Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Antiochus
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:12 am

Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Antiochus » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:25 am

Was visiting Reddit Buddhism last night when I saw someone post an update from Jayarava Atwood''s blog. Apparently he's been busy writing out new analysis on the Heart Sutra this month, in no less than three interconnected essays all titled "The True History of the Heart Sutra":

http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2018/08/th ... tra-i.html

http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2018/08/th ... ra-ii.html

http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2018/08/th ... a-iii.html

I believe the standard Chinese origin model, as proposed originally by Jan Nattier in 1992, was that though the Sanskrit Heart Sutra was "back translated" from the Chinese original, it was at least a "genuine" attempt via natural transmission on the Silk Road to Central Asia and India. Jayarava, however, now lays out a more explosive claim on the Heart Sutra: it was not only "composed" in China originally (via a digest text), but that the Sanskrit version was an actual, deliberate monastic forgery (possibly politically influenced) made during the late 7th century CE in Tang China. Here are the main excerpts from his 3rd essay linked above:
Religieux and scholars alike have uncritically accepted the authenticity of the Heart Sutra based primarily on this association with Xuanzang.
The rest of the information establishing the authenticity of the Heart Sutra dribbled out over quite a long period of time, but is also treated as authentic by scholars. After Xuanzang's death (664 CE), the sutra is officially ascribed to him by the bibliographer, Dàoxuān, in his Nèidiǎn Catalogue (664 CE). The story is elaborated twenty years later in the Biography (688 CE). It depicts a much closer bond to Taizong than seems plausible; and introduces important elements of the backstory such as receiving the text from a sick man and presenting Gaozong with a copy in 656 CE. There seems to be no reference to any of this in secular sources. However, note that all of these events take place during the time that Wu Zetian is either de facto or de jure ruler of China.
Then, in 730, the Kāiyuán Catalogue adds the date of the translation. This date was not noted by either of the catalogues produced in 664, even though one of them was compiled specifically to include translations by Xuanzang. The Kāiyuán Catalogue also introduces us to the Damingzhoujing for the first time.
The problem with relying on Xuanzang to legitimise the text is that his work is very well known. The fact that he does not mention the Heart Sutra or include it in with his Prajñāpāramitā translations is more significant than has been credited. To be credible, the attribution would require some sort of recognition from Xuanzang himself. Instead, he seems to be unaware of the text. The same goes for Kumārajīva and the Damingzhoujing. There are many reasons to be doubtful about these attributions, but the fact that two prolific authors themselves never mention a text they are supposed to have translated should ring alarm bells. Not including the Heart Sutra translation in T220 is effectively a denial by Xuanzang that he did translate it.
Creating a Chinese language digest text for a Chinese audience would not have raised any eyebrows. It was a common practice, though going out of fashion by the beginning of the Tang (in 618) as genuine Buddhist texts began to flood into China. It is a stretch to accept the attempt to pass off a digest as an authentic sutra as quite so innocent. Some digest texts and outright fakes were passed off and were only identified much later, often after modern methods of scholarship emerged. I can find no other case where a Sanskrit text was produced for the purposes of legitimising a Chinese apocryphon.
The Chinese Xīnjīng was already in a rather grey area when, late in the 7th Century, someone produced a Sanskrit translation of it and managed to convince the experts that it was an Indian "original" of which the Xīnjīng is a translation by Xuanzang. And this before Xuanzang was even dead. In an environment in which Buddhism was taught and practiced through the medium of Chinese (hence the importance of translations), and only a handful of people could read Sanskrit, the Sanskrit text served only one purpose; i.e., to make a text of doubtful authenticity seem completely authentic. This seems to go beyond what might be put down as humility or piety by the author. Someone set out to deceive us as to the origins of this text.

