From: SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Buddhism and Truth
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:52:30 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


One point which the two articles posted thus far on the _Heart of
the Prajnaparamita Sutra_ have overlooked is the historical context
in which the Prajnaparamita Sutra group arose.

The Heart Sutra is something of a dialogue between the Mahayana
tradition and the more conservative tradition.  The sutra takes the
form of a discourse by Avalokitasvara, representing the
Mahayana point of view, made to Sariputta, usually considered to
have been the most learned to the Buddha's immediate circle of
followers.

In the sutra Avalokitasvara reveals the nature of his transcendental
experience in terms of the Abhidamma literature of the earlier
tradition, as this would be the mode of thinking which Sariputta
would be most familar with.  The nature of the spiritual truth
recognized by Avalokitsvara is revealed by negating the doctrinal
categories established by the other.  The traditional Four Noble
Truths are explained in terms of emptiness.

Although I have do not recall seeing the following assertion made
by Conze or other scholars, it seems too obvious not to have been
made many times before.  It seems to me that the _Heart Sutra_ in
terms of its technique of negation and in the thrust of its message
may already be found in the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon.

Sutta #22 of the Majjhima Nikaya, Discourse on the Parable of the Water
Snake, contains two passages which seem strongly parallel to the
_Heart Sutra_.

First the title parable itself:

"...some foolish men master dhamma: the discourses in prose, in prose
and verse, the expositions, (etc.)  These having mastered that dhamma
do not test the meaning of these things by intuitive wisdom; and
these things whose meaning is untested by intuitive wisdom do not become
clear; they master this dhamma simply for the advantaage of
reproaching others others and for the advantage of chattering
and they do not arrive at that goal for which they attempted to
master dhamma in the first place.  These things badly grasped by
them conduce for a long time to woe and sorrow.  What is the reason
for this?

...It is like a man walking about after a water snake, searching for
a water snake, looking for a water snake.  He might see a large water
snake, and he might take hold of it by a coil or by its tail; the
snake having rounded on him, might bite him on his hand or arm or
another part of his body; from this cause he might come to dying or
to the pain which feels like dying.  What is the reason for this?
Monks, it is because of is wrong grasp of the water snake.

Even so, monks, do some foolish men here master dhamma..."

The Parable of the Raft follows this and the two together seem to
make a point similar to that of the _Heart Sutra_.

In this parable the Buddha speaks of a man who travelling down a
road beside a body of water perceives that the near side is dangerous
but that the far shore appears to be safe from dangers, however there
is no bridge or ferry.  Therefore he gathers wood and grasses, binds
them together into a raft and with this he paddles to the farther
shore.

Having arrived he then considers how helpful the raft has been to him
and he thinks whether he should hoist it onto his shoulders or
carry it on his head and go where he means to go.

The Buddha asked his listeners: "Now would he be doing what should
be done with a raft?....So I have shown you how the law resembles
a raft in being for the purpose of crossing over, not for grasping.
Monks, when you know the simile of the raft (then even good) teachings
should be abandoned by you, how much more so untrue teachings."

The following quotation seems appropriate to the specific discussion
between Messrs Hartigan and O'Connell.

"The Abhidharma embodies an exposition of the distinct, unique, nature
 of every specific entitity; here the method is analysis; and the
 emphasis is on what every specific thing is in its own nature.
 Sunyata (=emptiness) lays bare the non-ultimacy of the specific
 entities as well as their essential conditionedness  or relativity...
 thereby enabling the mind to get at the truly unconditioned.  The
 method here is criticism, a critical examination of the elements
 that are found by analysis to be constituents of experience."

 From _Nargajuna's Philosophy As Presented in the Maha-Prajnaparamita
 Sastra_, K.V. Ramanan, Motilal Banarsidas, (Delhi, 1966) p. 141

Akasa (the principle of accomodation, space) is sometimes used as
a metaphor for emptiness, considering the relationship of objects
and space....this strikes me as a Buddhist chicken-or-the-egg type
of poser.

Jack Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism