Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Mahaprajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra

RichardHRichardH Veteran
edited February 2010 in Philosophy
For those who practice with this Sutra. How has it opened or guided you?



Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep prajna paramita,
clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming all suffering and distress.
Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form.
Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form.
Sensation, thought, impulse, consciousness are also like this.
Shariputra, all things are marked by emptiness -
not born, not destroyed,
not stained, not pure,
without gain, without loss.
Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, thought, impulse, consciousness.
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.
No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch, object of thought.
No realm of sight to no realm of thought.
No ignorance and also no ending of ignorance to no old age and death and also no ending of old age and death.
No suffering, and also no source of suffering, no annihilation, no path.
No wisdom, also no attainment.
Having nothing to attain, Bodhisattvas live prajna paramita with no hindrance in the mind.
No hindrance, thus no fear.
Far beyond delusive thinking, they attain complete Nirvana.
All Buddhas past, present and future live prajna paramita and thus attain anuttara samyak sambodhi.
Therefore, know that prajna paramita is the great mantra, the wisdom mantra, the unsurpassed mantra, the supreme mantra, which completely removes all suffering. This is truth, not deception. Therefore set forth the prajna paramita mantra, set forth this mantra and say: Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
«1345

Comments

  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    For those who practice with this Sutra. How has it opened or guided you?
    [OK I am not very good in replying to your threads but I will try] What do you mean by practice? You mean how do you take this ideas into consideration during meditation? I am not fond of this type of texts, they are loaded with much more philosophy than I would enjoy. :(

    However they do open your eyes (I wouldn't dare to say I get the whole point though).
    No suffering, and also no source of suffering, no annihilation, no path.
    He is denying the doctrine as ultimate reality (the four noble truths, and so on), and stating it is based on empty concepts. (this would mean that concepts are dependent on perceptions, who are dependent on other perceptions and so on...). It is not really that Nirvana is so special that it's the only thing that can't be put into words (hence even the aggregates are empty), its just that language has its limitations.

    It is the old "don't confuse the finger with the moon". However, the finger is still important, the sutra doesn't say otherwise.
    Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep prajna paramita,
    clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming all suffering and distress.

    All I can think of is that, based on this, you can pretty much see that this is a deep form of insight (hence it comes from Avalokiteshvara and not John Doe) that is attained through a lot of, well, insight meditation. I really don't expect to see what Avalokiteshvara saw directly anytime soon.
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited November 2009
    I have a really bizarre confession to make. The Prajnaparamita sutras always makes me think of the last lines from Martin Mull's song Men, about a ship full of men:
    "So throw your rubbers overboard,
    There's no one here but men."

    So throw your concepts overboard,
    There's nothing here but experience.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Hi Nameless.

    Just interested to hear how those who are familiar with the Heart Sutra, either in a casual way or in the course of formal study/practice, relate to the message.... and how it informs meditation and "post-meditation" (daily life).
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    RenGalskap wrote: »
    I have a really bizarre confession to make. The Prajnaparamita sutras always makes me think of the last lines from Martin Mull's song Men, about a ship full of men:
    "So throw your rubbers overboard,
    There's no one here but men."

    So throw your concepts overboard,
    There's nothing here but experience.
    Martin Mull!?:D
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited November 2009
    OK, co-written with Steve Martin, and I think Steve Martin also recorded a version of it. But I'm more familiar with Martin Mull's music recordings than Steve Martin's.
  • edited November 2009
    Like most sutras to me it seems incomprehensible without the full context of the culture, language, philosophy, etc. The only way to get the essential meaning is from the surviving lineages who have protected it and who have developed the tools necessary for producing the realizations it entails.
  • edited November 2009
    One of the things that made a big impact on me, was when it explains that its not just form that is empty, but that emptiness also is form. That conventional truth is just as important to understand, as ultimate truth is.
  • edited November 2009
    not just form that is empty, but that emptiness also is form.
    Rather important isn't it. Dalai Lama said:

    form itself is empty. it is not made empty by emptiness. what is it that is empty? the form itself. the table itself. the body itself.

    in the same way, all phenomena are empty of their own inherent existence. emptiness is not something made up by the mind. this is how things have been from the start. appearance and emptiness are one entity and cannot be differentiated into separate entities.
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    emptiness is not something made up by the mind.
    In my interpretation, don't take offense, the sutta holds exactly the opposite view when it says "emptiness is form".Something to do with shunyata shunyata, emptiness of emptiness.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    This Sutra has been the basic guide for practice in the tradition I started in, we chanted it every day. It is a powerful pointer, but when I try to describe how so, it just sounds like philosophy or opinion. It really condenses the Mahayana insight to its heart.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    The confusion here comes from the language "emptiness," which makes it sound like emptiness is a thing. It is a quality.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    The confusion here comes from the language "emptiness," which makes it sound like emptiness is a thing. It is a quality.
    Its a touchy thing. The Emptiness of consciousness is key.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Hi Dhamma Dhatu. It would be interesting to hear them. This for instance has been taken by my Theravadin Freinds as problematic for obvious reasons...

