[Agehoobionibe]

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.

It would have made later Mahayana teachings more credible if they were just presented as later teachings by various people based on those of the Buddha, rather than all the stuff about being hidden in dragon realms, or spoken by bodhisattva deities up a mountain or whatever whilst the Buddha was meditating in a stupa etc etc. I just can't get my head around a lot of it because it reads like fantasy and fairytale fiction.

I also find it astonishing that people just accept that, for example, Asanga (3rd to 4th century AD)went to the Tushita Heaven to receive teachings from Maitreya the future Buddha. Good PR work to get followers though ! Sorry if some people think I'm outrageous for saying that, but I'm just being honest.

[zabiqapara]

Here is a link to an interpretation of the Heart Sutra by a good friend. Don't know how to post the file permanently.

http://rapidshare.com/files/45541753...utra_-_PDF.pdf

Hi Pegembara, I wasn't able to open the link -too complicated.

Did you read page 1 of this thread before posting #11 by the way ?....I had already mentioned SN 22.95 and SN 12.15.

[Rwujnezq]

Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey

"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

"When there is no ear...

"When there is no nose...

"When there is no tongue...

"When there is no body...

My reading of this sutta is it does not proclaim there is "no eye", "no ear", etc, as the Heart Sutra does. This sutta is merely stating "when" or "if" there is no eye, then the other conditions for suffering cannot arise.

Imo, this sutta is simply explaining conditionality (cause & effect).

[EnvellFen]

Regarding the dating of the Heart Sutra (remembering that the Buddha's death was around 483 BCE) :

" Recent scholarship is unable to verify any date earlier than the 7th century CE."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Sutra

Quite apart from all of that, and the obvious similarites to some of the Pali suttas, it doesn't seem to be addressing the way that the Buddha himself actually taught about emptiness.

hi

my viewpoint is the Heart Sutra is not simply a reiteration of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness. The impression I have gained is the Heart Sutra is a redefinition of emptiness, which is used pervasively in the Mahayana schools to assert emptiness is 'non-imputing' or 'non-conceptualising'.

For example, in the video below, at 5:00 minutes, Lama Choedak states correctly: "Without suffering, you cannot even practise compassion". But later, after 6:45 minutes, Lama Choedak states, as a "higher" understanding:

(1) there is "no person", which accords with the Pali suttas; and

(2) there is "no suffering", which does not accord with the Pali suttas.

The Pali suttas assert there is suffering however it is "the mind" or "minds" that suffer rather than "persons" or "selves".

For example:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery.

Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone, my only little child?"

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to him:

"Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."

Piyajatika Sutta Imo, this distinction is quite important because when we decide to conceptualise/non-conceptualise "there is no suffering", compassion and empathy may be lost. We may be behave in a manner that some may consider inappropriate & insensitive.

Imo, it is not necessary to remove the perception of "suffering" in order for the mind to be liberated. What is simply required is to remove the perceptions of "self".

Imo, the distinctions I have made are the salient difference between the Pali teachings on emptiness and the Heart Sutra.

Personally, I do not regard the Heart Sutra as a "higher" teaching. The Pali states:

Buddh'vārahanta-varatādiguṇābhiyutto,

The Buddha, endowed with such virtues as highest worthiness:

Suddhābhiñāṇa-karuṇāhi samāgatatto,

In him, purity, supreme knowledge & compassion converge.
With metta

[vTLWqa1l]

I like that video. the sound track is off, so it's like watching a Kung Fu movie.

So, he mentions compassion in relation to different degrees of letting go of self, says compassion itself does not exist inherently. It is dependent on understanding of suffering. But I did not hear at 6:45 in the video or anywhere him saying "there is no suffering". I listened to it a few times, in that general vicinity, but maybe I missed it.

I think there may be some confusion because on a relative level of course there is suffering, this suffering is a projection of the mind, or as you say, it is the mind which suffers. Ultimately, however, since as you say, there is no 'self', then there is nobody suffering, and if there is nobody suffering, ultimately there is no suffering going on, and if it isn't going on then it does not exist.

You are concerned that with the idea "there is no suffering", compassion and empathy may be lost. We may be behave in a manner that some may consider inappropriate & insensitive. If the phrase is not clearly understood for its intended meaning then of course this is possible. I may not understand what the Mona Lisa is about , but that doesn't make it a bad painting. If the context isn't clear, then you are right, it can be misunderstood.

