “facilitating conditions” (PRATYAYA); (7) niṣpattisvabhāva (C. chengxing zixing), the consummate, actualized buddha-nature that is the fundamental reality of things. See also NIḤSVABHĀVA.

svabhāvakāya. (T. ngo bo nyid sku; C. zixing shen; J. jishōshin; K. chasŏng sin 自性身). In Sanskrit, lit. “self-nature body,” the buddha-body in its most elemental nature (also seen written as svābhāvikakāya); one of the four types of buddha bodies (BUDDHAKĀYA) discussed in the BUDDHABHŪMIŚĀSTRA (Fodijing lun), the MAHĀYĀNASAṂGRAHA (She dasheng lun), and the CHENG WEISHI LUN (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra), along with the “body intended for personal enjoyment” (SVASAṂBHOGAKĀYA), the “body intended for others’ enjoyment” (PARASAṂBHOGAKĀYA), and the “transformation body” (NIRMĀṆAKĀYA). This type of buddha-body is functionally equivalent to the DHARMAKĀYA in the two or “three bodies” (TRIKĀYA) schema of buddha-bodies. ¶ A different understanding of the svabhāvakāya derives from the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ literature. The final chapter of the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA sets forth an elliptic presentation of the svabhāvakāya that led to a number of different later interpretations. According to Ārya VIMUKTISENA’s interpretation, the svabhāvakāya is not a separate buddha-body, but rather the ultimate nature (in essence, the emptiness or ŚŪNYATĀ) that locates or underpins the other three bodies (the dharmakāya, SAṂBHOGAKĀYA, and nirmāṇakāya). He proposes just three bodies. HARIBHADRA disagrees with this interpretation and proposes four bodies. Strongly influenced by YOGĀCĀRA thought, he privileges the dharmakāya and says it has two parts: a knowledge body (JÑĀNADHARMAKĀYA), which is a buddha’s omniscient mind, and a svabhāvakāya, which is the ultimate nature of that mind. This controversy was widely debated in Tibet in the commentarial tradition.

svabhāvaśūnya. (T. rang bzhin gyis stong pa; C. zixing kong; J. jishōkū; K. chasŏng kong 自性空). In Sanskrit, “empty of intrinsic nature,” a term used in the MADHYAMAKA school to specify that all persons and phenomena are empty of an intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA). The term svabhāva is used in Madhyamaka to refer to a hypostatized and reified nature that is falsely attributed to phenomena by ignorance, such that phenomena are mistakenly conceived to exist in and of themselves. In this sense, it is used as a synonym for ĀTMAN. All phenomena are declared to lack, or be empty of, svabhāva and hence are svabhāvaśūnya. The term svabhāvaśūnyatā, “emptiness of intrinsic nature,” is one in the list of emptinesses, sometimes as long as twenty, beginning with adhyātmaśūnyatā (“emptiness of the internal”), bahirdhāśūnyatā (“emptiness of the external”), ubhayaśūnyatā (“emptiness of both,”), and including abhāvaśūnyatā (“emptiness of nonbeing”).

svabhāvavikalpa. (T. rang bzhin la rnam par rtog pa; C. zixing fenbie; J. jishō funbetsu; K. chasŏng punbyŏl 自性分別). In Sanskrit, “intrinsic discrimination”; the first of the three types of conceptual discrimination (VIKALPA). See TRIVIKALPA.

Svāgata. (P. Sāgata; T. Legs ’ongs; C. Shanlai; J. Zenrai; K. Sŏllae 善來). Sanskrit proper name of an eminent ARHAT elder declared by the Buddha to be foremost among his monk disciples in contemplation of the heat element (tejadhātu); also written in BUDDHIST HYBRID SANSKRIT as Sāgata. According to the Pāli account, Sāgata was the personal attendant of the Buddha when SOṆA KOLIVĪSA (S. Śrona-Viṃśatikoṭi/Śrona-Koṭiviṃśa) and eighty thousand companions visited RĀJAGṚHA at the request of King BIMBISĀRA. Sāgata appears to have been naturally endowed with supernatural powers (P. iddhi, S. ṚDDHI) and left such an impression on Soṇa Kolavīsa that he joined the order. At the king’s request, Sāgata displayed numerous marvels in the sky and, when asked to show an even greater wonder, he fell at the Buddha’s feet and declared him to be his teacher. In the hermitage of the Jaṭilas in Ambatittha (S. Āmratirtha), Sāgata dwelt in a powerful NĀGA’s cave, angering him, yet he was easily able to defeat the creature. When the people of Kosambī (S. KAUŚĀMBĪ) heard of this feat, they resolved to honor Svāgata with a feast. The wicked chabbaggīyā (S. ṢAḌVĀRGIKA) monks, jealous of Sāgata’s fame, were intent on his undoing, and so recommended to the citizens of Kosambī that they offer him liquor. Sāgata was offered liquor at every house until he fell unconscious and had to be carried back to the Buddha. Although he was laid down properly with his head facing the Buddha, he turned around and lay with his feet towards the Buddha. The Buddha used this occasion to preach about the heedlessness (PRAMĀDA) that arises from intoxication and passed a rule against the use of alcohol and other intoxicants. The next day when Sāgata awoke, he was informed of what had happened and begged the Buddha for forgiveness. After a short while, through diligent practice, he attained insight into the three marks of existence and became an arhat.

svalakṣaṇa. (T. rang mtshan; C. zixiang; J. jisō; K. chasang 自相). In Sanskrit, “own characteristic,” or “specifically characterized,” a term used in contrast to “general” or “generic” “characteristic” (SĀMĀNYALAKṢAṆA). In views that Tibetan doxographers have associated with the SAUTRĀNTIKA school, as set forth in the early chapters of DHARMAKĪRTI’s PRAMĀṆAVĀRTTIKA, svalakṣaṇa is used to refer to impermanent things, which are objects of direct perception (PRATYAKṢA) and hence can be perceived in all of their specificity, as opposed to the objects of thought, which must be apprehended through the medium of mental images. For the *PRĀSAṄGIKA branch of MADHYAMAKA, svalakṣaṇa takes on the meaning of “established by means of it own characteristic,” and thus is identified as a quality falsely ascribed to persons and phenomena by ignorance, a quality that all phenomena in the universe lack and of which they are empty. Thus, in Madhyamaka, nothing is svalakṣaṇasiddha, or “established by way of own nature.” All phenomena lack this quality and are therefore described as SVALAKṢAṆAŚŪNYA.

svalakṣaṇaśūnya. (T. rang mtshan gyis stong pa; C. zixiang kong; J. jisōkū; K. chasang kong 自相空). In Sanskrit, “empty of own characteristic,” a term is used in the perfection of wisdom (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) literature to describe the fundamental truth of all phenomena. According to some ABHIDHARMA schools, the factors (DHARMA) that constitute physical and mental existence were real and were endowed with specific essential qualities (SVALAKṢAṆA). One of the major doctrinal developments present in prajñāpāramitā literature is the assertion that ultimate reality should be properly understood as devoid of such characteristics (svalakṣaṇaśūnya). The term svalakṣaṇa was used in the *PRĀSAṄGIKA branch of MADHYAMAKA to specify an intrinsic nature. In this context, the term svalakṣaṇa takes on the meaning of “established by means of it own characteristic,” and thus is identified as a false quality imagined to exist by ignorance, a quality that all phenomena in the universe lack and of which they are empty; hence, they are svalakṣaṇaśūnya.

Svalpākṣaraprajñāpāramitā. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yi ge nyung ngu; C. Shengfomu xiaozi bore boluomiduo jing; J. Shōbutsumo shōji hannya haramittakyō; K. Sŏngbulmo soja panya p’aramilta kyŏng 聖佛母小字般若波羅蜜多經). In Sanskrit, “Perfection of Wisdom in a Few Words”; also known as the Alpākṣaraprajñāpāramitā. Sometimes referred to in Western scholarship as the “Tantric Heart Sūtra,” this brief PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtra that takes the form of a dialogue between the Buddha and AVALOKITEŚVARA, in which the buddha enjoins the bodhisattva to recite the “heart of the perfection of wisdom.” The sūtra is directed to those beings of little merit and of limited intellectual capacity. The Buddha enters the SAMĀDHI called “liberation from all suffering” (sarvaduḥkhapramocana) and provides a MANTRA and DHĀRAṆĪ to his audience. The mantra is connected with an earlier buddha called Mahāśākyamuni. By reciting the mantra and the dhāraṇī, hindrances from past actions are extinguished and beings turn toward enlightenment.

