konchog uma

The Heart Sutra

Recommended Posts

Om, Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom the Lovely, the Holy

 

Avalokitasvara, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond.

 

he looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own being they were empty.

 

Here, O Sariputra,

 

form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form;

 

emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form,

 

the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.

 

Here, O Sariputra,

 

all dharmas are marked with emptiness;

 

they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

 

Therefore, O Sariputra,

 

in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness;

 

No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, objects to touch, or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to:

 

No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to:

 

There is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, and no path.

 

There is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment.

 

Therefore, O Sariputra,

 

it is because of his non-attainmentness that a Bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom, dwells without thought-coverings. In the absence of thought-coverings he has not been made to tremble,

 

he has overcome what can upset, and in the end he attains to Nirvana.

 

All those who appear as Buddhas in the three periods of time fully awake to the utmost, right, and perfect Enlightenment because they have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.

 

Therefore one should know the Perfection of Wisdom as the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequaled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth - for what could go wrong? By the Perfection of Wisdom has this spell been delivered. It is like this:

 

gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.

 

This completes the Heart of perfect Wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working on emptiness, sitting in insight meditation after saying the mantra 8 or 108 times and focusing on the emptiness of phenomenona and of reality. If anyone has any advice, commentary, or anything helpful to offer, please feel free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say great job and I fully support your endeavor :) The Heart Sutra is beautiful. Contemplating it often makes me feel very blissful.

 

Praise to Guan Shi Yin Pu Sa! May the light of her love heal all of those who suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RyanO!

 

I was sitting tonight and had a pretty awesome experience of emptiness/oneness. Self and not-self totally depended on each other for 1/10th of a second and then POP it was just one thing. I was able to stay there for a couple minutes and then spontaneous burbles in the thoughtstream brought me down to more immediate (but after that somehow less real) levels of awareness :)

 

I think that the interdependent nature of all things, especially observer/observed, has more to do with the heart sutra saying that void is form and form is void than, say, nothingness, or non-being, or a more western idea of emptiness (one that says that matter is 99% empty space for example). I think that the idea that Avalokitasvara was conveying with his paradox is that phenomena are empty of independent existence. Y'know, the big D.O.

 

As long as it is approached from a point of view of observer or self, or the other point of view, "observed" or things, it can't be broken through, but when both of them become dependently arising, they can be seen as one thing and then the oneness and the emptiness are one thing. Like wuji.

 

Maybe someone more knowledgeable in buddhist theory can correct my mistakes, but thats how i see it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RyanO!

 

I was sitting tonight and had a pretty awesome experience of emptiness/oneness. Self and not-self totally depended on each other for 1/10th of a second and then POP it was just one thing. I was able to stay there for a couple minutes and then spontaneous burbles in the thoughtstream brought me down to more immediate (but after that somehow less real) levels of awareness :)

 

I think that the interdependent nature of all things, especially observer/observed, has more to do with the heart sutra saying that void is form and form is void than, say, nothingness, or non-being, or a more western idea of emptiness (one that says that matter is 99% empty space for example). I think that the idea that Avalokitasvara was conveying with his paradox is that phenomena are empty of independent existence. Y'know, the big D.O.

 

As long as it is approached from a point of view of observer or self, or the other point of view, "observed" or things, it can't be broken through, but when both of them become dependently arising, they can be seen as one thing and then the oneness and the emptiness are one thing. Like wuji.

 

Maybe someone more knowledgeable in buddhist theory can correct my mistakes, but thats how i see it.

The point about anatta, and emptiness/d.o., is that there is no observer, and nothing observed...

 

There is one good article that describes the experiential realization of anatta and emptiness: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about anatta, and emptiness/d.o., is that there is no observer, and nothing observed...

 

There is one good article that describes the experiential realization of anatta and emptiness: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

 

In emptiness there is no observer, and nothing observed. To the mind that rests in non-dual awareness, all such labels are meaningless. But to me the key words of the heart sutra are "in emptiness...". The model doesn't work on the dual level of existance. One of the points of difference that i have noticed between your worldview and mine is that you repeatedly negate the reality of dualism, citing non-dual luminosity as the nature of reality. In my worldview i see duality as natural and accept it as a truth. Everything that exists does so in duality. Beyond that, reality is both dual and non-dual, and that is a duality, and a non-duality, so there is really no way of talking about it that makes sense, except maybe to say that on one dimensional level of being, there is oneness and lack of observer or observed, and on another level of dimensionality, there is observer and observed, as well as all the dualities that reality produces. These dimensionalities overlap and are "happening" so to speak at the same time, so you can say "there is no duality" and to me, you are talking about the oneness of reality, and i can say "there is duality" and i am talking about the dual nature of reality. The two, to me, are not mutually exclusive.

 

So since we are all familiar with dual reality, and usually not familiar with nondual reality, we strive through meditation and contemplation to have direct perception of oneness and emptiness, which to me are two sides of the same coin. But that does not mean that when we are done resting in the transcendental state, that you can wish away all the everyday concerns of the world and say "i won't eat dinner because rice doesnt exist!" hahah dinner and rice don't exist while contemplating and perceiving the nondual, but try going without them and you will be dead in 3 months. So there is a reality and we are experiencing it. That is why we are typing this.

 

Interestingly, while you were commenting on this thread, i was commenting on yours, and I said something which began to scratch the surface of this.

 

Thanks for the link, interesting article, but I maintain my worldview :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love is inside duality, but until you've been away, you don't realise how good it is to be back :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In emptiness there is no observer, and nothing observed. To the mind that rests in non-dual awareness, all such labels are meaningless.

It is not just a state of label-less... by the way non-dual is not the same as realizing no self and no object. Non-dual can simply mean the non-division of subject and object. Even that is a great profound change - no longer are you seeing from a vantage point inside the body at 'a world outside' but in seeing, there is just that experience of sight/scenery, no distance, division, separation at all, no separate perceiver or self.

 

There is a huge experiential difference there that you will only understand when you have glimpses of experiences or the realization.

 

But non-duality (of subject and object) does not mean anatta or emptiness.

But to me the key words of the heart sutra are "in emptiness...". The model doesn't work on the dual level of existance. One of the points of difference that i have noticed between your worldview and mine is that you repeatedly negate the reality of dualism, citing non-dual luminosity as the nature of reality.
Non-dual luminosity is also empty and utterly unestablished.
In my worldview i see duality as natural and accept it as a truth.
And this is where you are in total contradiction to the Heart Sutra and what the Buddha and Nagarjuna and countless sages have taught.

 

Nagarjuna:

 

"Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true,

what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

Everything that exists does so in duality.
The problem here is that you assert that 'Everything exists'. There is in fact, no existence. Also, your 'duality' here is different from the 'duality' as defined by me - that of subject and object. Also it is different from how Buddha defines duality - that of being (existence) and non-being (non-existence). So we have to be clear what our terms imply. Seeing through the illusoriness of subject and object division is not the same as seeing through the illusoriness of existence/being and non-existence/non-being.

 

Buddha: "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.

Beyond that, reality is both dual and non-dual, and that is a duality, and a non-duality, so there is really no way of talking about it that makes sense, except maybe to say that on one dimensional level of being, there is oneness and lack of observer or observed, and on another level of dimensionality, there is observer and observed, as well as all the dualities that reality produces.
No, this is not the understanding of Buddhism.

 

Always already, there is no self, it means 'self' is merely delusional, like santa claus, like seeing flowers in the sky because you have cataracs. It is the purely delusional vision of a sentient being.

 

Always in seeing, just the colours, shapes and forms, no seer. In hearing, always just sounds, no hearer. This has to be realized. It is a Dharma Seal. It is not a temporary state of experience.

So since we are all familiar with dual reality, and usually not familiar with nondual reality, we strive through meditation and contemplation to have direct perception of oneness and emptiness, which to me are two sides of the same coin. But that does not mean that when we are done resting in the transcendental state, that you can wish away all the everyday concerns of the world and say "i won't eat dinner because rice doesnt exist!"
And this is where you fail to understand something.

 

Anatta and emptiness are not talking about a transcendental state, but the nature of reality, a fact that is always already so. (btw I don't know if you are seeing the topic of anatta and emptiness with Taoist conditionings, but you should study the anatta/shunyata teachings on its own terms and dont let your other conditionings affect your understanding of it)

 

As I said before:

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

 

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically

 

 

Anyway I will be going back to camp and may not have time to reply soon.

Edited by xabir2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Ken Cohen:

 

"Sensual reality is not an illusion. The illusion is confusing our ideas, projections, and values with that which is perceived." p. 150 The Way of Qigong

 

Saying it is not an illusion to my mind means it actually does exist, thus contradicting xabir's belief. Of course, though Ken is influenced by Buddhism, he is more Taoist. Thus, according to xabir, he is subject to 'Taoist conditioning". But how is this different than being subject to 'Buddhist conditioning'?

