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.
Paragraphs 3 & 4 in Cinorjer's version: "No ears, no nose....no mind, ...no path..." etc.
That's very different from saying that there are no phenomena. Sense impressions can still arise, but the imputation from them can be seen for what it is.
After reading a number of different commentaries on the Heart Sutra, I have decided to abandon it. All too heady. I prefer the Middle Way, of comprehending both existence (arising) and non-existence (ceasing).
However, two interesting Pali Suttas I found were the following, especially the second:
Words are not always clear. The Kevatta Sutta may provide some insight, where the Buddh rephrased the question of a seeker:
"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:
Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?
Fine. So you agree that the Buddha could live with a view of reality that encompassed selflessness, while at the same time, living a functional life in the mundane world. Possibly the Heart Sutra refers to the fact that there are no phenomena that are independently arisen. Does anyone have an interpretation of the "no phenomena" passage? Cinorjer, we're doing what you asked, we're discussing what the sutra says. In any case, it boils down, in part, to the usual question; was this sutra spoken by the Buddha? Were any of them? If so, which ones? According to whom, and why? :grumble:
The question isn't whether or not this was spoken by the Buddha, but if it accurately refects the Dharma as you understand it. All any of us have been doing here is holding this sutra up to the mirror of our minds and seeing if it fits. The question of what is or is not Buddha's actual words is impossible to answer without a time machine. So, is this an accurate reflection of my understanding of the Dharma?
When I hold the sutra up to my own understanding, this is what I find. The beginning says clearly that comprehending that the five skandhas are empty is to eliminate suffering. That's what the sutra is going to talk about: what am I? The five skandhas are the mental and physical characteristics that combine to create an individual. Those are Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental constructions, and Consciousness. There is not confusion with that. So far so good.
Then it begins with form, and says form is empty, and because the writer wants to make sure we get this point, it pounds us over the head with the point. Form is empty, emptiness is form, no difference. "Form, empty, empty, form. Get it?" Then it goes on to say that the same is true of the other skandhas. Look at a photon, and it is both wave and particle. I begin to see this is going to be deep.
Empty of what? Even an empty bowl contains air. Remove the air, and it is still a space. An emptiness is a potential to hold something. Well, the sutra goes on to list just about every label we can put on our experience of reality. Good or bad, here or there, big or small, now and then, it's all just relative. Also, the sutra does not say that form does not exist. In the spirit of the sutra, let me repeat that. It does NOT say that the skandhas do not exist, and that is the most common mistake in reading it.
What the Heart Sutra does is say the skandhas are like an empty vessel or bowl, and all these constructs of our mind are filling that emptiness. A bowl has the quality of emptiness. It is an emptiness waiting to be filled. Filled with what? Whatever can fit into the bowl.
You are the form, the bowl, and you are the emptiness, the function. You are both. Remove everything that is packed into the emptiness, the sight and sound and beliefs and judgement and thoughts that you cling to, and you still remain. Empty. Beyond suffering.
Here the analogy of the bowl breaks down, because an enlightened person isn't blind or deaf or unconscious. That is such an impossible statement, it can't be what the sutra is trying to say.
Up to this point, what do you think of this understanding?
This sutta ends with the follow verse (missing from the link):
Hard is it to realize the essential, The truth is not easily preceived, Desire is mastered by him who knows', To him who sees (aright) all things are naught.
So the ending of: "To him who sees (aright) all things are naught", is similar to the Heart Sutra, which states: "No ears, no nose....no mind, ...no path..." etc.
However, I do not take this literally or meta-physically, that there is nothing. Nor do I take it perceptually, in terms of non-conceptuality.
I take the phase psychologically. "All things are nothing" means all things have no significance.
The mind of non-attachment is so pervasive, that all things have no significance & no essential substance.
Therefore, there is "no ears, no nose....no mind, ...no path..." etc.
So many posts; so little light; so much clinging to one's own interpretation.
Aren't you clinging to views yourself by saying that though? :scratch: .
No, he's making an observation. Sometimes questions/topics come up on the forum that require scholarly response, and none is forthcoming. I feel like here everyone's been stumbling around in the dark. Thank you for the input, Cinorjer. I feel like I need to take a course on the sutra, though, and ask some of the questions that have come up here. So brief and seemingly simple, yet so complex.
the heart sutra is not a philosophical declaration. it is from a being who existentially realized such truths. thus to really access what is said, we must also practice and realize experientially whether or not these truths presented are true or false.
there's no one stumbling, just fools pretending they are.
On the internet, one will find myriad different commentaries on the Heart Sutra.
My take is the Heart Sutra is attempting to describe the mind of a fully enlightened being, that does not dwell on dhammas.
In the language of Anapanasati, this is the final stage of practise, where only impermanence, lack of substance, emptiness, etc, are predominantly experienced (rather than the five aggregates themselves predominating).
However, the problem I see with this is most folks are not fully enlightened. In fact, most folks are not even partially enlightened.
When the mind enters the stream of enlightenment, in the beginning its experience is dominated by the breath/body. Seeing the breath/body is merely "breath/body" (rather than "my body" or "me") is beginning to see emptiness.
Then if the mind enters jhana, its experience is dominated by feelings. In jhana, the mind sits for hours experiencing only the feeling of bliss. Seeing feelings are merely "feelings" (rather than "my feelings" or "me") is further seeing emptiness.
But most folks have not even experienced the five aggregates intimately & deeply, yet they take an interest in the Heart Sutra, which states there are "no aggregates".