The meaning of 'suffering does not exist' is that it has no inherent existence. Yes, of course it occurs! But it arises out of conditions. If it were otherwise, if suffering existed unconditionally as a self-arising phenomena, then there could be no cessation to suffering, no Third Noble Truth. So in this light, the statement "there is no suffering" becomes a very reassuring statement. It means it occurs but it has no substance. It isn't permanent.

Although "higher" teaching may be construed as implying "better than" (by many people) it actually means to take the argument to the next level. In Theravada teachings, there is the concept of anatta, of no self, pertaining to the one who is experiencing phenomena. What the heart Sutra says is that not only is there no self experiencing stuff, but the stuff has no self as well. The perceiver is a collection of khandas (Skt. skandhas) and conditions that arise and cease, and so are the things that are perceived. I don't know if this is an aspect of Pali literature, that phenomena, like 'self' has no true existence.

A side note: there are different versions of the Heart Sutra. A shorter one is commonly used for the purposes of recitation by Mahayana monks and nuns, which begins with Avalokiteshvara talking. But the fuller version actually begins with The Buddha in one of his gatherings, and while he is meditating, Sariputta, inspired by Buddha's meditative absorption asks Avalokiteshvara how one should train in the perfection of wisdom, to which Avalokiteshvara responds with the Heart Sutra. Whether any of this actually happened or not, who knows? But what is suggested is that Avalokiteshvara is not a celestial being here, not a deity, but is very accomplished follower of the Buddha.

[S.T.D.]

@Aloka-D

Sorry. Try this link

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...thkey=CNLkxLQI

[teentodiefows]

But I did not hear at 6:45 in the video or anywhere him saying "there is no suffering".

Sorry. Wrong video. I replaced the video. You can listen again.

[TritteTouff]

Ultimately, however, since as you say, there is no 'self', then there is nobody suffering, and if there is nobody suffering, ultimately there is no suffering going on, and if it isn't going on then it does not exist.

This is exactly what I disagree with. Just because there is "nobody" suffering in our mind's perception, this does not necessary mean there is no suffering.

Suffering manifests due to ignorance. A mind suffers due to ignorant thought formations. This, imo, does not negate the existence of suffering.

For example, when a heart surgeon seeks to save a person's life, the heart surgeon is not focusing his energies on saving "the person". The heart surgeon is focusing their energies on restoring heart function. It is the heart that is sick rather than "the person".

Or the same with a psychologist. They are not trying to save "a person" but they a trying to free the mind of certain "delusions" or "unskilful/unrealistic ways of thinking". It is the mind that is sick rather than "the person".

It is the the mind that suffers and the mind that ceases suffering. The Dhammapada states:

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

[Quvwcxqx]

The meaning of 'suffering does not exist' is that it has no inherent existence. Yes, of course it occurs! But it arises out of conditions.

OK. I listened again to the video. Lama Choedak did (quickly) actually say what you are saying. He probably should have explained what he said in a little more detail & clarity, in case the listener discerned an unintended meaning.

Please note: I know Lama Choedak, who I regard as an excellent teacher, having heard him speak a few times when he visits our community once a year.

But for me, the use of the terms "no inherent existence" and "impute" is too ambiguous.

Imo, it makes little difference to perceive a mind is suffering from "suffering" or to perceive a mind is suffering from suffering's cause, namely, ignorance. The mind is still suffering from something, be it full blown delusion (becoming) or simply the primary root of ignorance.

But (again, lol), for me, it cannot be said: "There is no ignorance". Ignorance has no underlying cause (but can be erased by wisdom).

For me, the essense of the talk is excellent. Plus it is an excellent topic. But still, I would use language differently.

After reading the words "no inherent existence" and "impute" for a few years now on chatsites, I finally realise what is attempting to be communicated. Still, for me, the language does not flow well.

By using the term "imputing suffering", Lama Choedak seems to be saying we ordinarily (unenlightenedly) see just the experience of suffering rather than see all of the underlying causes.

That is, if we alternatively see: "There is no suffering, there is only its causes, such as ignorance", then our view and "emotional" relationship will change.

