Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Confused by Heart Sutra
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
......
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness....
I am totally confused by the Heart Sutra, mainly the part I have copied above.
If emptiness is form and form is emptiness,
why does it go on to say in emptiness there is no form?
I think I understand emptiness (no inherent existence) but I just don't understand it in this context (or maybe at all perhaps).
I tried looking online for explanations but they confused me even more.
The members of this forum are able to covey things clearly & concisely so I am asking for your help in this.
many thanks
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
......
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness....
I am totally confused by the Heart Sutra, mainly the part I have copied above.
If emptiness is form and form is emptiness,
why does it go on to say in emptiness there is no form?
I think I understand emptiness (no inherent existence) but I just don't understand it in this context (or maybe at all perhaps).
I tried looking online for explanations but they confused me even more.
The members of this forum are able to covey things clearly & concisely so I am asking for your help in this.
many thanks
0
Comments
Or maybe I'm just all wet...
The nature of the five aggregates is emptiness. All phenomona neither exist nor don't exist. The nature of existence is non-existence, therefore all of the five aggregates are empty by their very nature.
Its saying that the form TRULY IS Empty....
It is flux....
But that the emptiness isn't a certain thing to in turn grasp onto....
Let go and stop grasping
Ego is impermanent and unreal so you don't have to defend anything therefore no anything up to no attainment?
Just let the moment fall apart. If you drift from the breath its ok. You are still here and you will come home.
One level "beyond" the form-emptiness dichotomy is where the sutra "points" us. The conclusion is that nothing exists in and of itself, but is composed of its constituent parts, the most basic of which are form and emptiness. "Quarks" or "Higgs Bosons" and space are what we are left with.
IMHO it's meant to teach us the process of reductionism, in which we finally must conclude that what we apprehend as inherently existing, namely the phenomenal "self", does not, in fact exist. In the Mahayana, it could be said that "Primordial Wisdom" is what "exists" fundamentally, but even the word "exists" must be taken as a cipher.
I often refer people to the NOVA series The Elegant Universe in order to recommend a visual representation of this- it's in the first few minutes of the first episode, if I remember right.
But written language fails at this point. "Beyond, beyond, totally beyond..."
It's a tough one.
see the truth lies in here
we do not see but we perceive
it is not the eye sees, but our mind-eye sees (perceive) and we think we see
this is the perception
we are always deluded to the perception or to the creation of the mind
and take it for granted as the reality
It settles on you, unbidden, without the use of intellect ... gradually like mist in the morning. Be patient and continue doing your practice. Don't stop questioning ... this is good. But don't be impatient when answers don't appear in front of you. Part of learning Buddhism is learning to be comfortable with NOT knowing.
I wouldn't say emptiness isn't. Emptinesses nature is everything. Everything's nature is emptiness. That truth, all that there really is, emptiness and non-emptiness alike, simply is. You're correct if you mean there is no emptiness which is separate from anything, though.
but in the end I understand that at this time I don't completely get it, but am confident that one day I will.
I have become comfortable with not knowing.
I picked up and read the book recommended by shenpen nangwa and it helped a great deal towards my understanding.
Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness....
This is the part that confused me so much, but the book states that this just reaffirms the fact that the five aggregates are empty, though to me it does not read that way, hence my confusion.Thanks again with love
Is it a book or do you have a link?
Many thanks
It is a commentary called: Ceaseless echoes of the great silence. I have a spanish translation in my hands, sorry
Another way of looking at the Heart Sutra is to understand this.....
...Form = Samsara = Object
...Emptiness = Nirvana = Subject
Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form,
Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.
Samsara is not other than Nirvana, Nirvana is not other than Samsara,
Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is Samsara.
Object is not other than Subject, Subject is not than Object,
Object is Subject, Subject is Object.
In Emptiness no eyes ears, nose, tongue,....
In Nirvana no eyes ears, nose, tongue,....
In Subject no eyes ears, nose, tongue,....
Subject?...
Anatta investigation leads to realization of Emptiness/Form. Through the process of "not I, not I" we step back along the axis of "I" until we find the subjective pole of awareness. Once the subjective pole of awareness is clarified of all objects, we realize Emptiness/Form, not Emptiness, but Emptiness/Form.
The Heart Sutra doesn't teach Emptiness, it teaches Emptiness/Form.
That part speaks about the condition of every phenomena. Also remember that it is: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form, there is no other form than emptiness, neither other emptiness than form."
That's negating the extremes of nihilism and giving real entity to form and/or emptiness, like saying: form and emptiness are two things that are together but they can be distinguished.
At least this is my appreciation and understanding, and that is how I feel that masters like Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche explain it.
Samsara and Nirvana are not ontological categories, i.e., they are not two different realities, but are epistemic categories: ways of perceiving the only and one reality.
Form/Emptiness
Nirvana/Samsara
Subjective pole/Objective pole
...these are devices in practice.
But you say that Form : Samsara and Emptiness : Nirvana.
I don't agree with that interpretation, that is an ontological interpretation. The more subjective (or epistemological) way would be saying that Samsara and Nirvana are not to be found neither in form, nor emptiness; but in the way of perceiving interdependence. I don't see any reason to say that Samsara = Form... and the other aggregates? Or you would say that you could apply all that to each one of the aggregates thus saying: Perception : Samsara ; Emptiness : Nirvana. But because All of the 5 aggregates = Empty, then it follows that all the aggregates = Nirvana?
Neither I understand your distinction of Nirvana = Subjective Pole and Samsara = Objective pole
Also, Samsara and Nirvana are the same from the ultimate point of view I think.
i see where you are coming from. yes I agree in that context. i see that you do not understand the distinction re subject and object, and there lies a difference in approach.
I'll just say this, by way of poetry not ontology.
seer---> seeing---> seen
seer---> seeing <---seen
.............seeing.............
everything resolves into sheer experiencing, then sheer experiencing resolves into itself leaving no trace. Nothing more can be said, only non-dukkha.
Oh, now I think I get it. So because everything revolves in sheer experience, and the subject is needed for experience (but subject not as in AGENT OF EXPERIENCE per se, but more as in mental continuum), then emptiness, as devoid of imputations, would be subjective pole.
And yes, I come from a Madhyamaka background
Oh, also I think that Pranjaparamita is sooooo totally Rigpa. But that's another discussion hahaha
Emptiness and Form are two sides of one coin, but they should not be confused, heads are still heads and tails are still tails.
As long as they are confused they are not one. Once they are clearly distinguished, they are one.
I think that it's indescribable. Nirvana neither is samsara or is not nirvana. They are neither separate nor the same.
i'm familiar with Chandrakirti but not deeply so. Now....."Rigpa" please explain. In conversation with Dzochgen practitioners they have used that term to refer to what sounds like an ontological absolute mind of some kind. Is this what you are talking about?
I don't know how to word my thoughts on what "it" is. I think you're getting at what i'm thinking, though.
Here is a bit of fun Dharma poetry.....
-You are not an experiencer experiencing experiences.
-You are a stream of experiencing with no experiencer.
-This stream of experiencing flows from the positive objective pole of awareness, to the negative subjective pole of awareness.
- Awareness is a metabolic arc from the disequilibrium of Samsara to the equilibrium of Nirvana.
....in other words, awareness brings things to peace within you. It is amazing.
I didn't really post all that much, but regardless glad you feel the discussion was helpful!