This is killing the aggregates before they are even comprehended. This is like killing the Buddha before meeting him on the road.
the heart sutra is not a philosophical declaration. it is from a being who existentially realized such truths. thus to really access what is said, we must also practice and realize experientially whether or not these truths presented are true or false.
My take is the Heart Sutra is attempting to describe the mind of a fully enlightened being, that does not dwell on dhammas.
However, the problem I see with this is most folks are not fully enlightened. In fact, most folks are not even partially enlightened.
So does this mean that for the average dharma student, the Heart Sutra is an "imponderable"?
I am referring to the part which states: "no eye, no ear, no body, no suffering", etc
To me, there are many watered down explanations of this, but, for me, I don't buy it.
I am just say, imo, the first part of the Heart Sutra is to be comprehended (about form is void, void is form, etc) before moving onto the second part.
You basically need to ask yourself: "Have I experienced there is no eye, no ear, etc"?
As for the first part, to see the body as "body", empty of self, feelings as "feelings", empty of self, etc, this we can start on.
in art we have an ideal look we want to achieve with all our paintings. the heart sutra could be that ideal. one could deconstruct the heart sutra and really think about what is being said. in a way it is like a road map for those who are lost.
but it's not intellectual, nor is it knowledge. it is something to be realized. something to embody and awake to. the buddha is one who is aware, nothing more. he isn't a wise person, nor is he an ignorant person. he just is one who has awoken to reality and it's universal truths.
so the heart sutra is words said from the enlightened being. thus they are universal truths and thus anyone can realize them. one should not make a belief system nor philosophical framework with what the buddha taught. one should practice and use the methods handed down from the buddha or really any other buddha. for there are many buddhas.
when meeting a buddha one should know less knowledge and leave empty.
My teacher teaches emptiness as an experience rather than a concept. The experience is the spaciousness in phenomina. Being able to walk across the room is due to emptiness. Our meditation instruction is to breath in the in breath and do no instruction. Do whatever you want. Which is to show that attaining enlightenment isn't something ordinary that you achieve through striving. The outbreath we open outward into space.
To regard emptiness is space or spaciousness is very practical, as an "entry into emptiness". Even the Buddha spoke this once, saying the experience of spaciousness is "an entry" into emptiness.
But the Buddha did not regard emptiness to be space.
Emtpiness is the absence of 'self' in all phenomena, be it a brick, tree or human being.
no not literal space. Spaciousness. A block of concrete is spacious. It does not refer to 3 dimensional space. Thoughts are also spacious. It is this spaciousness that allows us to recognize when we are extremely angry. We are never totally caught in anything due to the spaciousness of awareness. Very related to smirti.
One shouldn't make a philosophical framework from what the Buddha taught? :scratch: Isn't Buddhism said to be a philosophy? I think if we're given the Heart Sutra to recite each Sunday at sangha, we should understand what it says, otherwise, what's the point? But I think some good points have been made here for it being an "imponderable".
Here the analogy of the bowl breaks down, because an enlightened person isn't blind or deaf or unconscious. That is such an impossible statement, it can't be what the sutra is trying to say.
Up to this point, what do you think of this understanding?
Up to this point, I'd say so far so good, except that it breaks down at the "no ear, no nose, ...no path" stage, which is what the foregoing debate has been about, if I understand correctly, coming into this a bit late. Unless that section is about emptiness, or non-attachment. I'm going to add this to my list of questions to ask teachers, when those occasions arise.
Hey, Jeffrey, why don't you ask Lama Shenpen about this? haha--answering that should keep her busy for awhile!
i come from a zen buddhist background. buddhism is not a philosophy. buddhism is a path and method to free oneself from suffering.
it is not a belief system. not a philosophy. not knowledge.
again it is practical steps to realize ones true nature, thus freeing oneself from suffering.
again i'll say it again. not a philosophy. not a belief system. not more information for the head.
you do not need a philosophy to tell you that fire is hot. put your hand in the fire and you will move it. buddhism is existential. buddhism is practical. buddhism is universal.
i come from a zen buddhist background. buddhism is not a philosophy. buddhism is a path and method to free oneself from suffering.
it is not a belief system. not a philosophy. not knowledge.
again it is practical steps to realize ones true nature, thus freeing oneself from suffering.
again i'll say it again. not a philosophy. not a belief system. not more information for the head.
you do not need a philosophy to tell you that fire is hot. put your hand in the fire and you will move it. buddhism is existential. buddhism is practical.buddhism is universal.
Great, Tai. But, if you have a philosophy that tells you that fire is hot, then you won't need to burn your hand to learn that the fire is hot. That's what culture, traditional knowledge, and "philosophical frameworks" are for; to teach us what those who went before have learned, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel.
That said, Buddhist is definitely a practice. But with all those texts, it's also study. We learn about the Middle Way so that we don't have to sit on the bank of a river and come up with the realization ourselves, for example. It's also a method for addressing the "head", or illusions we hold. It's many things. But yes, ultimately, nirvana is experiential.
I am in the middle of learning the Heart Sutra by heart so I can recite it in the morning without having to try to read it in the half light and also because I think I might be able to approach it in a different way if the words enter more deeply.
Lama Shenpen replies:
Yes I find that happens when I recite something by heart… the words resonate differently somehow and the meaning is able to go deeper.
