Mahayana's "Shurangama Sutra" - any use to a Theravadin?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Has anyone read the following Mahayana Sutra?

Shurangama Sutta (Mahayana)
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shura ... ntents.asp

Do you believe it contains anything of benefit or interest to a Theravada practitioner?

(If we can set aside polemnical debates, "Hinayana" and such it would be greatly appreciated... I just want to focus on the Dhamma aspect).

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Oh, yes. Everyone should mumble its mantra.

Why do you ask?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Why do you ask?

I was advised by a Mahayana practitioner that it might provide some guidance on the direct observation of anattata.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

Why do you ask?

I was advised by a Mahayana practitioner that it might provide some guidance on the direct observation of anattata.

That is true, if you read the whole thing, which is best to do it in one sitting, then you will be left with the realization that a precious period of time has passed, never to be regained and that you are older and closer to your death, and there will be the realization that watching your breath is time better spent as a way of understanding by direct experience the three marks.

[jcsuperstar]

tisk tisk

yet still funny

[Dan74]

Your thread and Tilt's comments have made me want to read it. It's been gathering dust on the shelf long enough!

_/|\_

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

Your thread and Tilt's comments have made me want to read it. It's been gathering dust on the shelf long enough!

If you find some parts you think you be of interest, can you post them here?

As the whole thing is pretty long (as is often the way with Mahayana Sutras) I'd like to be pretty specific and focused with the sections addressed.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

As the whole thing is pretty long (as is often the way with Mahayana Sutras) I'd like to be pretty specific and focused with the sections addressed.

I am assuming that you were given this info on ZFI; ask the person who suggested it. Having slogged through it years ago, I would have to say I found it forgetable.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I'll get Dan74 to filter it for me.

He seems keen to get stuck into it!

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

Greetings Dan,

Your thread and Tilt's comments have made me want to read it. It's been gathering dust on the shelf long enough!

If you find some parts you think you be of interest, can you post them here?

As the whole thing is pretty long (as is often the way with Mahayana Sutras) I'd like to be pretty specific and focused with the sections addressed.

Metta,
Retro.

Will do! Might take me a week or two though...

Then again I might come up with nothing upon "filtering." That's what reading the Heart Sutra for the first time was like. Which is kind of the point, but I missed it then


_/|\_

[retrofuturist]

Brilliant - thanks Dan!

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Just a note, the Shurangama Sutra should not to be confused with the Shurangamasamadhi Sutra, which is an early text important in Ch'an.

[Paññāsikhara]

Just a note, the Shurangama Sutra should not to be confused with the Shurangamasamadhi Sutra, which is an early text important in Ch'an.

Sure about the order there?

Actually, probably the other way around:
the later Surangama Sutra (T 945) (the one which if relatively popular and well known in the present day and age) is much more important to Chan starting from the Tang dynasty, than the earlier Surangamasamadhi Sutra (T 642, T643) which was not so important for any school, really, (and which is largely unknown at present).

[tiltbillings]

Just a note, the Shurangama Sutra should not to be confused with the Shurangamasamadhi Sutra, which is an early text important in Ch'an.

Sure about the order there?

Actually, probably the other way around:
the later Surangama Sutra (T 945) (the one which if relatively popular and well known in the present day and age) is much more important to Chan starting from the Tang dynasty, than the earlier Surangamasamadhi Sutra (T 642, T643) which was not so important for any school, really, (and which is largely unknown at present).

Not what I have read, but then I can't remember who said that, maybe Lamotte, but then, when it really comes down to it, I really do not care.

[BlackBird]

This thread brought a smile to my otherwise drab day

Thank you.

metta
Jack

[seanpdx]

This thread brought a smile to my otherwise drab day

Thank you.

metta
Jack

My thoughts exactly!
Now, back to that drab day...

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Dan,

Your thread and Tilt's comments have made me want to read it. It's been gathering dust on the shelf long enough!

If you find some parts you think you be of interest, can you post them here?

As the whole thing is pretty long (as is often the way with Mahayana Sutras) I'd like to be pretty specific and focused with the sections addressed.

Metta,
Retro.

Will do! Might take me a week or two though...

So, how is that going for you?

[rowyourboat]

..it left him with an empty feeling?

ok..bad pun

[Dan74]

still a fair way to go...

will be another two weeks probably (a busy time at work with the start of semeseter approaching)

[tiltbillings]

For those who are inclined to read Mahayana sutras, probably a better read than the eponymous sutra of this thread is the earlier Surangama_Samadhi_Sutra, which has decent and recent translation online:

http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Surangama_Sama ... 25-III.pdf

The Lamotte translation would be worth having, not only for its translation but also for all its scholarly apparatus, which is available for 14 pounds.