Trying to understand Heart Sutra
misecmisc1
I am a HinduIndia Veteran
Hi All,
After theoretically reading the commentaries on Heart Sutra from different locations, i got the below theoretical understanding, so thought of sharing with you all, may be you can explain this sutra in more detail to me.
Heart Sutra says - Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
So taking the first part of it, Form is emptiness means form is empty of an independent entity in itself. So things are empty of their thingness, for example, chair is empty of chairness etc.
Taking the second part, which i think is more complex - emptiness is form means - emptiness of an entity is form - means emptiness of an entity in a thing is form - in a way if we are determining the emptiness of a thing, then this idea in itself needs that thing for this determination to start - so emptiness of an entity in a form needs form to begin with.
Taking it further, what does the emptiness of an entity in a form refer to - it refers to the wisdom that knows this emptiness of entity. But for this wisdom to manifest itself, form is needed. So if it is asked what is this wisdom, then form is needed to tell about this wisdom - so on a relative truth level, this wisdom to know comes in the way of form - but when everything is empty of an entity in itself, then can this wisdom be without entity in itself - the answer to it comes through this logic - because for wisdom to have an entity needs that knowing to have an entity, but since things themselves do not have an entity, so wisdom about those things cannot have an entity. So wisdom is empty of an entity in itself, so there is no wisdom as an entity and so there cannot be an attainment of wisdom.
To summarize, things exist but not as an independent entity, rather things dependently originate.
But then the question arises - what is it, which we face in our life? or what is this Just this or suchness or thusness?
May be whatever i have written above is just some garbage thoughts of mine, but a thought arose in my mind to share with you all above thoughts, so sharing with you all. i am an ignorant person with all defilements of lust, anger, greed, hatred, attachment and ego inside me, with no calm in my meditation - so if my above understanding is incorrect, please help me by correcting my above understanding. Any suggestions, advices, corrections to above theoretical understanding - all are welcome. also if you have some questions on Heart Sutra, please post them, so that we can think about those questions to get a more broad understanding of Heart Sutra. Thanks in advance.
metta to you and all sentient beings.
Comments
It do? I don't hear it . . .
What is the nature of being independent of its experience? Please provide an answer without saying anything . . .
thanks @misecmisc1 for bringing this up - perhaps the most profound doctrine of the Mahayana
I've always struggled with that. Thanks for initiating this topic, OP.
I will try to say something, so sorry about that, though it may come out as some junk only.
Thanks @lobster for asking this question. i do not know, so someone will come with some pointers to analyze it, or if you have some pointers, then please tell.
Your this question reminded me of the commentary on Heart Sutra which i read, that commentary says something like - there is a seeing nature - we see because of seeing nature in our eyes, yet we cannot see our seeing nature, so the substance of our seeing nature is emptiness. If we try to analyze what comes first - form or seeing nature, then if we answer that seeing nature comes first, the question will arise how does it manifest or show itself when there is no form - on the other hand if we answer form comes first, then how does the form appears without the seeing nature.
So here my understanding goes something like this - so the option left is both form and seeing nature arise together. Something like - there are two possibilities in which cause and effect can show up, as i read somewhere where Buddha taught that - the arising of this leads to the arising of that and when this is, that is. So it is the second possibility of when this is, that is - which is happening here that both things arise simultaneously, in a way how duality arises in a relative truth, though it is no duality in ultimate truth.
But still the question arises - what about awareness or this True Nature in which everything occurs - does this awareness or True Nature has an entity in itself?
What is the Deathless as per Therevada teachings? I read somewhere in Ajahn Chah's or Ajahn Sumedho's teachings about Deathlessness, but i cannot remember what they taught about Deathlesness? may be @pegembara can help me by telling me what is Deathlessness as per Therevada teachings?
one question leads to another question, damn...
Sunyata is basically a development of anatta.
The basic principle here is conditionality, meaning that nothing has independent existence. So "emptiness" here means empty of inherent or noumenal existence, a lack of essence. So form and the other aggregates are "empty", and conversely all phenomena are an expression of emptiness.
The two truths doctrine might be worth exploring here, comparing conventional and ultimate truths. We can say that conventionally things exist, but ultimately they don't.
Does that help?
yes, that helps, but the question is that is awareness or our True Nature inside the scope of conditionality or outside it - in other words, does it have an entity or is it such a thing which which is so vast that its birth cannot be seen and everything occurs in it, so we cannot know whether it has an entity or not, since it existed before us? i hope you are getting my question. As the teachings says - that awareness does not get affected by what becomes cognized through it, so what is the nature of that awareness?
Any suggestions/pointers here please. thanks in advance.
Now go read the avatamsaka sutra...
http://zen-ua.org/wp-content/uploads/avatamsaka_sutra_english.pdf
It is the highest mahayana doctrine and expounds how the net of jewels was forged in a timeless place,
**'A boundless host of enlightening beings, the congregation at the site of enlightenment, were all gathered there: by means of the ability to manifest the lights and inconceivable sounds of the Buddhas, they fashioned nets of the finest jewels, from which came forth all the realms of action of the spiritual powers of the Buddhas, and in which were reflected images of the abodes of all beings.
Also, by virtue of the aid of the spiritual power of the Buddha, they embraced the entire cosmos in a single thought.'**
My understanding is that in that 'thought' everything in the cosmos takes the form of emptiness, so form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. The thing about emptiness is it can't be grasped or clung to, but in the net of jewels it penetrates and reflects upon and within itself and implies all other things instantaneously and spontaneously - just don't get attached to the use of the word form as substance or matter, because it is it's own nature. And the net? Well it is self-evident to me that it's all those enlightening beings reflecting on themselves and the net, now where might I find them?
Damn that table looks a little dirty - I'm gonna polish it up a little til it shines
...\lol/...
To help explain, one of my old Zen teachers would bring in several pretty ceramic bowls of various shapes and sizes (his wife was an artist who worked in clay). He would hand them out and then ask, "What is it that makes this a bowl?"
Is it the form of the bowl, the ceramic wall in the shape of an open cup? Or is it the empty space the form creates, the potential for holding something? Can the emptiness exist without the form of the ceramic bowl, and can the form of the bowl itself exist without the emptiness it contains?
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. It's that simple.
He would then pick up one of the pretty bowls and drop it, shattering it. Where does the bowl go to, when there is nothing but broken pieces of pottery in your hands? Where did the emptiness go to?
Find a bowl, sit it in front of you, and meditate on the koan of emptiness and form for a while. See if you get anywhere.
It is a very good meditation to do @cinorger, I've spent hours on it, and never seem to get bored, just distracted...
I'm not sure what you mean by "our True Nature" here.
In Theravada Nibbana is said to be unconditioned, so standing outside conditionality, though I'm not sure if that helps.
@Cinorjer, on a side-note, I'm wondering how his wife felt about her wonderful ceramic work ending up in fragments on the floor...... Hopefully they were either rejects, or his wife willingly contributed her wares for his use....
Reminds me of those Greek plate-smashing sessions.
Kefi, joie de vivre, allegria....
The Greeks have a word for it (as do the French and the Italians. The British, sadly, but perhaps predictably - don't.)
I know it broke my heart when I first had him pull it on me. I hope those were rejects he broke, but it shocked us enough to cause all of us to stop our little monkey minds and that's zen for you. Even the rejects had their own beauty. I do have a statue of a frog she made and gave me as a gift when I left for Korea.
What is the Deathless as per Therevada teachings? I read somewhere in Ajahn Chah's or Ajahn Sumedho's teachings about Deathlessness, but i cannot remember what they taught about Deathlesness? may be @pegembara can help me by telling me what is Deathlessness as per Therevada teachings?
The deathless is also the birthless. Since there is in reality no entity, one can say nothing gets born and nothing dies.
Ayya Khema said something like this," You feel the need to protect something but when the truth comes out, you realise that there was nothing that needed protecting in the first place."
The way of the Buddha is to know yourself; To know yourself is to forget yourself; To forget yourself is to be awakened by all things.
~Dogen, Genjo Koan
Can the emptiness exist without the form of the ceramic bowl, and can the form of the bowl itself exist without the emptiness it contains?
Personally, I feel this statement creates confusion as it equates emptiness to space or nothingness. Emptiness is not nothing or empty space.
What actually hears? What(Who) does the hearing? Is it the eardrum, ear ossicles, cochlea, auditory nerve or brain? What is heard is nothing but vibrations. The "hearer" is an activity, not an entity.
A "hearer" is only discerned following contact between the hearing apparatus and sound vibrations. That is dependent coarising. The ear consciousness is the so called "hearer".
Indeed. Emptiness is lack of inherent existence, or conditionality.
Actually "conditionality" might be a better translation of sunyata, since "emptiness", can sometimes lead to confusion.