    "No suffering, and also no source of suffering, no annihilation, no path."


    A complete context is important.
  • edited November 2009
    I have always liked the first part. The second part about nothingness raises my concerns however.

    :smilec:
    its not about nothingness.
    its about the negation of intrinsic existence and the differentiation of the relative and ultimate truths.
  • edited November 2009
    Alan,

    Yes conventional truth is important to understand, because we are living within the limited and dualistic paradigm of the mind. But, is it not equally important to understand that the conventional truth is a limited understanding, or one piece of truth at a time?

    Isn’t there also a whole truth, which the mind has trouble accessing with its wordy mindset? And isn’t it just because the mind cannot comprehend it, that it believes it to be empty? Yet, in truth, isn’t this larger truth, or complete truth, actually only empty of the mind objects?

    Peace,
    S9
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Alan,

    Yes conventional truth is important to understand, because we are living within the limited and dualistic paradigm of the mind. But, is it not equally important to understand that the conventional truth is a limited understanding, or one piece of truth at a time?

    Isn’t there also a whole truth, which the mind has trouble accessing with its wordy mindset? And isn’t it just because the mind cannot comprehend it, that it believes it to be empty? Yet, in truth, isn’t this larger truth, or complete truth, actually only empty of the mind objects?

    Peace,
    S9
    A truth that cannot be comprehended is not a truth. Truth is mind made. The Absolute and Relative are two sides of one coin, they co-arise, and are groundless. One is not primary to the other. One is not generative of the other. These are all just skillful means.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Subjectivity. please. I started this conversation, and it is inappropriate to come into the thread and try and push me aside as you did on the other thread.. Please engage me. If you refuse to engage me then please do not join this conversation.
  • edited November 2009
    Edward Conze succinctly summarized what The Perfection of Wisdom is about, saying, 'The thousands of lines of the Prajñāparamitā can be summed up in the following two sentences:

    One should become a bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.

    There is no such thing as a bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a 'being', or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment. To accept both of these contradictory facts is to be perfect.'
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Sounds good.
  • edited November 2009
    Richard,
    This sutra has amazing flow, in a literal as well as symbolic way, for me anyway.

    Namaste
    _/
  • xabirxabir Veteran
    edited November 2009
    That a Hindu deity could instruct the Venerable Sariputta, that is impossible. The Buddha said:

    Is his omniscience, the Lord Buddha prepared his disciples for contra teachings, that intend to repudiate and replace.

    :)
    That avalokitesvara bodhisattva is a hindu deity is just some scholar's attempt to correlate different pantheons. However, a Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism is treated very different from a mundane deity, and hence, cannot be the same.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Lets not get into Sectarian garbage. All streams are Authentic. There are Chauvinists to be found in the Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Dont lay that on please.


    I have been a long time member of the Lay Thai Forest sangha and only encounter Theravadin chauvinism among the laity ......and only online.
  • edited November 2009
    xabir wrote: »
    That avalokitesvara bodhisattva is a hindu deity is just some scholar's attempt to correlate different pantheons. However, a Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism is treated very different from a mundane deity, and hence, cannot be the same.

    its also pretty offensive and ignorant.
  • edited November 2009
    But it is about nothingness friend, indeed it is about nothingness. It is stated clearly it is about nothingness.

    To the contrary, enlightened Buddhas instruct as follows:



    :)

    you're wrong, biased and extremely sectarian and obviously have no business speaking on a Mahayana sutra.
  • edited November 2009
    Non-conceptualisation is not ultimate truth. That is impossible.

    :)

    thats not what i was saying nor is it what the sutra says.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Never met a nothingness.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Never met a Non-conceptualization either.
  • edited November 2009
    Anyone who want to meet a nothing, only needs to look in the mirror. Bhagavad Gita said, "You only dream that you are the doer."

    One of the greatest lines ever written.

    S9
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    I understand and appreciate what you are pointing to. When I take this pointing figure and point it back at the pointer, no object is found. When the seer is sought nothing is found. Yet here we can make subtle projections onto this not finding of either an eternalistic or nihilistic kind. catagories of being and non-being are mind made. In other words cant say. We may not be too far apart except for words we know.

