Does wisdom only exist, in zen, when it is perfect? Do zen monks and laity practice wisdom or is the focus so much on one practice samadhi that it's only there when you are?

In the Madhyamakaśāstra, Venerable Vimalākṣa quotes the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra: 菩薩有我亦非行無我亦非行 "If the bodhisatva has a self, he cannot act. With no self too, he cannot act." T1564.24b29 I've read this before, but finding it in the sūtra is proving daunting. Where in the root sūtra can we find the passage the Venerable is quoting? Also, where can we find the corresponding section of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra commentary concerning this statement?

I wanted to know how it is that Avalokiteshvara answered Shariputra in the Heart Sutra. I thought Avalokiteshvara was a cosmic being representing the compassion of all Buddhas. As such he would not be a person who found himself in the Buddha's presence as He delivered his Dhamma discourses, right? So, does Avalokiteshvara speak through the power of the Buddha or is just that Avalokiteshvara's compassion is "part" of the Buddha since he is indeed fully enlightened? Who is it that answers Shariputra? Is the one abiding in the Prajnaparimita Gotama Buddha? I don't really understand.

Given that Vasubandhu and Asanga came after Nagarjunacharya, who was a proponent of a major Buddhist school with a different philosophy. Did they or thier students like Dignaga say anything about Nagarjunacharya?

So the Heart Sutra is one of the most popular sutra in Mahayana Buddhism, said to be the summary and heart of the Prajna Paramita Sutra. It was popularized by the famous monk Xuanzang. It was said that he chanted this sutra when he was lost in the Taklamakan Desert on the way from China to India. Apart from its terse nature and convenience for chanting. Why is this Heart Sutra so important to Mahayana Buddhism? Some people even describe the sutra as a kind of 'crazy wisdom' that seems to intentionally tear down all purposeful cultivation. http://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/ It was even jokingly described as the 'heart attack' sutra. > "Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of > the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and > there is no attainment whatsoever" Why would this sutra be helpful or useful - when it basically denies the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on the Four Noble Truth? Presumably the message of the Heart Sutra was so troubling that Thich Nhat Hanh had to 're-translate' the sutra into something that fit in with his own conception of Buddhism: http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/ What is the purpose of this sutra? Is it just sheerly for the shock factor? Maybe like a Zen Master whacking a student with a stick? I find other Prajna Paramita sutras such as the Diamond Sutra just as troubling. Note: I do enjoy some of the messages of Mahayana Sutras such as Amitabha Sutra and Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra and is from a Chinese Mahayana Chan organization.

> In 2012, Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima published a damaged and partial Kharoṣṭhī manuscript of the Mahāyāna Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. It is carbon dated to ca. 75 CE, making it one of the oldest Buddhist texts in existence. > > [Wikipedia: Gandhāran Buddhist texts - The "Split" Collection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts#The_%22Split%22_Collection) Here's a copy of that paper by Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima: [A first-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra](https://docdro.id/PyJF9z5) Question (1): What are the commonly acceptable hypotheses/theories among Buddhist-studies scholars in order to explain how come Prajñāpāramitā sutra (which belongs to the so-called 'Mahayana') have existed since so early (no later than 75 CE)? Question (2): Is it sensible to hypothesize/theorize (or even accept) that, Prajñāpāramitā thoughts, in fact, have developed early parallel with thoughts in Āgama and Nikāya (which belongs to the so-called 'Hinayana')?

If possible could someone provide me with references to sutras where the Buddha broaches such topics? In my previous question I asked about it generally and a kind user told me that information could be found in the second and third turnings of the Dharma wheel. Since I am fairly new to Buddhism, could you tell me where exactly to find answers to above question?

Is there any book or internet resource which has Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra in Sanskrit and word to word English translation? I am not exactly looking for commentaries(though I don't mind commentaries accompanying word to word translations). The ones I found so far are only in English.

In the Diamond Sutra Buddha said : > Subhuti, if a person collected treasures as high as 3,000 of the highest mountains, and gave them all to others, their merit would be less than what would accrue to another person who simply observed and studied this Sutra and, out of kindness, explained it to others. The latter person would accumulate hundreds of times the merit, hundreds of thousands of millions of times the merit. There is no conceivable comparison. I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world. So I'd like to follow Buddha's words but of course I'm not skillful enough to do it myself. What do you think will be the best way to help the Dharma reach more people if you have spare $100 a month? Or $1,000? Or $100,000 at once?

I read some articles and saw some references to the words , Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya used by Buddha , as mentioned in the Theravada scriptures , at least a few times during His Lifetime. Has anyone come across this , too?

Wikipedia includes [this (unreferenced) sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81#Tibetan_Buddhism) : > According to the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism, Mahāyāna practitioners have the choice of two practice paths: the path of perfection (Sanskrit: *pāramitāyāna*) or the path of tantra (Sanskrit: *tantrayāna*), which is the Vajrayāna. Would you say a bit more about that (for someone who hasn't been taught Mahāyāna practice or Tibetan Buddhism)? For example, some related questions include: - Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true? - Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism? - What are *pāramitāyāna* and *tantrayāna*: - What is the goal of each? - What is the purpose of each (do they tend toward the goal)? - What (or how) is the practice of each (how, for example, is the purpose implemented)? - To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

I am very interested in the concept of emptiness and freeing myself of all attachments. Naturally I gravitated towards the heart sutra, the chant in particular is very moving. However I am completely baffled by the text itself. Could someone help me understand the meaning, or purpose behind the story?

It's hard not to think of the Heart Sūtra when reading the Kassaka Sutta (Saŋyutta Nikāya 4:19), part of which runs as below (Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation , emphasis added). Is there any scholarship or commentary on a connection between these two texts, one from the Pali Canon and the other a major Mahayana scripture? Googling -- kassaka heart sutra -- turns up two references -- here and here -- but I'd say those are more contemporary popular literature than scholarship or traditional commentary. > Then Mara the Evil One, taking on the form of a farmer with a large > plowshare over his shoulder, carrying a long goad stick — his hair > disheveled, his clothes made of coarse hemp, his feet splattered with > mud — went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, said, "Hey, > contemplative. Have you seen my oxen?" > > "And what are your oxen, Evil One?" > > "Mine alone is the eye, contemplative. Mine are forms, mine is the > sphere of consciousness and contact at the eye. Where can you go to > escape me? Mine alone is the ear... the nose... the tongue... the > body... Mine alone is the intellect, contemplative. Mine are ideas, > mine is the sphere of consciousness and contact at the intellect. > Where can you go to escape me?" > > "Yours alone is the eye, Evil One. Yours are forms, yours is the > sphere of consciousness of contact at the eye. **Where no eye exists, no > forms exist, no sphere of consciousness and contact at the eye exists: > there, Evil One, you cannot go.** Yours alone is the ear... the nose... > the tongue... the body... Yours alone is the intellect, Evil One. > Yours are ideas, yours is the sphere of consciousness and contact at > the intellect. **Where no intellect exists, no ideas exist, no sphere of > consciousness of contact at the intellect exists: there, Evil One, you > cannot go.**" **Here** is a lovely chanting of the relevant section of the Heart Sūtra by Allen Ginsburg, in his own translation.

The Diamond Sutra , Heart Sutra , the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in 8000 lines and others are grouped together as Prajnaparamita (perfection of wisdom). Why is this? Why are they seen as a coherent collection? Are they thematically similar or is the link because they were written at a particular geographic and historical period? Are they maybe linked because of they a reaction against other schools of Buddhist thought at that time? Should they be linked together at all?

The title says it all: I'm looking for a german translation of that sutra: Is there a german-language online-resource for the prajnaparamita sutra "perfection of wisdom in 8000 lines"? (Note, I've the "Heart"- and the "Diamondsuta" which more-or-less belong to the set of Prajnaparamita-sutras, it's just I want to have a look in this specific version of the (possibly earliest) mahayana-sutra)

(1) According to Rob Burbea in *Seeing That Frees*, "both the neither-one-nor-many reasoning and the sevenfold reasoning are among the practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels." Regarding the neither-one-nor-many practice, he goes on to say: "Even if we imagine down to the level of subatomic particles, these will necessarily have parts facing in different directions, or interacting with other particles in this or that direction. Anything that occupies space must have parts. Postulating the existence of a partless particle that would be truly singular will not work. It would be impossible to arrange or amass such particles in order to form any thing from them. Having no differentiable sides, other particles could not be arranged either side of it. Such a particle would not be able to bond or interact with other particles in any direction. All the surrounding particles would contact the central particle at the same point, and all effectively occupy the same space. Nothing with any extension could ever come to be." When I imagine a partless particle, I simply think of a sphere. I can't see how the reasons he states refute that possibility. He seems to think that a partless particle could not possess mass, or would just be an infinitely small point. Why could it not just be a sphere that can't be divided any further? (2) Two of the quotations he uses: "The element of earth has no nature of its own." (Prajnaparamita Sutra) "Matter itself is void. Voidness does not result from the destruction of matter, but the nature of matter is itself voidness." (Vimalkirtinirdesa Sutra) What are the other "practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels?" Specifically this belief in the inherent existence of the "element of earth", i.e. sub-atomic particles.

How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit of nibbāna, when one has seen clearly that ultimately there is no separate nibbāna. What does one aspire towards now? Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: «There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow» >Where beauty is, then there is ugliness; where right is, also there is wrong. Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent; delusion and enlightenment condition each other. Since olden times it has been so. How could it be otherwise now? Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other is merely realizing a scene of stupidity. Even if you speak of the wonder of it all, how do you deal with each thing changing? > > ................................................................................................~Ryokan