Far from being an Indian original, the Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya is a deliberate and knowing forgery. The forgery succeeded spectacularly, producing what must be one of the longest running hoaxes in history. By the end of the 7th century the Xīnjīng was incorporated into the Chinese Canon as a translation of an authentic Sanskrit sūtra produced in India. By the eighth century it was joined by the Damingzhoujing, the Amoghavajra transliteration of the Sanskrit text (T256), and two more translations that were from the Sanskrit (T252, T253). More would follow along with the longer version of the text, which possibly was produced in India. The existence of the Sanskrit text blinded everyone to the true history of the Heart Sutra, including the Indian commentators.
Not only is the true history of the Heart Sutra emerging for the first time, but some hard truths about the transmission of Buddhism are coming out also. The romantic ideal of disciples writing down the wise words of the master and transmitting high-fidelity copies of these to far off places is clearly bunk. When cultures assimilate Buddhism, they are not passive. They actively shape the form that Buddhism takes in their society. Buddhism is literally whatever Buddhists say it is.
There is still a lot more painstaking, detailed, forensic examination of relevant material to be conducted and I can only hope that my amateur efforts will stimulate the professionals to come back and look again at the neglected Heart Sutra. We may never be able to establish who pulled off the initial hoax. At the moment, I think it is likely that the forger worked alone since no word of it ever leaked. They managed to deflect attention away from themselves - no one claims responsibility for "finding" the Sanskrit text, for example. The forger had to be a member of the small circle of Chinese monks educated in Sanskrit, but also someone with the authority to pass off a counterfeit manuscript without causing suspicion. The text had to have been physically forged as well and in such a way as other experts were not suspicious. Very few monks of the day would have dealt directly with Indian manuscripts.

Perhaps 60 monks were part of Xuanzang's inner circle of translators and most of their names are lost. Woncheuk, Huili, and Dàoxuān were around at the time, but they seem to have alibis. One suspect stands out as having the means and the opportunity, i.e., Kuījī, Xuanzang's chief student and successor.

However, it is not at all clear what the forger's motivation might have been. Obviously someone wanted us to believe that the Heart Sutra is authentic, but what is gained by this? What does anyone stand to gain by convincing people that the Heart Sutra was composed in India when there are any number of genuine Indian Buddhist texts available, in multiple translations. Identifying the underlying motive for the forgery will be an important step in the process of identifying the culprit.

This, then, is the true history of the Heart Sutra, or at least as close to it as I have been able to get. Lest it be seen as a wholesale denunciation of the text I will finish by suggesting some reasons that the Heart Sutra should continue to valued by Buddhists.
Jayarava then pivots to saying even though the Chinese Heart Sutra originated as a "summary" and the Sanskrit version was a pure, deliberate forgery, there is still value to be had from the text:
When Jan Nattier suggested, with a good deal more politesse than I would have, that the Heart Sutra was a Chinese apocryphon, it caused a minor stir. A few Japanese scholars got angry and soon produced refutations that bring to mind the hysterical response of historians to Wu Zetian. Western Scholars mostly decided to stay out of it. Both Matthew Orsborn and Dan Lusthaus suggested that there might be minor flaws in Nattier's argument (I disagree, but have also suggested my own very minor corrections). That said, Orsborn, then writing as Huifeng (2014), was the first scholar to publish work which took on Nattier's approach and extended it. And by doing so he transformed our understanding of the text. When I appeared on the scene, in 2015 (having started working on the Heart Sutra in 2012), I began by showing that Edward Conze had made errors in editing, translating, and explaining the text. Over the next few years I also explored the evolution of the Heart Sutra and extended Nattier and Orsborn's work on understanding and translating the Chinese text. I've now written more than 40 essays on aspects of the Heart Sutra, and my 5th peer-reviewed article has just been accepted for publication (No.6 is almost finished, and no. 7 will be a formal write up of these notes). All going to plan, a book will follow. I am as qualified as any person, living or dead, to comment on this text.
The Heart Sutra epitomises the Buddhist project to extinguish sense experience and cognition, but it also reminds us of the credulity of religious Buddhists and the superficiality of most Buddhist philosophy. And this strongly suggests that what Buddhists believe is nowhere near as relevant to success with Buddhist practices as Buddhists say it is. Right-view is something that emerges from the experience of emptiness, it seems to make no contribution to having the experience. And in this sense, meditation is an equal opportunity practice: it requires no intellectual skill, no philosophy, no education, and no ability to think clearly. It only requires an ability to first direct attention and then withdraw attention.

Fundamentally, Buddhism asks us to orient ourselves away from the kamaloka, to turn away from sense experience as a means to life satisfaction. The Heart Sutra draws mainly on a tradition of attempts to communicate from the ārupaloka. This is not some metaphysical absolute. It is not a paramārtha-satya or ultimate truth. Emptiness is not some alternative reality. It is experiential, though perhaps not in any way that someone intoxicated with sense experience can appreciate.

In conclusion, then, the Heart Sutra is not what we were told it is, but it is exactly what we wish it to be. It is not an Indian, Sanskrit text. It is not a genuine sutra. It is a patchwork of pericopes, stitched together by a 7th Century Chinese monk. However, it does contain an accurate depiction of what we often call the farther shore, the cessation of sensory experience and cognitive experience that results in the radical reorganisation of our psyche away from self-centredness.
Thoughts anyone? Quite a lot to unpack here........

PeterC
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by PeterC » Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:07 pm

First of all, one has to have respect for Jayarava’s commitment as an autodidact and his work ethic. Unfortunately he lacks the linguistic or research background to really be doing this work.

He bases most of his argument on Nattier’s work, which essentially argues that the Sanskrit version contains idioms that can only be explained by back-translation from Chinese. There is extensive scholarship, though little of it in English, that rebuts this position.

He advances other arguments here around how closely the text can be linked to Xuanzang. These arguments demonstrate relatively little knowledge of Xuanzang’s work after returning to ChangAn, which again isn’t surprising as much of the scholarship on this is in Chinese. But for instance: Xuanzang obtained at least one significant collection of manuscripts from a non-Chinese monk in ChangAn after his return which he handed off to the scriptorium that he had established to translate. That scriptorium was running well after Xuanzang himself had passed away. There is a certain amount of material attributed to Xuanzang that came from India, but was not brought by him personally, and we don’t know quite how much.

Speaking of scriptoria, it’s worth noting how little we really know about the process by which texts circulated in the Tang Dynasty. For instance - there was a scriptorium in Dunhuang where Chinese scribes and translators prepared Tibetan copies of the Prajnaparamita sutras that ended up in Central Tibetan monasteries. You has texts crossing between Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, Khotanese and other languages. It’s entirely possible that copies of sutras made a round-trip between languages, and of itself, that proves nothing.

Perhaps it is a précis of a longer sutra. There is an extensive tradition of sutras and tantras referring back to much longer origin texts, and on occasion these texts have surfaced. The language and concepts in the heart sutra clearly match those of longer prajnaparamita sutras. So Jayarava’s claim is that this précis was first prepared in Chinese and not in Sanskrit. His evidence for this is weak. It’s not clear that definitive evidence proving this *could* exist. In the unlikely event that it is true, though, one wonders whether we should really care. It is still good Dharma. There are many sutras with large sections of dubious origin, some of which offer theories that may not fully accord with the dharma. The heart sutra is not one of them.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6389
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Queequeg » Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:50 pm

Interesting. True? Not True?

:shrug:

Buddha vacana.

What's the big deal here? Admitting that Buddhism is a movement of many rather than the genius of single personality? That there is an overarching point - liberation - and its otherwise up to us to figure out the most direct path for ourselves?

:shrug:

The canon also repeatedly tells us: its all stories, all upaya.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

PeterC
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by PeterC » Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:21 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:50 pm
The canon also repeatedly tells us: its all stories, all upaya.
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't care where teachings come from, or that we have no criteria for deciding whether something is or isn't the dharma. Jayarava's goals are not without merit. However his focus on this sutra is somewhat pointless, since even if he succeeded in proving his thesis, it wouldn't change our understanding or practice.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:53 pm

When he learns Sanskrit or Chinese I'll take his conspiracy theories more seriously.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:27 pm

Look at this

In case the original is modified, it says:
Jayarava wrote:
Coemgenu on SuttaCentral May 23rd 2018 wrote:Maybe you can find more out of Ven Yin Shun’s work.
I can get by in Middle Chinese, but I can’t read Mandarin at all.
How the hell does one learn Middle Chinese and not Mandarin? Furthermore and not Mandarin at all?

Let's just say I know from experience how to tell when someone is pretending to know more Chinese than they do.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28532
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:03 pm

PeterC wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:21 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:50 pm
The canon also repeatedly tells us: its all stories, all upaya.
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't care where teachings come from, or that we have no criteria for deciding whether something is or isn't the dharma. Jayarava's goals are not without merit. However his focus on this sutra is somewhat pointless, since even if he succeeded in proving his thesis, it wouldn't change our understanding or practice.
Not only this, but it is not like Hsuan Tsang had no contemporaries who would have pilloried him. For example not only did Wongchuk, Husan Tsang contemporary and colleague, write a commentary on the Heart Sutra, he mentions it at least twice in his massive Great Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17991
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Grigoris » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:51 pm

PeterC wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:21 pm
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't care where teachings come from, or that we have no criteria for deciding whether something is or isn't the dharma.
If it satisfies the Four Dharma Seals then why should I give a crap where it came from and who said/wrote it?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1101
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Aryjna » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:03 pm

Anyone else find it strange that even though he is supposed to be studying Mahayana Buddhism all this time he still has no clue about it? He keeps insisting that the point/goal of the heart sutra is the complete cessation of sensory and cognitive experience.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28532
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:42 pm

Then of course there is this from Wonchu'ks commentary on the Heart Sutra:
As for the “Kuan-zizai Bodhisattva”, the first part of [the sūtra], [that is, from “Kuan-zizai Bodhisattva … .” to “crosses over all sufferings and calamities”] may be subdivided in two [ways]: first, by indicating the person who can contemplate; second, by illustrating the essence of the contemplating wisdom. [The “Kuan-zizai Bodhisattva”] refers to the first [approach], to indicate the person who can contemplate. According to the old version of the translation [of the Praj@2p2ramit2-s^tras], the Kuan-shi-yin is designated as the one who contemplates the sounds of the world. By calling the name of [Kuan-shi-yin] Bodhisattva, accompanied with verbal deeds, [sentient beings] are saved from all disasters. This is how the name is established and called Kuan-shi-yin. Yet the power to contemplate bodily and mental deeds is not revealed [in the name of Kuan-shi-yin]. However, the “Kuan-zizai” mentioned in this scripture refers to the one who internally realizes the twofold emptiness while externally contemplating the three deeds effortlessly and acting at his/her unrestricted discretion. Therefore [he/she] is named “Kuan-zizai.”
Here, he makes a point about the difference in translating Avalokiteśvara's name between the old translation and the revised version done by Hsuan Tsang.

And:
A version [of the Heart Sūtra] states that “[The Bodhisattva] illuminatingly sees that the five aggregates, etc., are all empty.” Although there are two different versions, the latter [that is, the new version] is the correct one because the word “etc.” is found in the original Sanskrit scripture. [The meaning of] “etc.”described in the latter [version] should be understood based on [the doctrine of Dharmapāla].
And here is another example where an old and revised version are mentioned:
(i) In interpreting the name, the old [version] called it nirvāṇa in Sanskrit or niwon, which may be translated as “tranquil extinction” in [the Chinese] language. Hsüan-tsang of T'ang China called it parinirvāṇa,which means “perfect stillness” because it is ultimately free from obstructions, saṃsāra and disturbances. Yet in order to preserve the name [used] in the old [version], it is called nirvāṇa.
And:
The translation of [“Śāriputra”] into “shen-tzu (身子)” in the old version is an incorrect one.
-- An English Translation of the Banya paramilda simgyeong chan: Wonch'uk's Commentary on the Heart Sūtra, B. Hyun Choo.

In other words, when Wonchuk wrote this, there were already two translations of the Heart Sūtra in circulation, an "old" one, and one revised on the basis of a Sanskrit original by Hsuan Tsang. This fact is mentioned by Wonchuk four times.

