1. On 照見
“With regard to 照見 (p.15), these two characters must surely comprise a binomial verb. Treating them as two verbs doesn’t seem to produce a translation that makes sense. And the Sanskrit translator chose a single verb vyava√lok to represent them. ”
Yes, it is often unclear whether it is best to interpret two characters as a binomial unit or not and to use one word or two words in English even in a very literal glossing. The important point here is that 照見 is more than just seeing or knowing. It is seeing something by shining a light on it, or reflecting deeply on it.
2. On 觀自在
“In note 2 (p. 16) you make what seems like an obvious statement that 觀自在 is a translation of Avalokiteśvara. What you don’t say is that the Sanskrit words mean nothing like “self being”. Ava√lok means “examine” and īśvara means “lord” so the name means something like “Lord of the observed/examined”. I know the focus of your book is Chinese, but this mismatch is quite significant don’t you think?”
Will add to the links page references to articles discussing translations of Avalokiteśvara.
3. 以無所得故
“On p. 17 you reflect the popular view of the text that it denies the existence of things. This is where Matthew Orsborn’s article is important. He showed that 以無所得故 (which you translate on p 20 and define on p.21-22) does not correspond to Skt aprāprāptitvād. In Kumārajīva’s translation it translates anupalambhayogena “by the practice of nonapprehension” (of dharmas). I have since shown that a synonym 以不可得故 is also used in the same text (in different chapters). If you look at the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism you will see that I persuaded Chuck to add an entry which reflected Matthew’s insight. http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?q=%E4%BB%A5%E7%84%A1%E6%89%80%E5%BE%97%E6%95%85 and that 所得 and 可得 both reflect Sanskrit upa√labh rather than pra√āp. And both are binomials.
But Matt also points out that if this is the case then the word appears to belong with the previous sentence. I’m in the review stage of an article that shows that this is consistent with a series of statements in the Dhāraṇī Saṃbhāraḥ chapter of the Large Sutra (T233 covering 8.253b.21 to 8.256a.6) which describe ordinary Buddhist practices and then claim them as Mahāyāna because 以不可得故 or in Skt tac cānupalambhayogena.
The upshot of this is that the usual metaphysics of non-existence ceases to make sense. The text is talking about doing practices that result in the cessation of experience (nirodha) and the disappearance of dharmas in that state of emptiness. It’s an epistemological statement. I have used Matthew’s argument as a starting point and extended it in my own work, showing connections to the Pāḷi Cūḷasuññata Sutta (MN 121).
A great deal hinges on how we parse 以無所得故 and where we think it comes in the text. I believe Matthew Orsborn’s research on the Heart Sutra is an important breakthrough and I would like it to be more well known and appreciated. ”
This is interesting. We will add references to the relevant articles on the links page.