@pegembara : Thanks for your reply. Yes, in the 12 chain of dependent origination(DO), consciousness of six types arise based on the condition and is a step in DO. But the question arises - as per Therevada teachings, in sitting meditation, after five senses are transcended and then mind is transcended, then nimitta which is the luminous light of the mind arises and then 4 form levels of jhana and then 4 formless levels of jhana arises, and then cessation of everything leads to Nibbana. So what is that thing which knows jhanas, as by that time all the six types of consciousness should have ceased as per DO, because the six senses should have ceased by that time? Even Nibbana which is the cessation of everything - then who experiences Nibbana or who knows Nibbana?
You could ask who is experiencing right now. The philosophical background is interesting to explore, but I think the answers really lies in investigating one's own experience, looking closely and asking "What is this?"
There is the experience but not one who experience. That is the point of the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.
It is like a mirror which reflects. What it reflects is are mere appearances. There is nothing solid there. You only ever see your reflection. The captured image isn't you.
Here is what Ajahn Brahm has to say.
Damn, that Ajahn Brahm, he good at dis schytt....
Yes, he's my favourite Theravada teacher these days. I love his approach to meditation as well, it's very simple and effective.
@pegembara Saying emptiness is just space would be the superficial and wrong response to the koan of the broken bowl. That's why even this example needs meditation to comprehend what it's trying to point at. Emptiness is not space in this illustration. Emptiness is the potential to contain something. We are emptiness molded by form. We can also say that we are a form molded by our emptiness. How, then, can we say emptiness and form are two separate things?
The Zen lesson is at the moment the bowl is dropped and broken and the pieces are placed in your hand. Where did the bowl go when it was broken? This is the final leap of understanding, when you realize the bowl didn't go anywhere. Were you holding the bowl in your hands, or in your mind? A broken bowl is still a bowl. A scattered mind is still a mind. Where does the emptiness go, when the bowl is shattered? Where does the mind go, when the body is gone? The pointing finger points, and then moves on.
Simple. We don't want that, though. We insist there must be a mysterious, complicated formula to clear mind. There are different ways to approach the Dharma, and unfortunately with Zen the lesson is so simple it's hard.
I remember somebody trying to explain emptiness to me in one of the Tibetan traditions using the example of a table. They said "What happens when you take the legs off a table?" I said "You have a table top and four table legs." I couldn't resist it.
But yes, we label and name what we experience, and that naming gives the thing or person a degree of substantiality which is not warranted. A better answer would have been "A flat piece of wood and four poles", but of course that would have been just another exercise in naming!
If a broken bowl is still a bowl, is a dead person still a person? Is personhood all in the mind of the thinker? Hmm.
For me that is very insightful. In my experience I like the line 'since there is no attainment the bodhisattva relying on prajna paramita has no obstruction to their mind'
For me this means that the realization of wisdom is just as things are and you can just let things come to you. There isn't a different reality that you have to get to. So I think of a hand unclenching. I liked your description. For me emptiness is form means that the reality we have now is already reality. We don't go to a different place when we realize that things are constructed by mind. The way entities are is already formless. I would say there are different states of mind but I am saying that reality is already 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'. There are different states of mind and meditations. But if we have an experience in the desire realm that is as it is. If we have an experience in the form realm that is as it is. If we have an experience in the formless realm then that is as it is.
The realization is found in just looking at how your experience is rather than straining to make yourself believe in an idea.
I think what Heart Sutra is trying to do, is point out the falsity of such "bipolar" thinking and feeling. When we think in "either or" terms we get imprisoned in an illusion and suffer. The reality has more shades than two and only when we realize that and embrace that, can we find some peace.
That's my Zen take on it, anyway
It's an exercise in deconstructing. You do that until a table is no longer a table.
You do the same with the self by deconstucting it into 5 khandas/aggregates.
One meaning of sankhara is construction or fabrication.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/3420/pali-study-the-meaning-of-sankhara
"So taking the first part of it, Form is emptiness means form is empty of an independent entity in itself. So things are empty of their thingness, for example, chair is empty of chairness etc."
this is very good.
empty of an independent self
"all phenomena are empty and co-dependent"
Some approaches that help sharpen up and lead into experiential understanding:
o) The example of a chariot. There is an axle, wheels, a place to stand, the ropes, whatever a chariot has.
Is the axle the chariot? Is the platform a chariot? Are the ropes the chariot?
So no matter which part we examine, we find no chariot .. yet a chariot is apparent.
Applying the same reasoning to our "self" ... is the self in the body? well, there are many cells in the body. Is the self in this particular cell?
Where is the nose? Well, the nose also has parts. There are two holes (nostrils) there is a bridge, there is a point, any conceptual "piece" can be demonstrated to be "not it" because the whole is not contained in any single part... so where is the whole?
An example I really like is emptiness of the computer. Where is the computer? is it the monitor? where is the monitor? is it the edges? is it the stand? is it the light source?
Is the computer the processor? is it the motherboard? is it this particular copper or gold atom? None of them contain a computer because they are parts(!) so if every part is empty of "computer" then where is computer?
Basically, for experience to blossom, one must exhaust all thoughts. Exhausting thoughts and coming to a pause or to a silent knowing is primary. Rest in the pause.
Faith.
Hop around this book "Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment"
https://books.google.com/books?id=_A2QS03MP5EC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=buddhist+faith+and+sudden+enlightenment&source=bl&ots=keWGG28LxF&sig=lGOT3NI0ODCsTtlzO3RSjnGIZeU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hI_VVKL7IMKdNumxhMgH&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
/|/ may equipose balanced relaxation bloom
Yeah, I get all that. I've always thought it's a very crude approach though. A useful line I heard years ago was "There are no things, only processes."
^^^ processes are my thing . . .
Speaking of processes.
No thinker without thoughts.
No thinker even with thoughts.
There has only been the process of thinking.
While browsing internet, i came across the below link and found it interesting, so thought of sharing with you all:
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C - Zen/Ancestors/The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma/The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma/THE ZEN TEACHINGS OF BODHIDHARMA.htm
Hi All,
In the Heart Sutra, it says: When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara was coursing in the deep Prajna Paramita
So what does this mean - was coursing in the deep Prajna Paramita? means what was he doing? what is this practice? Any information please. Thanks in advance.
The Prajnaparamita was and is a collection of Wisdom Sutras making up the core of Mahayana teaching. I'm not sure most of them have even been translated into English.
Do you mean the eight thousand lines Prajna Paramita Sutra and the one hundred thousand lines Prajna Paramita Sutra?
Hi All,
Heart Sutra says - all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they do not appear or disappear.
My understanding for the first part - all dharmas are marked with emptiness - this means everything is empty of the attribute, which we ascribe to it. So I am taking empty as literally here, like a glass full of water is empty of air or paper or cloth etc - in other words, everything does not has that thing, which we say or assume it has. For example, if we take a leaf - then the green colour of the leaf which we say the leaf has, by saying it is a green leaf, that leaf is empty of greenness, means that leaf is not having that greenness in it, which we think it has. If we say the leaf has a beautiful layout, then the leaf is not having that layout as a fixed thing, because when a leaf grows old, it curls up and its layout changes and so it does not look that beautiful. But taking it further, implies that our whole life is having no substance and whatever we do is having no substance, but this can lead us to the extreme view of nothing exists, which is also not correct, because there is somebody alive and something is happening, so thinking nothing exists is also incorrect. Moreover, the emptiness of an independent entity in a thing, but still that thing showing up shows the inter-connectedness of all phenomena and since we understand everything on a relative level or secondary level, there is always an 'us' understanding something, so from the relative level duality exists and so there is good and bad and our actions matter.
For the second part - they do not appear or disappear - this says things do not have a birth or death - they are not born and they do not die. Regarding the - they are not born, or there is no birth - in the commentary, i read this explanation - let us take an example of a plant. When initially there was just a seed, the birth of that plant was not there. When the plant sprouted from the earth, then the plant is already there and the birth of that plant would have been in the past, as the plant is currently visible in the present. So the birth of the plant cannot be found. I am further extending this logic in this way - let us assume that it takes some time for a being to be born - so before that time period started, the being was 0%, so then the being was not there, so obviously the birth of that being did not happen. Then during the duration when the being increased from 1% to 99%, still since the being was not completely there, so still the birth of the being did not happen. Then at the moment when the being became 100%, at that moment the being is completely already there, so its birth should have happened in the past. So in this way, the birth of an entity cannot be found. Similarly, the death of an entity cannot be found. So when nothing is born and nothing dies, so the way things can arise and cease is by being dependent on other things, which leads to the inter-connectedness of all things.
Any corrections/suggestions in above analysis please. Also any other perspective/approach through which we need to understand the above lines, please suggest. Thanks for your help in advance.
No, you're absolutely right. Everything you have said is correct.
you got it.
well done.