Jayarava also misrepsents this text, in a characteristic manner:
The wording used by Woncheuk is 簡 "selected, gleaned" from 諸般若 "various Prajñā(pāramitā sūtras)" (T 33.543.b.18).
But this is not what Wongchuk says. What he actually says is:
Since [this text] selects the essential outlines from all the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, it has only the main chapter, without introduction and conclusion, just as the Kuan-yin ching (Avalokite$vara-s^tra) is not composed of three sections.
This is a completely different assertion than what Jayarava presents.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:18 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:42 pm
The wording used by Woncheuk is 簡 "selected, gleaned" from 諸般若 "various Prajñā(pāramitā sūtras)" (T 33.543.b.18).
But this is not what Wongchuk says.
Something worse is going on.

I just followed his citation, T33.543.b.18, and it has this "諸般若簡集綱要"

I think he misidentified the verb altogether. But I am not an expert. Neither is he, though.

Like, I think the verb was 集.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:34 pm

I think 諸般若簡集綱要 is something like
諸般若 many prajñāpāramitā 簡 manuscripts 集綱要 [ I] collected [from them] essential points
IMO that is more likely but I am also likely to be wrong
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

MiphamFan
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by MiphamFan » Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:36 pm

He's been spinning bullshit for years and hasn't even learned Chinese. What I can see from the citations above basically seems like he is looking up dictionary definitions and arbitrarily picking them to suit his needs.

PeterC
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by PeterC » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:43 am

Grigoris wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:51 pm
PeterC wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:21 pm
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't care where teachings come from, or that we have no criteria for deciding whether something is or isn't the dharma.
If it satisfies the Four Dharma Seals then why should I give a crap where it came from and who said/wrote it?
To give an absurd example. Suppose someone excavating in Sarnath comes across a sealed container dating back over two thousand years with a complete set of the prajnaparamita sutras inside. We would be very interested in that. Then suppose Omarosa’s book contains a version of a new sutra that she says she received from Elvis in a dream. Sadly the latter would probably be read by more people than the former. But you see my point.

Antiochus
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Antiochus » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:47 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:42 pm
Then of course there is this from Wonchu'ks commentary on the Heart Sutra:

In other words, when Wonchuk wrote this, there were already two translations of the Heart Sūtra in circulation, an "old" one, and one revised on the basis of a Sanskrit original by Hsuan Tsang. This fact is mentioned by Wonchuk four times.
I believe Jayarava did "address" this part in the first and second essays linked above. Essentially he agrees by the late 7th century Wonchuk does have a Sanskrit version. But since Wonchuk never avowed the Indian authenticity of that Sanksrit text openly, one way or the other, in his Heart Sutra commentary, it appears suspicious. Hence why Jayarava thinks the Sanskrit version was a very recent forgery during the 650's to 660's CE that ended up in Wonchuk's hands in the 670's/680's, where he couldn't "vouch" for the authenticity at that time, and so didn't openly proclaim it to be genuine in the commentary. Ideally Jayarava himself can appear in this thread and respond in more detail, hopefully.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28532
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:26 am

MiphamFan wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:36 pm
He's been spinning bullshit for years and hasn't even learned Chinese. What I can see from the citations above basically seems like he is looking up dictionary definitions and arbitrarily picking them to suit his needs.
Yup.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Virgo
Global Moderator
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Virgo » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:48 am

:rolling:

Kevin...

PeterC
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by PeterC » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:33 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:18 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:42 pm
The wording used by Woncheuk is 簡 "selected, gleaned" from 諸般若 "various Prajñā(pāramitā sūtras)" (T 33.543.b.18).
But this is not what Wongchuk says.
Something worse is going on.

I just followed his citation, T33.543.b.18, and it has this "諸般若簡集綱要"

I think he misidentified the verb altogether. But I am not an expert. Neither is he, though.