svarga. (P. sagga; T. mtho ris; C. tianshang; J. tenjō; K. ch’ŏnsang 天上). In Sanskrit, “heaven,” the realm of the divinities within the cycle of rebirth (SAṂSĀRA). The terms encompasses the six heavens of the sensuous realm (KĀMADHĀTU) as well as the heavens of the subtle-materiality realm (RŪPADHĀTU) and the immaterial realm (ĀRŪPYADHĀTU). Although sublime states, none of these are permanent abodes; the beings reborn there eventually die and are reborn elsewhere when the causes that led to their celestial births are exhausted. However, the Buddha repeatedly teaches the virtues that result in rebirth in heaven, and such rebirth has been one of the primary goals of Buddhist practice, especially among the laity, throughout the history of Buddhism. Rebirth as a divinity (DEVA) is presumed to be the reward of wholesome acts (KUŚALA-KARMAN) performed in previous lives and is thus considered a salutary, if provisional, religious goal. For example, in his typical “graduated discourse” (P. ANUPUBBIKATHĀ) the Buddha uses the prospect of heavenly rebirth, and its attendant pleasures, as one means of attracting laypersons to the religious life. Despite the many appealing attributes of these heavenly beings, such as their physical beauty, comfortable lives, and long life spans, even heavenly existence is ultimately unsatisfactory because it does not offer permanent release from the continued cycle of birth and death (SAṂSĀRA). Since devas are merely enjoying the rewards of their previous good deeds rather than performing new wholesome actions, they are considered to be spiritually stagnant, such that when the karmic effect of the deed that led to rebirth in heaven is exhausted, they are inevitably reborn in a lower realm of existence (GATI), perhaps even in one of the baleful destinies (DURGATI). For these reasons, Buddhist soteriological literature sometimes condemns religious practice performed solely for the goal of achieving rebirth in the heavens. It is only in certain higher level of the heavens, such as the those belonging to the five pure abodes (ŚUDDHĀVĀSA), that beings are not subject to further rebirth, because they have already eliminated all the fetters (SAṂYOJANA) associated with that realm and are destined to achieve ARHATship. ¶ In traditional Indian cosmology, the heavens of the sensuous realm are thought to rest on and extend far above the peak of Mt. SUMERU, the axis mundi of the universe. They are ranked according to their elevation, so the higher the heaven, the greater the enjoyments of their inhabitants. The lowest of these heavens is the heaven of the four heavenly kings (CĀTURMAHĀRĀJAKĀYIKA), who are protectors of the dharma (DHARMAPĀLA). The highest is the heaven of the divinities who have power over the creations of others, or the divinities who partake of the pleasures created in other heavens (PARANIRMITAVAŚAVARTIN), which is said to be the heaven where MĀRA resides. TUṢITA, the heaven into which ŚĀKYAMUNI was born as the divinity ŚVETAKETU in his penultimate life, is the fourth of the kāmadhātu heavens, in ascending order. ¶ The heavens of the subtle-materiality realm are grouped into four categories that correspond to the four stratified levels of DHYĀNA—states of profound meditative concentration. Thus, rebirth into any one of these heavens is dependent on the attainment of the dhyāna to which it corresponds in the immediately preceding lifetime. Each of the four dhyāna has various heavens. The lowest of these heavens is the heaven of brahmā’s retainers (BRAHMAKĀYIKA), which corresponds to the first subtle-materiality absorption (RŪPĀVACARADHYĀNA), and the highest is the highest heaven (AKANIṢṬHA), which is also classified as one of the “pure abodes,” or ŚUDDHĀVĀSA. ¶ The heavens of the immaterial realm similarly correspond to the four immaterial dhyānas (ĀRŪPYĀVACARADHYĀNA), beginning with the sphere of infinite space (ĀKĀŚĀNANTYĀYATANA) and so on up to the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception (NAIVASAṂJÑĀNĀSAṂJÑĀYATANA). As noted, despite their many enjoyments, none of these realms is eternal and all are thus understood to fall within the realm of saṃsāra. For a full account of all the heavens, see DEVA.