OK, I have finally learned some Mahayana



im·put·ed, im·put·ing, im·putes

1. To relate to a particular cause or source; attribute the fault or responsibility to: imputed the rocket failure to a faulty gasket; kindly imputed my clumsiness to inexperience.

2. To assign as a characteristic; credit: the gracefulness so often imputed to cats.

[UMATURLIN]

But what is suggested is that Avalokiteshvara is not a celestial being here, not a deity, but is very accomplished follower of the Buddha.

In my book "Essence of the Heart Sutra" HH Dalai Lama says :

"Here the specific bodhisattva mentioned is Avalokiteshvara known in Tibetan as Chenrezi. The meaning of the name Chenrezi indicates a bodhisattva who, out of great compassion,never shifts his attention away from sentient beings, always gazing at them with a sense of deep concern. He is also called Loketeshvara which literally means "the accomplished master of the world". In the context of the Heart Sutra, Avalokiteshvara appears in the form of a bodhisattva on the 10th bodhisattva level "

All very confusing of course, because Chenrezi is also a popular yidam in Tibetan Buddhism (with the mantra OM MANI PADME HUNG) and :


Avalokiteshvara is the earthly manifestation of the self born, eternal Buddha, Amitabha. He guards this world in the interval between the historical Sakyamuni Buddha, and the next Buddha of the Future Maitreya.

According to legend, Chenrezig made a a vow that he would not rest until he had liberated all the beings in all the realms of suffering. After working diligently at this task for a very long time, he looked out and realized the immense number of miserable beings yet to be saved. Seeing this, he became despondent and his head split into thousands of pieces. Amitabha Buddha put the pieces back together as a body with very many arms and many heads, so that Chenrezig could work with myriad beings all at the same time. Sometimes Chenrezig is visualized with eleven heads, and a thousand arms fanned out around him.

.
http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/chen-re-zig.htm

.

[TOD4wDTQ]

Thank you. "Essence of the Heart Sutra" by HH Dalai Lama is an excellent source for info here (of course, it is going to be biased towards Mahayana) and it is the book I too am using as a reference. Perhaps what is pertinent to this discussion, or to any discussion of Mahayana texts, is the role that myth plays in communicating something profound.

This brings to mind the series (book & video) "The Power Of Myth" by Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers, in which it is suggested that the role of all these flowery elaborations is to convey something that the words alone do not. Maybe this is the principle by which poetry works. The sugary decor of The Heart Sutra is nothing compared to the Lotus Sutra, which just goes on and on and on and makes me think that some of the monks who wrote it down had way too much time on their hands. Yet, within this there is something perceivable that to a very still mind seems quite profound. It could be that in some areas in historical India this sort of elaboration was the style of writing which identified a teaching as highly worthy. I don't know.

None of that is really necessary in order to get to the message of the texts. My thought is that if all those clouds and rays of light and so forth are a distraction, ignore it, because they are always going to be there.

[HowardtheDuck]

If I had to choose, I prefer the Heart Sutra to the Lotus Sutra. I confess I have been unable to have the patience or interest in reading all the chapters of the Lotus Sutra in detail. I also feel a little queasy about it, as it is said to be the inspiration for the self immolation of monks.

Yet, within this there is something perceivable that to a very still mind seems quite profound.

When my mind is still and clear, writings like the Lotus Sutra are totally...... irrelevant.

In the garden the wind blows gently through the weeping willow tree, clouds pass,the sun shines, a bird sings

[nintenda]

to element:
What is being said in the video, first of all, he is talking about different levels of compassion. this doesn't mean a little bit sympathetic vs. heavily sympathetic. What is being discussed is the development of compassion, through gradual levels of understanding, which is free from the thought of "Me" being compassionate to "you", in other words, compassion based in the ordinary context of truly existent self and other. The purpose of this is to develop compassion which doesn't pick and choose and isn't dependent on passing circumstances, but is universal and boundless.

Yes, in that context and on the relative level suffering exists in all degrees. The fact that this topic is even an issue of concern is in fact suffering, because in the mind, it doesn't sit right and this presents itself as some type of problem. What this Lama is alluding to is that beyond that, and one could use the term, "one's buddhanature" or "original mind" or "enlightened miund" or whatever, at the level of your true nature there is no suffering.

My understanding is that what the Buddha taught is that we suffer because we do not see or understand or experience 'reality' or existence the way things truly are. We cling to the idea of a self, and filter everything through that. the point of dharma practice is to remove the obstacles which obscure the mind's original nature which is inherently free from suffering. So this is what this lama is referring to, the mind's original nature which is originally without any confusion or suffering.

Whether it is helpful to a practitioner to consider or conemplate this and apply it to every day life depends more on the practitioner than the teaching, i think.

[TimoPizaz]

My understanding is that what the Buddha taught is that we suffer because we do not see or understand or experience 'reality' or existence the way things truly are Just as an off-topic aside - we can hear what element himself has to say about dukkha by watching his videos in the Tea Room sub-forum.

[limpoporanique]

As a personal opinion, all those adornments, again, saints, metaphysical entities, holly gurus, metaphysical redeemers ready to come again, a suffering hopeless humankind, that are constantly found in the Mahayana philosophy, gives me a lot of existential noise, a dense haze that disturbs the clear view of things and the practice of a quite and silent mind. If we really learn to contemplate, to say, a flower, a sunrise, a tune... then where is the need for such elaborated fairies of the Mahayana imagination? My day starts very early because after an early session of zazen I love to watch the sunrise of a new day (with a hot delicious cup of coffee )

[Chooriwrocafn]

I really enjoy listening to this version, I love the rhythm and how it builds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTfS8QB4n3I

[GogaMegaPis]

I really enjoy listening to this version, I love the rhythm and how it builds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTfS8QB4n3I

Nice! Thanks Gary.

[daguy]

I prefer the original stuff. Further I flatly reject the pejorative term 'Hinayana' when applied to a whole school of Buddhism. Following my teacher, [Buddhadasa Bhikkhu] I aspire to 'Buddhayana' and take the Pali suttas as the primary starting point for discovering it.

My affection for the Pali suttas is not at the expense of so-called 'Mahayana sutras'. In fact, I find Buddhayana there as well. Often, I discover vibrant echos of the Pali suttas in classic Mahayana texts such as Shantideva's 'Bodhicaryavatara' and Hui Neng's 'Platform Sutra'.

In many cases Mahayana sutras contain direct copies and paraphrases of Pali texts. To illustrate this and to highlight the convergence of core Buddhism or Buddhayana, I offer a detailed look at the Heart Sutra."

Hi everyone

Returning to the opening post, my comment is I sense Santikaro is sounding a little like he is defending the Theravada.

However, just as a theory, I may be wrong, but I sense the teaching of Emptiness somehow became a little lost in Theravada.

For example, Santikaro's teacher Buddhadasa Bhikkhu is often credited for given rise to a rebirth of the Emptiness teachings in Thailand. When Buddhadasa Bhikkhu first taught Emptiness is Thailand, he was strongly criticised by the Thai clergy and was nearly disrobed for teaching: "In reality, there is no Buddha, no Dhamma & no Sangha" and that "the common view of the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha was like the Himalayan mountains blocking one's way to Nibbana".

In the Pali scriptures, there are only a handful of suttas (amongst hundreds) that are about Emptiness. It is very difficult to find them.

So I think the Mahayana must be given alot of credit for giving the Emptiness teachings a strong emphasis.

For example, the Heart Sutra, in both is name and content, unambiguously identifies the place of Emptiness in Buddhism, that is, being the heartwood of the Buddha-Dhamma.

With metta

[joeyCanada]

So I think the Mahayana must be given a lot of credit for giving the Emptiness teachings a strong emphasis.

Yes, and also within the Mahayana philosophy sometimes we can find a not very healthy tendency to turn around this concept which essentially, pointing toward the understanding of non-self, can lead to a dangerous kind of "nothingness" leading people to odd thoughts such as "there is no wrong of bad..." which in turn gives a wrong understanding of things and human facts.

[BruceCroucshs]

For example, the Heart Sutra, in both is name and content, unambiguously identifies the place of Emptiness in Buddhism, that is, being the heartwood of the Buddha-Dhamma.

I feel this is why Mahayana is that... an "-ism", a set of ideals, ideas, a worldview, one more philosophy, one more religion... instead, the teachings of the historical Buddha are not about that but about a way to do something concrete to accomplish a concrete goal. If we are waiting for a worldview at the teachings of the historical Buddha, surly there will be a disappointment.