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.
Heart Sutra Controversy?
Transmetaphysical
Veteran
Just curious as to why there is a controversy over this and what are your thoughts on it.
I personally find this to be one of the most profound writings I've ever seen (and the song equally astonishing).
Apparently this sutra isn't accepted in Theravada because it came after the Pali Canon, but philosopher and Eastern scholar Alan Watts said that the more advanced teachings were later revealed in the Mahayana tradition, not because it had anything to do with legitimacy. (Watts is impartial on this because he doesnt adhere to any sect of Buddhism, and neither do I. I take what I like from each tradition.)
According to Buddhist website, Tricycle, it is one of the original teachings of Buddha which was spoken to Shariputra.
What are your thoughts?
Edit: Just wanted to clarify that Watts didn't quite word it that way. I unintentionally made it sound negative, but he was rather humble with how he conveyed the message.
[Excellent version of the Heart Sutra]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c9-XaA2f00
I personally find this to be one of the most profound writings I've ever seen (and the song equally astonishing).
Apparently this sutra isn't accepted in Theravada because it came after the Pali Canon, but philosopher and Eastern scholar Alan Watts said that the more advanced teachings were later revealed in the Mahayana tradition, not because it had anything to do with legitimacy. (Watts is impartial on this because he doesnt adhere to any sect of Buddhism, and neither do I. I take what I like from each tradition.)
According to Buddhist website, Tricycle, it is one of the original teachings of Buddha which was spoken to Shariputra.
What are your thoughts?
Edit: Just wanted to clarify that Watts didn't quite word it that way. I unintentionally made it sound negative, but he was rather humble with how he conveyed the message.
[Excellent version of the Heart Sutra]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c9-XaA2f00
0
Comments
anyways i dont know much about it, i've only read it a couple times. but it's good. theravada don't accept any of the mahayana sutras as far as i know
In the final reckoning, each "truth" that is presented to us must be understood and realized by the individual that receives it. It is my personal belief that no single Buddhist school holds all of the answers, but that they do all present the same path to the cessation of suffering.
That being said, these conflicts and controversies are selfish in nature and should be abandoned.
It's been years since I read Watts, and I don't remember anything that I read, but if your statement is accurate and Watts said that, then he's expressing a high degree of partiality.
Saying that you chose something because you like it and then claiming to be impartial is contradictory. I'm not criticizing your choices; we all make choices based on what we like. But those choices aren't impartial. Even the fact that you haven't settled on a single tradition to follow is itself a form of partiality. You haven't found what you're partial to in any single tradition, so your partiality leads you to pick from several. Again, I'm not picking you out for special criticism. For all of us, our biases are shown in our choices.
I agree with jinzang on this. The Heart Sutra is one of the later Prajnaparamita Sutras. I think you're confusing literary form with history. The Heart Sutra takes the form of an address by Avalokita to Sariputra. The Bodhisattva Avalokita is not a historical figure.
I personally do not accept it for the following reasons:
(1) A Hindu deity supposedly teaches Dhamma to Sariputta. The Buddha declared Sariputta as the 'one person' to teach the Dhamma as taught by him. Sariputta was the one most praised by the Buddha for his abiding in emptiness. The Buddha called Sariputta 'The General of Dhamma'.
For me, to accept the Heart Sutra is not to take refuge in the Triple Gem, which includes the Noble (Enlightened) Sangha such as Sariputta. Instead, one takes refuge in a Hindu deity.
(2) The 2nd half of the Heart Sutra is incorrect according to Buddha-Dhamma. It is incorrect at Law (Niyama). It teaches nothingness & nihilism rather the emptiness (sunnata).
Many Heart Sutra apologists state it does not teach nothingness but instead teaches no independent existence. I do not accept this because the Heart Sutra teaches there is no Nirvana. As Nirvana is not a conditioned thing, Nirvana has independent existence.
In brief, to me, the Heart Sutra is a poor attempt at expressing Dhamma. I do not find it profound but, instead, childish.
The Mahayana does not teach anything more advanced than Theravada. In fact, the Mahayana was created to dispense less advanced teachings to appeal to a larger audience.
This is why it is called 'Maha'. Maha does not mean better but 'more'. It means 'great' as in 'the many' or 'wide'. It is 'great' in scope and reach rather than great in profundity.
Have you considered Tricycle may be incorrect. The Heart Sutra is not attributed to the Buddha but to a Hindu deity.