It is great that you are learning the Heart sutra by heart. I think it is no coincidence that it is called ‘by heart’. When we learn something by heart it becomes part of us in a quite tangible way. You can recite it anywhere, any time, it is always with you.
Student:
I wondered whether noble Avalokiteshvara saw the five skandas* to be empty of self-nature at that time partly because of the Buddha's creating that mandala* and that created certain conditions to help Avalokiteshvara?
Lama Shenpen:
Possibly. I often ponder this point. It must be that Avalokiteshvara always sees the five skandhas as emptiness since he is a high level Bodhisattva – so is the text simply reminding us of this or is it making a further point?
As you say, did the Buddha make use of a special moment in linking into the depths of his realisation or even empower him further in that realisation……..could be couldn’t it?
Student:
I also wondered if it said 'through the power of the Buddha' at the moment it did because Shariputra was aware of the inner state of Avalokiteshvara and the fact that he had seen what he had seen?
Lama Shenpen:
Possibly – maybe Shariputra intuited something…….or maybe it was the power of the Buddha’s Samadhi* arousing Shariputra to ask that particular question at that particular moment.
Student:
Then, at the end, with the mantra, as I recite that, I have a sense that it might be stronger in some way if it was linked to how and where I breathed, if that makes sense?
Lama Shenpen:
Possibly, although I don’t think you have to do anything about it deliberately; I think as your mind and body relax into the rhythm and power of the mantra the breathing will adjust by itself.
Glossary of terms:
*Skandas - Collection of the five elements of the psychophysical continuum of a being, that is, body, feelings, perceptions, mental tendencies and moments of consciousness.
*Mandala - Any structure with a centre and periphery. Anything that appears in our awareness takes the form of a mandala consisting of a central focus and what surrounds it. Mandalas have a structure and dynamic in the sense that they are held together by connections between centre and periphery, with emotionality at the boundaries and where one mandala touches on another. In most contexts one can substitute for mandala ‘world’, as used in the metaphorical sense. For example, we talk of the world of our experience, our social world, our psychological world, our whole world collapsing.
*Samadhi - A stable state of mind that one enters, much as one would enter a magically created world, through the practice of meditation. Samadhi (usually of very short duration) is a factor present in all ordinary mind-states and is what gives us the power to stabilise our experience.
"In our group we're re-studying the 'Heart Sutra'. I've been slowly working through your retreat talks on that theme.
Some difficulties arise when I look at 'emptiness' in the context of that sutra. You (in 'Buddha Within') say that Trangu Rinpoche says that both the emptiness of illusion and the emptiness of the ultimate are both implied in 'emptiness'.
Yet it is very difficult for me to get a sense that the emptiness of the ultimate is being implied in the 'Heart Sutra' apart from the concluding mantra.
How do I work towards a glimpse that both are being talked about?"
Lama Shenpen:
Did my recent talks on Dharmata ( true nature, Absolute Reality) help with this?
How do you understand form is emptiness, emptiness is form, emptiness is not other than form, form is no other than empitness?
If the sutra were simply saying form is an illusion and so is unreliable and not ultimate reality - why would it then go on to say emptiness is form?
Student:
"Also is it the case that when one sees that phenomenal reality.."
Lama Shenpen:
Conditioned, created phenomena are empty of permanence, satisfactoriness and self.
Student:
"is empty of permanence, satisfaction, substantiality�"
Lama Shenpen:
Substantial? Many conditioned dharmas are insubstantial - you cannot say conditioned dharmas are empty of insubstantiality.
Student:
"that one also realises the ultimate being empty of impermanence, etc."
Lama Shenpen:
No - it does not make sense to say ultimate being is empty of impermanence, suffering and self.
It is empty of anything false that we superimpose on it - in other words it cannot be grasped by our concepts - it can only be known directly experientially without concepts.
Student:
"Can you say anything about this? (I guess I wonder if this is the case because of Khenpo Rinpoche's 'warning' about not over negating clear light in 'Progressive Stages')"
Lama Shenpen:
He is saying Ultimate reality is Prabhasvarachitta (clearlight mind/heart) and is empty of all that is false and not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
It turns out the Theravadan understanding of emptiness and the Mahayana are different. The Theravadan understanding is as DD says: emptiness = not-self. The Mahayana understanding is as I suggested earlier: phenomena have no inherent identity, they are dependently arisen. Further, Theravada, according to Wikipedia, is more experiential, believing emptiness can be realized via meditation. Mahayana holds that emptiness needs to be understood intellectually, before it can be realized experientially.(I know this is especially true in the Tibetan tradition, possibly not so much in Zen, which emphasizes meditation.) So, I conclude that the "no ear, no nose, ... no path" etc. passage refers to this lack of inherent identity or existence in phenomena. There's no inconsistency or puzzle in the Heart Sutra if it is understood from a Mahayana framework. It's when you mix Theravada understandings of emptiness with a Mahayana sutra that you run into difficulties.
That's my best shot.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyata
It turns out the Theravadan understanding of emptiness and the Mahayana are different. The Theravadan understanding is as DD says: emptiness = not-self. The Mahayana understanding is as I suggested earlier: phenomena have no inherent identity, they are dependently arisen. Further, Theravada, according to Wikipedia, is more experiential, believing emptiness can be realized via meditation. Mahayana holds that emptiness needs to be understood intellectually, before it can be realized experientially. So, I conclude that the "no ear, no nose, ... no path" etc. passage refers to this lack of inherent identity or existence in phenomena. There's no inconsistency or puzzle in the Heart Sutra if it is understood from a Mahayana framework. It's when you mix Theravada understandings of emptiness with a Mahayana sutra that you run into difficulties.
