Scholars have long tussled over whether the Surangama Sutra truly hails from India or is a homegrown Chinese creation. Unlike most Mahayana texts that trace back to Sanskrit manuscripts, this one surfaces only in Chinese, first surfacing around 703 CE under the name “Paramiti Dharma.” No Sanskrit original has ever turned up, which has thrown cold water on claims of its Indian pedigree.

By the Tang dynasty, stalwarts such as Zhiyi of the Tiantai school treated the Sutra as genuine—its rich guidance on meditation and perception fitting neatly into their contemplative framework. Yet Chan (Zen) luminaries often kept their distance, questioning its authenticity and preferring the Lankavatara or actual recorded Indian texts. Later, legendary figures like Xuanzang omitted it from his prized catalog of translations, adding more grist to the authenticity mill.

Modern academics, armed with philological tools, have pointed out linguistic quirks and doctrinal innovations that align more with 8th- or 9th-century Chinese Buddhism than with earlier Indian thought. Professors like Charles Muller and Ron Epstein highlight that certain meditation practices described in the Sutra mirror East Asian contemplative trends not yet documented in India. That suggests it might be a skilful composite—an apocryphal text crafted to address local spiritual needs.

Despite this, many East Asian temples still recite it during retreats, valuing its deep dive into perception and mind training. The controversy isn’t merely academic; it mirrors today’s broader conversations around religious texts and authenticity. Whether regarded as canonical or apocryphal, the Surangama Sutra continues to inspire meditation practitioners, proving that sometimes a text’s impact matters more than its paperwork.