The 1st half of Heart Sutra has similarities to the 2nd Sermon of the Buddha however Sariputta was not the Buddha's disciple when the Buddha spoke the 2nd sermon.
To end, my sense of it is the Heart Sutra is some spiritual poetry written 800 to 1000 years after the Buddha. But this is not really the issue to me. If I read some Dhamma I think is worthy of praise, I personally would praise it according to what I regard as its merits.
Fo me, the controversy is it is incorrect at law. The 2nd half is the sphere of nothingness Prince Siddharta rejected as Nibbana.
Best wishes
Pushed buttons shows attachment.
:poke:
There is no contradiction with what I said. I never chose Mahayana over Theravada; I like aspects of both. All I know is that I fell in love with the Sutra before I knew anything about it, what school it came from, or anything. It wasn't til after that I found out there was a controversy, and was disappointed to hear that and wanted to know why and if it was still valid.
I will admit that I didn't convey what Alan Watts was saying properly. I made it sound a bit condescending when he was more than humble with his approach. I think all of Buddhism is something to be cherished and I know Watts agrees. I think this attitude is certainly impartial towards the varying sects.
Thank you for your input.
Regarding the Heart Sutra, although I have been a Vajrayana practitioner for many years, it hasn't had any place in my practice or special interest. I've never been able to get my head around the idea that certain texts were taught by deities or by Buddhas in another realm.
There are suttas relating to emptiness in the Pali Canon including those which inspired Nagarjuna.
Both conceptual and non conceptual understanding of emptiness occur with correct study and practice,whatever the tradition. Whether this introduction continues onwards to full realisation however, is probably debateable.
In general I've discovered that the Theravada approach has much more to offer me these days.
May all be at ease and free from suffering.
.
Alan Watts = Pinch of Salt.
This has no relevance to the wisdom of Alan Watts.
I thought it was referring to bodhisattvas, who were just awakened beings? (I'm still fairly new to Buddhism, so forgive my ignorance on the matter.) If what you're saying is the case, then I reject anything that has to do with deities (unless of course they are referred to in an archetypal context).
I personally have favored the Theravada texts, and was actually kind of put off by what Watts said about it, but I kept an open mind. Perhaps I just like Mahayana for the music. :P
(I will probably change my mind regarding a lot of this stuff, as I am still learning. There is so much to learn about Buddhism and so many texts, so I have a ways to go.)
It depends on what one calls 'wisdom' my friend! I once watched a video of Alan Watts's ramblings and heard no wisdom at all.
My advice is to stick with that - at least for the moment - and investigate Theravada further.
(and meditate of course)
With many good wishes to you,
Dazzle
.
If it weren't for Alan Watts, I probably would have never discovered Buddhism.
And where is the evidence for this? I have read Alan Watts' books and listened to his lectures and have never heard him speak of "hidden messages" in Buddha's teachings. You realize that he is a philosopher influenced by more Eastern traditions than just Buddhism (Taoism especially) and derives his philosophies from various schools of thought as well as his own inquiry as a philosopher. If something he says doesn't sound like Buddhism, then he's probably not talking about Buddhism.
And even if he did claim that there were subtle teachings underlying Buddha's words, I don't see that a problem at all. One can probably deduce things or ideas from his teachings using inductive reasoning. If Buddha says "this" then it implies "that" even though he didn't explicitly state "that." Critical and reasonable thought is something encouraged by Buddha.
Yet again, another thread is heading down a "mahayana" vs "theravaden" road :nonono:
So let's try to stick on topic and break things down...
Origin of Avalokitesvara: The origin of Avalokitesvara is not an easy answer. Some believe him to have been born between a blending of Brahman/Hindu dieties and Buddhism. Others do not. Although wikipedia isn't great it's the only half decent article I've been able to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalokite%C5%9Bvara
(origin of bodhisattva? http://elibrary.ibc.ac.th/node/163
What is a Bodhisattva (in mahayana): Here you'll find the usual definition of a bodhisattva http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b_fbodi.htm
However, a bodhisattva is many different things to different people. Some believe them to be "actual" beings, others believe them to be eminations (of compassion etc), others believe them to be metaphysical, others believe them to be ideals to work towards, and so on...