    Tonight at the Zendo I was told ( for the millionth time I'm afraid). "Dont say!" as the teacher slapped the floor with his hand. Brought me up short....again.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited November 2009
    For those who practice with this Sutra. How has it opened or guided you?
    Actually, I should have read the OP more carefully. I do not practice with this sutra.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited November 2009
    I have been a long time member of the Lay Thai Forest sangha...
    Hi Richard

    What are the qualifications to be a long time member of the Lay Thai Forest sangha?

    What is your background to be able to claim such a title?

    Kind regards

    DDhatu

    :)
  • NamelessRiverNamelessRiver Veteran
    edited November 2009
    What are the qualifications to be a long time member of the Lay Thai Forest sangha?

    What is your background to be able to claim such a title?

    If you are gonna be the bad cop can I be the good cop? :lol:

    I get you might be a little offended, but he is just stating his opinion based on his previous experiences. As far as internet goes, there is, undeniably, in any forum for that matter, a strong presence of chauvinism. (My qualification is being a "old friend of the site" and having seen my fair share of vitriol ;)).
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited November 2009
    ...chauvinism....
    Actually, I must sincerely disagree here. Generally, the chauvinist is the one mouthing the word. Some get stuck in their realm and cannot acknowledge a different point of view.

    Whilst I misread the OP and deleted my posts, my views stand as what I regard as beneficial views.

    If you wish to dwell in the sphere of fantasy about Hindu Gods and the General of the Dhamma, the practitioner of the greatest lucidity & virtue apart from the Buddha, so be it.

    The Buddha advised Recollection of the Sangha is a practise. The Buddha advised he honored two things, namely, the Dhamma & the Sangha.

    Vitriol & chauvinism are in the eye of the beholder.

    :)
  • edited November 2009
    Actually, I must sincerely disagree here. Generally, the chauvinist is the one mouthing the word. Some get stuck in their realm and cannot acknowledge a different point of view.

    Whilst I misread the OP and deleted my posts, my views stand as what I regard as beneficial views.

    If you wish to dwell in the sphere of fantasy about Hindu Gods and the General of the Dhamma, the practitioner of the greatest lucidity & virtue apart from the Buddha, so be it.


    :)
    even this post denying chauvinism is riddled with it.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited November 2009
    even this post denying chauvinism is riddled with it.
    actually...it expresses a view of beneficial practise...

    you can agree or disagree but there is no need for name calling...

    please...why bother with this sutra if your mind cannot go beyond becoming offended?

    maybe it is best to return to the beginners form...

    if i quoted the Buddha's rationale for my post, it is to complete unfulfilled gratitude...

    for me, there is none more inspiring than the Venerable Sariputta and for you, it appears something similar occurs regarding Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva...

    :o
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Hi Richard

    What are the qualifications to be a long time member of the Lay Thai Forest sangha?

    What is your background to be able to claim such a title?

    Kind regards

    DDhatu

    :)
    Title?. It is a relationship and active participation in my Sangha, who are like family at this point, going back almost twenty years. Our principle teacher has been Ajahn Viradhammo (who blessed my only child). The Sangha is planning to host a public talk by Ajahn Sumedho in our city next year, and I hope to participate in that. It is years of love and respect for the Ordained Sangha. .......So yes Dhamma Dhatu I am Theravadin Lay Sangha.

    I dont doubt for a moment all the ego and and opinion of my posts, and only claim to speak for my own flawed practice.... not Buddhism. I hope you are doing the same, because if you think you are just a selfless mouthpiece of the Dhamma I honestly dont know what to say to you.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    .....if anyone on this site, thinks their voice is the selfless voice of Dharma/Dhamma, instead of their own understanding and experience of it... How do you respond? How do you respond to madness?
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited November 2009
    .....if anyone on this site, thinks their voice is the selfless voice of Dharma/Dhamma, instead of their own understanding and experience of it... How do you respond? How do you respond to madness?
    Shariputra, all things are marked by emptiness. Not born, not destroyed.

    How do you use the sutra in _your_ practice?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    RenGalskap wrote: »
    Shariputra, all things are marked by emptiness. Not born, not destroyed.

    How do you use the sutra in _your_ practice?
    Chant and listen. Sit. Cant say more without straying.



    How bout you Ren?
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    What is the effect of chanting and listening?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    What is the effect of chanting and listening?
    This is where words meet their limit. ....Non-suffering.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited November 2009
    .....if anyone on this site, thinks their voice is the selfless voice of Dharma/Dhamma, instead of their own understanding and experience of it... How do you respond? How do you respond to madness?
    It is your mind concocting the various imaginings and dualities above. Thus it is best you answer your own mind created fanasty questions.