 

From your post xabir I take it that you base your understandings on personal realizations and experiences, albeit with a little help from Thusness' mappings. Is your subjective experience not influenced by such mappings? And even if not, why is it that you trust your subjective experience to accurately portray objective reality?

 

Anyway, I think xabir's approach is only one way to interpret the Sutra. Just a disclaimer: I have neither studied the Heart Sutra in depth nor can I claim to have fully comprehended its mysteries. But to my mind, I think it is best read with some mental "suppleness", so to speak. From my perspective, xabir seems to have interpreted it a little too dogmatically, which I believe is counter to the Sutra's intention.

 

Dogma and fundamentalism are anthema to non-duality, which is in part why some "left hand" paths go against social constructs to achieve true freedom. My belief is that even in such paths the shedding of conditioning leads one naturally to the path of love.

 

One thing I find interesting about the Sutra is that when approached intellectually, it almost seems a little depressing (nihilistic). This seems to be true for many westerners when confronted with the notion of 'emptiness'. Approached logically, I can almost see it in this light. I say almost, because I have experienced otherwise. When I read the Sutra from my Heart (as it seems it was intended!) I am instead filled with happiness and joy, and I can't really explain why conceptually.

 

So though it can be used as support for certain Buddhist dogma, I find the Heart Sutra at home in Taoist philosophy as well. I find that not only does it complement the Tao Te Ching, it is indeed remarkably similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my worldview i see duality as natural and accept it as a truth.

And this is where you are in total contradiction to the Heart Sutra and what the Buddha and Nagarjuna and countless sages have taught.

Nagarjuna:

"Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true,

what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

 

i don't reject Nirvana as false. And I don't accept it as the only truth. Maybe it was the only truth for Nagarjuna when he wrote that, and maybe it wasn't. Part of the problem when people rely on quotes instead of their own logic is usually that the quotes are out of context and don't directly address the issue. That being said, the Jina can proclaim whatever it wants, but it doesn't refute the idea of a dualistic reality. Samsara to my understanding isn't just the idea that everything has poles or yin/yang aspects. Samsara is the idea that by attaching oneself to cyclical reality one finds suffering even though one would seek pleasure. Nirvana to me isn't the dissolution of polar reality, its the cessation of attachment. This is what i think might have been meant by "nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana". In other words, cyclical rotation continues even tho one has no attachment to it.

 

The problem here is that you assert that 'Everything exists'. There is in fact, no existence. Also, your 'duality' here is different from the 'duality' as defined by me - that of subject and object. Also it is different from how Buddha defines duality - that of being (existence) and non-being (non-existence). So we have to be clear what our terms imply. Seeing through the illusoriness of subject and object division is not the same as seeing through the illusoriness of existence/being and non-existence/non-being.

 

Oh i was just sharing a realization i had about observer/observed melting into one thing, i wasn't claiming that i agreed with the buddha in every aspect, or that i had comprehended the heart sutra. hahahahaha if only it were that easy... :D

 

also, in my worldview, things exist. They just don't exist A. in the sense that they appear to and B. independent of each other. So my interpretation is that things have no inherent existance but that doesn't meam that they don't exist. Again, if nothing is real, stop eating for a couple months, and then we'll talk about there being actually no existance. hahhaha illusory as it might be, there seems to be an existance.

 

and, i was using duality in a general sense to refer to the seeming truth that phenomena all have a positive and negative aspect, or a masculine and feminine aspect if you want.

 

 

And this is where you fail to understand something.

 

Anatta and emptiness are not talking about a transcendental state, but the nature of reality, a fact that is always already so. (btw I don't know if you are seeing the topic of anatta and emptiness with Taoist conditionings, but you should study the anatta/shunyata teachings on its own terms and dont let your other conditionings affect your understanding of it)

 

What you think of in terms of my failure i think of in terms of my being right where i should be. The buddha taught people not to believe things because the books said them, or because priests said them, or because everyone else believed it. He taught to believe things that were in accord with ones own logic and reasoning. So if you want to open my mind to the wonderful realities of the dharma, i suggest you approach my logic and reasoning, instead of quoting the sages and telling me i fail to understand emptiness just because i have my own interpretation. At least i don't fail to apply my own critical thinking instead of being a homogenized robot like religions tend to turn out. And that is more important to me than whether my idea of emptiness is in accord with yours or anyone elses.

 

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

 

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically[/i]

 

Anyway I will be going back to camp and may not have time to reply soon.

 

I agree with all that except for the last part about seeing things dualistically being the cause of confusion, but in light of what you said about the different definitions of duality i may just need to think about it some more.

