Statement or Supramundanity? Making Sense of Śūraṃgama-Samādhi and Its Related Narratives

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a new interpretation for the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi, an important concept in the Mahāyāna literature, by proposing new exegeses of its primary and derivative meanings as they appear in the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra (hereafter SSS). While many have defined samādhi as a form of meditative practice, a state of mind, or a collection of terms as argued by Andrew Skilton, the concept samādhi in the SSS can be understood as a locus of gathering or convergence in the metaphorical sense. In SSS, this metaphorical location refers to the supramundane state of those buddhas and tenth-stage bodhisattvas, wherein all his supernatural powers and manifestations converge. Lamotte’s interpretation of Śūraṃgama as “marche héroïque/heroic progress”, however, only provides a single understanding of this polysemous concept. This article will offer a more nuanced understanding and interpretation of this compound term. Regarding the derivative meanings of the term, the present paper argues that the traditional interpretation of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi (in the derivative meaning) as self-referential to the sūtra itself (Śūraṃgama-samādhi = SSS) does not align with the meaning of the term as it appears in the SSS. The exclusion of “self-reference” in our interpretation of the derivative meaning of the term therefore avoids the paradox of an “infinite loop of self-reference” as presented by past studies on the subject.

1. Introduction: Previous Interpretations of the Term Śūraṃgamasamādhi

The Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra (hereafter SSS) is considered to be among the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras with a clear lower age limit. The first Chinese translation by Lokakṣema dates back to as early as the 186 CE (Lamotte 1965, p.66; [1998] 2003, p. 59). As Paul Harrison said, “we have no clear idea of when the Mahāyāna arose, and the only basis we have for dating any given item from its enormous corpus of sūtra-literature is the date of its first translation into Chinese. For such an investigation Lokakṣema’s works constitute a convenient point of depautre, and are thus well worth our consideration” (Harrison 1993, pp. 137–38, 168; 1987). Therefore, the SSS occupies a special place in the study of early Mahāyāna Buddhism. Moreover, the SSS has strongly influenced the traditions of East and Central Asian Buddhism1, and has drawn considerable attention from scholars in the last few decades.2 Among the various studies on the SSS, Lamotte’s translation—“La Concentration de la Marche Héroïque; Eng. The Concentration of Heroic Progress”3—is widely quoted and accepted in modern-day scholarship.4 However, his interpretation of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi has come under scrutiny in recent years.

Beginning in 1999, a debate emerged regarding the fundamental meaning of the term “samādhi” in some early Mahāyāna sutras such as the Samādhirāja-sūtra (hereafter SRS), Pratyutpannasamādhi-sūtra (hereafter PSS), SSS, etc. Florin Deleanu and Andrew Skilton noted that while samādhi has traditionally been associated with altered states of consciousness and contemplative insight, several early Mahāyana samādhi sūtras did not, for instance, discuss the issues of meditational practice and experience (Skilton 1999; Deleanu 2000, p. 73; Skilton 2002, p. 57 ff.). Andrew Skilton argued that the word “samādhi” would be better understood as referencing a list of terms. Based on this observation, he proposed that in these sūtras, samādhi refers to a collection of terms rather than to a state of mind or a certain meditative experience (Skilton 2002, pp. 58 ff.).5 His theory has undoubtedly changed our understanding of these scriptures and has raised interesting questions with respect to prevalent hypotheses in the study of the Mahāyāna that associates meditative experiences with the very origins of the tradition.6 In 2020, Takanori Fukita pointed out that descriptions of meditation are in fact found in one of the samādhi sūtras analyzed by Skilton, i.e., the PSS. He argued that the reason why SSS contained no descriptions of meditation was because its focus was directed at advocating the powers of the buddhas. There was, therefore, no need to describe the practice of meditation in detail (Fukita 2020). In contrast, Paul Harrison seems to accept Skilton’s theory and treats the definition of samādhi as the “interplay of practice and text” (Harrison 2022, p. 653, note 8).7 However, this article holds that while using any of the various hermeneutics available to us to date, it remains very difficult to put together a cohesive interpretation of the term “samādhi” in SSS. Therefore, there is an urgent need for careful reconsideration of the meaning of samādhi in this scripture in particular.

In addition to the term samādhi, the interpretations of the term Śūraṃgama in the works of Lamotte and other scholars deserve further discussion. Indeed, the current interpretation of the term Śūraṃgama as “heroic march” appears to be somewhat distant from the contents of the scripture itself.

This paper focuses primarily on the concept of Śūraṃgama-samādhi as it is applied in SSS, with brief references to other samādhi sūtras when relevant. The textual analysis in this article reveals that SSS can provide us with a clearer understanding of the term samādhi that differs from previous interpretations as proposed in recent scholarship. As mentioned above, SSS is a significant early samādhi scripture, and the conclusions drawn from this study may offer valuable insights that help advance the discussion regarding questions related to semantics and doctrine in early Mahāyana samādhi sūtras.

2. The Theoretical Issues Inherent to Previous Interpretations of the Term Samādhi

The meaning of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi is the key to unlocking subtler points found in SSS, not only in its doctrinal expositions but also in its narrative accounts. Where we are now in our understanding of the term, as informed by the popular traditional view that equates samādhi with meditation as well as Skilton’s proposition that samādhi constitutes a “statement of terms”, these interpretations continue to present the reader with significant challenges when interpreting SSS.

Skilton’s critique of the traditional interpretation of the word “samādhi” as “meditation” is quite compelling.8 I believe the interpretation of the term “samādhi” as meditative concentration in the aforementioned samādhi sūtras is problematic for the following reasons. Firstly, the “meditation” interpretation cannot answer how or why these early Mahāyāna samādhi sūtras advocated their respective forms of samādhi while simultaneously containing minimal content directly related to meditation (note: An exception can be found in the PSS, and the reasons for this anomaly will be explained below). Secondly, if samādhi is considered synonymous with meditation, the question remains as to why these scriptures employed lists comprised of terminology unrelated to meditative practice and experience when defining samādhi. Even the PSS, the sūtra with the most extensive meditation descriptions, enumerates sub-items that are unrelated to meditation, such as detachment from clothing, food and drink, tonics, halls, buildings, beds, seating, and other virtuous practices, to list only a few items. Thirdly, considering the SSS in a vacuum, if the Śūraṃgama samādhi is regarded as a specific form of meditation, it becomes impossible to elaborate as to why the sūtra equates this particular form of meditation with ultimate enlightenment. Moreover, even SSS itself denies that Śūraṃgama-samādhi is a particular form of meditation, instead all samādhis and samāpattis are encompassed within Śūraṃgama-samādhi, which indicates that it is not one of the samādhis or samāpattis in the meditative sense. These issues make it difficult to argue that the term samādhi in these scriptures is truly synonymous with meditation. Indeed, when we suspend our entrenched notions regarding the meditative quality of samādhi, the lack of textual evidence related to the term’s association to meditation and experience becomes apparent.

In contrast to Skilton’s argument, Takanori Fukita believes that samādhi as a “statement of terms” is not an appropriate interpretation of the concept and he treats the collections of terms in the scriptures as “nothing more than lists”. He argues that the PSS does indeed contain meditational descriptions (Fukita 2020, pp. 84–85). As to why the PSS contains both descriptions of meditation and a list of term, I will explain below that this is in fact a form of wordplay, an argument that does not diverge significantly from Skilton’s critique of traditional interpretation.

Although Skilton’s careful study is still relevant, his proposed definition for samādhi is not entirely satisfactory. In 1999, Skilton first argued that the term samādhi in SRS referred to the sūtra text itself (Skilton 1999). In 2002, he reformulated his theory, arguing that samādhi referred to a list or a “collection of terms” (Skilton 2002). Nevertheless, interpreting samādhi as either a self-reference to a “text” or a collection of terms fails to explain why, in the SSS, “dwelling in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi” (Tib. dpa’ bar ‘gro ba’i ting nge ‘dzin la gnas pa) enables buddhas or tenth-stage bodhisattvas to produce miracles. In this context, the referent for Śūraṃgama-samādhi could not have been a text or a collection of terms, as it is nonsensical to say that a bodhisattva abides in a text or a list of terms. It is equally strange to claim that one would be able to manifest all kinds of miracles by simply dwelling in a text. Another passage states that:

O Jinamati! At the moment that a bodhisattva perceives all dharmas as unobstructed, momentary, vain and free from desire and hatred, he then enters into the Śūraṃgama-samādhi.9

In this instance, if one were to consider Śūraṃgama-samādhi solely as a text or a list of terms, it would be difficult to comprehend why entering Śūraṃgama-samādhi requires that one see “all dharmas as unobstructed, momentary, vain and free from desire and hatred”. Therefore, in this context, Śūraṃgama-samādhi seems to be unrelated to either a text or a list of terms. Here is another example:

O Dṛḍhamati! the bodhisattva who abides in the first stage cannot obtain Śūraṃgama-samādhi... the second stage... the bodhisattva who abides in the ninth stage cannot obtain it. O Dṛḍhamati! Only the bodhisattvas who abide in the tenth stage can obtain Śūraṃgama-samādhi.10

If samādhi were merely a text or a list of terms, it would be difficult to explain why only the bodhisattvas who abide in the tenth stage can obtain Śūraṃgama-samādhi, whereas those in the first nine stages cannot. How can access to a text or a list be limited to only tenth-stage bodhisattvas? Moreover, the sūtra itself acknowledges that hearing, reciting, and copying this Śūraṃgama-samādhi is not limited to those that have obtained the tenth stage. Listeners or readers were strongly encouraged to copy and recite the scripture and practice accordingly. If samādhi refers to a text or a list of terms that only buddhas or tenth-stage bodhisattvas can obtain, then it would be impossible for everyone else to “obtain it”, let alone to preach it, copy it, and practice it as instructed.