That's my best shot.
My understanding of the mahayana view of this split is that they say realization of the emptiness of self is nirvana and realization of the emptiness of all phenomena is full enlightenment or buddhahood and thus omniscience. Not 100% sure on that though.
Hi, person. This is interesting. I wish you'd been around for the thread on Enlightenment and omniscience. Is nirvana not the same as "full enlightenment"? I did a quick check on the internet; it's often equated with Liberation (Enlightenment).
There is a distinction between peaceful nirvana which is freedom from the kleshas (anger, greed, delusion). There are still veils in the mahayana that obstruct the buddha activity. This is the level of a bodhisattva. They no longer suffer because they see the kleshas are essenceless and thus the kleshas do not cause the bodhisattva to suffer. Then there is the bodhisattva path where they work to increase the stability of the wisdom mind and cultivate helping other beings to also escape from samsara.
The final buddhahood is liberated also from peaceful nirvana. They are able to go into for example hell in order to liberate beings.
This is all in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by gampopa which explains the Lam Rim path including the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. Alongside the Lam Rim path there is also upadesha direct pointing out instructions. This is the reason for a guru in the mahayana is so they may give the pointing out instructions. These instructions are not formulated into a text because they are a different way to learn. The guru yoga is to form a stronger connection to the guru and through that the teachings and the wisdom of the disciple. It is not to show that the guru is wise and have the disciple praise them.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@compassionate_warrior This is one of the disagreements at the heart of the pali and sanskrit "split". Jeffrey explaines it well. Theres a chapter starting on page 329 of this online book that goes into it if you're interested, though I'm not really sure he reaches any conclusions on the matter.
The author has some pretty strong opinions. He's tired of the sectarian squabbling. Here's an interesting point: "The Buddhas have mastered all the psychic powers." But I digress. Thanks 4 the link.
Third time's the charm. Using someone else's computer while I'm on vacation.
The biggest problem here that I see is that, if by the time you get this far, you conceptualize the sutra as saying the skandhas and by extension the self don't exist and this non-existance is enlightenment, then the sutra seems to be now saying that enlightenment is extinction of the skandhas. But it doesn't say that. It says "in emptiness there is no..." Emptiness, as I said before, is not "nothing". It is a potential to be filled with something. If the skandhas and thus yourself are an ever changing collection of phenomena that moves through this emptiness, then what are you? Are you your senses? Are you your thoughts? Are you your goals or achievements? No. That is what the sutra is saying. All the phenomena mentioned exists, but passes through without clinging, without filling the emptiness. And you are the emptiness, the potential, not what you've filled the emptiness with.
Then when you look at the sky, only blue (dark clouds as the case might be). The sight is still there, only you don't cling to it. Let the emptiness stay empty. When you do something, that is your nature for as long as you do it, no more or less "Whatever you are doing, that is your Buddha Nature" the Masters say.
In emptiness there is no goal. What is there to achieve? You are where you are, and where else is there to be?
So this sutra states in very plain language what emptiness means to Mahayana at least. Because we cling to self, something becomes scared when we realize that we might have to radically change how we think about ourselves. It's easier to think of enlightenment as something only a rare few are expected to achieve. All any of us has to do is comprehend our natures.
But isn't it true that if one cuts the "fabricating" step of DO, then the whole chain collapses and suffering ceases? With the result being no form, no feeling, no perceptions, no impulses, no consciousness? The act of fabricating is what gives rise to these things, does it not?
our we certain our understanding of DO accords to reality or experience?
for example, the buddha gained enlightenment when he was 35 years old
did the buddha spend the rest of his life with no form, no feeling, no perceptions, no intentions & no consciousness?
Yes! Because he correctly saw that all 5 Skandha or aggregates are nothing other than empty. After he gained enlightenment, he no longer had any form, feeling, perceptions, impulses, consciousness because these things are were now seen as "ownerless". And if there is no owner of them, then they can not be had by anyone. The semantics of the word "had" is important here. Had is the past tense of Have and Have means "to possess". Since they were now seen as ownerless, No, he no longer had any of those things. However, that does not mean that those things just ceased to exist because, of course, he still walked around, gave talks, ate food, etc. Which is why the Sutra ALSO says, which is just as significant as the other parts,
"form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness."
the buddha did a lot of things. form is no different from emptiness and emptiness is no different from form.
thus the buddha was like everyone else. he just was completely aware of reality and it's emptiness, which is also a fullness.
nirvana is freedom to do whatever one wants. if that means to hide in emptiness until the world knocks on your door. so be it. if it means to go around and speaking the dharma. so be it. if it means working at the local wallmart as a clerk for the rest of your life. so be it.
buddhas are everywhere doing lots of funny stuff. some weird and some quite mundane.
the buddha expresses his inner wisdom of emptiness. it does not talk about how he functions.
Right on. Thanks taiyaki for a breath of fresh air :clap:
The Heart Sutra is one of the most widely quoted, chanted, and revered writings of the Mahayana schools of Buddhism. It is also one of the shortest, making it a prime candidate for posting and discussion on a board. I wonder if anyone would like to discuss what this Sutra says? I'll copy it after a short intro.
The Heart Sutra is thought to be written somewhere between 200 and 600 AD, although dating of sutras is always problematic. Many scholars think it was written by a Chinese monk soon after Buddhism was established in that country.
For reference when you read it, Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara is the Bodhisattva of Compassion.
"Prajna Paramita" literally Perfection of Wisdom, is the name given to the collection of sutras used at the time, so the entire line is a poetic way of saying "studying the dharma"
The Bodhisattva is addressing Sariputra, who was an early, much mentioned disciple of Buddha and who died before Buddha did, so this is a literary device often used, passing along a teaching in the form of a dialog between Gods and Buddha or in this case, Bodhisattva and Arhat.
And the translation of the mantra at the end would probably best be given as "Gone, gone beyond, together awoken, amen!" (svaha is just something sanskrit tacks onto the end of a recitation, apparently)
The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita, perceives that all five skandhas are empty and is saved from all suffering and distress.
"Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness."
"Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they do not appear or disappear, are not tainted or pure, do not increase or decrease. Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realm of eyes and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness."
"No ignorance and also no extinction of it, and so forth until no old age and death and also no extinction of them. No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to attain."
"The Bodhisattva depends on Prajna Paramita and the mind is no hindrance; without any hindrance no fears exist. Far apart from every perverted view one dwells in Nirvana. In the three worlds all Buddhas depend on Prajna Paramita and attain Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi."
"Therefore know that Prajna Paramita is the great transcendent mantra, is the great bright mantra, is the utmost mantra, is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering and is true, not false."
"So proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra, proclaim the mantra which says: gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha."
I think like taiyaki says it is existential, experiential. Once realised through practice, the meaning itself is just like ABCs.
It turns out the Theravadan understanding of emptiness and the Mahayana are different. The Theravadan understanding is as DD says: emptiness = not-self. The Mahayana understanding is as I suggested earlier: phenomena have no inherent identity, they are dependently arisen. Further, Theravada, according to Wikipedia, is more experiential, believing emptiness can be realized via meditation. Mahayana holds that emptiness needs to be understood intellectually, before it can be realized experientially.(I know this is especially true in the Tibetan tradition, possibly not so much in Zen, which emphasizes meditation.) So, I conclude that the "no ear, no nose, ... no path" etc. passage refers to this lack of inherent identity or existence in phenomena. There's no inconsistency or puzzle in the Heart Sutra if it is understood from a Mahayana framework. It's when you mix Theravada understandings of emptiness with a Mahayana sutra that you run into difficulties.
That's my best shot.
How about these Pali suttas concerning emptiness?
SN 22.95 Phena Sutta: Foam
Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage?
In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
Kaccayanagotta Sutta
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Kalakarama Sutta
Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing; he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
Loka Sutta: The World
Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
The Fire Sermon
"He finds estrangement in the ear... in sounds...
"He finds estrangement in the nose... in odors...
"He finds estrangement in the tongue... in flavors...
"He finds estrangement in the body... in tangibles...
Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey
"When there is no ear...
"When there is no nose...
"When there is no tongue...
"When there is no body...
Dharmapada
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see.
no aggregates means that they are like an illusion. Nothing to grasp. The aggregates are a confused perception. Dharma Dhatu perceives the reason for the vajrayana. When emptiness is realized there is something left. The reality as it is. So there are no aggregates, but there is an ungraspable reality.
no wisdom and no attainment. Because nothing is attained,
Nothing and Attainment is the same thing, because you no attachment to the poisons within your mind and you have no attachment to yourself, you attain a pure mind.
is anyone here can help me translate this english phase to Pali "Life and Death determined by their appoinmtent, Riches and Honour depend upon Heaven" Thank you
Third time's the charm. Using someone else's computer while I'm on vacation.
The biggest problem here that I see is that, if by the time you get this far, you conceptualize the sutra as saying the skandhas and by extension the self don't exist and this non-existance is enlightenment, then the sutra seems to be now saying that enlightenment is extinction of the skandhas. But it doesn't say that. It says "in emptiness there is no..." Emptiness, as I said before, is not "nothing". It is a potential to be filled with something. If the skandhas and thus yourself are an ever changing collection of phenomena that moves through this emptiness, then what are you? Are you your senses? Are you your thoughts? Are you your goals or achievements? No. That is what the sutra is saying. All the phenomena mentioned exists, but passes through without clinging, without filling the emptiness. And you are the emptiness, the potential, not what you've filled the emptiness with.
Then when you look at the sky, only blue (dark clouds as the case might be). The sight is still there, only you don't cling to it. Let the emptiness stay empty. When you do something, that is your nature for as long as you do it, no more or less "Whatever you are doing, that is your Buddha Nature" the Masters say.
In emptiness there is no goal. What is there to achieve? You are where you are, and where else is there to be?
So this sutra states in very plain language what emptiness means to Mahayana at least. Because we cling to self, something becomes scared when we realize that we might have to radically change how we think about ourselves. It's easier to think of enlightenment as something only a rare few are expected to achieve. All any of us has to do is comprehend our natures.
This sutra speaks to my heart (no pun intended) but as soon I try to 'understand' it, with my petty intellect, it is like trying to hold water with my fingers.
The thing is that I am happy with that - the heart rather than the intellect.
This sutra speaks to my heart (no pun intended) but as soon I try to 'understand' it, with my petty intellect, it is like trying to hold water with my fingers.
The thing is that I am happy with that - the heart rather than the intellect.
