I wrote a critical post about Red Pine’s commentary on The Heart Sutra yesterday. Afterwards, I decided to explore the points he made again this time doing my best to represent the two diametrically opposed views and finally come up with a integration of the two. The positions below are framed in terms of the Hegelian dialectic of 1) thesis 2) antithesis & 3) synthesis.
Thesis: The prajna paramita goes beyond earlier understandings of Buddhist teachings by pointing out that even the three characteristics of experiences are a conceptual overlay, and don’t in and of themselves lead to enlightenment. Seeing beyond the three characteristics, and abandoning conceptual models of reality, we are able to rest with naked freedom in the truth of this very moment. Furthermore, positing that dharmas are real in some ultimate way, is missing the point.
Antithesis: The three characteristics are a valid way to lead directly into deep insight into the nature of reality and directly to enlightenment. They become more and more subtle as enlightenment unfolds, but are a completely valid way of tuning into the empty nature of things. No-self and emptiness are two sides of the same coin.
Synthesis: The teachings on the Abhidharma are limited in that dharmas were considered to be self-existent. This added an extra layer of conceptuality that could then be clung to as absolutely true. The teachings on emptiness, as is evidenced in the Heart Sutra, were an attempt to counter-balance this prevailing trend. Buddha Nature could then be seen as a reaction to the teachings on emptiness and there tendency to err toward nihilism. This dialectic over time is an evolutionary process in which the tradition is always returning to a balance between opposities, sometimes using extreme teachings to bring it to one side or the other. In the end all views are expedients which can either be understood as contradictory ideologies (one right and one wrong) or as a challenge to the views that obscure the awakened mind. This evolutionary perspective holds the conversation in a “deep time” perspective and is able to integrate both the cultural changes and critiques as well as the differences in actual realization.
Another way of looking at it is to see Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana not as correlating to actual schools, but as a deepening understanding of the spiritual path. The Hinayana represents the important teachings on ethics, discipline, and meditation as the path to purification. The Mahayana is pointing directly to ever-present empty nature of things. The Vajrayana goes beyond that to show that all life is sacred. As Jack Kornfield said in response to a question about these three understandings, “all of these ways of understanding the can be seen in all of the different Buddhist traditions.” He pointed out that various teachers would emphasize these things differently, with his first teacher Ajahn Chah being a perfect example of a Theravada teacher emphasizing a Vajrayana view point.