The examples mentioned above clearly indicate that the Śūraṃgama-samādhi should not be interpreted as a list of terms. Moreover, it cannot simply be equated to the Śūraṃgama-samādhi sūtra, a text that can be preached, recited, and copied by all. Hence, it is imperative to discern the more nuanced meaning of the term “Śūraṃgama-samādhi” by differentiating its primary and derivative connotations.

Skilton was aware of certain disagreements between the contents of SSS and his definition of samādhi. He therefore proposed that the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi was an umbrella term, what he called a “comprehensive container for numerous concepts, practices and attainments” (Skilton 2002, p. 83). However, he did not explore the relationship between the conceptual (i.e., conceptual terms) and the practical (i.e., practices and attainments) dimensions. This interpretation of Śūraṃgama-samādhi as a receptacle that included textual concepts alongside their referents, the practices and achievements, raises questions regarding the textual or the practical nature of Śūraṃgama-samādhi. Skilton’s interpretation of samādhi as a list of terms presupposes that the concept must refer to something textual, which goes against his claim that Śūraṃgama-samādhi can also refer to practice and spiritual attainment. Indeed, even if we were to regard Śūraṃgama-samādhi as a container embracing both the concepts and their corresponding referents (i.e., practices and achievements), this interpretation still falls short of what the text itself is trying to convey—a point that will be explored in subsequent sections.

If the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi does not refer a text, if it is not a list of terms, nor is it a form of meditation, then what exactly does the term refer to? The present paper will attempt to answer this question by providing a lexical taxonomy related to the term’s applications within the scripture. There will be two categories of interpretation for the term divided between what will here be called its primary meaning and its derivative meaning. In most cases, these two distinctive meanings for Śūraṃgama-samādhi as they appear in the SSS are not interchangeable. However, these distinctions are the result of interpretation based on an analysis of the text and its context, and they do not appear organically in the work itself. One must therefore remain mindful of the mode of interpretation being applied to the text.

3. New Interpretation of the Primary Meaning of Śūraṃgama-Samādhi

3.1. Śūraṃgama-Samādhi as the Buddha’s Supramundane State of Being

In this section, I will first discuss the primary meaning of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi. As Skilton has pointed out, the SSS provides a definition of this term in a paragraph, which serves as the basis for his arguments:

O Dṛḍhamati, what is the so-called Śūraṃgama-samādhi? It is:

Purifying the generation of one’s mind (as pure) as the realm of space;

... (a list of over one hundred of terms or phrases)

[manifesting] the bodhisattva entering into the womb, being born, departure from worldly life, practicing asceticism, approaching the circle of awakening, defeating the Māra, attaining enlightenment, turning the dharma wheel, achieving the great Nirvāṇa, and the annihilation of physical body, while not abandoning the natural state of a bodhisattva and not achieving the Nirvāṇa without remainder. Dṛḍhamati, this is called the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. This is the realm of Śūraṃgama-samādhi.11 The rest are immeasurable.12

Skilton offers two points regarding the interpretation of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi. First, he argues that it here represents the statement itself of those listed terms—that is to say, it is the list itself. Second, when analyzing the SSS, he defines it as a “container for concepts, practices, and achievements”, implying that he understands this samādhi to represent both the signifier (terms) and the signified (referents)—both doxis and praxis simultaneously.

At first glance, Skilton’s argument appears to be well-founded, given that the scripture explicitly states that these one hundred terms or phrases listed above is called Śūraṃgama-samādhi. However, this seemingly straightforward passage sets a trap for its readers.

The definition approach adopted in this passage is not the typical approach of defining a term by stating its general species difference plus genus. This intensional definition specifies certain necessary conditions that allow one to confirm that it is so—for example, a “bachelor” is defined as an “unmarried man”. Instead, this passage in SSS employs a looser method of listing items that is commonly used in everyday language to specify the term’s extension, or every element that meets it definition criteria. This form of definition technique can be classified as an extensional approach that conveys the meaning of a term by listing multiple related items, as opposed to relying on the genus-differentia or other intensional methods.

In an intensional definition, the relationship between the object and the definition is quite clear. A “bachelor” is an “unmarried man” and that is all. In the case of the SSS, while the listed items might all pertain in some way to the object of the definition, because it uses an extensional definition and it casts its net so wide, so to speak, various possible relationships can exist between the defined objects and the listed items.

According to Skilton’s analysis, samādhi can be defined as the sum of its parts, that is the collection itself of those listed terms. However, this is merely one of many possible relationships that exist between the listed items and the defined objects. As mentioned above, this interpretation does not tie in with the original meaning of the scripture. Additionally, following the list, it states that “the rest (of the items) are immeasurable”, indicating that the listed items only comprise a few examples used to illustrate the meaning of “Śūraṃgama-samādhi”, while the unlisted items are innumerable. Therefore, if the list itself remains incomplete, interpreting samādhi as a collection of listed terms does not seem to do it justice—buying groceries with a shopping list that ends with “etc.” is not a very good shopping list.

Moreover, regarding the way to understand the definition of Śūraṃgama-samādhi, the SSS remind its readers of the following passage:

“O Dṛḍhamati, Śūraṃgama-samādhi should not be viewed as a single instruction, not as a single sphere (*viṣaya), not as a single manifestation, not as a single sense-object, nor should it be seen as arising from a single meaning”.13

This passage emphasizes that Śūraṃgama-samādhi “should not be seen as a single instruction (of the list)”. In other words, it should not be considered a single instruction or phrase in the above list. Additionally, the above passage asserts that Śūraṃgama-samādhi should not be seen as a single sphere (spyod yul gcig), a single manifestation (rnam pa gcig), or a single sense object (dmigs pa gcig), which means that the Śūraṃgama-samādhi should not be understood as the single referent of the term (such as observing the sharpness and dullness of faculties, meditative concentration, or manifesting supernatural powers to ripen sentient beings, etc.). Furthermore, the passage warns that Śūraṃgama-samādhi “should not be seen as arising from a single meaning”, indicating that the term has multiple meanings (see Section 3). In sum, the scripture emphasizes that the Śūraṃgama-samādhi cannot be understood by means of any single term/instruction in the list, nor does it refer to any single referent of the term. The text warns against any simplistic or reductionist understanding of Śūraṃgama-samādhi and suggests that it is, instead, a polysemous concept that requires a more comprehensive understanding.

If none of the aforementioned methods of interpretation is accurate, how can the list be properly understood? In other words, what is the possible relationship between Śūraṃgama-samādhi and the list? The answer is given by the scripture itself.

The Tibetan version of SSS first provides a list in prose, followed by repeating the list in verse. At the end of the versified list, it states that:

(... list), O Dṛḍhamati, this is called the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. This is the realm of the samādhi. The rest (enumerable subitems) are immeasurable. O Dṛḍhamati, therefore the samādhi manifest (itself) immeasurably, showing the spheres (*viṣaya) of all the buddhas and the supernatural manifestations of the spheres (*viṣayavyūha).

This passage demonstrates that what is listed is only a partial representation of the external manifestations of the Śūraṃgama-samādhi, which, according to the text, can potentially manifest in an infinite variety of ways. This seems to suggest that the relationship between Śūraṃgama-samādhi and the enumerated items in the list is analogous to the relationship between something invisible (i.e., the Śūraṃgama-samādhi) and its external manifestations. In other words, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi should be something that transcends its external manifestations and cannot be reduced to the sum of these enumerated external manifestations, not to mention the sum of the terms.

Passages employing a similar means of definition can often be found in Nikāya/Āgama texts, such as the Samādiṭṭhi-sutta in the Majjhima-nikāya:

O Sir, what is called goodness? Goodness is staying away from killing, goodness is staying away from taking what is not given, goodness is staying away from indulgence and lewdness, goodness is staying away from falsehood, goodness is staying away from divisive language, goodness is staying away from harsh words, goodness is staying away from delusive words, not being greedy is goodness, being without hatred is goodness, goodness is right view. Sir, these were called goodness.14

This passage ostensibly provides a definition of goodness (kusala), although only a few external manifestations of goodness are listed. In this extensional of definition, goodness is not the sum of the listed subitems (either literal expressions or righteous enumerated actions). An infinite number of virtuous deeds can exist in addition to these ten listed manifestations of goodness. Goodness itself, on the other hand, is that which informs these behaviors/subitems. In other words, in order to grasp this definition, it is necessary for us to infer from these exterior behaviors what the goodness, an internal nature that transcends and embodies them, is. This approach of defining a subject through external manifestations is a common practice in everyday conversations, as employed in the SSS. However, it should be noted that this is not the only possible relationship between lists and defined concepts. Another different relationship will be shown in the case of PSS below. The relationships between the samādhi and listed items in other samādhi sutras cannot be explored in detail here due to space limitations.

Having explained the extensional definition logic in SSS, what can we really say about Śūraṃgama-samādhi? To begin explaining the term, I will first provide the reader with a parallel scenario that one might encounter in daily life: Defining an invisible concept by its external manifestations or characteristics. For instance, let us consider the following description:

Question: What is X?

Answer: X is passion, romantic dates, caring, and companionship……this is called X.

Although this description does not explicitly identify X, it is obvious that the listed items are the external manifestations of the defined object. Without being overly cynical, we can infer from the answer that X refers to “love”, as evidenced by its external manifestations, such as companionship and caring.

Similarly, although SSS does not directly disclose the essential meaning of Śūraṃgama-samādhi, it does provide a list of its external manifestations. By treating Śūraṃgama-samādhi as an unknown concept similar to X, we can infer its meaning by examining those listed manifestations. What are the external manifestations outlined by the SSS in the list?

In the scripture, the content of the list is summarized for us: “all the samādhis, all the meditative concentrations (*samāpattis), all the liberations, all the magical powers, supernatural gnosis, insights of analytical knowledge”, etc. In other words, it comprises almost all the supramundane characteristics of the buddhas and the tenth-stage bodhisattvas.

Given that X can externally manifest as the buddhas’ and bodhisattvas’ supramundane features, it is fair to conjecture that X refers to the supramundane state in which buddhas and bodhisattvas abide, or even the supramundane nature of the buddha. Therefore, we can plausibly assume that the Śūraṃgama-samādhi is essentially the supramundane nature or state of the buddhas or tenth-stage bodhisattvas.

This supramundane state of the buddhas and bodhisattvas is perhaps best represented by the magical power of manifesting countless bodies. In this case, the samādhi is able to manifest the “sphere of all the buddhas (*viṣaya) and the supernatural manifestations of the spheres” because the buddhas’ spheres and the manifestations of the spheres are the external appearance of the buddha’s supramundane state. Indeed, this notion of the SSS is closely connected to what Michael Radich calls “docetic Buddhology”, that is, the buddha’s appearance and action in the world is in some sense only an appearance (Gk. dokesis, ‘semblance, appearance’, dokein ‘seem, appear’).15 The term manifestation (saṃdarśana or sam-√dṛś) that appears repeatedly in the sūtra is semantically quite similar to the term “dokein” (δοκεῖν) in Christian Docetism.

Many narratives in the SSS focuses on the description of the manifestations of supernatural powers, particularly the magical power to appear anywhere at will for the purpose of saving sentient beings. Nevertheless, the scripture states that all magical powers (*ṛddhis) are also accommodated in Śūraṃgama-samādhi, suggesting that it is not merely a magic power per se but that which encompasses and surpasses magical powers.

Moreover, the SSS portrays traditionally more mundane facets of the Buddha’s life, such as his wedded life with Gopī/Gopā(past life of Devaputra Gopaka; Tib. lha’i bu sbed pa; Ch. Quyu Tianzi 瞿域天子)16, as divine manifestations for the purpose of saving all sentient beings. Therefore, these behaviors are not considered worldly but supramundane because they are believed to be the displays of the supramundane nature of the buddha. Therefore, according to the SSS, the Buddha does not possess a worldly nature but is defined wholly by how he surpasses the world, that which constitutes his supramundane status. In this way, the SSS implies that supramundanity (or the Śūraṃgama-samādhi) is the very essence and nature of the Buddha’s being.

3.2. Meaning of Samādhi: Why Is the Buddha’s Supramundane State Called Samādhi?

If Śūraṃgama-samādhi refers to the supramundane state in which the Buddha abides, then why is this state called samādhi?

There are a group of three metaphors after the list in the SSS that ends with the sentence, “de bas na dpa’ bar ‘gro ba’i ting nge ‘dzin ces bya’o (hence it is named Śūraṃgama-samādhi)”. In other words, these three metaphors serve as explanations for the naming of the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. Metaphor 1 explains how to understand the literal meaning of the term samādhi:

[Metaphor 1]O Dṛḍhamati, it should be seen as all the concentrations (samādhis), all the meditations (*samāpattis), all the liberations, all the magical powers, supernatural knowledges, and wisdom of analytical knowledge are gathered (‘dus) and accommodated (chud pa) in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. O Dṛḍhamati, just as it should be seen as all springs, ponds, lakes, pools, brooks, streams, and rivers are converged into the ocean. O Dṛḍhamati, in the same way all the concentrations (samādhis), meditations (*samāpattis), liberations, all the magical powers, supernatural knowledge, and all the wisdom of analytical knowledge of bodhisattva are regarded as included in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi.17

Here, “all the concentrations(samādhis), all the meditations (*samāpattis), all the liberations, all the magical powers, supernatural knowledge, wisdom of analytical knowledge” are the various external manifestations of Śūraṃgama-samādhi, all of which are gathered and included (‘dus shing chud pa) in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. The process of collection and containment in this passage coincides with the etymology of the word “samādhi”, which derives from sam-ā-√dhā (“to put together, gather together”). Therefore, to “be gathered and accommodated (’dus shing chud pa)” can be regarded as an annotation of the meaning of samādhi.18 The reason that these supramundane characteristics of the buddhas are “gathered and accommodated” in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi lies in the fact that they are manifestations of the Buddha’s supramundane state/Śūraṃgama-samādhi.

It is worth noting that the locative case was used in the expression “dpa’ bar ‘gro ba’i ting nge ‘dzin gyi nang du ‘dus shing chud pa (gathered and contained in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi)”. As is mentioned above, this passage can be considered an annotation of the term samādhi. Looking at the grammatical structure of the sentence, the term “Śūraṃgama-samādhi” should, in fact, designate the location where all the samādhis (meditative concentration), *samāpattis, liberations, etc., are placed together. In this case, the locative case may well hint at the literal meaning of the term samādhi in the compound Śūraṃgama-samādhi. Although the dictionaries do not provide the definition “convergence or congregating location” for the term “samādhi”, such an interpretation seems possible from the perspective of Sanskrit grammar. Samādhi is derived from sam-ā-√dhā, with the affix -ki- added. According to 3.3.92 of Pāṇini’s grammar, the derivative with the affix -ki- can represent bhāva and a kāraka, excluding kartṛ (Sharma 1995, p. 527). The metaphor of the ocean that appears in the passage above would indicate that bhāva (“state”) is not used in this instance; instead, samādhi is interpreted as the adhikaraṇam (“location, place, realm”), one of the kārakas. Accordingly, the literal meaning of samādhi would here refer to the place where things gather together, the location of convergence—such as springs, ponds, lakes, pools, brooks, streams, and rivers converging in the ocean. This study does not assume that the author(s) of SSS were proficient in Pāṇini’s grammar, and the details from Pāṇini’s grammar are only borrowed here to show that such an interpretation is possible. The author(s) of the SSS may have applied similar knowledge intentionally or unintentionally to interpret samādhi in a sense that is not found in mainstream Buddhist literature. If this is the case, then the literal meaning of samādhi in this scripture would be neither “meditation” nor a “collection (of terms)”, but “the location where things are held together” (things such as samādhis, *samāpattis, liberations, etc., in SSS), that is, a convergence where the Buddha’s manifestations are gathered and accommodated.

The reason why the supramundane state of the buddha is called the convergence (samādhi) may be that all the samādhis (in the sense of concentrations), samāpattis, wisdom, and supernatural powers are gathered, accommodated, and merged into one single location: The supramundane nature or state of buddhahood. In other words, the term samādhi should be considered a metaphor of the relationship between the buddha’s supramundane state and his infinite manifestations. Converging location is different from the concept of “collection” because the supramundane state or nature, i.e., the place of convergence, is singular and indivisible. It is not a collection comprised of sub-items, but the indivisible place where all these sub-items, the list of supernatural manifestations, converge. In sum, in SSS, samādhi should be treated as a metaphor to show that something singular and indivisible serves as the convergence that all these subitems, i.e., the buddha’s manifestations, gather together.

Several other Mahāyāna samādhi sūtras, such as the PSS, SRS, Praśāntaviniścayapratihārya-samādhi-sūtra, the samādhi section of Bhadrakalpika-sūtra (=*Sarva-dharma-naya-nidarśana-[samādhi]-sūtra = Guancha Zhufa Xing Jing T.649 觀察諸法行經, hereafter GZXJ)19, Cheng Juguangming Dingyi Jing (T.630 成具光明定意經, *Mahāyānāloka-samādhi-sūtra？20) seem to share a similar interpretation of the literal meaning of samādhi as a “gathering location”. However, what serves as a gathering location differs from one scripture to another. The relationships between these samādhis and the sub-items in their respective lists also differ from the relationship in the SSS.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to comprehensively expound upon the relationships between samādhis and their sub-items across all these samādhi sūtras. However, it is necessary to provide a brief explanation of the PSS, as this new interpretation can cast some light on the aforementioned issues raised by Takanori Fukita regarding the “non-meditative interpretation” of samādhi.

It is intriguing that PSS has two seemingly contradictory definitions of samādhi in the same context:

Definition 1.

Bhadrapāla, what then is the samādhi called “Direct Encounter with the buddhas of the Present”?

‘Namely, (1) concentration (Skt. manasikāra) on thoughts which have the buddha as their object; (2) absence of mental distraction; (3) obtaining mindful engagement and wisdom; ……(154) [seeing]. the sameness for all buddhas of all virtuous qualities--this, Bhadrapāla, is the samādhi called “Direct Encounter with the buddhas of the Present”’.

‘Bhadrapāla, since those dharmas will produce samādhi, what then, Bhadrapāla, is the samādhi which is produced by those dharmas? It is the samādhi called “Direct Encounter with the buddhas of the Present”’.

Definition 2.

And what, Bhadrapāla, is the samādhi called “Direct Encounter with the buddhas of the Present”?

In this regard, Bhadrapāla, any bhikṣus or bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas or upāsikās who observe morality perfectly should go alone to a secluded spot, sit down, and think: “In which quarter does the Lord, the Tathagata, Arhat and Perfectly Awakened One Amitāyus live, dwell, reside, and teach the dharma?” In accordance with what they have learned they concentrate on the thought: “That Lord, the Tathāgata, Arhat and Perfectly Awakened One Amitāyus now resides, lives, dwells and teaches the dharma, surrounded and attended on by a host of bodhisattvas, in the world-system of Sukhāvatī, one hundred thousand koṭis of buddha-fields to the west of this buddha-field;” and they concentrate their thoughts on the Tathāgata with undistracted minds.

……

In the same way, Bhadrapāla, bodhisattvas, whether they be householders or renunciants, go alone to asecluded spot and sit down, and in accordance with what they have learned they concentrate their thoughts on the Tathāgata, Arhat and Perfectly Awakened One Amitāyus; flawless in the constituent of morality and unwavering in mindfulness they should concentrate their thoughts on him for one day and one night, or for two, or three, or four, or five, or six, or seven days and nights. If they concentrate their thoughts with undistracted minds on the Tathāgata Amitāyus for seven days and nights, then, when a full seven days and nights have elapsed, they see the Lord and Tathāgata Amitāyus.

……

Bhadrapāla, those bodhisattvas see that Lord and Tathāgata Amitāyus, perceive themselves as being in that world-system, and also hear the dharma. And they retain, master, and preserve those dharmas after hearing them expounded. They honour, revere, venerate and worship that Lord, the Tathāgata, Arhat and Perfectly Awakened One Amitāyus. And on emerging from that samādhi the bodhisattvas expound at length to others those dharmas, just as they have heard, retained, and mastered them.

……

Having simply heard of that Tathāgata’s name, appearance, and qualities, with undistracted thoughts they called to mind the Lord, the Tathāgata, Arhat and Perfectly Awakened One Amitāyus. By repeatedly concentrating on him they saw that Tathāgata. Established in the bodhisattvas’ samādhi of Direct Encounter with the buddhas of the Present, when they saw that Tathāgata, they asked the question: “Lord, what dharmas must bodhisattvas and mahasattvas possess to be reborn in this world-system [of yours]?” In this way whenever one wishes to be reborn in any buddha-field, one asks the Tathāgata [of that buddha-field].

(Harrison 1978b, pp. 21–30; Harrison 1990, pp. 26–36)

The first definition employs a list of terms to define samādhi in the same way as the SSS and other samādhi sūtras mentioned above, whereas the second definition obviously refers to repeatedly concentrating on (Amitāyus?) buddha21 and seeing him (in concentration). In Paul Harrison’s examination of the Pratyutpanna-samādhi, he exclusively cites the second visualization definition (Harrison 1978a, pp. 42–46), while Skilton’s research refers primarily to the first definition (Skilton 2002, pp. 63-66). However, the unresolved hermeneutic issues lie in the relationship between the two definitions in PSS (Skilton 2002, p. 19, note 48).

I believe that the two seemingly contradictory definitions are, in fact, a pun that plays on the polysemous uses of term samādhi in PSS, which is absent in other samādhi sūtras. Whereas the buddha’s supramundane state serves as the gathering location in the SSS, in the PSS, it is the concentration (samādhi) on the Tathāgata that serves as the gathering location (samādhi) of the listed items. In other words, the Pratyutpanna-samādhi is both a meditative concentration (samādhi) in reality and the gathering location (samādhi) of all items listed in the metaphorical sense. That is why the two definitions are not contradictory. In other words, the true referent of Pratyutpanna-samādhi is a form of meditative concentration, while at the same time, it is also metaphorically described as a gathering location (samādhi).

How can a form of meditative concentration serve as the gathering location for the items on the list? The relationship between the Pratyutpanna-samādhi and the subitems of the list is clearly stated in the PSS: “those dharmas (in the list) will produce samādhi (Harrison 1998, p. 32)”, which implies that the relationship between the Pratyutpanna-samādhi and the enumerated items does not refer to the relationship between an (invisible) existent and its external manifestations, such as the Śūraṃgama-samādhi, but to the relationship between the outcome and its conditions. The listed items are the conditions or meritorious deeds that produce the attainment of the concentration on the Tathāgata, and the concentration is the outcome as well as the converging location of these meritorious deeds. Therefore, the concentration on the present buddhas ([Pratyutpanna-]samādhi) can be compared to the converging location (samādhi) of the enumerated meritorious deeds. In other words, the shared meaning of the term “samādhi” among SSS, PSS, and other early Mahāyāna samādhi sūtras mentioned above, is likely not “concentration”, but rather the “gathering location”—in the metaphorical sense. However, these sūtras vary in what they compare to the gathering locations (samādhi) and how the samādhis relate to the listed items. For instance, in addition to the SSS and PSS, the samādhi section of BKS or GZXJ holds that the “samādhi”, i.e., *Sarva-dharma-naya-viniścaya-[nidarśana]-nirdeśa-nāma-samādhi, refers to the path of relinquishing the two extremes and perceiving dharmas as uncreated and unproduced. As this way is the root or cause of the five hundred listed items, it is compared to the gathering location of them. Therefore, in the PSS, the gathering location (samādhi) only happens to refer to a form of meditative concentration (samādhi), which is a unique wordplay within these samādhi sūtras. Therefore, although one of the two definitions of samādhi is meditation in PSS, it is misleading to interpret other samādhis, including Śūraṃgama-samādhi, as suggested by Fukita (2020, pp. 84–85), to be a meditative concentration based solely on the context of the PSS.

In summary, the reason why in SSS the supramundane state of the buddha (and the bodhisattvas of the tenth bhūmi) is called samādhi is because the concentrations, supernatural powers, wisdom, etc., come together in the transcendent state of buddhahood, making this state of being the gathering place of all these qualities or manifestations. However, at the same time, the state of being itself is singular and indivisible, not comprised of these manifestations like a collection. In this regard, the term samādhi in these samādhi sūtras should be treated as a metaphor for the relationship between the term being defined and the listed items rather than an “interplay of practice and text”, as claimed by Paul Harrison (Harrison 2022, p. 653, note 8), because the primary sense of samādhi commonly shared by early Mahāyāna samādhi sūtras is neither a practice nor a text/term list.

3.3. The Literal and Metaphorical Meaning of Śūraṃgama

The previous section explored the meaning of the term “samādhi”. This following section will explore why this particular samādhi is called Śūraṃgama. Akio Sanae might be one of the first scholars to have discussed the term. He translated Śūraṃgama-samādhi as “the meditation like the hero with four limbs” (Śūra-aṅga samādhi) or “the meditation that walks like a hero” (Śūraṃ-gama samādhi). He believed that the former interpretation is equivalent to Jianxiang Ding (健相定) and Yongjian Ding (勇健定) in Chinese translation and that the latter corresponds to Jianxing Ding (健行定) and Yongjin Sanmei (勇進三昧). He argued that the Dharmarakṣa’s translation, “Yongfu Ding [Jing] 勇伏定[經]”, was not a viable translation of the title (Sanae 1930, p. 66).

Without referring to Sanae’s paper, Lamotte later translated what would become the most widely used interpretation of the SSS, translating the title to mean “Texte de la Concentration de la Marche Héroïque/Text of the Concentration of Heroic Progress” without referring to Sanae’s paper (Lamotte 1965, [1998] 2003). According to Lamotte, samādhi referred to “the state of concentration”, while Śūraṃgama meant “Heroic Progress”. He explained, “It is called Heroic Progress because whoever possesses it goes everywhere in the manner of a hero (śūra) without meeting any resistance, or because it is frequented (gata) by those heroes the buddhas and bodhisattvas” (Lamotte 1965, [1998] 2003, p. 1).22 Jack Cliffor. Wright, in his review of Lamotte’s monograph, argued that the term should be appreciated as a hybrid Sanskrit form of the term śūragrāma (with pantheon, with many heroes, with many gods) in Ṛgveda 9.90.3. (Wright 1967). Jacques May proposed an alternative interpretation, suggesting that Śūraṃgama is one of those terms where “°gama-” is artificially added and does not represent the root “gam-”, but rather an extension of a suffix “°ga-” falsely connected to this root and ultimately means nothing more than “heroic” (May 1967, p. 223). In contrast, Ronald Eric Emmerick agreed with Lamotte, pointing to evidence to support his argument in SSS where a definition for Śūraṃgama was provided, as we will see in “metaphor 3” below (Emmerick 1970, p. xv). In response, Lamotte added a supplement in the forward to the English edition of his monograph, stating that, “For the author of Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, the hero in question [i.e., the śūra] is always the Cakravarti king, the universal monarch, always accompanied by his seven jewels” (Lamotte [1998] 2003, pp. xiii–xiv). Since then, Lamotte’s interpretations of the term’s meaning have been widely accepted. Skilton further elaborated on this view in his introduction to Lamotte’s book, stating that “(SSS) is the scripture that contains teachings concerning the samādhi that bestows an ‘heroic progress’, śūraṃgama, on the path to Enlightenment” (Lamotte [1998] 2003, p. viii), but he does not provide a reason for why he interpreted it thus. John McRae also stated that Śūraṃgama-samādhi was “The meditative concentration of the ‘heroic march’ to buddhahood” and calling it “the very key to the enlightenment of the buddhas and all of their awesome spiritual power” (McRae 1998, p. 1). Both Skilton and McRae regarded Śūraṃgama-samādhi as an important practice method of practice on the road to enlightenment.

What the above-mentioned scholars did not fully take into account is that the illustrative paragraph cited by Emmerick was not a standalone example but belonged to the group of metaphors mentioned above. The first ocean metaphor illustrates the literal meaning of samādhi (discussed above), whereas the last two metaphors expound on the meaning of the term Śūraṃgama. Emmerick and Lamotte only cited the third metaphor (and, to some extent, misunderstood it), ignoring the rest. Indeed, their interpretation ignores the fact that the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi “does not arise from a single meaning”, as stated in the SSS.

