Where's a geshe when you need one?Armed with the great armour, the Bodhisattva should so develop that he does not
take his stand on any of these: not on form, feeling, perception, impulses,
consciousness; not on eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; not on forms,
sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, mind-objects; not on eye-consciousness,
etc., until we come to: not on mind-consciousness, etc., until we come to:
not on the elements, i.e., earth, water, fire, wind, ether, consciousness: not
on the pillars of mindfulness, right efforts, roads to psychic power, faculties,
powers, limbs of enlightenment, limbs of the Path;
not on the fruits of Streamwinner, Once-Returner, Never-Returner, or Arhatship; not on
Pratyekabuddhahood, nor on Buddhahood. He should not take his stand on
the idea that 'this is form,' 'this is feeling,' etc., to: 'this is Buddhahood.'
He should not take his stand on the ideas that 'form, etc., is permanent,
[or] impermanent'; that 'form is ease or ill'; that 'form is the self, or
not the self,' that 'form is lovely or repulsive,' that 'form is empty, or
apprehended as something.' He should not take his stand on the notion
that the fruits or the holy life derive their dignity from the Uncondilioned.
Or that a Streamwinner is worthy of gifts, and will be reborn seven times
at the most. Or that a Once-Returner is worthy of gifts, and will, as he has
not yet quite won through to the end, make an end of ill after he has once
more come into this world. Or that a Never-Returner is worthy of gifts,
and will, without once more returning to this world, win Nirvana elsewhere.
Or that an Arhat is worthy of gifts, and will just here in this very
existence win Nirvana in the realm of Nirvana that leaves nothing behind.
Or that a Pratyekabuddha is worthy of gifts, and will win Nirvana after
rising above the level of a Disciple, but without having attained the level of
a Buddha. That a Buddha is worthy of gifts, and will win Nirvana in the
Buddha-Nirvana, in the realm of Nirvana that leaves nothing behind, after
he has risen above the levels of a common man, of a Disciple, and of a
Pratyekabuddha, wrought the weal of countless beings, Ied to Nirvana
countless hundreds of thousands of niyutas of kotis of beings, assured
countless beings of Discipleship, Pratyekabuddhahood and full Buddhahood,
stood on the stage of a Buddha and done a Buddha's work,
- even thereon a Bodhisattva should not take his stand.
Thereupon the Venerable Sariputra thought to himself: If even thereon
one should not take one's stand, how then should one stand, and train
oneself? The Venerable Subhuti, through the Buddha's might, read his
thoughts and said: What do you think, Sariputra, where did the Tathagata
stand?
Sariputra: Nowhere did the Tathagata stand, because his mind sought
no support. He stood neither in what is conditioned, nor in what is unconditioned,
nor did he emerge from them.
Ah, my dear friend KeithBC, a post that I could have written myself!KeithBC wrote:I think the Heart Sutra is best understood in the context of the entire body of Prajnaparamita Sutras. They all cover the same material, just in different amounts of detail. (My favourite is Conze's translation of the 8000-line Prajnaparamita Sutra - I find it the most accessible.)
If you take a subject that is addressed in 8000 lines or 20,000 lines, and compress it to a couple of dozen lines, you know that you are getting just the barest minimum of detail. In effect, the Heart Sutra is an outline of the longer texts.
I use it as an outline, a mnemonic device to jog my memory of what the Prajnaparamita literature is about. As such, I recite it daily, to remind myself that there is something beyond the daily samsaric view of life.
Om mani padme hum
Keith
In Theravada, emptiness usually refers to the emptiness of a self. So where the heart sutra is pointing out that the aggregates are empty, no eye, ear, nose, tongue, etc. there is no contradiction that I can see.Luke wrote:My impression is that the Heart Sutra is primarily about emptiness. So, I think the original poster's question reduces to "Is the Theravada concept of emptiness the same or compatible with the Mahayana concept of emptiness"? However, I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer that.
Suñña Sutta: EmptyThen Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "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.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."
Red Pine is probably just quoting Conze, but should be that Sariputra understood the Abhidharma correctly, but Subhuti is giving him the Mahayana version.bodom wrote:My understanding of the Heart Sutra according to Red Pines commentary was that it was composed to correct Sariputtas misunderstanding of the Abhidhamma.
Sorry-- how does mahayana take it further?meindzai wrote:
But when emptiness starts being applied to the path itself is where I'd perhaps start to see Theravadins cringing a bit. One might reference the simile of the raft, oft quoted in both traditions, but I think Mahayana takes it a bit further.
-M
As Meindzai mentions Mahayana applies emptiness to the path itself.Sound Of Silence wrote:Sorry-- how does mahayana take it further?meindzai wrote:
But when emptiness starts being applied to the path itself is where I'd perhaps start to see Theravadins cringing a bit. One might reference the simile of the raft, oft quoted in both traditions, but I think Mahayana takes it a bit further.
-M
form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form, form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form
The teaching continues to apply emptiness to dependent origination:not born, not destroyed, not stained, not pure ...
and then to the path itself:no ignorance, no end to ignorance, no old age and death and no end to old age and death, no suffering, no cause of suffering, ...
as a result the bodhisattva lives in the wisdom of emptiness, the perfection of wisdom:no extinguishing, no path, no wisdom and no gain
Living in this wisdom itself is nirvana:no gain and thus the Bodhisattva lives prajnaparamita, with no hinderance in the mind, no hinderance therefore no fear,
It concludes by stating that all Buddhas realized the perfection of wisdom and through that they attained their Buddhahood. And finally concludes with what can be described as a praise to the perfection of wisdom. The Heart Sutra asserts that the perfection of wisdom itself is the mantra and that it ultimately is the cause of enlightenment. And the final statement in this section is the mantra itself "Gate, Gate ...." which is taken as the condensation of the teaching itself.far beyond deluded thoughts this is nirvana
