Abstract
This article illustrates the importance of research methods in Buddhist Studies using the recent article on the Heart Sutra by Ng and Anando (2019) as a case study. The authors make a novel conjecture about the Heart Sutra to explain a difference between the Xinjing (T 251) and the Damingzhoujing (T 250) but in doing so they neglect the relevant research methods and critical thinking. Their selection of literary resources is somewhat erratic and their evaluation of them appears to contain bias. The authors did not consult relevant Sanskrit texts (including the Sanskrit Heart Sutra). The logic applied to their source materials appears to be faulty at times and this causes them to arrive at an unconvincing conclusion. By going over the same ground, using more appropriate methods and materials, a far better explanation of the problem emerges.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