If I knew how to stick one of those thumb's up thingies in here, that's what you would be seeing.
no aggregates means that they are like an illusion. Nothing to grasp. The aggregates are a confused perception. Dharma Dhatu perceives the reason for the vajrayana. When emptiness is realized there is something left. The reality as it is. So there are no aggregates, but there is an ungraspable reality.
What this Sutra says to me is that before emptiness is attained, realized, etc., there are these 5 aggregates. After emptiness is attained, realized, etc., what is left is...these 5 aggregates. Just the same as before, except now seen clearly as ungraspable, because they are clearly seen as empty. It seems to say that ungraspable reality is nothing other than the 5 aggregates. One could say that there is something left after emptiness is attained, the aggregates. One could also say that there is nothing left, because there is nothing left that could be considered "mine". Therefore, it would be correct to say that there is nothing left, and also correct to say that there is something left. Both would be correct, IMO
No doubt you all know the story of the two disciples of the Fifth Chinese Zen Ancestor, Hung-jen (601-674). His disciples had to compose a stanza and on their bases he would choose his successor. His top student, Shen-hsiu (606-706), wrote: The body is the Bodhi tree The mind is a clear mirror stand Strive to polish it always Letting no speck of dust to cling.
Lots of "oohs!" and "Ahhs!" as everyone thought this a winner but the scullery boy from the monastery wrote: There is no Bodhi tree There is no clear mirror stand From the beginning not one thing is Where then can a speck of dust cling?
The scullery boy became, eventually, the Sixth Patriarch, Hui-neng (638-713).
Although these two verses are often presented as contrasting, to me they are complementary and illuminate the two aspects of our 'encounter' with 'emptiness'. The first illustrates the process of emptying, the second wmphasises the state of being empty from the start.
Comments
The key line is that with no attainment the bodhisattva dwells in peace. Stops grasping. And that is nirvana.
Nirvana is neither permanent nor impermanent. It never comes into existence and it never leaves.
.
However, two interesting Pali Suttas I found were the following, especially the second:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
Have fun
Words are not always clear. The Kevatta Sutta may provide some insight, where the Buddh rephrased the question of a seeker:
"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:
Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
When I hold the sutra up to my own understanding, this is what I find. The beginning says clearly that comprehending that the five skandhas are empty is to eliminate suffering. That's what the sutra is going to talk about: what am I? The five skandhas are the mental and physical characteristics that combine to create an individual. Those are Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental constructions, and Consciousness. There is not confusion with that. So far so good.
Then it begins with form, and says form is empty, and because the writer wants to make sure we get this point, it pounds us over the head with the point. Form is empty, emptiness is form, no difference. "Form, empty, empty, form. Get it?" Then it goes on to say that the same is true of the other skandhas. Look at a photon, and it is both wave and particle. I begin to see this is going to be deep.
Empty of what? Even an empty bowl contains air. Remove the air, and it is still a space. An emptiness is a potential to hold something. Well, the sutra goes on to list just about every label we can put on our experience of reality. Good or bad, here or there, big or small, now and then, it's all just relative. Also, the sutra does not say that form does not exist. In the spirit of the sutra, let me repeat that. It does NOT say that the skandhas do not exist, and that is the most common mistake in reading it.
What the Heart Sutra does is say the skandhas are like an empty vessel or bowl, and all these constructs of our mind are filling that emptiness. A bowl has the quality of emptiness. It is an emptiness waiting to be filled. Filled with what? Whatever can fit into the bowl.
You are the form, the bowl, and you are the emptiness, the function. You are both. Remove everything that is packed into the emptiness, the sight and sound and beliefs and judgement and thoughts that you cling to, and you still remain. Empty. Beyond suffering.
Here the analogy of the bowl breaks down, because an enlightened person isn't blind or deaf or unconscious. That is such an impossible statement, it can't be what the sutra is trying to say.
Up to this point, what do you think of this understanding?
However, I do not take this literally or meta-physically, that there is nothing. Nor do I take it perceptually, in terms of non-conceptuality.
I take the phase psychologically. "All things are nothing" means all things have no significance.
The mind of non-attachment is so pervasive, that all things have no significance & no essential substance.
Therefore, there is "no ears, no nose....no mind, ...no path..." etc.
Regards
:mullet:
there's no one stumbling, just fools pretending they are.
My take is the Heart Sutra is attempting to describe the mind of a fully enlightened being, that does not dwell on dhammas.
In the language of Anapanasati, this is the final stage of practise, where only impermanence, lack of substance, emptiness, etc, are predominantly experienced (rather than the five aggregates themselves predominating).
However, the problem I see with this is most folks are not fully enlightened. In fact, most folks are not even partially enlightened.
When the mind enters the stream of enlightenment, in the beginning its experience is dominated by the breath/body. Seeing the breath/body is merely "breath/body" (rather than "my body" or "me") is beginning to see emptiness.
Then if the mind enters jhana, its experience is dominated by feelings. In jhana, the mind sits for hours experiencing only the feeling of bliss. Seeing feelings are merely "feelings" (rather than "my feelings" or "me") is further seeing emptiness.
But most folks have not even experienced the five aggregates intimately & deeply, yet they take an interest in the Heart Sutra, which states there are "no aggregates".
This is killing the aggregates before they are even comprehended. This is like killing the Buddha before meeting him on the road.
Anyway, that is probably my final take on it.
I am referring to the part which states: "no eye, no ear, no body, no suffering", etc
To me, there are many watered down explanations of this, but, for me, I don't buy it.
I am just say, imo, the first part of the Heart Sutra is to be comprehended (about form is void, void is form, etc) before moving onto the second part.
