The Heart Sutra

by Red Pine

  As young men Shariputra and Maudgalyayana often traveled together to Rajgir, the nearby capital of the kingdom of Magadha, to attend important festivals. During one such occasion, they both came to the realization that their lives of pleasure were doomed to end, and they vowed to attain deliverance from such transient existence. After exchanging their white robes for rags, the two friends sought out Sanjaya, the leader of a group of sophists. They were at first attracted by his arguments, but the two men soon exhausted the depths of Sanjaya’s teachings. And when they realized they had nothing more to learn from him, they wandered off in search of someone else who could teach them how to escape the sufferings of this life and the next. After visiting teachers throughout Northern India without success, they finally found themselves back in Rajgir and decided to part company for a while. But first they made a pact that whichever of them found the path to liberation would tell the other.

  Not long afterward, Shariputra decided to revisit his old teacher, Sanjaya. And on his way there, he saw Ashvajit making his morning rounds begging in the city. Ashvajit was Shakyamuni’s cousin and also one of his first five disciples. Impressed with Ashvajit’s demeanor, Shariputra asked him who his teacher was and what teaching he followed. Ashvajit replied that Shakyamuni was his teacher. As for what teaching he followed, he would only say, “Of what arises from causes / the Buddha shows how it begins / and also how it ceases / thus does the Great Recluse instruct.” This subsequently became one of the most widely quoted summaries of the Buddha’s teaching in India, and upon hearing it, Shariputra realized the first of the four stages of attainment known as “reaching the river,” the river of impermanence.

  Shariputra was so overwhelmed, he went at once to find his friend Maudgalyayana, who also experienced the same level of realization upon hearing the same verse. Both men then decided to become disciples of the Buddha, but Shariputra suggested they first tell their former teacher and ask him to join them. Sanjaya, however, was unwilling to become the disciple of another man. And so Shariputra and Maudgalyayana left to find the Buddha, taking with them five hundred of Sanjaya’s disciples.

  When the Buddha saw the two men and their entourage approaching, he told his disciples that these two would become his two chief disciples. He ordained them and within a week Maudgalyayana had reached the fourth and final stage of an arhan, or one who is free of passion and destined for no further rebirth.After another week, Shariputra also reached the birthless state. It was said it took him a week longer because he thought through the Buddha’s teachings in greater detail. Thus, during the Buddha’s lifetime, Maudgalyayana was ranked first among the Buddha’s disciples in terms of spiritual powers, and Shariputra was ranked first in terms of wisdom. In statues or paintings, Shariputra always stands on the Buddha’s right, and Maudgalyayana on the Buddha’s left. During the Buddha’s ministry, Shariputra was also his chief assistant and occasionally took his place in preaching the Dharma.

  After forty-some years of wandering with his teacher across the floodplain of the Ganges, Shariputra finally returned home to teach his mother. But while he was there, he became ill and died. This was in the spring of 383 B.C., six months before the Buddha entered Nirvana. In 1851, Shariputra’s relics, along with those of his friend Maudgalyayana, were discovered in a stupa excavated by Alexander Cunningham at Sanchi, near Bhopal in Central India. In Chapter Three of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha predicted Shariputra would forsake the goal of nirvana and turn instead to the bodhisattva path and eventually become the buddha Padmaprabha. With this in mind, the Heart Sutra can be read as his first step in his new career.

  Chih-hsu says, “If you want to know how to get down the mountain, you need to ask someone coming up. Thus, we are given the example of someone who has successfully examined their mind.”

  6. FORM IS EMPTINESS, EMPTINESS IS FORM: rupan shunyata shunyataiva rupan

  Buddhist commentators distinguish five kinds of emptiness: the emptiness of pre-existence, the emptiness of post-existence, the emptiness of non-existence, the emptiness of mutual exclusion, and the emptiness of self-existence. Avalokiteshvara is referring to this last form of emptiness.

  There are many ways of viewing this statement. From a purely historical point of view, the first part was aimed at the Sarvastivadins, who believed such dharmas as form were self-existent, and the second part was aimed at the Sautrantikas, who believed that the skandha of consciousness was self-existent. Having seen that all five skandhas are empty of anything self-existent, Avalokiteshvara turns from the Hinayana interpretation of emptiness, which holds that there is some aspect of certain dharmas that persists over time, to that of the Mahayana.

  That form is empty was one of the Buddha’s earliest and most frequent pronouncements. But in the light of Prajnaparamita, form is not simply empty, it is so completely empty, it is emptiness itself, which turns out to be the same as form itself.