svārtha. (T. rang don; C. zili; J. jiri; K. chari 自利). In Sanskrit, “self-benefit,” “benefitting oneself.” The term is used in several contexts. First, it may refer to the goal of worldly actions that selfishly seek happiness but, because they are motivated by the afflictions (KLEŚA), in fact result in suffering. Second, the term may be used to describe the goal of the ŚRĀVAKA and PRATYEKABUDDHA, who seek their own welfare by becoming an ARHAT, in contrast to the BODHISATTVA who seeks the welfare of others (PARĀRTHA), willingly relinquishing motivations and deeds that would lead to his own personal benefit. In the case of the bodhisattva, it is said that by following the bodhisattva path to buddhahood, the bodhisattva fulfills both his own welfare (because he achieves the omniscience of a buddha) as well as the welfare of others (because he teaches the dharma so that others may also become buddhas).

svārthānumāna. (T. rang don rjes dpag; C. zibiliang; J. jihiryō; K. chabiryang 自比量). In Sanskrit, “inference for oneself,” a term used in Buddhist logic to refer to what would generally be referred to as a correct inference, that is, a mental process of reasoning that results in a factual assumption about a particular state of affairs. Technically speaking, inference for oneself is a conceptual consciousness that discerns an object by means of a sign or reason (LIṄGA) that has the three qualities (trirūpa) of legitimate evidence. This refers to three relations that must obtain between the three elements of a syllogism: the subject, the predicate, and the reason. The three qualities are (1) the PAKṢADHARMA, that the reason is a quality of the subject; (2) the forward pervasion (anvayavyāpti), that whatever is the reason is necessarily the predicate; and (3) the “exclusion” or reverse pervasion (vyatirekavyāpti), that whatever is not the predicate is necessarily not the reason. DIGNĀGA contrasted the inference for oneself with the inference for others (PARĀRTHĀNUMĀNA), which is not an inference in a technical sense, but is used only metaphorically. Inference for others refers to a proof that would be stated to another person, such as an opponent in a debate, in order for that person to arrive at the correct conclusion that one oneself has understood. Because the proof serves as the cause of the other person’s inference, it is called an inference for others.

svasaṃbhogakāya. (C. zi shouyong shen; J. jijuyūshin; K. cha suyong sin 自受用身). In Sanskrit, “body intended for personal enjoyment,” in contrast to the PARASAṂBHOGAKĀYA, “body intended for others’ enjoyment”; one of the four types of buddha bodies (BUDDHAKĀYA) discussed in the BUDDHABHŪMIŚĀSTRA (Fodijing lun), the MAHĀYĀNASAṂGRAHA (She dasheng lun), and the CHENG WEISHI LUN (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra), along with the “self-nature body” (SVABHĀVAKĀYA or svābhāvikakāya), the “body intended for others’ enjoyment” (parasaṃbhogakāya), and the “transformation body” (NIRMĀṆAKĀYA). This fourfold schema of buddha bodies derives from the better-known three bodies of a buddha (TRIKĀYA)—viz., dharma body (DHARMAKĀYA), reward body (SAṂBHOGAKĀYA), and transformation body (nirmāṇakāya)—but distinguishes between these two different types of reward bodies. The svasaṃbhogakāya derives from the countless virtues that originate from the accumulation of immeasurable merit and wisdom over a buddha’s infinitely-long career; this body is a perfect, pure, eternal and omnipresent material body that enjoys the bliss of dharma (DHARMAPRĪTI) for oneself until the end of time. By contrast, the parasaṃbhogakāya is a subtle virtuous body deriving from the cognition of equality (SAMATĀJÑĀNA), which resides in a PURE LAND and displays supernatural powers in order to enhance the enjoyment of the dharma by bodhisattvas at all ten stages of the bodhisattva’s career (BODHISATTVABHŪMI).

svasaṃvedana. (T. rang rig; C. zizheng/zijue; J. jishō/jikaku; K. chajŭng/chagak 自證/自覺). In Sanskrit, lit. “self-knowledge” or “self-awareness,” also seen written as svasaṃveda, svasaṃvit, svasaṃvitti. In Buddhist epistemology, svasaṃvedana is that part of consciousness which, during a conscious act of seeing, hearing, thinking, and so on, apprehends not the external sensory object but the knowing consciousness itself. For example, when a visual consciousness (CAKṢURVIJÑĀNA) apprehends a blue color, there is a simultaneous svasaṃvedana that apprehends the cakṣurvijñāna; it is directed at the consciousness, and explains not only how a person knows that he knows, but also how a person can later remember what he saw or heard, and so on. There is disagreement as to whether such a form of consciousness exists, with proponents (usually YOGĀCĀRA) arguing that there must be this consciousness of consciousness in order for there to be memory of past cognitions, and opponents (MADHYAMAKA) propounding a radical form of nonessentialism that explains memory as a mere manipulation of objects with no more than a language-based reality. Beside the basic use of the term svasaṃvedana to explain the nature of consciousness and the mechanism of memory, the issue of the necessary existence of svasaṃvedana was pressed by the Yogācāra school because of how they understood enlightenment (BODHI). They argued that the liberating vision taught by the Buddha consisted of a self-reflexive act that was utterly free of subject-object distortion (GRĀHYAGRĀHAKAVIKALPA). In ordinary persons, they argued, all conscious acts take place within a bifurcation of subject and object, with a sense of distance between the two, because of the residual impressions or latencies (VĀSANĀ) left by ignorance. Infinite numbers of earlier conscious acts have been informed by that particular deeply ingrained ignorance. These impressions are carried at the foundational level of consciousness (ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA). When they are finally removed by the process of BHĀVANĀ, knowledge (JÑĀNA) purified of distortion emerges in a fundamental transformation (ĀŚRAYAPARĀVṚTTI), thus knowing itself in a nondual vision. Such a vision presupposes self-knowledge. In tantric literature, svasaṃvedana has a less technical sense of a profound and innate knowledge or awareness. See also RIG PA.

svastika. (P. sotthika/sotthiya; T. bkra shis ldan/g.yung drung; C. wan/wanzi; J. man/manji; K. man/mancha 卍/萬字). In Sanskrit, lit. “well-being,” “auspicious”; a mark of good fortune that is widely used in the Buddhist world as an auspicious symbol in both its right-facing and left-facing forms. It is one of the auspicious marks on the soles of a buddha’s feet and it often appears on the chest of buddha images in East Asia (see ANUVYAÑJANA). It commonly appears as a pattern in Buddhist vestments and in various decorative patterns in works of art. Even in the most ancient of Indian art, where the Buddha is represented in aniconic rather that physical form, this symbol is sometimes used to indicate his presence. Although the symbol originated in India, it is subsequently transmitted throughout the Buddhist world and is commonly used as a decorative element on Buddhist temples and shrines. In East Asia, the symbol itself was even constituted as the Sinograph wan (“myriad”). In Tibet, it was translated as g.yung drung, a pre-Buddhist term meaning “eternal” or “unchanging.” A variety of theories have been offered on the origin of the svastika symbol, one of the more widely accepted being that it was originally connected with solar worship. ¶ Svastika was also the name of the grass cutter who prepared a seat for the buddha beneath the BODHI TREE.

svatantrānumāna. (S). See SVATANTRAPRAYOGA.

svatantraprayoga. (T. rang rgyud kyi sbyor ba). In Sanskrit, “autonomous syllogism.” Among the many meanings of the term PRAYOGA is its use as a technical term in logic, where it is often translated as “syllogism,” and refers to a statement that contains a subject, a predicate, and a reason. A svatantraprayoga leads to a svatantrānumāna (T. rang rgyud rjes dpag), an “autonomous inference.” The correct syllogism that gives rise to correct inference is composed of three parts, the subject (dharmin), the property being proved (SĀDHYADHARMA), and the reason (HETU or LIṄGA). For example, consider the syllogism “Sound is impermanent because of being produced.” The subject is sound, the property being proved is impermanence, and the reason is being produced. For the syllogism to be correct, three relations must exist among its three components: (1) the reason must be a property (DHARMA) of the subject, also called the “position” (PAKṢA); (2) there must be a relationship of forward pervasion (anvayavyāpti) between the reason and the property being proved (SĀDHYADHARMA), such that whatever is the reason is necessarily the property being proved, and (3) there must be a relationship of “exclusion” or reverse pervasion (vyatirekavyāpti) between the property being proved and the reason such that whatever is not the property being proved is necessarily not the reason. In the example (“Sound is impermanent because of being produced”), the syllogism is correct because the reason (“being produced”) is a quality of the subject (“sound”), there is forward pervasion in the sense that whatever is produced is necessarily impermanent, and there is reverse pervasion because whatever is not impermanent is necessarily not produced. It is generally the case in Indian logic that all elements of the syllogism must be accepted by both parties in a debate (see SAMĀNAPRATIBHĀSADHARMIN); such a syllogism is referred to as an “autonomous syllogism” (svatantrānumāna or svatantraprayoga). In the Madhyamaka school of Indian Buddhist philosophy, there was a controversy over whether such syllogisms were acceptable when a Madhyamaka debated with a proponent of another school. The locus classicus of the controversy is the debate between BHĀVAVIVEKA and CANDRAKĪRTI concerning BUDDHAPĀLITA’s commentary on the first chapter of NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ. It was Candrakīrti’s position that the Madhyamaka should only use consequences (PRASAṄGA) or an inference familiar to others (PARAPRASIDDHĀNUMĀNA), i.e., that they should only draw out the unintended consequences in others’ positions; to use an autonomous syllogism implied acceptance of intrinsically established relations among the elements of the syllogism. Bhāvaviveka had argued that it was necessary for the Madhyamaka to state an autonomous syllogism at the conclusion of a debate. Based on this controversy, the Tibetans coined the terms *SVĀTANTRIKA and *PRĀSAṄGIKA to designate these two positions.

*Svātantrika. (T. rang rgyud pa). In Sanskrit, “Autonomist,” one of the two main branches (together with the *PRĀSAṄGIKA or “Consequentialist”) of the MADHYAMAKA school in India. It is important to note that the designation Svātantrika as a subschool of Madhyamaka does not occur in Indian literature and was coined retrospectively in Tibet to describe the developments of the Madhyamaka in India. The name *Svātantrika is derived from the insistence on the use of autonomous syllogisms (SVATANTRAPRAYOGA) in debates about the nature of reality, as set forth by BHĀVAVIVEKA and rejected by CANDRAKĪRTI in their respective commentaries on NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ. In the Tibetan doxographies, the leading proponents of the *Svātantrika include BHĀVAVIVEKA and ŚĀNTARAKṢITA; the former is regarded as the founder of the SAUTRĀNTIKA-SVĀTANTRIKA branch and the latter is considered the founder of the YOGĀCĀRA-SVĀTANTRIKA branch.

Svayaṃbhū. [alt. Svayaṃbhūnāth] (T. ’Phags pa shing kun). A large CAITYA complex located atop a hill at the western edge of the Kathmandu Valley, forming one of Nepal’s most ancient and venerated Buddhist sites. The caitya of Svayaṃbhū, whose name literally means “self-arisen” or “self-created,” is closely tied to the mythic origins of the Kathmandu Valley. According to legend, in prehistoric times the Kathmandu Valley formed a lake above which the summit of Svayaṃbhū hill rose. The buddha VIPAŚYIN, who is said to predate ŚĀKYAMUNI by several eons, cast a lotus seed into the waters. A lotus blossom grew from this seed, upon which appeared a spontaneously manifested (svayaṃbhū) crystalline caitya radiating five-colored rays of light. This light attracted the attention of the bodhisattva MAÑJUŚRĪ, who was residing at WUTAISHAN in China. Mañjuśrī traveled to Nepal where he miraculously drained the lake, thereby making the Kathmandu Valley an inhabitable land for the spread of Buddhism. The earliest Newar inscriptions at Svayaṃbhū date to the reign of the fifth-century Buddhist king Vṛṣadeva. Over the next 1,500 years, the stūpa and surrounding complex were renovated and expanded numerous times by Newar and Tibetan Buddhist priests. The complex of temples at Svayaṃbhū is under the guardianship of Newar Budddhist priests and it continues to play a central role in the religious lives of Newari and Tibetan Buddhists. According to some accounts, the Tibetan name (literally “Noble All Trees”) stems from a legend recounting how the Buddhist sage NĀGĀRJUNA scattered his hair about Svayaṃbhū hill, from which many types of trees miraculously arose. Later Tibetan commentators have argued, however, that shing kun is likely a corruption of the Newar name Shinggu in use during the eighteenth century. According to Tibetan tradition, the Svayaṃbhū caitya is counted as one of Nepal’s three great stūpas, along with BODHNĀTH and NAMO BUDDHA.

Śvetaketu. (P. Setaketu; T. Dam pa tog dkar po; C. Baijing/Baiying; J. Byakujō/Byakuei; K. Paekchŏng/Paegyŏng 白淨/白英). Proper name of ŚĀKYAMUNI when he was a divinity in the TUṢITA heaven, during his lifetime immediately preceding his attainment of buddhahood. He was a BODHISATTVA of the tenth BHŪMI, appointed as regent of tuṣita by the preceding buddha KĀŚYAPA. As Śvetaketu, he surveyed JAMBUDVĪPA to determine the proper time, place, caste, and family of his final lifetime. Upon his descent into the womb of Queen MĀYĀ, he appointed MAITREYA as regent. Depictions of Śvetaketu in heaven, alongside INDRA and BRAHMĀ, appear at a number of ancient Indian Buddhist sites, including NĀGĀRJUNAKOṆḌĀ and AMARĀVATĪ.

Swam-oo Ponnya-shin Pagoda. A gilded pagoda (Burmese, JEDI) located at the center of the Sagaing range of hills in Upper Burma (Myanmar). It is situated atop a prominence known as Dhammika Taung, or the “Hill of the Practitioners,” because it has always been surrounded by monasteries suitable for study and meditation. The pagoda was built in 1332 by a royal minister named Ponnya (meaning “Brāhmaṇa”) shortly after Sagaing was made the Burmese capital. The minister had neglected to seek the king’s permission prior to the monument’s construction, and because its foundation buried two earlier pagodas, the king ordered the minister to be drowned. At the last moment the execution order was rescinded, for which reason the pagoda received the name, “Ponnya-shin,” meaning, “Ponnya lives.” Ponnya made it a practice of donating his first offering of alms during the period of the Buddhist rains retreat (VARṢĀ) at this pagoda. For this reason it also became known as “Swam-oo,” or “First alms-offering.” To the present day, people pray at this pagoda to ward off any prospect of sudden death, and in Sagaing it is customary to make one’s first donation of alms at the beginning of the Buddhist rains retreat season at this pagoda.

Swāt. A valley in present-day northern Pakistan, commonly identified with the ancient region known as OḌḌIYĀNA, Uḍḍiyāna, or Udyāna; an important center in the history of Indian Buddhism. Buddhism moved into this area shortly after the time of King AŚOKA and flourished there in the periods that followed. Swāt contains many important archeological sites including STŪPAs and such relics as the footprints of the Buddha (BUDDHAPĀDA). Many of the first buddha images also come from this region. Swāt’s geographical location between Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent made it an important trading and religious center. According to Chinese pilgrims, beginning with FAXIAN, who visited this region in the fifth century CE, this area was at one time home to five hundred Buddhist monasteries. This area is also fabled as the birthplace of PADMASAMBHAVA and the origin of numerous tantric texts and lineages, including the GUHYASAMĀJATANTRA. Several Tibetan masters also wrote accounts of their travels through Oḍḍiyāna, including O RGYAN PA RIN CHEN DPAL, whose name literally means “the man of Oḍḍiyāna,” Stag tshang ras pa (Taktsangrepa), and BUDDHAGUPTA. Muslim armies began to moving into the region in the eighth century, which eventually led to the demise of Buddhism.

Śyāmatārā. (T. Sgrol ljang). In Sanskrit, “Dark Tārā”; in Tibetan “Green Tārā”; according to a widely held Tibetan myth, the goddess who consorted with a monkey (an emanation of AVALOKITEŚVARA) and gave birth to the Tibetan people. Later, she took the form of the princess BHṚKUTĪ, Nepalese wife of King SRONG BTSAN SGAM PO. After Avalokiteśvara, Śyāmatārā is perhaps the most widely worshipped Buddhist deity in Tibet and the focus of the nonsectarian Tārā cult. The Namas Tāre Ekaviṃśatistotra (“Twenty-One Praises of Tārā”) is one of the most widely known prayers in Tibet, and her MANTRA, oṃ tāre tuttāre ture svāha, is second in popularity only to OṂ MAṆI PADME HŪM, AVALOKITEŚVARA’s mantra. Each Tibetan sect has its own tantric rituals (SĀDHANA) and ritual propitiations (VIDHI) for Green Tārā, who is considered particularly helpful to those building monasteries and other religious structures, and to those starting business ventures. Green Tārā is iconographically represented as sitting in LALITĀSANA with her left leg bent and resting on her lotus seat, her right leg pendant, with the knee slightly raised, the foot resting on a second smaller lotus. ATIŚA DĪPAṂKARAŚRĪJÑĀNA, an Indian Buddhist monk and scholar revered by Tibetan Buddhists as a leading teacher in the later dissemination (PHYI DAR) of Buddhism in Tibet, was a devotee of Green Tārā, and the temple commemorating his principal residence during his later years in central Tibet, in Snye thang (Nyethang), is the Sgrol ma lha khang (Drolma Lhakang) “Tārā Temple,” which is widely believed by Tibetans to have a statue of Śyāmatārā that can speak. See also TĀRĀ.

Śyāmāvatī. (P. Sāmāvatī; T. Sngo bsangs can; C. Ganrong; J. Kon’yō; K. Kamyong 紺容). Lay disciple whom the Buddha declared to be foremost among laywomen who live in kindness. She was the daughter of a wealthy man from the city of Bhadravatī. When plague broke out in the city, she and her parents fled to Kauśāmbī (P. Kosambī) where her parents fell ill and died. She was adopted by two donors of alms to the poor, Mitra and Ghoṣaka, who noticed her virtue and intelligence. Śyāmāvatī was exceptionally beautiful and one festival day, Udāyana (P. Udena), the king of Kauśāmbī, noticed her on her way to the river to bathe and fell in love with her. Initially rebuffed in his advances, Udāyana eventually wed Śyāmāvatī and made her his chief queen. Śyāmāvatī’s slave girl was Kṣudratārā (P. Khujjutarā) who each day was given eight coins to buy flowers from the market. Kṣudratārā was dishonest and would spend four coins on flowers and pocket the rest. One day on her way to the market, Kṣudratārā listened to the Buddha preach and at once became a stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA). She then confessed her thievery to Śyāmāvatī, who immediately forgave her, and she told her mistress about the Buddha’s teachings. Enthralled, Śyāmāvatī asked Kṣudratārā to listen to the Buddha’s sermons daily and report his message to her and her attendants. In this way, under Kṣudratārā’s instruction, Śyāmāvatī and her attendants also became stream-enterers. On Kṣudratārā’s advice, Śyāmāvatī had holes made in the walls of the women’s quarters so that she and her attendants could watch the Buddha as he passed through the lane below. Śyāmāvatī had a wicked co-wife, Māgandiyā, who, out of jealousy of her and a hatred for the Buddha, sought her destruction. Śyāmāvatī survived three plots, which were eventually revealed, winning in compensation the boon to have ĀNANDA preach daily to her and her companions. Finally Māgandiyā had the palace set afire and Śyāmāvatī along with her attendants burned to death. The Buddha declared, however, that none of the deceased had attained less than the state of stream-enterer, while some had even reached the state of once-returners (SAKṚDĀGĀMIN) and nonreturners (ANĀGĀMIN).

syllogism. See PRAYOGA.