 

Thank you for replying to the whole message, not just the parts that you liked. I always appreciate that. I hope you have good times at camp.

Edited by anamatva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think xabir's approach is only one way to interpret the Sutra. Just a disclaimer: I have neither studied the Heart Sutra in depth nor can I claim to have fully comprehended its mysteries. But to my mind, I think it is best read with some mental "suppleness", so to speak. From my perspective, xabir seems to have interpreted it a little too dogmatically, which I believe is counter to the Sutra's intention.

 

Yeah i feel a little dogma too, but i always do when talking to people who are convinced that they understand the truth, or the nature of reality. I make no such claims, but i do interpret the heart sutra in much the same way as you mention... that is, designed to propel the awareness of the student towards greater realization of oneness, and of the limiting nature of concepts. But that is only my interpretation so when i talk about it i am not going to say "i am right!" i am only going to say "this is what i get from it!".

 

Sadly, most buddhists are so convinced that they understand the nature of reality, that their minds have ossified and they are not open to the idea that their ideas are just ideas, like dust in the wind. Hahahah i don't have big ideas, but at least i know that what i think is just a pile of dung! So i am happy with my very limited understanding, because i am not trying to convince myself that i actually understand. I realized that life is an incomprehensible mystery, and that is my truth. Thinking that i could comprehend the nature of reality is just my ego vying for position.

 

Dogma and fundamentalism are anthema to non-duality, which is in part why some "left hand" paths go against social constructs to achieve true freedom. My belief is that even in such paths the shedding of conditioning leads one naturally to the path of love.

 

ever hear of sahajayana buddhism? It was codified by indrabhuti's sister (indrabhuti originated vajrayana) and its those ash covered, dreadlocked sadhus who go against the grain of the buddhist establishment. Some of them openly mock the orthodox understanding of things.. I always related to that. If i were born in the himalayas i think i would be a sadhu before i would be a monk.

 

One thing I find interesting about the Sutra is that when approached intellectually, it almost seems a little depressing (nihilistic). This seems to be true for many westerners when confronted with the notion of 'emptiness'. Approached logically, I can almost see it in this light. I say almost, because I have experienced otherwise. When I read the Sutra from my Heart (as it seems it was intended!) I am instead filled with happiness and joy, and I can't really explain why conceptually.

 

So though it can be used as support for certain Buddhist dogma, I find the Heart Sutra at home in Taoist philosophy as well. I find that not only does it complement the Tao Te Ching, it is indeed remarkably similar.

 

Well I could say the same of buddhism in general. All the intellectual buddhists i know, or buddhist scholars who are stuck in that modality, are just bummers. They think they know everything and instead of soft and yielding, their minds and hearts are brittle and fragile. But buddhists who have opened their hearts or apply buddhist "philosophy" like compassion to their actions, or in other words, that actually Practice buddhism instead of just talking about it, those are some of the most wonderful people i have ever met. So there is definitely a danger in buddhism that i have noticed of becoming too head-oriented, and not enough heart-oriented.

 

I find the heart sutra very daoist too... probably all the paradoxical concepts. Avalokitesvara is one of my favorite deities!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Ken Cohen:

 

"Sensual reality is not an illusion. The illusion is confusing our ideas, projections, and values with that which is perceived." p. 150 The Way of Qigong

 

Saying it is not an illusion to my mind means it actually does exist, thus contradicting xabir's belief. Of course, though Ken is influenced by Buddhism, he is more Taoist. Thus, according to xabir, he is subject to 'Taoist conditioning". But how is this different than being subject to 'Buddhist conditioning'?

 

From your post xabir I take it that you base your understandings on personal realizations and experiences, albeit with a little help from Thusness' mappings. Is your subjective experience not influenced by such mappings? And even if not, why is it that you trust your subjective experience to accurately portray objective reality?

No it is not. It is that I have personally realized and verified certain things on my own accord, and such a realization does not depend at all on conditioning, inference, faith, or what not. It is like 'Kensho, Satori' -

 

The mystical experience in Zen is called Satori (wu in Chinese). Satori is that which lies beyond most forms of insights such as those arising from contemplation or via imagery and is a intuitive grasp of the reality "beyond forms." Suzuki says Satori has these characteristics:

 

1. Irrationality. "By this I mean that satori is not a conclusion to be reached by reasoning, and defies all intellectual determination. Those who have experienced it are always at a loss to explain it coherently or logically."

