PDA

View Full Version : Early Buddhism and The Heart Sutra



Aloka
18 Jan 15, 20:11
I hadn't read this extremely interesting short article for about 3 years - and I was looking at it again, after remembering it earlier today. I thought I'd post it here and see if anyone wanted to comment about it.

Its by Santikaro, who was the late Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's translator.

In the article, he quotes from suttas in the Pali Canon which have similarites to parts of the later Mahayana Heart Sutra. (which he also quotes alongside the suttas).

"Early Buddhism and the Heart Sutra":

http://www.liberationpark.org/study/pdf/heart_sutra_early_bsm.pdf


Any comments?

:hands:

Aloka
26 Sep 16, 08:12
I've moved this thread from last year to our newer Early Buddhism forum because I think its probably a better place for it.

:hands:

McKmike
28 Sep 16, 09:52
Thanks for bringing this up, it is fascinating, but not entirely a surprise, Buddhism points to reality, as Yogi Bruce says " when you argue with reality you loose"

So the content that points toward reality will remain no matter who says it.

I particularly like the end of the article:




" Finally, let’s drop the Mahāyāna and Theravāda polemics, as well as Vajrayāna, Zen, Lotus Sutra, and other prideful or narrow biases. Such arrogance, defensiveness, and delusion does not serve Dhamma and the way of liberation. In fact, such attitudes tarnish the path for us all. Let us join each other in Buddhayāna.

We aspire to the way of Buddhayāna, originally taught by the Buddha, admirably preserved in Pali suttas, and echoed in the riches of Mahāyāna. Not limitable by any particular formulation, we dedicate ourselves to the harmonization of the noble eightfold and bodhisatta paths."

woodscooter
28 Sep 16, 10:59
I agree with the emphasis that McKmike has made, in quoting the end of Santikaro's writing.

It's sad to see how we humans divide ourselves into sectarian groupings, so easily.

And it's particularly so when this happens over the teachings of the Buddha, which is all about learning to overcome the influence of mind on behaviour.

Aloka
28 Sep 16, 11:54
When one actually looks at some of the teachings and beliefs of the various "Buddhisms", I don't really think its just a matter of sectarianism, I think there's a possibility that it could become harder to discern what is actually Buddhayana as the years go by, with so many re-interpretations and add on's to the Buddha's words, as well as gurus and "deities" who are considered more important.

Just a personal opinion, of course.

:hands:

Aloka
29 Sep 16, 10:06
I'm also reminded of Ani Sutta SN 20.7:




Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html




:hands:

Jasweet
15 Feb 19, 06:15
When someone warns me of getting stuck with "views" I try to accept it, as I know that dwelling on things and making judgements about some experience is never fruitful. It just results in stale old thoughts that usually turn sour.--------- And when someone conversely argues that "Right View" is a view that we should maintain, I don't disagree with that either.

As I see it, it is necessary to get real tough on what one means by a "view". It is also necessary to consider what the teacher is warning me against. If the teacher is primarily concerned about the conventional way that we ordinary people are constantly falling back into idle reflections, then the term "views" might just be a way of dealing with that. -------- My feeling at this time is that there are no easy ways to throw out one-liners and solve the riddle of life.

I choose to take the teacher's warnings about views very seriously, but I still hold on to the idea that compassion is always good, regardless of whether or not it is a "view". More precisely it seems to me the way I nurture compassion is most important. Do I use compassion as a redundant old fallback, or is it part of my forward advance? Do I constantly carry around biases and prejudices in my supposed compassionate thinking, or do I really step up to the meditation cushion with an open mind?

.

Aloka
15 Feb 19, 08:28
What is your opinion of Santikaro's article in the opening post #1, Jasweet?


:hands:

Whippet
15 Feb 19, 09:26
Any comments?


I am always reminded of this passage from the Phena Sutta, which IMO sounds very similar to the first section of the Heart Sutra:

"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html

manoPG
15 Feb 19, 12:37
The early stock phrases on suññata clearly form the basis for all prajnaparamita literature.

Whippet
16 Feb 19, 09:19
The early stock phrases on suññata clearly form the basis for all prajnaparamita literature.

The Sunna Sutta seems relevant here:

"It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self...."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html

manoPG
22 Feb 19, 07:02
The Sunna Sutta seems relevant here:

"It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self...."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html

Very nice :hands:

Jasweet
22 Apr 19, 08:40
Aloka,

I'm sorry I am taking so long to get back to you in regard to my opinion of Santikaro's article. For some reason I have been confused in using this system and I tend to get lost.

I think Santikaro's article is excellent, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I am very much in support of Buddhayana rather than the old classifications that stir up rivalry and distrust. But if we were to go looking for something to argue about, we might discuss how Avolekitesvara (Chenreqig) is known as the Bodhisattva of Compassion. I have always wondered how he and his concept of compassion can be considered "empty". Compassion seems to be a "feeling", does it not? While I believe that it is a very deep concept that transcends individuality and bridges the gaps between beings, I still have trouble reconciling compassion (karuna) with emptiness. I have never had anyone explain to me how an emotion, which compassion certainly is in our normal parlance, can be empty. Perhaps I can see that it has no inherent characteristics that qualify as permanence. But on the other hand it seems to be rooted in something that is real and definite. If it isn't real, definite, and permanent, how does it get connected with a Bodhisattva. Is the Bodhisattva something impermanent? That too would be hard for me to fathom, much less explain.

But like I have previously said, I have no trouble with these petty little concerns. I have now had enough experience with the process of compassion and insight/emptiness that I truly believe they go together very well. It is only when I get involved in discussions that attempt to use "logic" and "consistency" that I get a little awkward in my opinions. Somehow I feel very strongly that compassion and emptiness are not enemies at all. Compassion seems to be a view, like Right Emotion and other things, but as I have said previously, I don't think the label of "view" is really the kind of view the masters have warned us about.

jasweet

Aloka
22 Apr 19, 11:20
I'm sorry I am taking so long to get back to you in regard to my opinion of Santikaro's article. For some reason I have been confused in using this system and I tend to get lost.

No problem, Jasweet.

If you are having problems with the system, please feel free to ask questions in our Technical Help forum, or send a PM to Woodscooter for assistance.




But if we were to go looking for something to argue about, we might discuss how Avolekitesvara (Chenreqig) is known as the Bodhisattva of Compassion. I have always wondered how he and his concept of compassion can be considered "empty"


As this is our Early Buddhism Forum and the topic is about Santikaro's article rather than about the origins of the Mahayana/Vajrayana deity Chenrezi, I think its probably best to leave that issue at the following point in his essay:




Of course, Early Buddhism isn't going to set Avalokitesvara above the Venerable Sariputta, so that preface need not be discussed here, it's polemical character notwithstanding. And the concluding mantra is not typical of Early Buddhism, either.



Also, if you check our Mahayana forum you'll be able to find two or more topics about the Heart Sutra there, which might be of interest.


Kind regards,

Aloka :hands:

Jasweet
22 May 19, 09:55
Aloka,
I'm sorry that I have been so slow in getting back to you after you expressed a gently concern about my comments about Santikaro's article. Let me say very clearly that I would feel very bad if I were to offend anybody, or the website in general. And I also understand that my comments might have struck most people as "meta" rather than concise. Perhaps a bit too rambling. I promise to focus a little better in the future.
I realize that running a website like this is rather difficult in view of the ongoing potential for sectarianism and bitterness. I really and truly do not want to contribute to that in any way. ------- And if I may politely make an additional comment in regard to my reply about Santikaro's article, I would like to say that there were a lot of issues raised in the article and it was hard for me to limit my comments. But in the future I will do a better job.
JASWEET

Aloka
22 May 19, 17:26
No problem, jasweet. Good to see you again.

:hands: