The Emptiness at the Heart of the Heart Sutra

Here's something inspired by James Ford's recent Facebook reference to his earlier blog post "How to Live Forever: a Meditation on the Heart Sutra" from December 4, 2014.

Thanks James. Good words.  Loving the Heart Sutra is inconceivably deep.

The word “skandha” is often translated as aggregate or heap, but I think the more accurate translation is “shoulder,” where the arm branches off, or “crotch,” as in the crotch of the tree where branches part.  The skandha is that part of the stem or trunk where the branches begin, or a large branch or bough that stems therefrom.  The five skandhas are the five shoulders or crotches of the five main branches of the tree of a person. The terms heaps or aggregates creates the image of separate entities piled into heaps, as if counting all the pieces and bits that make up a person and putting them down into one of the five categories.  However, this image is too artificial and contrived for the organic interconnectedness of what the  psychological paradigm of the skandas is pointing toward, which is the holistic living limbs of the psyche of the person. The five are not heaps of bits, they are the five living branches of the tree of life. The appearance of many bits and pieces are actually the living manifold twigs and leaves on these five branches, not disconnected items piled up like lifeless gravel.

I’m confused about what is meant by “The traditional list is form or matter, sensations or feeling, mental formations or impulses, and consciousness, discernment.”  Is that four or five?  It looks like four to me:  (1) form or matter [1^st rupa], (2) sensations or feeling [2^nd vedana], (3) mental formations or impulses [4^th samskara], and (4) consciousness, discernment [5^th vijnana]. It seems the 3rd skandha of perception or samjna is missing from the list.

By using the common Latin root "capere"--to seize, take, grasp, lay hold of, etc.-- in its combining forms such as -cipere and -cep, to show their mutual interrelationships, I like to list the five skandhas as (1) inception/to incept, (2) reception/to receive, (3) perception/to perceive, (4) conception/to conceive, and (5) deception/to decieve.  This formulation of the five skandhas as the five forms of "ception" and pointing out that consciousness is inherently deceptive is worth an essay in itself.  Suffice to say, the "vi" in "vijnana" refers to the division, bifurcation, or polarizing of knowing, "jnana." It is this inherent split that is both the benefit and the bane of consciousness.  This split or division of our knowing makes self-consciousness possible, but it is also the basis for all the false dualities and oppositions arising out of the conceived  "self" that are the root of our suffering and vexations.  This "vi," or duality within the 5th skanda's consciousness "vijnana," is the deception at the heart of the myth of eating form the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This is why self-consciousness is inherently deceptive and why we feel banished from the primordial Garden upon eating from the tree of knowledge.  Until we encounter the flaming sword that "cuts us into one" held by the Bodhisattva Manjusri, i.e., the Archangel Michael standing at the Gates of Eden in the Christian context, we can not reenter the Garden.     

"Manjusri's most dynamic attribute is his sword, the vajra sword of discriminating wisdom or insight. The sword cuts through ignorance and the entanglements of conceptual views. It cuts away ego and self-created obstacles. Sometimes the sword is in flames, which can represent light or transformation. It can cut things in two, but it can also cut into one, by cutting the self-other dichotomy. It is said the sword can both give and take life."

I mostly like Red Pine's translation, but I feel compelled to pick two nits. First, the use of the word "memory" for the 4th skandha is very problematic, not so much because of the technical application of the terminology, if the word memory is used in its widest possible connotation, but because of the common usage of the English word memory, which is very much more limited and narrow than the 4th skandha's "samskara," which literally means “putting together,” “making complete,” “correctly together” etc.  Memory is commonly conceived of as information that is encoded, stored, and retrieved, thus nominalizing it as data rather than seeing it as the active living function of mind’s organic patterning in fields that make self-consciousness possible.  Memory is commonly used with the file cabinet or computer analogy of encoding, storage, and retrieval, and to the extent this limited view is what the word is conjuring up, then it is wrong to use “memory” for samskara.   

The 4th skandha is the most psychologically challenging of the 5 skandhas to understand. Carl Jung coined the term “complex” in his attempt to describe this very function of the psyche, while in other contexts he simply called it the function of "thinking."  In the context of Jungian archetypal psychology, the 4th skandha includes all the complex mental formations that at one end of the spectrum are the individual complexes upon which we base our idea of impulses and our self-image of personal volition, and at the other end are all the mental formations we call the archetypes of the collective unconscious that act upon us a the deepest levels and upon which our worldviews are established.  If we remember (pun intended) that “memory” is the mental activity and function, not just the data, that includes entirely all the mental formations and complexes, both individual and collective, that make up our self-identity and worldview then the word memory is not an invalid translation.

 

Second of less concern, but still concerning, is Red Pine’s use of the designation “mantra of great magic,” also because the term magic conjures up the paranormal or illusory.  As Ford suggests when he points out the problems with seeing a mantra as a tool of magical efficacy, most people will read “magic” and hear “mantra of great illusion” or “mantra of great superstition” or ‘manta of great hocus-pocus.”  This reading is funny but does a disservice to the Heart Sutra.  If seen as the “great magic” that is a child’s smile, or at the sea shore with the waves revealing marvelous shells, or the supernatural magic of drawing water and carrying firewood, then no harm , no foul.

 

I greatly appreciate Ford's discussion of emptiness and the warning against being too reductive.  Becoming worm food is most definitely not what emptiness is about, and he has hit the bull’s eye with the phrase “a vastly more wonderful truth.”  

 

I lament that there has been so much focus on the first example of “form is emptiness, emptiness is form” while the other four skandas are overlooked and neglected.  Yes, there are four more parts of that formula that are rarely examined and only contained in the phrase “also like this” or “the same holds for…”  To be whole, and to avoid one-sidedness, we should always include in the discussion of emptiness in relation to the Heart Sutra the remaining four variables in the formula: “sensation is emptiness, emptiness is sensation; perception is emptiness, emptiness is perception; “complex-formation is emptiness, emptiness is complex-formation; and consciousness is emptiness, emptiness is consciousness.”  For more on this, see my blog on the Heart Sutra without the shortcuts.

While the statement, “there is no part of us that is outside the phenomenal world,” is not incorrect, it is problematic as it may be easily misunderstood.   The problem, as I see it, is that most people begin from the stand point that there is a “phenomenal world” that is outside us, and conceive of the “inside of us” as outside the outside of us.  So to point out that there is no “part” of us that is separate from the phenomenal world is correct if we mean that everything that is identifiable as a “part” of anything is exactly a thing of the phenomenal world, even all the parts that we think of as "inside us."  But this does not address the deception of a "phenomenal world," as it is the emptiness of those parts themselves that is the second fold of the two-fold emptiness of self (atman) and things (dharmas), and I fear that, while many people will acknowledge that the “parts” of us are not outside the phenomenal world, they will still conceive of those parts as existing inside a “phenomenal world,” rather than becoming free of the whole conceptual apparatus of “outside and inside” and of “phenomenal world.” 

The "phenomenal world" is not outside or separate from mind.  The phenomenal world is mind. Mind is the phenomenal world.  That is, while "it" is not a “part" and "it" is not "outside,” there is "that one who is shining brilliantly," who is neither outside nor inside the phenomenal world, and who is listening right now to the Heart Sutra.  That one is the emptiness of the Heart Sutra.  

Heart Sutra without the shortcuts.

The Great Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra is the classic short sutra of Mahayana Buddhism. It is concise and condensed to minimalist perfection.  Who would dare to mess with it? 
I guess that means me. 
While the Heart Sutra sets the standard, the one thing I have always been unhappy with are the very shortcuts that give the sutra its conciseness.  It takes shortcuts with reference to the 5 skandhas, the 18 dhatus (realms of senses), and the 12 nidanas (links of causation).
For the 5 skandhas, we always (ad nauseum?)  hear the formula "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" stated and restated.  But when do we hear "sensation is emptiness; emptiness is sensation" or "consciousness is emptiness; emptiness is consciousness"? We don't because the Heart Sutra just says "the same with sensation, perception, mental reactions, and consciousness."  That shortcut of "the same with" is just what I object to.
Then when we come to the 18 dhatus and 12 nidanas we get "and so on to."
Well, I've "fixed" the problem. LOL! 
There many English translations of the Heart Sutra here is the one my sangha, Rocks and Clouds Zendo, uses with the shortcuts removed and the lists restored to their full contents.


The Great Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra

Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep Prajna Paramita,
clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming all suffering and distress.

Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form;
form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form;

sensation is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than sensation;
sensation is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly sensation;
,perception is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than perception;
perception is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly perception;
mental reaction is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than mental reaction;
mental reaction is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly mental reaction;
consciousness is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than consciousness;
consciousness is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly consciousness.

Shariputra, all things are essentially empty-- not born, not destroyed; not stained, not pure; without loss, without gain.

Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, no perception, no mental reaction, no consciousness;

no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind,
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of thought;
no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, no touching, no thinking;,
no ignorance and also no ending of ignorance,
no mental reaction and also no ending of mental reaction,

no consciousness and also no ending of consciousness,
no name and form and also no ending of name and form,
no six sensory abodes and also no ending of six sensory abodes,
no contact and also no ending of contact,
no sensations and also no ending of sensations,
no craving and also no ending of craving,
no grasping and also no ending of grasping,
no becoming and also no ending of becoming,
no birth and also no ending of birth,
no old age and death and also no ending of old age and death;
no suffering, no cause of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path to cessation of suffering;
no wisdom and no attainment.

Since there is nothing to attain, the bodhisattva lives by Prajna Paramita,
with no hindrance in the mind; no hindrance and therefore no fear;
far beyond delusive thinking, right here is Nirvana.
All Buddhas of past, present, and future live by Prajna Paramita,
attaining Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.
Therefore know that Prajna Paramita
is the great sacred mantra, the great vivid mantra,
the unsurpassed mantra, the supreme mantra,
which completely removes all suffering.

This is truth not mere formality.
Therefore set forth the Prajna Paramita mantra,
set forth this mantra and proclaim:
Gate gate paragate parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!

How to Read a Sutra

[This is a section from the introduction to my work in progress of a new translation of The Sutra of Queen Srimala's Lion's Roar.]

 

How to Read a Sutra

 

          A Sutra should be read with reverence and faith, not preconceived beliefs.  Reverence means to read with an open mind.  Faith means to read with the trust that the Sutra has a purpose and reading with an open mind will make that purpose real in our lives.  There are two kinds of preconceived beliefs that will hinder our receiving the Sutra: the preconceived beliefs of true believers and the preconceived beliefs of doubters. Academic scholars come to the sutra with the preconceived belief that reverence and faith are to be put aside in order to be able to read the Sutra objectively.  However, this academic view is itself a subjective preconceived belief that also prevents reading the Sutra objectively.  The academic scholar misses the forest for the trees.

On the other hand, it is just as wrong to read the Sutra with the uncritical views of a fundamentalist true believer. Faith does not mean to be uncritical of what is heard, but to listen critically knowing that the meaning is not contained in the words but in the import that the words are pointing at.  Faith in Buddhist Sutras means the trust that the Sutra is speaking of our own mind, not something foreign to us or outside of our own mind.  A fundamentalist reading is not a faithful reading because it posits a literal meaning outside our mind and calls this the literal objective truth. Reading like that misses the trees for the forest. That is not objectivity any more than the academic.

The reverential open mind means to read the sutra in a manner to receive it and hear it on its own terms and the faithful mind means to read it critically with an ear to hear and to become aware of the nature of mind that the speaker is actually pointing toward.  Thus to read a Sutra requires reading form perspective the Middle Way between the academic and the fundamentalist. 

            A Sutra is always spoken to an audience that always has preconceived ideas and views that characterize and distinguish them.  That is, a Sutra is always responsive, and if there were no preconceive ideas, there would be no need to speak the Sutra.  The Sutra is addressed with the purpose of articulating the corrective medicine for the audience’s specific imbalance or one-sidedness of antithetical conceptions (vikalpa).  The Buddha is the Great Doctor.

            For example, the first “Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma,” that is, the initial articulation of the Dharma after the Buddha’s enlightenment, was given to the Five Companions, who were his immediately preceding practice partners before he left them to meditate alone.  The practice they shared was the practice of austerities, which the Buddha had turned to after succeeding with two previous teachers but finding their ways and teachings lacking.  Upon finding the practice of austerities lacking as a lopsided approach, the Buddha realized the meaning of the Middle Way and sat resolutely in meditation to directly investigate with this new method. 

            Upon his enlightenment, the Buddha sought out the Five Companions and addressed their preconceived idea that human suffering of the imbalance or off-centeredness (duhkha) of life could be remedied and relieved by the practice of the one-sided embrace of extreme suffering through austerities.  The teaching of the Four Noble Truths was the medicine that the Buddha taught the Five Companions for their disease of practicing austerities. It is in that context that the teaching of the Four Noble Truths culminates in the articulation of the Eightfold Path as the alternative path to their prior path of attachment and grasping at austerities.

            Similarly, Bill Porter, known as the translator Red Pine, points out in talks about his translation of the Heart Sutra[1] that the Heart Sutra is spoken by Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva to the Bodhisattva Shariputra who is the representative stand-in for the Early Schools’ abhidharma practitioners, specifically in Shariputra’s case, the Sarvastavadin school of abhidharmists.  In the Heart Sutra, Avalokiteshvara presents the emptiness (sunyata) teachings as the medicine to practitioners who have the preconceived notions of the abhidharma obstructing their views by applying the view of emptiness to the abhidharma’s analytical categories, in the Sarvastavadin order, of the Five Skandhas, the Twelve Ayatanas, the Eighteen Dhatus, the Twelve Linked Chain of Causation, the Four Noble Truths, and the attainment of innate-knowledge (jnana). 

            To view the Heart Sutra as an exegesis or exposition asserting the doctrine of emptiness is the kind of mistake made by academic scholars who are blind to the purpose of the Sutra as medicine for a preconceived idea and perverts the Sutra into the assertion of a doctrine to be made into a subsequent preconceived idea. This is turning the medicine into a disease, like becoming addicted to morphine after using it as a pain medication.

               Any aspect of universality in the Buddha’s Dharma is not discovered by turning the medicine into a “doctrine” as the academic scholars do, but by seeing the application presented in the sutra to other similar disorders. Thus, while the Heart Sutra applies the medicine of emptiness to the disorder of taking the abhidharma as doctrine, the Heart Sutra’s medicine of emptiness may be applied to other similar disorders of mistaking Dharma as doctrine. Likewise, the medicine of the Four Noble Truths as applied to the  disorder of attachment to austerities, may be applied to other similar disorders of one-sided attachment to mistaken methods of treating the suffering arising from the imbalance and off-centeredness of living, such as treating suffering by addiction to pleasures, rather than by clinging to austerities. 

               The medicine that is applied by The Sutra of the Lion’s Roar of Queen Srimiala is the One Vehicle, not the Tathagatagarbha.  The One Vehicle is applied to the views of the Tathagatagarbha, as well as to the Four Noble Truths, Emptiness, etc., to treat the underlying bias of separate vehicles that were leading to sectarian views of these most important topics of Buddha Dharma.

---

[1] Heard personally by the translator in a talk given at Zen Center of Los Angeles on July 22, 2012, and also heard in a recorded talk sponsored by the Bodhi Mind Center given at Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO, on February 2, 2013, http://bodhimindcenter.org/?s=bill+porter .

A Question on Translating the Heart Sutra

This is from my post at E-sangha on a thread about the Heart Sutra. "Bee j" was asking about a line in Red Pine's translation.

bee j,May 23 2008, 09:04 AM

they see through delusions and finally nirvana

the few versions i've read online (for example, yours also Gregory) always mention 'attain nirvana' but here Red Pine has expressedly chosen this wording . he states that he chose to do this to illustrate that bodhisattvas see through not only delusions concerning the existence of samsara, but also of the existence of nirvana. further, they see through delusions concerning the non-existance of nirvana as both terms cannot be applied to that which is beyond duality.

what do you folk make of his choice? curious to know
[right][snapback]960801[/snapback][/right]

Basically, whether "attain" is there depends on the Sanskrit source that one uses to translate from. There are two Sanskrit versions, one is the shortest and the other is the longer version. The longer version is associated more with Tibetan sources while the shorter version is associated more with the Chinese. The longer has an introduction setting up the scene with Buddha inspiring and empowering both Sariputra to ask Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva his question and Avalokitesvara to answer.

The shorter version of the Heart Sutra has: viparyasa-atikranto nishtha-nirvanah.
The longer version of the Heart Sutra has: viparyasa-atikranto nishtha-nirvanah-praptah.

"prApta" means "attained to, reached, arrived at, met with, found, incurred, got, acquired, gained."

Some interlinear translations could be:
viparyasa -atikranto -nistha -nirvana -prapta
upside down views- transcend -final(ly) -nirvana -attained
delusion -surpassed -lastly -nirvana -found
error -overcame -in the end -nirvana -arrived at

The question is whether prapta should be included or not. Red Pine says,

"Several copies of the longer version of the Heart Sutra add the verb prapta (attain) at the end of the phrase nishtha nirvana (finally nirvana). Conze also included it in his Sanskrit edition of 1948/1957 (cf. Buddhist Wisdom Books), but he deleted it in his second edition in 1967 (cf. Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies(. Other translators and commentators, either aware of this variant or thinking it must be implied, have taken this phrase to mean something equivilent to 'finally attain nirvana.'"

It shows Red Pine is taking a position when he says several copies of the longer version add the verb, because one could just as well say the short version dropped or lost the verb.

Red Pine feels that including the verb attain after the word nirvana can't be correct because earlier the sutra says "no attainment, no non-attainment." Red Pine adds,

To avoid this problem, I have read both viparyasa (delusion) and nishtha-nirvana (finally nirvana) as objects of the verb atikranto (see through), which is allowed by the vagaries of Sanskrit grammer in the absence of prapta.

Notice that Red Pine makes the somewhat circular argument that prapta doesn't belong there and since it is not there the phrase can be read as a verb surrounded by two nouns as objects instead of a noun-verb and adjective-noun-verb. That argument can be turned around just as well to say that the grammar of having a noun-verb-adjective-noun and read to mean direct object-verb-adjective-direct object with both direct objects referring to the same verb is so odd that the prapta as the verb to the second noun should be there and must have been inadvertently dropped in the shorter version.

In other words, considering the grammar, it is more reasonable to take the prapta as lost in the shorter version than added in the longer version because the longer version is more grammatically correct. This is logical,

Also it is more reasonable to consider the verb dropped in the shorter version because of the natural process of condensation of the Heart Sutra into shorter and shorter versions. But this too is a subject of some controversy because people don't agree which came first, the longer or the shorter.

As Donald S. Lopez, Jr. succinctly writes,

The Heart Sutra exists in two basic versions, a shorter version and a longer, with the shorter beginning with Avalokitesvara contemplating the meaning of the profound perfection of wisdom and ending with the mantra and the longer adding a prologue, in which Buddha enters into samadhi, and an epilogue, in which he rises from the samadhi and praises Avalokitesvara.

Traditionally, a sutra has some basic parts that are all there in the longer version but are not all there in the shorter version. In fact, the shorter version doesn't really qualify for the title of Sutra because it is missing necessary parts. The primary parts of a sutra are (1) the opening statement "Thus have I heard" indicating that the text is the Buddha's words (Buddhavacana), (2) a statement of the location where the teaching was delivered, (3) the statement of the audience of monks or Bodhisattvas present and the identification of the monk or Bodhisattva (or layman) who is the primary interlocutor of the Buddha that resulted in the Sutra being delivered, and (4) the central content of the sutra.

In this view, the longer version of the Heart Sutra is itself a condensation from the very much longer Prajnaparamita Sutras. But some people believe the Heart Sutra was first written as a dharini or long mantra for recitation, not as a sutra. From this view Heart Sutra had later additions of the prologue and epilogue to make it look like a sutra. If this later view is correct then in fact it is not a sutra at all because there is no Buddhavacana, in fact the Buddha is not present at all, and so this is not the teaching from the words of the Buddha. In the longer version, it is stated that the location is the Vulture Peak and the Buddha, in the opening, is in samadhi and the whole interaction between Avalokitesvara and Sariputra. is stimulated and instigated and empowered directly by Buddha from within his samadhi. And in the ending the Buddha arises from samadhi and confirms the teaching as correct. Thus the longer, even though it is not very much longer has all the essential traditional components of a Sutra.

So each person needs to determine for him or her self whether they see the longer version as the more appropriate with the shorter version a condensation of it, or they see the shorter version as the more authentic with the longer version adding parts to convert a dharini or mantra into a sutra.

It should be remembered that the Heart Sutra is the only major Prajnaparamita text in which Avalokitesvara appears. There are doctrinal reasons for this because the greater Prajnaparamita Sutras deal with the path and with compassion while the Heart Sutra is totally condensed to the essence of enlightenment. The inclusive presence of Avalokitesvara embodies all the material of the greater Prajnaparamita that is left out, and in fact demonstrates graphically that the wisdom imparted by Avalokitesvara is not separable from the compassion and the Bodhisattva path that Avalokitesvara also embodies.

So Red Pine's strongest argument is not based on the grammar ro the history of the text but upon the view of the teaching presented in the text.

Thus, bodhisattvas do not reach or attain nirvana but overcome all delusions, including those that concern the ultimate goal of nirvana, namely, views taht see nirvana as either permanent or not permanent, pleasurable or not pleasurable, self-existent or not self-existent, pure or not pure. Nirvana is dimply the final delusion. Thus Mahayana sutras never tire of telling us that bodhisattvas do not attain nirvana and even avoid it, that their goal is elsewhaer, namely the liberation of all beings. This is also the view of the Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-five Thousand Lines, which states that while bodhisattvas lead others to nirvana, nirvana itself is a dream or delusion.

Except for the last sentence, I agree with what is stated but I don't agree that it determines the question of whether prapta is rightfully in the text or not. For example the Diamond Cutter Sutra says the Dharma is no-Dharma therefore it is called Dharma; it doesn't do away with the word Dharma. The Prajnaparamita also says that beings are no=beings therefore they are called beings; it doesn't stop using the word "beings". Similarly the Heart Sutra says the equivalent of attainment is no-attainment therefore it is called attainment. The longer sentence or string of ideas presented beginning with the "Therefore Sariputra" begins with "Therefore sariputra, without attainment, ....." and ends with "... final nirvana attained." This is in fact the view taken by the last sentence of Red Pine's quote above even though he doesn't appear to be aware of it. If bodhisattvas lead others to a dream, then there would be no talk of "leading" or of "nirvana" at all. But beings attain nirvana even though beings are no-beings, nirvana is a dream and they do it without attainment.

So without a convincing historical reason to leave out prapta nor a convincing teaching reason, I'm left with the question of the grammar which I also don't find convincing. We should remember that Red Pine is taking two steps in his presentation: first he says prapta should be out, and then as his second step he is saying that both delusion and nirvana are direct objects of the verb atikranto. I can see no grammatical justification for that. Even without the sentencing-ending verb of prapta, the noun-verb pairing of viparyasa -atikranto (delusion-overcome) has no internal suggestion or grammatical clue, at all, that the verb "overcoming" also includes the following adjective-noun pair of nistha -nirvana.

The point is that when prapta is left out of the line, then grammatically there is a missing verb after nistha -nirvana, and the question remains, which verb should be implied: a repetition of the preceding verb, or the historical verb present in the longer text?

Thus if prapta were left out the line would literally read: "delusion overcome final(ly) nirvana."

To read it as Red Pine does means you have to read into it either the repetition of the verb as "delusion overcome final nirvana overcome" or read into it a missing conjunction such as "delusion overcome likewise final nirvana."

My view is that with the evidence of the longer text having prapta written down, then the obvious historical or traditional implication of the missing ending verb is that it is prapta and not atikranto.

Also the presence of the adjective nistha meaning final or finally also separates the word nirvana as a noun from the preceding verb atikranto. Even when the word prapta is left out the phrase reads, "delusion overcome finally nirvana." There is no purpose for the word final or finally if it did not imply the final result of the whole string of points immediately preceding it: beginning with the "Therefore Sariputra": (1) without attainment, (2) bodhisattvas rely on Prajnaparamita (3) dwelling serenely (4) without obstacles in awareness (5) overcoming delusions and (6) finally nirvana [is attained]." As this is the attaining without attainment., the attainment of no-attainment of the Prajnaparamita, there is no teaching or grammatical basis for leaving out the concluding prapta form the shorter version unless it is clear by the translator's usage that the whole sentence ends with the final realization of nirvana, not the overcoming of nirvana as a delusion.

As a last note, I don't agree with Red Pine that "see through" is an appropriate translation of atikranto. I can find no visual image in either the root ati or kranta:

ari - ind. [probably neut. of an obsolete adj. %{atin} , passing , going , beyond ; see %{at} , and cf. Old Germ. {anti} , {unti} , {inti} , {unde} , {indi} , &c. ; Eng. {and} ; Germ. {und} ; Gk. $ , $ , Lat. {ante} ; Lith. {ant} ; &3473[12,2] Arm. {ti} ; Zd. {aiti}]. As a prefix to verbs and their derivatives , expresses beyond , over , and , if not standing by itself , leaves the accent on the verb or its derivative ; %{as} , %{ati-kram} ( %{kram}) , to overstep , Ved. Inf. %{ati-kra4me} , (fit) to be walked on , to be passed RV. i , 105 , 16 , %{ati-kra4maNa} n. see s.v. When prefixed to nouns , not derived from verbs , it expresses beyond , surpassing , %{as} , %{ati-kaza} , past the whip , %{ati-mAnuSa} , superhuman , &c. see s.v. As a separable adverb or preposition (with acc.) , Ved. beyond ; (with gen.)over , at the top of RV. AV.

krAnta - mfn. gone , gone over or across ; spread , extended ; attacking , invading , gone to or against ; overcome (as by astonishment) Ragh. xiv , 17 ; surpassed ; m. a horse L. ; (in astron.) declination W. ; (%{A}) f. N. of a plant (a kind of Solanum) L. ; a species of the Atyasht2i metre ; (%{am}) n. a step (%{viSNoH@krAnta} , `" the step of Vishn2u "' , N. of a ceremony S3Br. xiii ; cf. %{viSNu-krama}) S3Br. Mn. xii , 121 ; (in astron.) a certain aspect when the moon is in conjunction with a planet.

Both roots of the word are movement or spacial images, not visual images. So acceptable translations of arikranto would include: stepping over, going across, overcoming, surpassing, transcending, etc. It should be noted that arikranto, with both of its roots including the meaning element of "gone", becomes a precursor or harbinger of the word gate (from the Sanskrit gata meaning "gone") that is central to the Heart Sutra's tantric mantra.

Nothing in either ati or kranta remotely suggests "seeing" or any other visual function or image. In my view, Red Pine is inserting here his own imagery into the translation for the purpose of making his construction of "seeing through both delusion and final nirvana" seem more plausible.

My conclusion on Red Pine's book is that it includes a lot of valuable material, including his own historical and linguistic commentary, but I have several points of disagreement with his translation, including some I have not raised here.

In my translation of the traditional shorter version I deliberately reinsert the opening "Thus have I heard" to indicate it is a sutra and not a mantra, and I insert the word "attain" (prapta) for clarification and conformation with the larger version.

_/|\_
Gregory