 

2. Intuitive Insight. "That there is noetic quality in mystic experiences has been pointed out by (William) James...Another name for satori is "kensho" (chien-hsing in Chinese) meaning "to see essence or nature," which apparently proves that there is "seeing" or "perceiving" in satori...Without this noetic quality satori will lose all its pungency, for it is really the reason of satori itself. "

 

3. Authoritativeness. "By this I mean that the knowledge realized by satori is final, that no amount of logical argument can refute it. Being direct and personal it is sufficient unto itself. All that logic can do here is to explain it, to interpret it in connection to other kinds of knowledge with which our minds are filled. Satori is thus a form of perception, an inner perception, which takes place in the most interior part of consciousness.

 

4. Affirmation. "What is authoritative and final can never be negative. Though the satori experience is sometimes expressed in negative terms, it is essentially an affirmative attidude towards all things that exist; it accepts them as they come along regardless of their moral values."

 

5. Sense of the Beyond. "...in satori there is always what we may call a sense of the Beyond; the experience indeed is my own but I feel it to be rooted elsewhere. The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at the moment of satori. Not, necessarily, that I get unified with a being greater than myself or absorbed in it, but that my individuality, which I found rigidly held together and definitely kept separate from other individual existences, becomes lossened somehow from its tightening grip and melts away into something indescribable, something which is of quite a different order from what I am accustomed to. The feeling that follows is htat of complete release or a complete rest---the feeling that one has arrived finally at the destination...As far as the psychology of satori is considered, a sense of the Beyond is all we can say about it; to call this the Beyond, the Absolute, or God, or a Person is to go further than the experience itself and to plunge into a theology or metaphysics."

 

6. Impersonal Tone. "Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences."

 

7. Feeling of exaltation. "That this feeling inevitably accompanies satori is due to the fact that it is the breaking-up of the restrction imposed on one as an individual being, and this breaking up is not a mere negative incident but quite a positive one fraught with signification because it means an infinite expansion of the individual."

 

8. Momentariness. "Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori.

Source: Suzuki, D.T. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.T, Suzuki, (New York: Anchor Books, 1956), pp. 103-108.

 

One thing I find interesting about the Sutra is that when approached intellectually, it almost seems a little depressing (nihilistic). This seems to be true for many westerners when confronted with the notion of 'emptiness'. Approached logically, I can almost see it in this light. I say almost, because I have experienced otherwise. When I read the Sutra from my Heart (as it seems it was intended!) I am instead filled with happiness and joy, and I can't really explain why conceptually.
I too, do not find it depressing or nihilistic at all.
So though it can be used as support for certain Buddhist dogma, I find the Heart Sutra at home in Taoist philosophy as well. I find that not only does it complement the Tao Te Ching, it is indeed remarkably similar.

You will not be able to understand Emptiness if you study it with other concepts in mind - you have to really study the teachings on the teachings' terms in order to get any understanding out of it.

 

As Greg Goode (who was into Advaita and once tried to read emptiness teachings through those concepts) said,

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

Edited by xabir2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how I learned the Heart Sutra in a Zen group:

 

We repeated it every time we sat. After about a year or so, I had it pretty well inscribed into my mind. Then, as I went about my life and meditation, I would suddenly realize "oh, this is what that means!"

 

This is an ongoing process. In fact, I would say my whole spiritual "path" is just a few ideas that keep getting deeper and deeper and transforming me in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nature of phenomena is definitely comprehensible, but not through the intellect, but via a transrational moment of realization.

 

Have you ever heard the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant? One said "an elephant must be like a snake" because he felt the trunk, another said "it must be like a tree" because he felt the leg. And so on...

 

to me the mysterious is like this. Your realization is yours, other people's is theirs, and as you point out, those who haven't had a direct experience of the nature of reality must rely on others.

 

I have had my experience which is not less of an experience of reality than yours, and not more. So because we each possess our own distinct natures we see reflected back upon us two faces of the jewel. What i have experienced in my own indescribable direct experience is as i have described, and it is not less for anyone saying "oh no thats not the nature of reality." There will always be those who have great insight and believe in the firmness of the foundation of that insight. What else could people do, they must?

 

I have only had a small insight that there is no foundation, no knowing in an absolute way. In other words, everything is subjectively perceived and described. So nobody can be "right" or "wrong" in this conversation. It is just a conversation by blind men about an elephant.

 

So that is where i have been and colors where i am, in spite of anyones insistence to the contrary.

 

In other words, you have perceived godlessness and emptiness because you stood on the shoulders of buddhists to get your view, and were imprinted thusly. Those who stand on the shoulders of those who perceive a divine being will get their view in a different way. And it will color what they are able to perceive directly, powerful and absolute as that might seem to them.

 

To me, both are true, and everything is true. There is god. There is no god. There is a self, and on the other hand, there is definitely not. There is no way of adequately talking about the nature of reality, yet we continue to converse about our insights. It is both helpful and not helpful, and so on, ad infinitum.

 

So i am very glad that you have realized what you have realized, and i don't question that it reflects in its unique way a part of the nature of reality, but i personally doubt that human beings are endowed with the capacity to realize even a shadow of the nature of reality, much less the infinite mystery itself. However i realize that this is all just more subjective intellectualization about what is objective and beyond intellect, so in that regard, i am surely wrong. hahah :)

 

best to you

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my friend (and 'student' of Thusness) Simpo said,

 

There are actually 2 significant events:

 

1. In the 1980s when i was a teenager, i sat down to meditate for the first time. I experienced great bliss. In this meditation, i experienced 'no ultimate right or wrong' aka non-judgemental and is soaked in a vast ocean of bliss for a few days. Haha... i thought i was enlightened. On hindsight now, i know that i was not. That is why now when people write about non-dual to meant 'no right/wrong' I know which stage they are at.

 

2. In the 1990s, i join a meditation class that held sessions every Sunday at a Buddhist temple. I was learning one-point meditation. One afternoon when i was meditating at home, all the sensory impressions stopped including thoughts. I was in a state of 'No-thoughts'. One may think that when there are no thoughts, one must be unconscious. No there is no unconsciousness. Instead what was being experienced was pure Presence/awareness. However due to not understanding the nature of consciousness and reality, this awareness was experienced as an Eternal Witness/Observer. This is the pure experience of I AM presence.

 

 

There are further stages of insight and that includes No Self and Emptiness. This is a universal truth and can be investigated, discovered as such.

Edited by xabir2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that one of the most interesting things about life is that, in terms of subtle levels of reality, we see largely what we look for, or expect to see. And not only do we see it, but we believe it, and it works for us.

 

In regards to what I said to xabir about standing on the shoulders of buddhists, it seems that if one looks to the highest nature of reality with the expectation that they will perceive nothingness and godlessness, that is what they will find. But I have had my experiences with energy, possession by dark spirits, and cleansing areas of houses i lived in, for some examples, in which nothing worked at all, but when i invoked the creator, not by name, but just saying, for example, "by the power of the creator..." and then asking/commanding something, WHAM it happens. In the same instance that yielded failure by more effort, the only difference being that the creator was invoked. So is that real? hahahah does it "exist"? Why, when some people look to the highest nature of reality, do they find a transcendental "being" or "intelligence" or "deity"? And if they are deluded by a nature which is not actually the highest nature, why does it work when invoked? Why does nobody invoke godlessness or emptiness when they have serious energetic work to do? "by the power of emptiness, be cleansed".. I have never even heard of that. But, 2 weeks ago, i was getting some old nasty energy out of our apartment and nothing i knew moved it until i simply invoked the creator (without speech even) and felt it all lift away in a creepy dark cloud and remove itself from the area. It was profound.

 

So i am not arguing, "oh there must be a God" in the abrahamic sense, but there is certainly something out there that seems to be a yang counterpart to emptiness' yin.

 

Apologies if that had nothing to do with the heart sutra, and belonged in another thread. I guess I'm the OP so i'll reserve the right to talk about whatever i like :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xabir, thanks for your reply. Interesting account of Satori, Suzuki is great. Also, thanks for the link to Greg Goode. He seems pretty cool. I haven't looked at his website in depth, but it looks like he is still teaching Advaita philosopy and methods along with emptiness teachings. According to you are these compatible? Would Advaita then be a stepping stone to the higher realization of emptiness? If so why do you think he focuses on it? Skillful means?

 

I'm still with anamatva on this one. I'm not really seeing that your insights aren't influenced by Buddhist conditioning. It seems like what one looks for they will find. In fact, this is an issue I have with certain Vipassana teachings in general. If you look for no-self, impermance, etc, of course you find them. But you could also look for atman and find that too. What makes you think no-self is 'higher' or more true? To make substantive claims about the nature of reality based on subjective experiences is a risky endeavor. It is worthwhile to ponder the contrast of the universality of science and the dissent of religions.

 

Also, what do you think of the Ken Cohen quote? Do you think that 'energy' is real?

 

anamatva, interesting about your invoking the Creator for energy work. I have found invoking Kuan Yin to be very powerful when working with energy also, even though she doesn't have 'creator' status lol. I agree that the yin/yang polarity of taoism does a lot to shed light on the paradoxes of emptiness teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation;

 

This is the stage I'm at. I have not attained even the cessation of thoughts so it's moot for me to talk about anything beyond that.

 

This is why I'm truly bewildered by VMarco always going on and on about how bad beliefs are! :huh: Without the belief that Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings are true and that I, too, can implement them and thus attain Buddhahood / Realize the Tao I would not have even bothered to try to do so. I'd still be sitting on my ass being an Ass so to speak.

 

I do have beliefs: I believe that the teachings by the Buddha are true and give a blueprint or roadmap on how I or anyone else can come to have the same realization he did/has.

 

And I have - alas - not led a very meritorious life when I consider where I want to be (Diamond-Sutra Bodhisattva then on to full-blown Buddhahood).

 

The one thing lately however that I have come to strenuously believe beyond a shadow of a doubt is that cultivating Virtue is absolutely CRUCIAL to attaining any kind of Prajna Wisdom. Without the cultivation of Virtue..first, last and always...then you might as well toss in the towel on the rest of it.

 

I think even the Buddha himself - just like Confucius and just like Lao Tzu (and just like Jesus for that matter!) constantly stressed the need to cultivate Virtue.

 

I've interpreted that as it first manifesting as...

 

1. the wish to cultivate Virtue and then

2. actually putting Virtue into practice

 

As in, roll up your sleeves and get in there and start helping other sentient beings while upholding the Precepts.

 

To that end I've taken Liao Fan's, Lao Tzu's, Confucius', Jesus' and the Buddha's teachings to heart

 

I'm looking around for ways to volunteer my time to aid others - and especially aid in the sharing of the Dharma. And *especially* in how actually doing good deeds speeds up realizing Prajna Wisdom (along with assorted other blessings too). Since doing so my thoughts have gotten - hmm...how to say it...softer. There are short moments when they aren't so insistent and sometimes disappear. I just wish they'd stay gone for 24 hours as opposed to 24 seconds. :lol:

 

 

Here's something else that I have taken to heart - especially since I am plagued with thoughts still. I have been trying off and on for over a year and a half to get my thoughts to settle down. Simply noticing my breath was not doing the trick. I'd get frustrated and quit for a while then start up again. Once I hit a hardcore "wall" so to speak and even though I was berating myself daily that I should be practicing I simply could not bring myself to sit for even 5 minutes (!) to simply notice my breath. That weird "inner balking donkey" surprised the heck out of me.

 

I finally got over it and back into practicing. But I've been reading more spiritual books when I was directed to the book about Liao Fan. Bill Bodri (whom I am a HUGE fan of) discussed him. Now I got *very* lucky and found a used copy on Amazon for only a few dollars but you can read it for free in a PDF

 

Here - Liao Fan's 4 Lessons

 

It's actually a short easy and very enjoyable read as it tells Liao Fan's story. A lot of it is about what Liao Fan learned about the necessity of cultivating Virtue and how doing so started changing his prophesied "fate" the moment he rolled up his sleeves and started doing good deeds for others. Prior, he'd been depressed that everything prophesied about his life had come true and it made him listless and despondent and like he wasn't in control of his own life.

 

Anyway...there's more to it than just that. It's a really fun read. It ties in very nicely with Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Vedanta, Christianity...etc...basically any of the world's religions that stress cultivating kindness to others.

 

 

In fact...tonight I was watching a Fora TV debate between some Scientific-Oriented Agnostics vs. Pro-Religion defenders. The question debated was whether the world would be better off without religion.

 

And the whole time I kept thinking...it is not necessarily organized religion in and of itself the Defenders where saying needs defending. What they really seemed to be saying is that anyone who follows a religion truly is a cultivator of Virtue. Much maligned though organized religions may be they are also the organizations that historically have been the staunchest defenders of and reminders that humanity needs to constantly be cultivating Virtue. Alas...human history with an Agnostic Skepticism bent doesn't yet have a long enough track record to say the same thing. Perhaps in time it too can say the same but so far it's just the noob on the scene.

 

If anyone is interested in the debate you can see it here

 

The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion

 

Oh..and on the subject of Enlightenment

 

Master Nan said something that cracked me up. I got a big laugh out of it. I'll paraphrase since I don't have the quote directly in front of me.

 

 

He said something to the effect of

 

"if you Realize the Tao while in Full Lotus but lose it when you uncross your legs you were only Realizing and Attaining your Legs."