(A bodhisattva in Theravada is also different http://www.indopedia.org/Bodhisattva.html#Bodhisattvas_in_Theravada_Buddhism )
Origin of the Heart Sutra: The mahayana sutras did not just spring out of nowhere. There is much evidence to suggest that they developed over time. Here is a good paper
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Paper:_Origin_of_the_Prajna_Paramita_Hridaya_Sutra
Meaning of the Heart Sutra: Here is a good article about the Heart Sutra http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/heart-sutra-intro.html
Is there a controversy?: The simple answer is "no". Mahayana and theravada split around 100-200 CE, many scholares believe it was mainly due to disagreements of practices and definitions, rather than the authorities of different suttas/sutras. Because of this schism, those from mahayana were discouraged from reading pali texts and theravadan were discouraged from reading sanskrit texts. These days, it has been my experience that mahayana is more accepting of theravada, and many theravada are more accepting of mahayana, though you do get the occasional people who speak out against one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_Schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism
What to do now: Learn, study and practice for yourself. If you find no wisdom in the heart sutra, even after it has been explained to you then don't worry. There are plenty of other sutras and suttas to learn from.
Nios.
The Buddha taught from love comes fear, from love comes grief.
For that at least i feel he should be given some respect.
This is a problem with ALL of buddhism, not just with the heart sutra.
Nios.
Indeed. In fact romanticism and 'falling in love' with teachers and teachings in general can sometimes cause erroneous views and practices to develop and little actual progress on the path.
.
Taoism teaches non-conceptuality, namely, the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. Most (but not all) Mahayana schools teach the same.
For example, the Hsing Hsing Ming is a Mahayana sutra more in accord with understanding found in the Theravada suttas.
The Theravada suttas do not teach non-conceptuality is Nibbana because non-conceptuality can only be a temporary state.
There is a time one must go to the doctor as say: "Hey doc, my knee hurts". One cannot go to the doctor and sit deaf & mute, expecting the doctor to be psychic.
The path of 'no thing' is a Way (Tao) but not an end.
Personally, reading someone criticise the Terrorvada suttas does not bother my mind to the least.
Nothing lost, plenty gained.
:smilec:
Yes, attachment is a problem. But I still don't get what on earth you were talking about and what your were replying to in this post;
What is the rhinoceros? Who has criticised "Terrovada"?
No one in particular comes to mind.
I was just saying not ALL are subject to the love that manifests indignation.
Kind regards
DD
:smilec:
Ah,
http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/rhinoceros.html
As I thought
Interesting. :hrm:
Nios.
Indeed. There are so many stories of past lives, karma, nothingness, deities, cosmology, gods etc around. But, for me, the only acceptable and verifiable Dhamma which I can safely assume the Buddha taught exist in the Theravada suttas and teachings. If it is cessation of suffering you want, there is really no need to go anywhere else. The suttas have all the information needed. The rest is upto you to meditate and experience for yourself.
This statement by no way means the other schools of Dhamma are useless. As DD said they must have been introduced to serve a purpose like appealing to a vast majority for example.
By way of analogy, a person who is a member of the Libertarian Party doesn't choose that party because they are impartial between the Democrats and the Republicans. They choose it because they are partial towards the Libertarian Party. Choosing the Libertarian Party is not an impartial choice.
Including the sect that you have created for yourself?
It best to ignore this bullshit and practice. Different strokes for different folks.
The sutra contains teachings on emptiness, but nothing on nihilism.
Regardless of whether you accept it or not, it's what is actually in the text of the sutra.
I don't find this anywhere in the sutra. I do find, in Conze's translation
which seems to contradict your claim.
Bodhisattva teachings were obviously created to appeal to a _smaller_ audience. The Madyamaka teachings on emptiness don't seem to be oriented towards popular appeal either.
I don't think the authenticity criterion is a good way to approach these texts, because the Pali Canon also didn't just happen overnight, and there were other versions of the canon written around the same time it was that contradict it in some points.
I don't think who spoke it is as relevant as its message, but you can only truly get it if you study the philosophical schools and not only the perfection of wisdom texts, which are somewhat cryptic.
The ideas that sprouted Mahayana were most likely developed inside Theravada monasteries.
The philosophical content of the sutras, their emphasis in a more philosophical or a more devotional route, the formation of the texts themselves and what each school adopted were also subject to changes over time and in dependency of the cultural background of the people involved.
I know it sounds rather vague. What I wanna convey is that you might want to see the sutras more as a process than as a group of fixed ideas coming from a single entity. In the West, for instance, there has been a process of reinterpretation of the sutras that ends up changing the meaning of the texts.
If you change the interpretation to mean something different - like Stephen Batchelor did, for example - it is almost like you are giving new life to the text. It mutates over time, which is very odd because it is not supposed to
Am I making sense?
Most likely non-Theravada monasteries. :-)
A common mistake is to view Theravada as a forerunner to Mahayana. Theravada evolved in parallel with other traditions, and these other traditions were the source of Mahayana. For example, Tibetan Buddhism uses the Sarvastavadin Agamas, not the Theravadan Nikayas, as their basic "hinayana" texts, and Tibetan monasteries follow the Mula-Sarvastavada vinaya. Chinese Mahayana uses Agamas from more than one source. I recall Sarvastavada and Dharmagupta, but my memory is a little hazy. I think East Asian monasteries usually use the Dharmagupta vinaya, but again I'm not sure.
Actually, I think it is supposed to. There's a phenomenon traditionally known as "The Tragedy of the Theologians", which is the fact that nobody believes exactly what the theologians say they should believe. Everyone adapts their religion to their own circumstances and beliefs. As you say, this gives new life to texts; it makes them meaningful in circumstances that the original authors never envisaged. It also has resulted in the production of new sutras. In cases like Theravada Buddhism where the canon was closed a few hundred years after the Buddha died, the production of new suttas stops, but the process of reinterpretation and adaptation continues.
But then I walked past the optometrist who once removed a speck of steal from my eye.
I thought: "How impractical to hold their is no eye. How could we communicate?"
The state of no-thing is merely temporary.
:cool:
Ten Bulls or Ten Ox Herding Pictures (十牛; Japanese: jūgyū, Chinese: shíniú) is, in the tradition of Zen Buddhism, a series of short poems and accompanying pictures that are intended to illustrate the stages of a Mahāyāna Buddhist practitioner's progression towards enlightenment, as well as his or her subsequent perfection of wisdom.
8.Herder and Ox Both Forgotten
Both the ox and the ox herder have disappeared in the eighth picture. Only a circle, the frame of a picture, remains. The seventh picture removes the ox, which represents the world, the object. Finally, the subject, too, disappears in the eighth picture. Nothing remains. There is no goal and no practitioner.
9. Returning to the Origin
Now the adept sees mountains as mountains, rivers as rivers. He has returned to the world. Everything exists but his attachments. There is no longer practice or no practice, wisdom or vexation.
10. Entering the Marketplace With Open Hands
Traditionally, we see a beggar and a ragged, big-bellied monk in the tenth picture. The beggar represents suffering, the monk a practitioner who has completed his practice. He has left the isolation of the mountain and returned to the world to help all beings. He has no vexations, but because others suffer he spontaneously provides help on the path to all needful beings.
http://www.ashokaedu.net/coursesM/26/chan9c.htm
As far as eyes go I think you just have to look at the Madhyamaka logic system to see what is meant by the emptiness of an eye. I think you are ascribing nihilism to Madhyamaka philosophy when it is not the case. I could also claim the Pali Canon teaches untrue things which might appear the case to someone who had never studied and seen for themselves. Please examine Madhyamaka philosophy yourself rather than listen to just one 'chatter'.
Thats not how my teacher teaches actually, but it is a common teaching. And I guess its good enough until full enlightenment. It does have some disadvantages but I don't believe 'two truths' understanding is unacceptable. In fact it is mighty helpful to many people.
That is why it is taught in the mahayana to neither cling to appearance nor emptiness.
'All demons cut through and mind is free in the unborn expanse' from my tapes.
'My son what throwns you down into samsara are these thoughts of attachment and anger but realize they don't truly exist and all is an island of gold' tapes
'the world how it is when not hidden by the habit of shying away' more tapes
Either you find the Sutra instructive or you dont. Doesnt really matter.
The important thing is to make sure that if you want to discuss the sutra or make it useful is that you put forth the effort to understand the meaning behind its few words.
reading a good commentary or receiving a teaching on it illuminates the wisdom it has to share. Supplement that with your own meditation and further study to habituate the ideas presented with in. It really does take practice.
HHDL has a teaching on the Heart Sutra available here: http://lamrim.com/index2.html
With respect - I think you're grossly underestimating Dhamma Dhatu's understanding of emptiness and overestimating the importance of the heart sutra.
.
LOL I found that highly amusing. Best chuckle I've had in days. Thanks DD