I picked up a translation and commentary on The Heart Sutra by Red Pine (aka Bill Porter). Overall it seems like a very solid translation, but the commentary (so far) is a little lame. From the opening section where he is describing with prajna means:
The second level of prajna is metaphysical wisdom, which views what appears to be permanent as impermanent, what appears to be pure as impure, and what appears to have a self as having no self. This is the higher wisdom of those who cultivate meditation and philosophy and is characteristic of such early Buddhist sects as the Sarvastivadins. Despite providing its possessors with insight into a higher reality, such wisdom remains rooted in dialectics and does not result in enlightenment. At best it leads to an end of passion and no further rebirth. [my italics]
Red Pine goes on to describe the 3rd level of prajna which views things as neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pure nor impure, and neither self nor no self. Ok, that’s fine for me and for all you Mahayana geeks out there there is unquestionably some sort of dialectic happening in the evolution of Buddhism with the Mahayana view breaking apart some of the calcified views of the previous schools. Cool, that’s fine, but by saying that insight into the three characteristics doesn’t lead to enlightenment is just pure dogmatic bullshit and is exactly the kind of mentality that the Heart Sutra was probably trying to remedy.
This kind of sectarianism, in which people just don’t seem to have a good sense of what the other tradition is actually pointing to kind of lame. Especially when you are a translator of Buddhist texts as popular as Bill “Red Pine” Porter is. My suggestion: Do a little more research and don’t assume the original schools that arose out of the Buddha’s teachings weren’t giving authentic teachings that lead to enlightenment.