You basically need to ask yourself: "Have I experienced there is no eye, no ear, etc"?
As for the first part, to see the body as "body", empty of self, feelings as "feelings", empty of self, etc, this we can start on.
but it's not intellectual, nor is it knowledge. it is something to be realized. something to embody and awake to.
the buddha is one who is aware, nothing more. he isn't a wise person, nor is he an ignorant person. he just is one who has awoken to reality and it's universal truths.
so the heart sutra is words said from the enlightened being. thus they are universal truths and thus anyone can realize them.
one should not make a belief system nor philosophical framework with what the buddha taught. one should practice and use the methods handed down from the buddha or really any other buddha. for there are many buddhas.
when meeting a buddha one should know less knowledge and leave empty.
To regard emptiness is space or spaciousness is very practical, as an "entry into emptiness". Even the Buddha spoke this once, saying the experience of spaciousness is "an entry" into emptiness.
But the Buddha did not regard emptiness to be space.
Emtpiness is the absence of 'self' in all phenomena, be it a brick, tree or human being.
Hey, Jeffrey, why don't you ask Lama Shenpen about this? haha--answering that should keep her busy for awhile!
If "no ear, no eye, etc" it is just recited, it helps breakdown conceptual mind, which is good for samadhi development
:om:
it is not a belief system. not a philosophy. not knowledge.
again it is practical steps to realize ones true nature, thus freeing oneself from suffering.
again i'll say it again. not a philosophy. not a belief system. not more information for the head.
you do not need a philosophy to tell you that fire is hot. put your hand in the fire and you will move it.
buddhism is existential. buddhism is practical. buddhism is universal.
That said, Buddhist is definitely a practice. But with all those texts, it's also study. We learn about the Middle Way so that we don't have to sit on the bank of a river and come up with the realization ourselves, for example. It's also a method for addressing the "head", or illusions we hold. It's many things.
I am in the middle of learning the Heart Sutra by heart so I can recite it in the morning without having to try to read it in the half light and also because I think I might be able to approach it in a different way if the words enter more deeply.
Lama Shenpen replies:
Yes I find that happens when I recite something by heart… the words resonate differently somehow and the meaning is able to go deeper.
It is great that you are learning the Heart sutra by heart. I think it is no coincidence that it is called ‘by heart’. When we learn something by heart it becomes part of us in a quite tangible way. You can recite it anywhere, any time, it is always with you.
Student:
I wondered whether noble Avalokiteshvara saw the five skandas* to be empty of self-nature at that time partly because of the Buddha's creating that mandala* and that created certain conditions to help Avalokiteshvara?
Lama Shenpen:
Possibly. I often ponder this point. It must be that Avalokiteshvara always sees the five skandhas as emptiness since he is a high level Bodhisattva – so is the text simply reminding us of this or is it making a further point?
As you say, did the Buddha make use of a special moment in linking into the depths of his realisation or even empower him further in that realisation……..could be couldn’t it?
Student:
I also wondered if it said 'through the power of the Buddha' at the moment it did because Shariputra was aware of the inner state of Avalokiteshvara and the fact that he had seen what he had seen?
Lama Shenpen:
Possibly – maybe Shariputra intuited something…….or maybe it was the power of the Buddha’s Samadhi* arousing Shariputra to ask that particular question at that particular moment.
Student:
Then, at the end, with the mantra, as I recite that, I have a sense that it might be stronger in some way if it was linked to how and where I breathed, if that makes sense?
Lama Shenpen:
Possibly, although I don’t think you have to do anything about it deliberately; I think as your mind and body relax into the rhythm and power of the mantra the breathing will adjust by itself.
Glossary of terms:
*Skandas - Collection of the five elements of the psychophysical continuum of a being, that is, body, feelings, perceptions, mental tendencies and moments of consciousness.
*Mandala - Any structure with a centre and periphery. Anything that appears in our awareness takes the form of a mandala consisting of a central focus and what surrounds it. Mandalas have a structure and dynamic in the sense that they are held together by connections between centre and periphery, with emotionality at the boundaries and where one mandala touches on another. In most contexts one can substitute for mandala ‘world’, as used in the metaphorical sense. For example, we talk of the world of our experience, our social world, our psychological world, our whole world collapsing.
*Samadhi - A stable state of mind that one enters, much as one would enter a magically created world, through the practice of meditation. Samadhi (usually of very short duration) is a factor present in all ordinary mind-states and is what gives us the power to stabilise our experience.
"In our group we're re-studying the 'Heart Sutra'. I've been slowly working through your retreat talks on that theme.
Some difficulties arise when I look at 'emptiness' in the context of that sutra. You (in 'Buddha Within') say that Trangu Rinpoche says that both the emptiness of illusion and the emptiness of the ultimate are both implied in 'emptiness'.
Yet it is very difficult for me to get a sense that the emptiness of the ultimate is being implied in the 'Heart Sutra' apart from the concluding mantra.
How do I work towards a glimpse that both are being talked about?"
Lama Shenpen:
Did my recent talks on Dharmata ( true nature, Absolute Reality) help with this?
How do you understand form is emptiness, emptiness is form, emptiness is not other than form, form is no other than empitness?
If the sutra were simply saying form is an illusion and so is unreliable and not ultimate reality - why would it then go on to say emptiness is form?
Student:
"Also is it the case that when one sees that phenomenal reality.."