I've always struggled with this. I can see that birth and death are processes rather than events, but on the other hand a dead person is clearly not the same as a live person, the same applies to any living organism.
So we can do all sorts of clever philosophical convolutions, but then there is what actually happens, what we can actually observe.
What do you think?
@SpinyNorman: I agree that it is difficult to think about it, when there is a death, which we can observe in front of us.
As far as my theoretical understanding says - I think the basic problem with us humans is that we remember things - if somehow we were only knowing the moment in which we are living, then agreed that we may be enlightened beings then at the first place, and this samsara which we create around us would not be there at the first place. But since our consciousness is so built that since the moment is so small that we cannot even notice it fully properly and these very small moments in turn seem to form a continuum of continuity, so that it seems to us that our life, when we live is going in a continuous fashion in a linear way, so that we had a past when we are born, a present where we are adult and a future where we will be old, so in a way we have a before and a after. But when we will be in a moment, then since that moment would be arising discretely and ceasing discretely, and after that a new moment would be arising discretely and ceasing discretely - then since there is no continuity, so there would be no before and no after. I guess this is what Dogen meant, when he taught in Genjokoan that - Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.
Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.
But then we come back to our ground reality. Whatever i write here, does not mean that i understand it - i am still the same ignorant person with all the defilements of lust, anger, greed, hatred, attachment and ego in me - and so if when i go home today evening from office back to my house, i do want that i should find my wife and my 3 year old daughter at my house and that too alive and if i found them dead, then i am pretty sure that the above teachings are not going to console me in any way, even though on a theoretical level, these teachings seem to make some sense.
As far as this living person and dead person is concerned, i read the below poem written by a Zen master:
Life-and-Death
Water isn't formed by being ladled into a bucket
Simply the water of the whole Universe has been ladled into a bucket
The water does not disappear because it has been scattered over the ground
It is only that the water of the whole Universe has been emptied into the whole Universe
Life is not born because a person is born
The life of the whole Universe has been ladled into the hardened "idea" called "I"
Life does not disappear because a person dies
Simply, the life of the whole Universe has been poured out of this hardened "idea" of "I" back into the universe.
Still I do not know how to deal with emotions in my practical life and I think still I am a jerk when it comes down to practically living a human life. i do not have any friends except some office colleagues where I work with whom the interaction is only work related matter so only in office. as far as my life is concerned, in my life there are only 4 persons about whom i care and they are my parents, my wife and my daughter - except this, there is no fifth person for whom I care or who cares for me. as far as my family life is concerned, I frequently get angry and I have all the defilements in me, which i stated above.
Coming back to the topic of this thread, still a question arises - as to what is really happening in now, if there is no entity anywhere, so at here and now, what is this? and I do not know the answer of this question. Also, I do not know what it feels like when body and mind are dropped, as Dogen taught about dropping away of body and mind? Any answers or pointers as to how to approach this thing. Please suggest. Thanks in advance.
My this post as usual may also be a junk post, so sorry if your time got wasted in reading my this post.
I've been working with this stuff for 35 years, anicca, anatta, sunyata, non-duality, ground of being and so on. You name it, I've been confused by it!
Seriously though, the best advice I can give is not to worry too much on the theory, just focus on immediate experience and investigate.
Can you feel things as a process? Actually feel it? What is like to have self-view, how do you experience the sense of "you"? When is that feeling strongest? ( I'd suggest it's strongest when we get caught up in craving and aversion, and weakest when we the mind is calm in meditation, but you need to check your experience to confirm this. )
What I am basically saying is that you can't think your way through this stuff, you have to experience it first hand. That's what meditation and mindfulness are for.
Keep asking yourself "What am I experiencing, what is it really like?" Always focus on present experience, not on what you think.
So endeth the latest sermon from SpinyDharma.
@SpinyNorman: for what you said above ^^^ , sadhu sadhu sadhu.
Unlike dualistic thinking and the western logic based on maths, Buddhist logic used in the heart sutra is based on language. It is therefore true in its contradictions AND true in part and in its entirety . . . that is only the start . . .
The enlightened does not arise, it does not die. It is not born, it has no cushion pattern, nothing to say for itself, yet no sound is empty of its being.
Now . . . those of us residing and growing in this very dual being/no being are in form, yet unformed. In form, in the world but awake and unformed.
That is the Heart Sutra for Valentine's Day. [He Loves me, She Loves me not]
Bearing in mind Nargajuna we should probably do the full set:
She loves me
She loves me not
She both loves me and doesn't love me
She neither loves me or doesn't love me