  The logic of this, which has become the most famous statement in Mahayana Buddhism, goes like this: Form, or any other entity of the mind, is defined by the mind and exists only because we claim it exists. The only thing that exists, in this case, is our definition of form. Form itself is empty of anything that could be called self-existent. Whatever we use to define form, it is dependent on something else. Thus, the essential nature of form is emptiness. But emptiness is simply another name for reality—not just a part of reality, for reality has no parts, but all of reality—though neither can reality be considered to be a whole. The essential nature of reality is that it is indivisible, or empty of anything self-existent. But if form is equivalent to emptiness, or the indivisible fabric of reality, then emptiness must also be equivalent to form. Thus, Avalokiteshvara goes beyond the understanding of early Buddhists, who understood that form is empty, and surprises Shariputra with the statement “emptiness is form.” Avalokiteshvara turns Shariputra’s understanding of the Abhidharma upside-down and tells him that in the light of wisdom the seamless fabric of reality is equivalent to any attempt to separate reality into parts, including parts, such as form, that themselves are attempts to account for all of reality, as we experience it. The absence of anything self-existent is the true nature of all that we experience, however distorted that experience might be by the matrix of our minds. But it is also the true nature of reality.

  This, then, is the hub around which this sutra turns, the equation that puts an end to the dualistic conception of reality. The problem that arises when we reflect on our experience is that we reflect on our experience. We think, therefore we are. And once we are, we are in trouble, forever divided by what we use to define our existence. In analyzing the elements of this particular definition of self-existence, namely the Five Skandhas, Avalokiteshvara sees that they are empty of anything permanent, pure, or inherent; they are empty of anything real. They are empty as a group, and they are empty individually. They are so completely empty, we might be tempted to say that they do not exist. But we can’t say that they do not exist, because they exist as delusions. And we can’t say they do not not exist, because they are completely empty. Thus, as used by Avalokiteshvara, and by Mahayana Buddhists in general, the word “emptiness” does not mean nothingness. It is a double negative that stops short of establishing a positive. Emptiness means indivisibility.

  Something that is empty of self-existence is inseparable from everything else, including emptiness. All separations are delusions. But if each of the skandhas is one with emptiness, and emptiness is one with each of the skandhas, then everything occupies the same indivisible space, which is emptiness, and the same indivisible time, which is also emptiness, and the same indivisible mind, which is emptiness again. Everything is empty, and empty is everything. Avalokiteshvara denies all views regarding the skandhas that would regard any of them as real by telling us that “form is emptiness.” But he also denies all views that would regard any of them as annihilated by telling us that “emptiness is form.” Neither do the skandhas exist, nor do they not exist. What we are left with i
s a koan: “form is emptiness and emptiness is form.”

  Ching-chueh says, “According to the Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-five Thousand Lines, ‘Form is emptiness. Form does not annihilate emptiness.’ Hence, those who realize the Way do not use emptiness to perceive form, for they know that form essentially is not form. Nor do they use form to perceive emptiness, for they know that essentially emptiness is not emptiness.”

  Pao-t’ung says, “Form and emptiness are the same. From the buddhas above down to the smallest insect below, every creature is basically empty. This form cannot be seen by the eyes. Only true emptiness can see it. And this form cannot be heard by the ears. Only true emptiness can hear it. The myriad things we know and feel all depend on our six senses. But form and emptiness are not separate.”

  Chen-k’o says, “In the distance, form includes the Great Void, heaven and earth, mountains and rivers and forests. Nearby, it includes this body of flesh and blood that appears before us. Regardless of whether it’s large or small, if it can be perceived, it’s called ‘form.’”

  Ming-k’uang says, “Form and the mind are not two different dharmas. And how so? The mind is not inside or outside or somewhere in between. It extends everywhere. It’s like space.”

  Hui-ching says, “Followers of lesser paths use emptiness to eliminate form, unaware that emptiness is their own mind. But if the mind sees emptiness, then emptiness becomes an object and an obstruction. And an obstruction is another name for ‘form.’ But bodhisattvas understand the nature of form is simply emptiness, not form cancels emptiness, and not formlessness is emptiness, and not emptiness depends on insight, and not emptiness is due to no mind, and not emptiness means cutting off dharmas.”

  Yin-shun says, “Most people don’t understand this. They think that ‘emptiness’ means ‘nothing’ and that it can’t produce everything that exists. They don’t realize that if dharmas weren’t empty, no dharmas would ever appear, that what exists would always exist and what doesn’t exist would never exist. But dharmas aren’t like that. Those that exist can change, then they don’t exist. And those that don’t exist can appear to exist as the result of causes and conditions. The birth and destruction, the existence and non-existence of dharmas is entirely dependent on their lack of self-existence and their fundamental emptiness. Thus, Nagarjuna said, ‘Because of emptiness, all things are possible. ’”

  Conze says, “The infinitely Far-away is not only near, but it is infinitely near. It is nowhere, and nowhere it is not. This is the mystical identity of opposites. Nirvana is the same as the world. It is not only ‘in’ and ‘with you,’ but you are nothing but it” (Buddhist Wisdom Books, p. 83).

  7. EMPTINESS IS NOT SEPARATE FROM FORM, FORM IS NOT SEPARATE FROM EMPTINESS: rupan na prithak shunyata sunyataya na prithag rupan

  In considering this relationship, Avalokiteshvara realizes that it only works because form and emptiness are inseparable. Thus, he advances their equation by eliminating the possibility that form and emptiness overlap but do not completely coincide. Not only are they identical, they are not different. Although two entities might be the same under certain conditions, it is still possible that under other conditions they differ. This statement eliminates that possibility. There are no conditions under which form is different from emptiness or emptiness is different from form. Emptiness and form are closer than inseparable; they are essentially indistinguishable. Thus, because of its relationship with emptiness, form is neither permanent nor impermanent. Form cannot be permanent because it is emptiness. And form cannot be impermanent because it is emptiness. The same holds for form and suffering or form and the presence of a self.

  Chen-k’o says, “As for seeing that the Five Skandhas are empty, this is not an emptiness separate from the skandhas but the emptiness of the skandhas. The emptiness realized by Avalokiteshvara is not the one-sided emptiness of the Lesser Path and not an emptiness of senselessness or an emptiness of annihilation. It is simply the emptiness that is form. Since form can be emptiness, emptiness can be form. Thus, it says ‘form is not separate from emptiness and emptiness is not separate from form.’”

  Hui-chung says, “People misapprehend their own mind and see form as something outside their mind. They don’t know that form exists because of their mind. And where could form come from, if not from their mind? Thus, it says, ‘Form is not separate from emptiness.’ People turn their backs on their mind and grab hold of dharmas and think emptiness is something outside their mind. They don’t know that emptiness arises from their mind. All they need to do is awaken to their own mind. There is no emptiness to find. Emptiness and form are not separate. Thus, it says, ‘emptiness is not separate from form.’”

  Chih-shen says, “Inside emptiness there is no form. Outside form there is no emptiness. Emptiness and form are one suchness. Thus they are not separate.”

  Ching-chueh says, “According to Nagarjuna, ‘Form illuminates emptiness. Without form there is no emptiness. And emptiness illuminates form. Without emptiness there is no form. Emptiness and form share the same nature.’ Hence, they are said to be “not separate.” This is the teaching of the One Path.”

  Te-ch’ing says, “The statement ‘form is not separate from emptiness’ destroys the ordinary person’s view of permanence. This is because ordinary people think that only their material body is real. And because they consider it permanent, they make hundred-year plans and don’t realize their body is an empty fiction and subject to the ceaseless changes of birth, old age, illness, and death. But even when it reaches old age and death and finally becomes impermanent and turns out to be empty, this is still the emptiness of origination and cessation and not yet the final truth. Consequently, the illusory forms of the Four Elements are basically no different from true emptiness. But ordinary people don’t know this. Thus, it says, ‘form is not separate from emptiness.’ This means that the physical body is basically not different from true emptiness.

  “As for the statement ‘emptiness is not separate from form,’ this statement destroys the view of annihilation held by followers of the Lesser Path and members of other sects. Although members of other sects cultivate, they remain unaware that their body comes from karma and karma comes from the mind, and they go around life after life without stop. And because they don’t understand the principle of retribution that occurs from one lifetime to the next due to cause and effect, they think that after someone dies, their pure breath returns to heaven and their coarse breath returns to earth, and their true spirit returns to the Great Void. But if their essence returns to the Great Void, then there would be no retribution, and doing good would be useless, and doing evil would have its advantage. And if their essence returns to the Great Void, all their good and evil deeds would leave no traces, which would amount to nihilism. Would that not be unfortunate?

  “Although followers of the Lesser Path use the teachings of the Buddha in their practice, because they don’t understand that the world is nothing but mind and the myriad dharmas are nothing but ideas, they don’t realize that life and death are illusions, and they think the forms of the Three Realms really exist. Thus, they regard the world as a prison and birth as shackles. They don’t give rise to the thought of saving others but sink into emptiness and quietude and drown in the stillness of nirvana. Thus it says, ‘emptiness is not separate from form.’ The true emptiness of prajna is like a huge round mirror, and every illusory form is like an image in the mirror. Once you know that images don’t exist apart from the mirror, you know ‘emptiness is not separate from form.’”

  8. WHATEVER IS FORM IS EMPTINESS, WHATEVER IS EMPTINESS IS FORM: yad rupan sa shunyata ya shunyata tad rupan

  This completes the comparison of form and emptiness and carries their mutual identification to its logical conclusion by allowing for variations in our definitions of form or emptiness. Regardless of how we might conceive of form or emptiness, they are identical. In viewing such conceptual categories as form, Avalokiteshvara sees that they can only be esta
blished in terms of emptiness. All other terms, such as those that would discriminate an individual entity as permanent, unique, or real, turn out to be inadequate to the task. And emptiness can only be established in terms of categories that are a priori empty. Whatever we might consider emptiness to be, it is identical to whatever conceptual category we might dream up, in this case the skandha of form.

  The existence of form is not denied, nor its non-existence. It exists as a category of analysis. But every analysis involves the use of terms that are essentially the same. For example, in mathematics, if we are actually able to write the perfect formula and establish the coefficient of x and y as 1, that is, if any given movement on the x axis is reflected by an equal movement on the y axis, not only are they equal, their original differentiation as x and y must be a mistake. Thus, however we define form or emptiness, they are one and the same in all times and in all places and under all conditions.