Hey /r/Zen. In front of me I have two commentaries on the Diamond Sutra: one by Thich Naht Hanh and one by Huineng. Thich Naht Hanh is commonly regarded as one of the faces of Zen today meanwhile Huineng is the last Patriarch of what would become the Chan school. Both of them can be read about here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thích_Nhất_Hạnh
Therefore, I decided to start a little project by comparing and contrasting their commentaries on the Diamond Sutra. It will be done on a chapter to chapter basis with each chapter going up about every day or so.
The reasoning for this is to show how Zen evolved after nearly 1500 years and to see the changes in emphasis on certain topics.
As a note, I've read the Thich Naht Hanh commentary twice before, but never the Huineng commentary. The Sutra itself I've read several times.
As another note, please do not let this turn into bash-fest. I'm expecting the Thich Naht Hanh commentary to be very different from Huineng's, but that does not mean that one is more valid than the other or that one is worthy of more praise than the other. Also, no "Thich Naht Hanh isn't even Zen, why is this here?" He's generally regarded as being Zen and that's enough to put him on a platform for discussion here.
Thank you everyone and hope this goes well!
Edit: Another thing I forgot to mention, I will be using the translation in the Thich Naht Hanh commentary for the Sutra itself (translated from Chinese by Thich Naht Hanh, Annabel Laity, and Anh Huong Nguyen), mainly because it's a lot clearer and is presented in its entirety (instead of as fragments as I've noticed in the Huineng commentary). If I come across major differences in the translations I will make a note of it.
Submitted March 02, 2018 at 11:26PM by Type_DXL http://ift.tt/2oHzdLg
No comments:
Post a Comment