[leacturavar]

Oh, I like this discussion very much.

I don't actually see a direct correlation between the excellent sources you quote and the Heart Sutra per se.

The link to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....015.than.html
details what are referred to as the 12 links of dependent origination,

and the words of the Phena Sutta: Foam are obviously repeated, or paraphrased later in the final chapter of the Diamond (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā ) Sūtra.

As far as believing in deities goes, this should be understood two ways. In Vajrayana practice, 'deity' does not really convey the full meaning of Avalokiteshvara as a 'yidam'. In this context, Avalokiteshvara and other 'yidams' are visualized as personifications of one's own original enlightened mind, not as gods to be prayed to. If this sounds a bit far fetched, consider that it is done in the context of the understanding that the very real sensation of who we are when we wake up each morning is equally just a creation of our imaginations.

This does not mean that over the centuries people have not developed superstitious customs. Alternately, in popular usage throughout the countries where Mahayana Buddhism is prevalent, Buddha, Avalokiteshvara & co. are definitely treated like gods, prayed to, and so forth. But by the same token, there is now a cult of Mao in China, where people have shrines and make offerings, light incense and burn candles to Chairman Mao. This is frowned on by the Government but illustrates that people can make gods out of anything. The difference may be that while the Chinese government condemns the Mao cult, Mahayana Buddhist masters and temple managers have not discouraged the 'folk custom' of deifying Buddha. But I think there is a lot more involved, centuries of things like people's needs, politics, temple funds, the integration of Buddhism into already existing cultural environments, honest as well as corrupt motives, etc. that would have to be looked at before passing any final judgments.

As for whether Avalokiteshvara is anything beyond that, I can only consider my own experiences some 30 years ago, which involve supplication to Kuan Yin (Chinese version of Avalokiteshvara, and female) and which seemed to have resulted in some very unusual events.

However, I think that to dismiss too quickly anything not directly attributed to the words spoken by the historical Buddha in India is a mistake. Here is why:

If one considers that only his words are valid, or only his words are necessary, and at the same time declares anything else to be mere religious elaboration, this I think elevates Buddha to divine status, to a god-like status, and one ends up quoting Buddha the way an evangelical christian quotes Jesus.

If what Buddha taught can in fact lead others to enlightenment then the commentaries and meditation practices developed based on his teachings can be considered valid if tested, as the Buddha instructed, tested to see if they are gold or not. Conversely, if what the Buddha taught does not lead others to enlightenment, then there is no point in regarding his words as enlightening teachings.

So, it's kind of a catch-22. If we begin with a premise that Buddha is the only one who can teach the way to enlightenment, that only his words are valid, then that means nobody else has become enlightened by his teachings otherwise their words would be equally valid, so this invalidates the premise. If we begin with the premise that Buddha's teachings are like flames being passed from one candle to many, then all of the flames are valid, and the idea that Buddha was not some divine god but rather an ordinary person who understood the true way of things that anyone can learn, and in turn teach, this is validated.

I am sorry, I really did not focus on the Heart Sutra aspect of this discussion, but i wanted to bring this up in the context of the discussion. As a big fan of the Heart Sutra and also as someone who holds great reverence for the Theravada tradition, I look forward to more discussion on this topic.