Lamotte’s analysis of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi is constrained by the bounds of classical Sanskrit grammar and tends to deviate from the original meaning of the text to some extent. However, in the text, it is implied that the interpretation of the term Śūraṃgama constitutes a form of wordplay that cannot be understood by means of conventional grammatical interpretation. The following passages are the two relevant metaphors:

(Vehicle A of Metaphor 2:) O Dṛḍhamati, just like a hero (general) who enters a war can control and dominate all four army companies of the king.

(Vehicle B of Metaphor 2:) No matter where the hero who enters the war goes, the four army companies will follow him (to the place he goes).

(Tenor A of Metaphor 2:) O Dṛḍhamati, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi can graspe, subdue, and make to appear all of the gateways of the constant nature of dharma, which are the gateway of concentration, the gateway of equanimity, the gateway of the constant nature of dharma(*dharmasthitimukhas), the gateway of liberation, the gateway of dhārani, and the gateway of supernatural power and liberation by vidyā.

(Tenor B of Metaphor 2:) Dṛḍhamati, wherever the Śūraṃgama-samādhi of the bodhisattva goes, all the gateways of constant nature of dharma will go there.

(Vehicle of Metaphor 3:) Dṛḍhamati, just as wherever the wheel-turning king goes, the seven treasures will go there.

(Tenor of Metaphor 3:) O Dṛḍhamati, wherever the Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes, all the dharmas which are the wings of bodhi(*bodhipakṣikadharmas) will go forward and follow there.23

The first question: Who is the hero (śūra) in these metaphors? In Lamotte’s opinion, the hero is whomever possesses Śūraṃgama-samādhi, i.e., the buddhas and bodhisattvas.24 However, his interpretation is problematic given that, upon closer reading, the “hero” in these three metaphors is clearly neither the buddhas nor the tenth-stage bodhisattvas, but the Śūraṃgama-samādhi itself, i.e., the supramundane state of the buddhas. Therefore, his interpretation seems to have misunderstood the context.

The second question: How do these metaphors interpret the compound Śūraṃgama?

Metaphor 2 can be divided into two sections (2A and 2B). Section 2A provides a reference to understand the translation of Śūraṃgama as “Yongfu勇伏 (heroic subduing)” by Dharmarakṣa, for which no proper explanation has been provided to date. In this metaphor, dpa’ bo = *śūra (hero, warrior), dpung gi tshogs yan lag bzhi pa = *caturaṅga-balakāya (the four army companies), and the terms “lag tu song” and “dbang du gyur pa” might be translated from *hasta-gata (controlled) and *vaśa-gata (subdued), both of which may be interpretations of gama (both *gata and gama are derivatives of the root √gam). In other words, in section A of metaphor 2, gama is not to be interpreted as marching or going but as subdued. This explanation is, to some extent, in line with the meaning of “Yong Fu 勇伏 (subdued by hero/hero’s subduing)”, as translated by Dharmarakṣa. Section 2A seems to indicate that the author(s) may not have divided the compound of Śūraṃgama into two wordss—in accordance with classical Sanskrit grammar—but instead divided it into three words: śūra, aṅga, and gama. The control of Śūraṃgama-samādhi over the *dharmasthitimukhas is like a hero controlling the four army companies. While the rules of Sanskrit grammar would not allow for such an interpretation of aṅga or aṃga as impossible, the author(s) may have borrowed a half from śūraṅ and gama separately for the purpose of wordplay. If this is correct, the author(s)’ focus was likely not on interpreting the term according to Sanskrit grammar but rather on taking full advantage of the potential of the language for more creative literary expression.

Both Section 2B and Section 2A divide the compound into śūra(hero), aṅga(four army companies), and gama. However, metaphor 2B differs from metaphor 2A in that it interprets gama as “going” and “following”, as in metaphor 3. Therefore, Section 2B interprets the Śūraṃgama as “where the hero goes, the four army companies will follow him (to the place he goes)”.

We see the variety of possible interpretations for the term Śūraṃgama, which may be why most Chinese translators preferred transliteration to translation when interpreting the text. In the SSS, several other metaphors beyond the three discussed here may involve wordplay with the term Śūraṃgama. However, these three are the only cases provided by the SSS that directly expound on why it is called Śūraṃgama-samādhi (“Therefore, it is called Śūraṃgama-samādhi”).

As mentioned previously, Śūraṃgama-samādhi refers to the supramundane state or the nature of the buddha. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to compare the supramundane state of buddhahood to a hero or a general who has mastered the four army companies, as the buddha’s supramundane nature is the ruler of all these manifestations. Otherwise, it would be challenging to comprehend how a single meditation, or a collection of terms, could unify all the concentrations, wisdom, supernatural powers, etc.

With respect to metaphor 3 previously quoted by Emmerick and Lamotte to interpret Śūraṃgama, not only is Lamotte’s interpretation of śūra problematic, but his interpretation of gama as reliable as previously imagined. Although his interpretation of “gama” as “progress” can be accepted, his further explanation of “no resistance will be encountered” and “it (the Śūraṃgama-samādhi) is frequented[gata] by those heroes” lacks textual support.

According to metaphors 2B and 3, the *dharmasthitimukhas and *bodhipakṣikadharmas go wherever Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes; thus, the question of where Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes arises. Both Skilton and McRae regarded Śūraṃgama-samādhi as heroic progress on the path to enlightenment or buddhahood.

However, the available textual evidence does not lend credence to such an interpretation. This question is discussed in the text in a discussion between the two bodhisattvas, Dṛḍhamati and *Buddhamatyabhimukha.

(Dṛḍhamati) Said: O son of god, where is the Śūraṃgama-samādhi going?

(Buddhamatyabhimukha) said: O son of good family, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes to the thoughts and activities of all sentient beings, while it does not go to the perception of the minds, views and objects. (The Śūraṃgama-samādhi) goes to all beings’ life and death, while does not go to the troubles of reincarnation (existence). O son of good family, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes to show all the concentrations, while does not go to shake the equality. (The Śūraṃgama-samādhi) goes to all buddhas’ lands, while does not go to the conceptions of various buddha lands. (The Śūraṃgama-samādhi) goes to show all the buddhas, while does not go to show the imagining of the appearance and marks of the buddhas. (The Śūraṃgama-samādhi) goes to proclaim all sounds and voices and does not go to the conceptual thought of distinguishing syllables. O son of good family, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi enters into seeing all buddhas, but does not enter into ultimate seeing (all buddhas). O son of good family, therefore, it is said “Where does the Śūraṃgama-samādhi go?” (The answer is:) The Tathāgata’s going is exactly that of the samādhi.

Said: O son of god, where does the Tathāgata go?

Said: The Tathāgata goes to nowhere (agata) because of the suchness (tathā).

Said: O son of god, does not the Tathāgata go to Nirvāṇa?

Said: O son of good family, all dharmas go to Nirvāṇa, so the Tathāgata does not go to Nirvāṇa. Why? Those who go to Nirvāṇa do not attain Nirvāṇa.25

The places to which Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes are not enlightenment, buddhahood, or Nirvāṇa, as suggested by Skilton and McRae, but the minds of all sentient beings’ minds, reincarnations, buddha lands, the speeches of doctrine, etc. The minds of these sentient beings, etc., are likely the “wars” or battlefield entered by the hero in metaphor 2. Moreover, the buddha goes where the Śūraṃgama-samādhi goes, i.e., he goes to all the “places” mentioned above while simultaneously reaching nowhere, including Nirvāṇa. Therefore, the march of Śūraṃgama-samādhi is not a journey of an ordinary person to pursue enlightenment; rather, it describes the path of the saints to deliver sentient beings through manifestations.

4. Are There Appropriate Cultivation Practices Related to Śūraṃgama-Samādhi?

Having discussed the meaning of Śūraṃgama-samādhi, this section will now address the question of cultivation practices.

The concern regarding practice vis-à-vis Śūraṃgama-samādhi has traditionally revolved around the cultivation of meditative concentration (Lamotte [1998] 2003, p. viii; McRae 1998, p. 1; Tsai 2006; Shih 2016, pp. 83–91). However, the evidence provided in past scholarship actually has little to do with meditational practice. Florin Deleanu and Takanori Fukita were acutely aware of this issue (Deleanu 2000, p. 73; Fukita 2020, pp. 85–86). By examining two of these practices, Fukita argued in a recent paper that these practices did not in fact lead to the mastery of Śūraṃgama-samādhi and that the SSS offers no appropriate and practical means for cultivating Śūraṃgama-samādhi (Fukita 2020, pp. 85–86).

However, it is unlikely that the SSS would promote Śūraṃgama-samādhi while simultaneously offering a series of unrelated practices. There must be some relation between the proposed practices and the defined state of being. This “inconsistency” in the text is no fault of the scripture itself but goes back to previous misinterpretation of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi as a form of meditative concentration. Having redefined what we mean by Śūraṃgama-samādhi, it is now necessary to reconsider this issue.

One of the two cultivation examples provided by Fukita is the act of hearing, reciting, and teaching Śūraṃgama-samādhi, which confuses the primary meaning and the derivative meanings of Śūraṃgama-samādhi. What is heard, recited, preached to others, etc., refers to the derivative meaning of Śūraṃgama-samādhi, which is discussed in the next section. Therefore, the practices of hearing, recitation, etc., mentioned in these passages are not on the same level as the practice of Śūraṃgama-samādhi itself under discussion.