Like, I think the verb was 集.
Looking at the larger context - the interlinear commentary (thanks for linking that in your other post):
觀自在菩薩 第四判文解釋。於此經中總有三分。初明能觀智次舍利子下辨所觀境。後以無所得故下顯所得果。所以無序及流通者於諸般若簡集綱要。故唯正宗無序流通如觀音經不具三分。觀自在菩薩者就初分中復分為二。初標能觀人次辨觀智體。...
...it's extremely unpersuasive to read "簡集綱要" the way he does. Not to mention, it completely ignores the preceding paragraph of the commentary:
佛說般若波羅蜜多心經 言題目者佛說即是標能說主。梵音佛陀此翻名覺。具真俗智自他覺滿故名為佛。開敷妙門令眾生解名之為說。般若波羅蜜多辨所說法。此土翻為智到彼岸。心經正顯能詮之教。盧道之中心王獨秀於諸般若此教最尊。從諭立名故曰心也。經有二義貫穿攝持。貫穿所應說義攝持所化生故。此即依主就能所詮法諭立號故言佛說般若波羅蜜多心經。
So he takes one character out of context and completely ignores the paean to the text in the previous paragraph. That is why he probably shouldn't be doing this work.

Jayarava then proceeds in his next paragraph to argue:
Secondly, Nattier cites a private communication from Robert Buswell (1992: 210 n.48) who proposed to Nattier that the Heart Sutra might be an example of a ch'ao-ching or "condensed sūtra".
...which makes his argument even harder to swallow. Presumably in this private communication he's referring to texts like the 四十二章经 which were clearly piecemeal compilations from other sources, showing inconsistent themes, language, etc. The heart sutra really is nothing like them at all.

Posting here, from a previous thread, Nattier's original paper on this (which is the source of most of Jayarava's textual arguments):
https://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/Heart-Sut ... attier.pdf

And also an English-language rebuttal to Nattier's arguments
https://www.academia.edu/34979344/Issue ... y_Xuanzang

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:44 am

PeterC wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:33 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:18 pm
Something worse is going on.

I just followed his citation, T33.543.b.18, and it has this "諸般若簡集綱要"

I think he misidentified the verb altogether. But I am not an expert. Neither is he, though.

Like, I think the verb was 集.
Looking at the larger context - the interlinear commentary (thanks for linking that in your other post):
觀自在菩薩 第四判文解釋。於此經中總有三分。初明能觀智次舍利子下辨所觀境。後以無所得故下顯所得果。所以無序及流通者於諸般若簡集綱要。故唯正宗無序流通如觀音經不具三分。觀自在菩薩者就初分中復分為二。初標能觀人次辨觀智體。...
You're welcome, but the pressing matter for me is whether or not 簡 as "manuscript" is an equally ridiculous way to read the text! :spy:
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:10 am

Antiochus wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:47 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:42 pm
Then of course there is this from Wonchu'ks commentary on the Heart Sutra:

In other words, when Wonchuk wrote this, there were already two translations of the Heart Sūtra in circulation, an "old" one, and one revised on the basis of a Sanskrit original by Hsuan Tsang. This fact is mentioned by Wonchuk four times.
I believe Jayarava did "address" this part in the first and second essays linked above. Essentially he agrees by the late 7th century Wonchuk does have a Sanskrit version. But since Wonchuk never avowed the Indian authenticity of that Sanksrit text openly, one way or the other, in his Heart Sutra commentary, it appears suspicious. Hence why Jayarava thinks the Sanskrit version was a very recent forgery during the 650's to 660's CE that ended up in Wonchuk's hands in the 670's/680's, where he couldn't "vouch" for the authenticity at that time, and so didn't openly proclaim it to be genuine in the commentary. Ideally Jayarava himself can appear in this thread and respond in more detail, hopefully.
Are we sure this is the best argument?

Does Ven Candrakīrti start his commentary on the MMK by indicating that he can vouch for the authenticity of the text?

Is this a normal thing to expect any commentator to necessarily do?

"Wonchuk never avowed the Indian authenticity of that Sanksrit text openly" <--- this is a bad way to try to argue something all over IMO
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests