The standard translation of prajñā in this context is "wisdom". Wisdom is more than knowledge. It involves knowing, but also the ability to judge the salience of knowledge and the maturity to know when and how to act on it. We hope that we gain in knowledge and wisdom as we get older. Experience does tend to make us more wise, but we all know people who are knowledgeable but not wise. And we know people who don't have vast amounts of knowledge but who are nonetheless wise. There is a distinction between knowing stuff, and knowing when and how to apply one's knowledge.
However, wisdom has another connotation in English that some people strenuously try to associate with Prajñāpāramitā. In this sense wisdom is esoteric or occult knowledge. It is knowledge that comes from mystical experiences and has a metaphysical character, summed up as "knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality". Many Buddhists present themselves as in pursuit of, or in possession of knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality. This is where Buddhism shades into magical thinking and loses touch with reality. To be clear, neither Sanskrit, nor Pāḷi, nor Chinese have a word that means "reality" in the sense that we use it today. The contrast in Buddhism is not between experience and reality, but between experience and cessation and contentless awareness. In other words, absence (śūnyatā is not reality).
With prajñāpāramitā we have the added problem that it is nominally part of a set of six "perfections" and this is acknowledged in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, but it is also the perfection par excellence and treated as a standalone that supersedes the other perfections.
The pra- prefix in prajñā is related to the Greek para- which usually means "alongside" but can also means beyond". There is an English word deriving from from the Greek—paragnosis—that means "knowledge beyond that which can be obtained by normal means." Prajñā is the knowledge derived from the cessation of sensory-cognitive experience. It is, therefore, by definition, not knowledge of reality or the nature of reality. It is knowledge of mind and particularly mind in the absence of sense experience. Wisdom, even in this context, only comes with repeated exposure to cessation and the accumulation of prajñā. That is to say that prajñā is not wisdom per se. If anything is wisdom, it is prajñā-pāramitā, the perfection of paragnosis.
A little market research suggests that readers like this explanation of prajñā as paragnosis, but they are not quite so keen on it as a translation. For many people, substituting a Greek word for a Sanskrit word offers no advantage. However, I have played Humpty Dumpty and told you what I mean when I use it: paragnosis is the knowledge derived from the cessation of sensory-cognitive experience. And then it is simply a matter of "who is to be master" (See Through the Looking Glass: How we define and translate Buddhist technical terms).
Now we can return to the matter in hand.
Now we can return to the matter in hand.
Avalokiteśvara Preaches
The extended Heart Sutra added extra lines both at the beginning and the end of the text. This is the last part of the extension of the beginning, corresponding to Paragraph I of Silk's (1994) edition of the Tibetan. After this the extended version tends to be identical to the text of the standard version, although there are some variations. Given this, we might expect the divergent texts of R1 and R2 to converge and they do so. There's not a great deal going on at this point. This paragraph just sums up the introduction and repeats the conclusion of Paragraph E (see Enter Avalokiteśvara). However, this paragraph is important for study of the extended version because it resolves some of the problems seen in early paragraphs. It also has a number of problematic features.
Texts
T 253. 如是問已。爾時觀自在菩薩摩訶薩告具壽舍利弗言：「舍利子！若善男子善女人行甚深般若波羅蜜多行時，應觀五蘊性空。
In response to the question, at that time, Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva-mahāsattva answered Elder Śāriputra, saying, “Śāriputra, if sons and daughters of the community practise the profound practice of Prajñāpāramitā, they should contemplate the Five Skandhas as empty of self-nature".
T 254. 如是問已。爾時，觀世音自在菩薩摩訶薩告具壽舍利子言：「舍利子！若有善男子善女人，行甚深般若波羅蜜多行時，應照見五蘊自性皆空，離諸苦厄。After this was said, at that time, Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva-mahāsattva answered Elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, if sons and daughters of the community practise the profound practice of Prajñāpāramitā, they should contemplate the Five Skandhas as empty of self-nature and be separated from all suffering and misery.
T 255. 作是語已。觀自在菩薩摩訶薩答具壽舍利子言：「若善男子及善女人，欲修行甚深般若波羅蜜多者，彼應如是 觀察，*五蘊體性皆空。
After this was said, at that time, Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva-mahāsattva answered Elder Śāriputra, “If a son or daughter of the community desires to be a student of the profound Prajñāpāramitā practice, they should observe [that] the five skandhas are lacking in self-existence.
* In CBETA the comma is not needed.
T 257. 時，觀自在菩薩摩訶薩告尊者舍利子言：「汝今諦聽，為汝宣說。若善男子善女人，樂欲修學此甚深般若波羅蜜多法門者，當觀五蘊自性皆空。
Then, Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva-mahāsattva said to Honourable Śāriputra, listen attentively, I will teach for your sake. "If a son or daughter of the community desires to study (學) this profound prajñāpāramitā dharma door, they should observe the five skandhas as lacking self-existence."
Skt. evam ukte āryāvalokiteśvaro bodhisatvo mahāsatvo āyuṣmantaṃ śāriputram etad avocat: yaḥ kaścic chāriputra kulaputro va kuladuhitā vā asyāṃ gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ cartukāmas tenaivaṃ vyavalokitavyam.*That said, Ārya Avalokiteśvara bodhisatva mahāsatva said this to Elder Śāriputra, "Whichever son or daughter of the community who desires to perform this profound paragnosistic practice, should observe...
* there is a huge amount of variation at this point in the Sanskrit text, some of which is necessary for understanding the Tibetan and Chinese texts.
TibA. shā ri'i bu rigs kyi bu 'am rigs kyi bu mo gang la la shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zab mo spyod pa spyad par 'dod pa des 'di ltar rnam par blta bar bya ste / phung po lnga po de dag kyang rang bzhin gyis stong par rnam par yang dag par rjes su blta'o //
“Śāriputra! Whichever gentle son or gentle daughter desires to practise the practice the profound perfection of wisdom should observe thus, and he will behold that even those five aggregates are intrinsically empty. ”
TibB. shā ri'i bu rigs kyi bu 'am / rigs kyi bu mo gang la la shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zab mo spyad pa spyod par 'dod pa des / phung po lnga po de dag ngo bo nyid kyis stong par yang dag par rjes su mthong ba de ltar blta bar bya ste /
“Śāriputra! Whichever gentle son or gentle daughter desires to practise the practice the profound perfection of wisdom, he [sic] remarks that those those five aggregates are inherently empty, and should observe thus:”
T 252. 於斯告舍利弗：「諸菩薩摩訶薩應如是學。
Then he addressed Śāriputra, “The bodhisatvas mahāsatvas should train in this way."
Comments
With respect to kulaputra, R1 texts now answer the question as if Śāriputra had asked about both sons and daughters (kuladuhitṛ) of the community (Ch. shàn nánzǐ 善男子, shàn nǚrén 善女人). The only text that did phrase the question that way was the Sanskrit. Recall that R2 doesn't use kula-putra/duhitr in this way. Also Śāriputra doesn't ask a question.
Variations in the names continue. T 253 in particular has both of the two different ways of writing Śāriputra in succession: Shèlìfú 舍利弗 and Shèlìzi 舍利子.
Sanskrit text
Conze chose his text without properly noting all the variants:
yaḥ kaścic chāriputra kulaputro va kuladuhitā vā asyāṃ gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ cartukāmas tena evaṃ vyavalokitavyam:There are, however some major variations that are important to helping to make sense of the Tibetan versions. From my personal collection of (uncorrected) manuscript transcriptions (Nb, Ne, Nh) and published sources (Ce and Jb) we have:
- Nb yaḥ kaścit kulaputrā vā kuladuhitā vā asyā gambhirāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryā catrukāma tenaiva vyavalokayitavyaṃ || pañca skandhān svabhāva śunya vyavalokatitavyaṃ ||
- Ne yaḥ khalu kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpalamitāyāñ catturkā me na tainaivaṃ vyavalokayitavyaṃ ||
- Nh yaḥ kharukuraputrā vā kuladuhitā vā gamhirāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryya catukāma na kathaṃ vyavarokayitavyaṃ |
- Ce śāriputra kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā asyāṃ gambhirāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ varttakāmas tenaiva śikṣitavyaṃ || yaduta pañcaskandhāḥ svabhavaśūnyāḥ || katham svabhāvaśūnyāḥ ||
- Jb yaḥ kaścic chāriputra kulaputra vā kuladuhitā vā gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryā cartukāmas tenaivaṃ vyavalokayitavyam | pañcaskandhāḥ | tāṃś ca svabhasūnyān samanupaśyati sma |
The first notable variant is that Ce (from Feer's 1866 polyglot edition) has śikṣatavyam "he should train" instead of vyavalokayitavyam "he should observe". Note that Śāriputra's question is also phrased in terms of how the kulaputra/kuladuhitṛ should train, so the redactor of Ce has systematically changed the verb. Words based on √śikṣ are common in Prajñāpāramitā. In T 257 the character xué 學 suggests that the translator might have had a text from the same lineage as Ce.
The other thing is that Nb, Ce, and Jb both add a phrase concerning the five skandhas. In fact, Jb has just tacked on the final part of the first paragraph of the standard text without alteration, leaving the final verb in the past tense so that it clashes with the rest of the sentence, particularly the future passive participle: "it should be observed by him... he perceived...".
Part of the point of emphasising the second distinction is that the Chinese and Tibetan texts all have this additional clause, but in each case it appears to be better integrated the Sanskrit, where the tense of the verb frequently clashes with the rest of the phrase.
Cartukāmaḥ
The word "cartukāma" appears to occur only in the Heart Sutra. I think this is because the cartu- in the word cartukāma appears to derive from the infinite caritum "to practice". In Pāḷi, for example we see the expected caritu-kāma (J II.103). It means "one whose desire is to practice". So a cut down version of the phrase would be: yaḥ kascit kulaputraḥ cartukāmas "That son of the community whose desire is to practice". The sanskrit manuscripts are little help and Conze doesn't even bother to note most variations. In the sources above:
- Nb yaḥ kaścit kulaputrā vā kuladuhitā vā asyā(ṃ) gambhirāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryā catrukāma
- Ne caḥ khalu kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpalamitāyāñ catturkāme
- Nh yaḥ kharukuraputrā vā kuladuhitā vā gamhirāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryya catukāma
- Ce śāriputra kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā asyāṃ gambhirāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ varttakāmas
- Jb yaḥ kaścic chāriputra kulaputra vā kuladuhitā vā gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryā cartukāmas
Chinese Texts
In T 253 and T 254 we once again, I think, see the influence of the Xīnjīng (T 251; as per Paragraph E) but here it makes less sense.
若善男子善女人行甚深般若波羅蜜多行時，應觀五蘊性空。(T 253)
Ruò shànnánzǐ shànnǚrén xíng shènshēn bōrěbōluómìduō xíng shí, yīng guān wǔyùn xìngkōng
In response to the question, at that time, Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva-mahāsattva addressed Elder Śāriputra, saying, “Śāriputra, if when sons and daughters of the community practise the profound practice of Prajñāpāramitā, they should contemplate the Five Skandhas as empty of self-nature".
The problem here is that shí 時 seems to be copied from the Xīnjīng where it fits the context, i.e. "when Guānzìzài was practising the paragnosis." It also fits the context in Paragraph E. But Paragraph I is a conditional clause, introduced by ruò 若 "if...." and I can't make sense of the shí 時 which means "time" and usually in the clause-final position (or postpositively) means "when". There is no Chinese term corresponding to cartukāma in T 253 or T 254
T 254 adds the phrase lí zhū kǔ è 離諸苦厄 as per Paragraph E (See Enter Avalokiteśvara), which I previously explained this as influence from the Xīnjīng (T 251). It doesn't make sense to add this here. We can only presume that the translator, Prajñācakra, felt that the lack of this passage in the Sanskrit should be rectified.
In T 255, CBETA has an unnecessary comma in the last phrase.
Tibetan
CBETA: 彼應如是觀察，五蘊體性皆空。
Corrected: 彼應如是觀察五蘊體性皆空。
...they should observe [that] the five skandhas are lacking in self-existence.In T 257, the phrase rǔ jīn dìtīng, wèi rǔ xuān shuō 汝今諦聽，為汝宣說。is not found in any other version of the text. The phrase is two pericopes, of four characters each, that seldom occur together although they both occur quite frequently on their own, rǔ jīn dì tīng 汝今諦聽 considerably more often than wèi rǔ xuān shuō 為汝宣說.
Tibetan
The two Tibetan recensions are different at this point. Both have only one verb operating on the five skandhas (phung po lnga):
A: phung po lnga po de dag kyang rang bzhin gyis stong par rnam par yang dag par rjes su blta'o //
B. phung po lnga po de dag ngo bo nyid kyis stong par yang dag par rjes su mthong ba de ltar blta bar bya ste /
In TibA the kulpaputra/kuladuhitṛ observes (yang dag par rjes su blta) that the five skandhas lack svabhāva, but in TibB they "perceive" (yang dag par rjes su mthong ba = Skt samanupaśyati) this, and then they should observe (blta bar bya ste; future passive participle = Skt drastavya) what comes next, which is the beginning of the core passage, i.e. rūpam śūnyatā etc.
This is a non-trivial difference that doesn't appear to result from variations based on one translation. TibA and TibB at this point appear to be the work of two different translators. As with the Chinese texts, the change in verb suggests editorial meddling.
TibA is consistent with Jb and TibB is consistent with Nb. And keep in mind that Ben Nourse has provisionally identified manuscripts at Dunhuang which are similar to both TibA and TibB.
This is a non-trivial difference that doesn't appear to result from variations based on one translation. TibA and TibB at this point appear to be the work of two different translators. As with the Chinese texts, the change in verb suggests editorial meddling.
TibA is consistent with Jb and TibB is consistent with Nb. And keep in mind that Ben Nourse has provisionally identified manuscripts at Dunhuang which are similar to both TibA and TibB.
Conclusions
There are a few anomalies in this paragraph that are difficult to explain. While there are copying errors, there also seems to be active editing that is different in each case, from the introduction of phrases from the standard Heart Sutra text, to changing verbs, as well as adding some extraneous material.
Whereas previous paragraphs pointed to an internally consistent, grammatical and idiomatic Sanskrit source and problematic translations, in this case it is the Sanskrit that appears to be the odd one out, with some of the witnesses leaving out mention of the five skandhas at this point, but those manuscripts that do mention them do so with a verb in the wrong tense. This means that any attempt to explain in which language the standard Heart Sutra was extended is complicated
This brings us to the end of the extra introductory material in the extended version of the Heart Sutra. I have two posts planned for the extra concluding material. And a final summary. 5/9
~~oOo~~