Apart from these cases, the SSS presents two levels of cultivation—one for buddhas and one for ordinary people—which are referred to as the dharmas of the buddhas and the dharmas of ordinary people, respectively.

The dharmas of the buddhas refer to the practice of abiding in the state of Śūraṃgama-samādhi or the cultivations performed by buddhas and celestrial bodhisattvas in the state of Śūraṃgama-samādhi. These practices involve contemplating emptiness, saving sentient beings, achieving buddha lands, cultivating six pāramitās, etc. Such practices are intentionally shown by buddhas and bodhisattvas for sentient beings, and they do not themselves need these practices.

(Jayamati said:) … O the Blessed One, how to cultivate within Śūraṃgama-samādhi?

The Blessed One replies: O Jayamati, whenever a bodhisattva sees not entering all dharmas, he will enter the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. O Jayamati, whenever a bodhisattva views all dharmas as unobstructed, momentary, empty, and free from love and hatred, then he is practicing the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. Moreover, O Jayamati, the cultivation within Śūraṃgama-samādhi is not just one kind of practice, O Jayamati, as many as there are activities of all sentient beings’ minds and actions, are there the activities of the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. In this Śūraṃgama-samādhi, as many as the entrance to the hearts and actions of all sentient beings, are there entrances into practice. In this Śūraṃgama-samādhi, as many as the activities of the faculties of all sentient beings are involved, are there cultivations entered. As many as the names and forms of all sentient beings, this bodhisattva manifests names and forms. O Jayamati, whoever manifests in this way, he is practicing in this Śūraṃgama-samādhi. As many as the names, forms and marks of all buddhas showing, the bodhisattva will show names, forms and marks. Jayamati, whoever appears in this way is practicing in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. As many as the buddhas’ arrangement of merits of the buddha lands show, arrangements of merits of buddha lands will be manifested by those bodhisattvas. O Jayamati, if he manifests in this way, this is the practice of the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. O Jayamati, for this reason, there are very few bodhisattvas who abide in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi, but there are many who practice other inferior samādhis.26

The so-called “cultivation” discussed here refers to the various methods of deliverance in accordance with their respective spiritual capacities of every sentient being by buddhas and bodhisattvas who abide in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. In other words, this paragraph suggests that the cultivation of abiding in Śūraṃgama-samādhi has no fixed method of practice, with countless variance arising expediently in accordance with the minds and behaviors of all living beings, as well as the names and appearances of the buddhas. Furthermore, this cultivation is not a practice performed by ordinary people, but a “practice” manifested by the buddhas and bodhisattvas to guide sentient beings.

This manifested cultivation is clearly shown in the section on the Pefections(pāramitās). The practices of the six pāramitās are all manifestations of the buddhas. Because buddhas and bodhisattvas have already attained buddhahood, there is no need for them to practice the pāramitās in the pursuit of enlightenment. For example, in the practice of the perfection of generosity (Dāna-pāramitā):

Dṛḍhamati, all the treasures in the three thousand great thousand worlds, or the treasures in the sea, or in the abode of heaven, or in the abode of dragons, or on the earth, or in the hands of Yakṣas, or in the human world, as well as food, drink, clothes, vehicles, in all of these he is at home and in control. Anythings he wants to give is able to give. These are obtained from past merits. Not to mention achieved at will through supernatural achievement.27

The end of this passage states, “this is the supremacy of the cultivation of Dānapāramitā of the bodhisattvas who abide in Śūraṃgama-samādhi”.28 This paragraph shows that the bodhisattva who abides in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi and practices the Dānaparamitā can give alms at will based on the immeasurable merits accumulated in the past, let alone making use of supernatural powers to give alms. Therefore, although these deeds are called practicing the pāramitā of giving to seek enlightenment, in fact, they are manifestations performed by buddhas and bodhisattvas who are beyond this mundane world.

Does the SSS mention the practice of Śūraṃgama-samādhi by ordinary people? The SSS says:

“The Blessed One, if a bodhisattva having no arrogant mind towards all forms of cultivation, how should they cultivate the Śūraṃgama-samādhi?”

The Blessed One then said to the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Dṛḍhamati: “...Dṛḍhamati, if a bodhisattva wishes to cultivate the Śūraṃgama-samādhi they should first cultivate mental disposition. When they have learned mental disposition, they enter into practice. When they have learned practice, they enter into the determination. When they have learned the determination, they enter into great loving-kindness. When they have learned great loving-kindness, they enter into great compassion. When they have learned great compassion, they enter into great joy.... They perfect the ten stages, and after dwelling on the tenth stage, they receive the inauguration of all the buddhas. After receiving the inauguration of all the buddhas, they obtain all the bodhisattva samādhis. After obtaining all the bodhisattvas’ samādhis, they receive the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. The one who obtains the Śūraṃgama-samādhi will serve sentient beings through the activities of the buddhas while not abandoning the normal state of a bodhisattva.. Dṛḍhamati, in this way, all bodhisattvas who cultivate these dharmas will attain the Śūraṃgama-samādhi. Dṛḍhamati, bodhisattvas who dwell in the Śūraṃgama-samādhi have nothing more to learn”.29

This paragraph describes in generic terms the Mahāyāna path for attaining enlightenment and seems to not contain much new and important information (except, perhaps, for the appearance of Pratyutpanna-samādhi). Bearing in mind the previous discussion of Śūraṃgama-samādhi, it is clear that Śūraṃgama-samādhi is not a special meditation or text but the supramundane status of the buddhas. Indeed, the Śūraṃgama-samādhi is not the path, but the goal. This explains why the SSS does not elaborate on a special path of cultivation because attaining Śūraṃgama-samādhi is essentially the same as attaining enlightenment. No unique practice different from the general buddhist path exists because the process of achieving Śūraṃgama-samādhi for ordinary people is the attainment of buddhahood itself. In other terms, if ordinary people want to practice Śūraṃgama-samādhi, their practice is “dharmas of ordinary people”, which is the buddhist path to enlightenment in the general sense. In contrast, the case of the buddhas or boddhisattvas who abide in Śūraṃgama-samādhi as discussed above refers to the “dharma of the buddhas”, that is, their manifested “cultivations” for the purpose of the salvation of sentient beings.

The Scripture also stresses that these two ways—buddhas and ordinary people—are actually the same in their outward appearance, i.e., they are incompatible and inseparable.

Then Dṛḍhamati said to *Buddhamatyabhimukha: son of god, where does a bodhisattva who wants to obtain this samādhi make effort?

*Buddhamatyabhimukha said: son of good family, the bodhisattva who wishes to obtain this Śūraṃgama-samādhi should be diligent in the dharmas of ordinary people... The dharmas of ordinary people are neither possessed nor lacking of the dharmas of buddhas. Son of good family, a bodhisattva should (in this way) be diligent in the dharmas of ordinary people.

Dṛḍhamati said: Son of god, are all the dharmas of the buddha related to having or lacking of (the dharmas of ordinary people)?

*Buddhamatyabhimukha said: Son of god, the dharmas of ordinary people are not unified or separated. Son of god, there is no difference and discrepancies between any dharmas of buddhas and dharmas of ordinary people. As the (two approaches) with the same way, son of good familiy, there is not unification or separation in this (the same way) of the name “diligence”. Why? son of googd family, all dharmas have the unproduced suchness.30

The dharmas of the buddhas represents the diligence or diligent cultivation manifested by buddhas or bodhisattvas after the achievement of Śūraṃgama-samādhi. On the other hand, the dharmas of ordinary people are the diligent practices carried out before achieving Śūraṃgama-samādhi, which is the general practice in pursuit of enlightenment, as mentioned above.

However, the two kinds of approaches are virtually identical in appearance, and both adopt the same practical methods, i.e., the general Buddhist practices. Therefore, they are inseparable, because all dharmas have suchness or emptiness. They differ in terms of how they manifest. Moreover, the dharmas of buddha are manifested or shown for the sake of all sentient beings, whereas the dharmas of ordinary people are not because they have not yet attained full liberation; therefore, dharmas are one and inseparable in their outward appearance, meanwhile they cannot be equated because the former describes the practices while the latter describes the expedient manifestation.

If Śūraṃgama-samādhi refers to meditation or a list of terms rather than the “buddha’s supramundane nature”, then it would be difficult to comprehend why both of the approaches are the cultivations of Śūraṃgama-samādhi.

5. The Derivative Meanings of Śūraṃgama-Samādhi and Their Relationship with Narratives: Is There True Self-Reference in Mahāyāna Sūtras?

If Śūraṃgama-samādhi refers to the supramundane state of the saints, how can we explain the excerpts in the SSS on hearing, preaching, reciting, and copying Śūraṃgama-samādhi? This task involves defining the derivative usages of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi (hereafter, the primary meaning is represented by italic characters, and the derivative meaning is indicated by bold and italic characters).

This type of derivative usage of terms, especially in Mahāyāna sūtras, is widely believed to be a reference to the sūtra text itself, and is often called a “self-reference” or an instance of “self-reflexivity” (for example, Cole 2005; Leighton 2006, 2008; Gummer 2012; Okada 2020; Wedemeyer 2021; Harrison 2022) and discussed in various directions.31 These “self-referential” passages have become a popular topic in recent scholarship where it has been suggested that Mahāyāna sūtras employ rhetorical devices such as “breaking the fourth wall” and the “infinite loops” in these “self-referential” passages. In 2008, Taigen Dan Leighton proposed that the “self-reference” in the Lotus sūtra is comparable to Maurits Cornelis Escher’s “Drawing Hands” drawing, where two hands draw one another on a sheet of paper (Leighton 2008, p. 24). Alexander J. O’Neill, and Christian K. Wedemeyer both proposed the literary phenomenon of “breaking the fourth wall” in Mahāyāna Sūtras (O’Neill 2020, p. 53; Wedemeyer 2021, p. 221 ff.). Paul Harrison expanded on the paradox of “self-reference” (similar to Escher’s cross-hand painting,) noting that it was a general characteristic in many Mahāyāna sūtras and calling it an “infinite loop” of “self-reference”. He further proposed that the combination of this “infinite loop” and the method of “breaking the fourth wall” was meant to draw the readers into the referential framework of the text itself, causing readers to participate in “the grand quest for perfect awakening with its potentially infinite repetitions” (Harrison 2022, p. 656).

The foundation upon which Paul Harrison’s theory is constructed posits the existence of both intentional “self-reference” and rhetorical instances of “breaking the fourth wall”. However, the very basis of these arguments remains problematic.

It had long been assumed that what was promoted to be heard, preached, recited, and copied (i.e., Śūraṃgama-samādhi) in Mahāyāna sūtras was the same as the sūtra that we read in reality (SSS), with little reflection on whether the apparent “self-reference” within the Mahāyāna sūtras truly pertains to the sūtras we encounter in reality as complete texts. We must question the assumption: Are the “self-references” in Mahāyāna sūtras really self-references to the text itself?

I believe that this is not the case. Before the discussion, it is important to clarify that the following argument only pertains to the narrative or storytelling aspect, and it does not assume the historical veracity of the events depicted in the SSS. The aim of this section of my paper is to examine the coherence of the author’s narrative world from a logical standpoint. For instance, in storytelling, even though the narrative itself may be fictional, if a television were to appear in a story of Tang Dynasty, it would undoubtedly raise questions. However, if there were to be something resembling a television mentioned in the Tang Dynasty story, and we adhere to the author’s logical consistency, then we must endeavor to look for clues within the story to understand what this object that resembles a television signifies within the context of the story.

Likewise, if we were to view Śūraṃgama-samādhi (an object that resembles a TV) as self-reference (TV), as some scholars have done in the past, it would create inconsistencies within the logical framework of the story. Since the authors were bound by the fundamental premise in Buddhist history that the Buddhist Councils took place after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, their story was unable to deviate from this historical context. Therefore, during the Vulture Peak assembly, the sutra itself has not yet been compiled according to the timeline of the story (with no real-world implications), as its compilation have to occur at the Buddhist Councils instead of the Vulture Peak assembly. Hence, if we are to believe in the author’s logical consistency in this regard, it becomes implausible for the characters in the story to discuss the sutra text that will only come into existence decades later. Therefore, we are compelled to elucidate the meaning of Śūraṃgama-samādhi within the context of the Vulture Peak assembly. Or, to put it another way, this is comparable to an advertisement attempting to market televisions by using a story of the Tang Dynasty. The challenge lies in finding a way to align the story with the historical background of the Tang Dynasty while still influencing viewers to purchase televisions in reality. To overcome this dilemma, they can introduce an object that existed in the Tang Dynasty and bears resemblance to a television, using it as a metaphor for the actual televisions. By employing this rhetorical technique, the story maintains its coherence while achieving the goal of promotion. Similarly, due to the fact that the Buddhist councils occurred after the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa, the authors of the SSS were constrained by this fundamental premise. Consequently, if they sought to endorse or promote the SSS that in the story world emerged only after the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa through the voice of the Buddha, they would face similar challenges. This section tries to elucidate how the authors make use of pseudo-self-reference as a connotation of SSS in order to solve the problem. I believe this is a commonly utilized rhetoric device found in numerous Mahayana scriptures, including the SSS.

From a narrative perspective, Buddhist sūtras comprise at least two layers: The frame story (layer 1) and the embedded narrative (layer 2). The frame story (layer 1) is the story that the narrator (in “Thus have I heard [at one time]”) recalls and narrates. The first-person narration is generally believed to have taken place during one of the Buddhist Councils. Indeed, according to the narrative structure of the scriptures themselves, these texts—oral or written—were recounted after the fact rather than being recorded by some kind of cosmic stenographer who was keeping the minutes. The embedded narrative (layer 2) is the story that is narrated. In the SSS, the embedded narrative refers to events that occurred during the Buddhist assembly on Vulture Peak (including some scenes in which bodhisattvas travel to other places or worlds). Some Mahāyāna sūtras may contain a story or stories within the embedded narrative (layer 3 or deeper).

At the narrative level (not the historical level), the sūtra we read in reality is the product of the first-person narration, i.e., layer 1, which is a complete narrative recounting the process of the Vulture Peak assembly. In this narrative world, the completed SSS in reality did not exist until “I” narrated it, and the SSS as a text (oral or written) had therefore not yet come into being during the Vulture Peak assembly. Logically, the narrator (“I”) should be Ānanda who was entrusted with the Śūraṃgama-samādhi by the buddha at the end of the assembly or the Śakra Meruśikharadhara who also swears to propagate the teaching.

This narratological understanding is the very crux of the issue. The so-called “self-reference” (Śūraṃgama-samādhi) occurs in the dialogues between the buddha and his audience at the (fictional) Vulture Peak assembly, i.e., the embedded narrative (layer 2 or even layer 3). Insofar as the SSS would not exist yet for it was being preached and memorized. Therefore, in the setting of the author(s), the Śūraṃgama-samādhi (so-called “self-reference”) discussed in the assembly could not be referring to the SSS we read in reality directly because the text did not exist. In other words, the so-called “self-reference” (Śūraṃgama-samādhi) in the SSS cannot denote the sūtra itself (SSS), and the “self-reference” is therefore not truly a self-reference.

The next question is as follows: What does the “self-reference” (derivative meaning of Śūraṃgama-samādhi) denote? I believe that the so-called “self-reference” (Śūraṃgama-samādhi) can be distinguished into at least three categories:

(1)

The core teaching on Śūraṃgama-samādhi (Śūraṃgama-samādhi 1).

(2)

The assumed future text anticipated by the (fictional) audience (Śūraṃgama-samādhi 2).

(3)

The oral prototype of the text (not yet narrated) that existed in the memory of the (fictional) audience at Vulture Peak that—as mentioned and entrusted at the end of the SSS (Śūraṃgama-samādhi 3).

However, scholarship on the subject has often confused these three definitions for Śūraṃgama-samādhi with the SSS itself. In most sections of the SSS, however, the meaning of Śūraṃgama-samādhi can be determined not by blanket definitions such as “self-reference” but by reading the collocated verbs as well as the context. The term’s distribution in the text, indeed, follows a narrative logic. Looking to instances of primary usage, the verbs collocated with Śūramgama-samādhi include “dwell”, “obtain”, etc. (but not all of the verbs collocated with “obtain” are primary usages). Examples can be found throughout the SSS. The first usage “core teaching on Śūramgama-samādhi” (Śūraṃgama-samādhi 1) pertains to the given instructions that elucidates the essence of Śūramgama-samādhi, including its associated supernatural power and manifestations. These teachings, as delivered by the buddha and tenth-stage bodhisattvas, are found either before or after the passages containing instances of Śūraṃgama-samādhi 1. In the text, this teaching is commonly shared among all buddhas. The verbs most often collocated with “Śūraṃgama-samādhi 1” are “explain” or “hear” rather than “read”, “recite”, “preach to others”, or “copy”, and those who explain the core teaching are primarily buddhas and tenth-stage bodhisattvas, whereas those who hear are the audience. This kind of usage primarily occurs in §12–14 (before the core instruction); §81–117 (after the core instruction); and §132, §148, and §150–152 (after Mañjuśrī’s instruction), although not all the cases in these passages are used in this way. The reason why this derivative usage of Śūraṃgama-samādhi appears is that these sections are used to discuss the merit and protective power of the core teaching.

The second usage “anticipated text” (Śūraṃgama-samādhi 2) refers to the oral or written texts or books that the audience or the buddha himself believes will appear in the future based on the inherent merits of the core teaching. However, at the time of the Vulture Peak assembly, this version of the text only existed as a form of the audience’s anticipation and assumption. In this sense, the verbs collocated with Śūraṃgama-samādhi 2 are not only “hear” and “explain” but also “recite”, “expound to others”, and “copy”. The events of reciting, expounding, and copying the Śūraṃgama-samādhi 2 are anticipated to happen in the future instead of occurring during the assembly. The characters in these passages are often potential future dharmabhāṇakas or another unspecified figure (e.g., a person or bodhisattva). Logically, in the narrative at least, it entails the presupposition that this text would have firstly been narrated at the Buddhist Councils prior to being heard, recited, preached, or copied by Dharmabhāṇakas or other individuals in the future. This usage primarily occurs in §118, 129–131, 165, 173–174.

The third type of usage is the prototype of the oral version of the sūtra text (as it exists in the audience’s minds) that is mentioned and entrusted at the end of the sūtra (Śūraṃgama-samādhi 3) (§167–172, 175–178). The prototype of the oral version of the sūtra corresponds to the recollections of the Vulture Peak assembly within the consciousness of the audience, particularly in the minds of Ānanda and Śakra Meruśikharadhara (based on the logic of the story with no historical implication). As the occurrences of this type of usage may not exclusively be confined to the very end of the sūtra, the prototype remains open to supplementation until the termination of the assembly. Logically, the prototype of the oral transmission does not contain fixed narrative discourses on the events that occurred in the assembly because it is a discursive process in the making. The concrete narrative discourses in the SSS do not come into existence until the first-person narration of the events (“Thus have I hear”) takes place after the assembly, drawing upon the recollection or the prototype of the oral transmission of the sūtra. Therefore, Śūraṃgama-samādhi 3 is different from SSS because, from the clues and logic of the story, we may infer that these plots preserved in memory did not necessarily form specific and recitable sentences or passages at the time of Vulture Peak assembly. The verbs most often collocated with Śūraṃgama-samādhi are “recite”, “expound to others”, “copy”, etc.

According to the analysis presented above, the three kinds of Śūraṃgama-samādhi in the “self-referential passages” should not be considered as the reference to any version of the SSS we heard or read in the real world directly. It refers, at least in its derivative definition, to a core teaching, to the anticipation, and to the narrative process unfolding within the text itself. Therefore, in contrast to the present academic consensus, these instances of Śūraṃgama-samādhi would not be proper “self-references” but merely “pseudo-self-references”.

Based on the above analysis, we can now respond to the issues related to the question of rhetorical the “infinite loops” and to the literary “breaking of the fourth wall”. First, the premise for the existence of an infinite loop is the existence of instances of “self-reference” in the sūtras. As previously mentioned, from a narratological perspective, no “self-reference” properly occurs in the SSS, or even the Mahāyāna sūtras, precluding the possibility of an “infinite loop”. That being said, Paul Harrison wrote regarding the Lotus Sūtra that the “self-reference” in (some) Mahāyāna sūtras cannot be understood as core instructions because there were no core instructions in the Lotus sūtra, making it impossible to avoid the paradox of an infinite loop. The SSS has also been criticized by Fukita for not having core instructions, although he did not discuss the issue of self-reference (Fukita 2020, pp. 84--85). As mentioned earlier, the core instruction of the SSS is in fact provided. The core instruction constitutes the definition of Śūramgama-samādhi (the buddha’s supramundane state), its supernatural power, manifestations, and the cultivation methods (both praxis for ordinary individuals and the salvific practices of the saints).

Prior to Paul Harrison’s work on rhetorical “infinite loops”, other scholars had already argued that there was no core instruction in texts such as the Lotus Sūtra (Teiser and Stone 2009, pp. 17–18). Leighton even went so far as to argue that the paradox of the infinite loop itself was the core instruction of the Lotus Sūtra (Leighton 2006, pp. 13–40). However, the aforementioned scholars overlooked Seishi Karashima’s point proposed in 2001 that the core instructions of the Lotus Sūtra did in fact exist and that they had been preserved in the Central Asian manuscript (Lü B-l 1.Recto) and in Chinese translations, whereas the core teaching section was missing in later Sanskrit manuscripts from Nepal and Gilgit, as well as in the Kern-Nanjio edition (Karashima 2001a, pp. 216–17; 2001b, note 115). This core instruction found in the Central Asian manuscript and in Chinese translations refers to “an elucidation of equality of the great knowledge (Mahājñāna-samatā-nirdeśa)”—that is to say, “Everyone can equally acquire buddhist wisdom, and therefore aim to acquire it”. If Karashima’s viewpoint is correct, then the Lotus sūtra would have contained core instructions in its early versions, i.e., the equality of the great knowledge, which is the dharmaparyāya named Saddharmapundrikā. Therefore, the self-referential paragraphs cited by Paul Harrison from the Lotus sūtra were predicated on misgivings regarding the absence of any core teachings in the scripture. If there were, in fact, core instructions in the text, then the instances cited by Harrison were not necessarily “self-referential” and the literary “infinite loop” is no longer a viable interpretation.

Secondly, is there really a phenomenon of “breaking the fourth wall” in the so-called “self-referential” paragraphs of SSS? Several scholars have borrowed the dramatic term “breaking the fourth wall” in the study of Mahāyāna sūtras to explain the phenomenon of jumping out of the story frame and engaging in dialogue with their readers or auditors in the real world (O’Neill 2020, p. 53; Wedemeyer 2021, p. 221 ff.; Harrison 2022). Wedemeyer believed that the Mahāyāna sūtras cut across the narrative levels of the texts to interact with the real world where the reader (or audience) is located, allowing the readers to “self-identify with the characters in the sūtras”, assuming that the readers will “shape their identities, behavior, and socioreligious allegiances accordingly” (Wedemeyer 2021, p. 222). This phenomenon is particularly reflected in the so-called “self-referential” paragraphs.

The author(s) of the SSS almost certainly intended to influence the readers in the real world, particularly in the “self”-promotional paragraphs. However, these paragraphs were completely self-contained within the narrative. As mentioned earlier, the “self-referential” paragraphs were not directly addressed to the readers but were strictly limited to the conversations held between various characters or agents in the story world. The denotation of Śūraṃgama-samādhi refers to the three types mentioned above, not in reference to the SSS as a text in the real world. Therefore, although the “self-referential” paragraphs imply the author(s)’ expectation and assumptions with respect to what the future readers should do with the text in reality, they only connote, rather than denote, the SSS we read indirectly with a pseudo-self-reference (Śūraṃgama-samādhi). Indeed, how could the text refer to itself when it does not yet exist within the narrative? Therefore, the so-called “self-reference” neither transgresses the story framework nor does it pull the readers into the narrative framework of the sūtra directly.

Due to the narratological structure of Buddhist scriptures, i.e., the “Thus I have heard” framework, the author(s) of the sūtra are constrained by the timeline of the story itself. In the story world, the sūtra text, i.e., their work, can only come into existence after the agent “I” recounts and narrates details related to the previous assembly. This poses a fundamental question: If the author(s) seek to utilize the voice of the buddha or of other saints to endorse and promote their works, how can they effectively and reasonably have the buddha endorsing a scripture that has not yet come into existence without deviating from the established narrative framework? It is interesting to note that the author(s) employ the rhetorical device of “pseudo-self-reference” to address the problem. By utilizing pseudo-self-reference, they evoke images or associations in the minds of readers or auditors that are associated with the real scriptures they have composed, without explicitly referring to those scriptures as they exist in textual form in the real world. This technique serves as one of the authors’ methods of manipulating the behaviors of the readers or auditors.

6. Conclusions

In summary, the evidence presented in this paper demonstrates that the previous understanding of the concept Śūraṃgama-samādhi, as well as “samādhi” more generally in the early Mahāyāna samādhi sūtras, is worth revisiting. Therefore, a new interpretation of the term and its narratives have been proposed in this article.

This article has argued that the definition of the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi should be divided into two main categories: A primary meaning and a derivative meaning. The primary definition of Śūraṃgama-samādhi refers to the supramundane state of the buddha and the tenth-stage bodhisattvas. The supramundane state is also the inherent nature of the buddhas as their mundane behaviors are expedient manifestations in nature. This literal interpretation of samādhi is neither a “collection of terms”, as claimed by Skilton, nor a form of “meditation” as traditionally believed but is instead the gathering location or the location of convergence in the metaphorical sense. In SSS, it is the supramundane state that serves as the gathering location for the supramundane qualities and supernatural manifestations of a saint, while in PSS, it is the concentration on the buddha (Pratyutpanna-samādhi) that serves as the gathering location of meritorious deeds enumerated in the list. The buddha’s supramundane state is known as samādhi (the place of convergence) because all the supramundane manifestations and characteristics are contained and gathered within it.

Regarding the term Śūraṃgama, we have seen to what extent it is a polysemous metaphor. Bearing this in mind, Lamotte’s widely quoted interpretation translation does not fully capture the variety of meanings contained by the term. The author(s) of the sūtra did not interpret the compound term strictly in accordance with the rules of the Sanskrit grammar but rather they used the term similar to a pun, a word game that could refer to multiple things at once. The “march” of Śūraṃgama-samādhi is not walking on the path to Nirvāṇa but represents the buddha going to the hearts and minds of all living beings, etc.

The cultivation of Śūraṃgama-samādhi can be divided into two categories: The practices of the buddha and the practices of ordinary people. However, the described practice of ordinary people is consistent with the general practice in the Buddhist tradition, with no special practice method because the process of obtaining the Śūraṃgama-samādhi (the supramundane state of buddha) is itself the process of becoming the buddha. The buddha’s practice is a manifested “practice” for the salvation of living beings. These two practices are similar in their external appearance, but they are essentially distinct. Their relationship is, therefore, both unconsolidated and inseparable.

The derivative usages (Śūraṃgama-samādhi) are widely considered to refer to the sūtra we can read in the real world and is therefore known as “self-reference”. This led to discussions on the paradox of the “infinite loop” of the “self-reference”. However, this interpretation neglects the layered nature of the scriptural narratives: The frame story (layer 1) and the embedded narrative (layer 2). Looking at the story itself, the sūtra we read is the outcome of a first-person narration (layer 1) and it did not come into being at the Vulture Peak assembly (layer 2). Hence, the discussion of the Śūraṃgama-samādhi at the assembly (layer 2) does not directly refer to the SSS we encounter in reality. It could not have been a “self-reference” to SSS if the text did not exist in the timeline of the narrative. In the present paper, I argued that we can distinguish three different definitions for the term Śūraṃgama-samādhi, which only connote, rather than denote, the SSS in reality as a form of “pseudo-self-reference” (Śūraṃgama-samādhi). This interpretation model based on narrative avoids the paradox of the “infinite loop” of “self-reference”. The pseudo-self-reference, as a previously unnoticed rhetorical technique in Mahāyāna sūtras, allows the author(s) to manipulate their readers to recite, preach, and copy the scriptures in the real world by using the voice of the Buddha without disrupting the narrative timeline and framework.