Lama Shenpen:
Conditioned, created phenomena are empty of permanence, satisfactoriness and self.
Student:
"is empty of permanence, satisfaction, substantiality�"
Lama Shenpen:
Substantial? Many conditioned dharmas are insubstantial - you cannot say conditioned dharmas are empty of insubstantiality.
Student:
"that one also realises the ultimate being empty of impermanence, etc."
Lama Shenpen:
No - it does not make sense to say ultimate being is empty of impermanence, suffering and self.
It is empty of anything false that we superimpose on it - in other words it cannot be grasped by our concepts - it can only be known directly experientially without concepts.
Student:
"Can you say anything about this? (I guess I wonder if this is the case because of Khenpo Rinpoche's 'warning' about not over negating clear light in 'Progressive Stages')"
Lama Shenpen:
He is saying Ultimate reality is Prabhasvarachitta (clearlight mind/heart) and is empty of all that is false and not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
It turns out the Theravadan understanding of emptiness and the Mahayana are different. The Theravadan understanding is as DD says: emptiness = not-self. The Mahayana understanding is as I suggested earlier: phenomena have no inherent identity, they are dependently arisen. Further, Theravada, according to Wikipedia, is more experiential, believing emptiness can be realized via meditation. Mahayana holds that emptiness needs to be understood intellectually, before it can be realized experientially.(I know this is especially true in the Tibetan tradition, possibly not so much in Zen, which emphasizes meditation.) So, I conclude that the "no ear, no nose, ... no path" etc. passage refers to this lack of inherent identity or existence in phenomena. There's no inconsistency or puzzle in the Heart Sutra if it is understood from a Mahayana framework. It's when you mix Theravada understandings of emptiness with a Mahayana sutra that you run into difficulties.
That's my best shot.
Is nirvana not the same as "full enlightenment"? I did a quick check on the internet; it's often equated with Liberation (Enlightenment).
The final buddhahood is liberated also from peaceful nirvana. They are able to go into for example hell in order to liberate beings.
This is all in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by gampopa which explains the Lam Rim path including the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. Alongside the Lam Rim path there is also upadesha direct pointing out instructions. This is the reason for a guru in the mahayana is so they may give the pointing out instructions. These instructions are not formulated into a text because they are a different way to learn. The guru yoga is to form a stronger connection to the guru and through that the teachings and the wisdom of the disciple. It is not to show that the guru is wise and have the disciple praise them.
http://www.interactivebuddha.com/Mastering Adobe Version.pdf
The biggest problem here that I see is that, if by the time you get this far, you conceptualize the sutra as saying the skandhas and by extension the self don't exist and this non-existance is enlightenment, then the sutra seems to be now saying that enlightenment is extinction of the skandhas. But it doesn't say that. It says "in emptiness there is no..." Emptiness, as I said before, is not "nothing". It is a potential to be filled with something. If the skandhas and thus yourself are an ever changing collection of phenomena that moves through this emptiness, then what are you? Are you your senses? Are you your thoughts? Are you your goals or achievements? No. That is what the sutra is saying. All the phenomena mentioned exists, but passes through without clinging, without filling the emptiness. And you are the emptiness, the potential, not what you've filled the emptiness with.
Then when you look at the sky, only blue (dark clouds as the case might be). The sight is still there, only you don't cling to it. Let the emptiness stay empty. When you do something, that is your nature for as long as you do it, no more or less "Whatever you are doing, that is your Buddha Nature" the Masters say.
In emptiness there is no goal. What is there to achieve? You are where you are, and where else is there to be?
So this sutra states in very plain language what emptiness means to Mahayana at least. Because we cling to self, something becomes scared when we realize that we might have to radically change how we think about ourselves. It's easier to think of enlightenment as something only a rare few are expected to achieve. All any of us has to do is comprehend our natures.
"form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness."
AKA: Sunna
Best wishes, C!
Abu
SN 22.95 Phena Sutta: Foam
Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage?
In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
Kaccayanagotta Sutta
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Kalakarama Sutta
Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible
thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
Loka Sutta: The World
Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
The Fire Sermon
"He finds estrangement in the ear... in sounds...
"He finds estrangement in the nose... in odors...
"He finds estrangement in the tongue... in flavors...
"He finds estrangement in the body... in tangibles...
Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey
"When there is no ear...
"When there is no nose...
"When there is no tongue...
"When there is no body...
Dharmapada
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see.
Because nothing is attained,
Nothing and Attainment is the same thing, because you no attachment to the poisons within your mind and you have no attachment to yourself, you attain a pure mind.
"Life and Death determined by their appoinmtent,
Riches and Honour depend upon Heaven"
Thank you
:thumbsup:
The thing is that I am happy with that - the heart rather than the intellect.
Click on the little smiley face in the upper right hand corner of the posting box and it will show you all the emoticons.
The body is the Bodhi tree
The mind is a clear mirror stand
Strive to polish it always
Letting no speck of dust to cling.
Lots of "oohs!" and "Ahhs!" as everyone thought this a winner but the scullery boy from the monastery wrote:
There is no Bodhi tree
There is no clear mirror stand
From the beginning not one thing is
Where then can a speck of dust cling?
The scullery boy became, eventually, the Sixth Patriarch, Hui-neng (638-713).
Although these two verses are often presented as contrasting, to me they are complementary and illuminate the two aspects of our 'encounter' with 'emptiness'. The first illustrates the process of emptying, the second wmphasises the state of being empty from the start.