Determining the Authenticity of the Divine Mantra Sutra

Question: Among the Tripitaka, there is the "Spell for Uprooting All Karmic Obstacles and Attaining Rebirth in the Pure Land"(from the *Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra*), which was retranslated by the Indian Tripitaka Master Guṇabhadra of the Liu Song Dynasty by imperial decree. It consists of fifty-nine characters in fifteen lines. The text also describes the merit of the spell, containing twenty-seven characters stating, "If there is a virtuous man(up to) he will spontaneously attain rebirth."(The merit text is as in this sūtra.) However, there is no preceding or following text, and the preceding and following text is entirely identical to the smaller sūtra translated by Kumārajīva, with only the divine spell and the description of its merit inserted in the middle. This was translated by Bodhiruci. Therefore, could it be that the passages beginning with "A" and "ten directions" were spoken by the golden mouth of the Buddha, and that later scholars, driven by arrogance and seeking to elevate their own teachings while suppressing others, fabricated this text? There are many doubts. Upon examining various catalogs, this sūtra is not recorded(First point.). Although the preceding and following text of this sūtra is almost identical to the smaller sūtra translated by Kumārajīva, with only minor additional phrases, how could the wording be the same when the translators are different(Second point.)? According to the *Account of Amitābha’s Inconceivable Spiritual Power*(The *Account of Spiritual Power* exists in the canon.), the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna aspired to be reborn in the Land of Peace and Bliss and received this spell in a dream. The Tripitaka Master Yaśas recited this spell, and the Venerable Xiù of Tianping Monastery received it orally from Tripitaka Master Yaśas. That person said the sūtra text did not come from abroad(Text.). It is recorded(There is a passage in the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* about receiving a prediction.) that in Nāgārjuna’s translation assembly, Yaśas did not obtain the original text(Third point.). Moreover, since it did not come from abroad, who could have translated it without the original text having crossed over(Fourth point.)? Also, in the biography of Bodhiruci(In the *Tang Biographies*, Volume 1, and the *Catalog of the Buddhist Teachings*, Volume 6, etc.), there is no mention of him translating this sūtra(Fifth point.). The general outline of a counterfeit sūtra is like this, so how can it be considered an authentic scripture?

Answer: It is not recorded in the catalogs because it was not widely circulated. For example, the *Śāstra on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna* was not circulated in the Han region for seven hundred years(The *Śāstra* not being circulated in the Han region is mentioned in the *Tongfa Commentary*, one volume.). This resolves the first doubt. Different translations having identical wording is not without precedent. For instance, the *Amitābha Sūtra* translated by Kumārajīva and the *Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* translated by Guṇabhadra are identical in wording without difference, as seen in the *Kaiyuan Catalog of Buddhist Scriptures*, Volume 12, Volume 14, and Volume 17. Another example is the *Awakening of Faith* translated by Paramārtha and Matṛceṭa(Matṛceṭa is the translator of the *Śāstra*; the main text of the *Śāstra* is the *Awakening of Faith*.), where the wording is also identical(Resolves the third point.). As for Nāgārjuna and Yaśas not obtaining it, the collected Sanskrit originals number in the hundreds of thousands(Based on the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*, the superior version contains as many verses as the dust particles in ten trichiliocosms and as many chapters as the dust particles in a four-continent world; the middle version contains 498,800 verses in 1,200 chapters; the inferior version contains 100,000 verses in 48 chapters; the abbreviated version is the current text, comprising eighty fascicles, etc., as stated in the *Commentary on the Practices and Vows Chapter*, three volumes.). Moreover, in the refutation it says, "It did not come from abroad," meaning it clearly existed in the land of Sanskrit(Resolves the third point.). Also, the phrase "did not come from abroad" refers to it not having been obtained, thus classifying it as not having crossed over(Resolves the fourth point.). As for it not being mentioned in Bodhiruci’s biography, the number of sūtras and śāstras he translated is vast; how could all of them be recorded? Bodhiruci’s biography states, "In Bodhiruci’s room, there could have been ten thousand bundles of Sanskrit texts of sūtras and śāstras, and the newly translated manuscripts filled an entire room(Text.)." Among ten thousand bundles filling a room, could this sūtra have been overlooked? Since scholars are not qualified to judge, they should not rashly slander it. I wish that through the merit of even a single examination, both oneself and others may attain peace and happiness.

In the late September of the eleventh year of the Genroku era, at Ryūgen Temple in Takanawa, Bushū, the ninth abbot, Jiyoku Chisoku, respectfully wrote this.