    Obviously, when views were presented about what were considered unsatisfactory aspects of the sutra, your mind could not abide in oneness & emptiness.

    Instead, all kinds of self-exalting & other-disparaging views were concocting in a holier-than-thou manner.

    Funny how merely quoting some suttas on my behalf gives rise to all kinds of self-views and name calling in others.

    Are we still calling the flock to support our sense of moral superiority & justification???

    A long long way from any kind of emptiness.

    Take care.

    :o
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    It is your mind concocting the various imaginings and dualities above. Thus it is best you answer your own mind created fanasty questions.

    Obviously, when views were presented about what were considered unsatisfactory aspects of the sutra, your mind could not abide in oneness & emptiness.

    Instead, all kinds of self-exalting & other-disparaging views were concocting in a holier-than-thou manner.

    Funny how merely parroting some suttas from my behalf gives rise to all kinds of self-views and name calling in others.

    Are we still calling the flock to support our sense of moral superiority & justification???

    A long long way from any kind of emptiness.

    This is why the Buddha called the sphere of nothingness or non-being like a dog chasing its own tail.

    :o

    I have no delusion of opening my mouth and speaking from no perspective. To that degree at least I am not mad. I am not attacking the authenticity of the Pali Canon. No one here is. This post asked how people who practice with this sutra do so, and you have denigrated it as nihilistic nonsense. Yes you are Theravadin Chauvinist.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    This post started as a question of how people practice with this sutra, and turned into having to defend its legitimacy. That says it all.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    It seems unlikely that someone who just walked into a zendo for the first time would experience nonsuffering as a result of chanting and listening to this sutra, so there must be some other activity or quality involved.

    (Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, here. There has been plenty of suffering during chanting and listening to this sutra, in my case... I've never understood how chanting is supposed to work...)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    It seems unlikely that someone who just walked into a zendo for the first time would experience nonsuffering as a result of chanting and listening to this sutra, so there must be some other activity or quality involved.

    (Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, here. There has been plenty of suffering during chanting and listening to this sutra, in my case... I've never understood how chanting is supposed to work...)
    Hi five bells. It is unlikely. There is a history there, of practice, of retreats, of interactions with teachers and sangha. It has been a long road.
  • edited November 2009
    When someone comes up to you, and tells you something about the Buddha, and his words are those of which we do not agree, our knee jerk reaction should not be to cut them off at the knees. (Because they deserve it.)

    They may be bringing to you, (believe it or not), something that you have not yet understood. The may, in fact, be open up doors to a treasure house to you.

    But, lets say (for the sake of arguement) that they do not understand something that you do. Something of which it has been our good fortune to understand. Should we then begrudge them our help in this area? (They're not worth my trouble.)

    We are not defending something that can be hurt, (Buddha's words), when we are hurting those who as of yet do not understand. Buddha’s words cannot be hurt; they have been around for centuries amid war and strife. We can only hurt each other.

    When we start hurting each other, there are no winners...only loser.

    Peace and love,
    S9
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2009
    Hi five bells. It is unlikely. There is a history there, of practice, of retreats, of interactions with teachers and sangha. It has been a long road.
    Do you have any ideas about what relevant activities or qualities might have developed as a result of these experiences?
  • edited November 2009
    fivebells,

    I believe that chanting is supposed to work like a soothing medicine for people who cannot find peace in other ways. The monks very often, were the doctors in ancient times. They worked to heal the mind, as well as healing the body.

    Peace can be had sometimes through distraction. Isn’t that why we read a book, watch a movie, to give us a vacation from our self?

    But, I am sure there is more to be had in this way, by chanting.

    Warm Regards,
    S9
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited November 2009
    When someone comes up to you, and tells you something about the Buddha, and his words are those of which we do not agree, our knee jerk reaction should not be to cut them off at the knees. (Because they deserve it.)

    They may be bringing to you, (believe it or not), something that you have not yet understood. The may, in fact, be open up doors to a treasure house to you.

    But, lets say (for the sake of arguement) that they do not understand something that you do. Something of which it has been our good fortune to understand. Should we then begrudge them our help in this area? (They're not worth my trouble.)

    We are not defending something that can be hurt, (Buddha's words), when we are hurting those who as of yet do not understand. Buddha’s words cannot be hurt; they have been around for centuries amid war and strife. We can only hurt each other.

    When we start hurting each other, there are no winners...only loser.

    Peace and love,
    S9
    Subjectivity. Yes I told this man he is a Theravadin Chauvinist, and it is not nice. As someone who has been involved for so long with the Theravadin Sangha, It is in my unenlightened way personally hurtful to see Theravadin Chauvinism. You are not beyond hurting, and being offended. You have demonstrated that.
Sign In or Register to comment.