 

I busted up laughing for real the moment I read that. :lol:

 

Oh man, I wonder how many meditators who're convinced they've occasionally Realized the Tao might deflate the moment they read that? :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anamatva, interesting about your invoking the Creator for energy work. I have found invoking Kuan Yin to be very powerful when working with energy also, even though she doesn't have 'creator' status lol. I agree that the yin/yang polarity of taoism does a lot to shed light on the paradoxes of emptiness teachings.

 

I have had interesting experiences using om mani padme hum as more than just a mantra of compassion, as protection, and as a sort of incantation to make good things happen. I also really dig kuan yin magnetic qigong as taught by chris matsuo. I have always been drawn to her, and avalokitesvara, and she sits centrally on my altar.

 

yeah :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the stage I'm at. I have not attained even the cessation of thoughts so it's moot for me to talk about anything beyond that.

 

i think that the cessation of thoughts is just a meditative thing. As far as i have learned, enlightened people can think if they want to, or find it useful. I mean maybe buddha and the mahabodhisattvas are %100 spontaneous, but i bring it up because i think its a misconception that we aren't supposed to think. So if you realize the nature of self or have deep insight into life or reality or human nature etc you might still think :)

 

This is why I'm truly bewildered by VMarco always going on and on about how bad beliefs are! :huh: Without the belief that Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings are true and that I, too, can implement them and thus attain Buddhahood / Realize the Tao I would not have even bothered to try to do so. I'd still be sitting on my ass being an Ass so to speak.

 

a lot of people say a lot of bewildering stuff, but i think you are right on. Perhaps at one point, a person can let go of their beliefs when their virtue is internalized and spontaneous without blemish, but that is a very very high accomplishment. I wouldn't worry about the bewildering stuff people say (especially if they don't demonstrate the basic virtues like compassion and loving kindness).

 

The one thing lately however that I have come to strenuously believe beyond a shadow of a doubt is that cultivating Virtue is absolutely CRUCIAL to attaining any kind of Prajna Wisdom. Without the cultivation of Virtue..first, last and always...then you might as well toss in the towel on the rest of it.

 

yeah! i think the same thing :)

 

awesome post, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed faith is very important. Only by relying on faith of a truly enlightened master, studying and practicing the teachings seriously, can one be expected to attain true enlightenment and liberation.

 

Even today after having some direct realization non-dependent on faith, I have faith in certain things. For example anamatva talks about invoking higher powers. I, too, invoke on higher powers - especially the Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva (Guan Yin) and it is my experience and belief that it is highly effective. So even though I have never personally met or saw Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, I have faith in him/her.

 

Higher powers do not necessarily need to respond only to the "correct name" so to speak. Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva can also help and respond to someone who believes in a creator God, for example.

 

But if you have right view and understand that there is no creator God, then in that case just chanting "namo guan shi yin pu sa" would suffice.

 

The Lotus Sutra chapter 25 states:

 

http://www.fodian.ne...ld/0262_25.html

 

"The Buddha told Inexhaustible Intention Bodhisattva, "Good man, if living beings in this land must be saved by means of someone in the body of a Buddha, Guanshiyin Bodhisattva will manifest in the body of a Buddha and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Pratyekabuddha, he will manifest in the body of a Pratyekabuddha and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Hearer, he will manifest in the body of a Hearer and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of the Brahma King, he will manifest in the body of the Brahma King and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of Shakra, he will manifest in the body of Shakra and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of the God of Sovereignty, he will manifest in the body of the God of Sovereignty and speak Dharma for them.

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of the Great God of Sovereignty, he will manifest in the body of the Great God of Sovereignty and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a great heavenly general, he will manifest in the body of a great heavenly general and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of Vaishravana, he will manifest in the body of Vaishravana and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a minor king, he will manifest in the body of a minor king and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of an Elder, he will manifest in the body of an Elder and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a layman, he will manifest in the body of a layman and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a minister of state, he will manifest in the body of a minister of state and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Brahman, he will manifest in the body of a Brahman and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Bhikshu, Bhikshuni, Upasaka, or Upasika, he will manifest in the body of a Bhikshu, Bhikshuni, Upasaka, or Upasika and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of the wife of an Elder, of a layman, of a minister of state, or of a Brahman, he will manifest in a wife's body and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a pure youth or a pure maiden, he will manifest in the body of a pure youth or pure maiden and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a heavenly dragon, yaksha, gandharva, asura, garuda, kinnara, mahoraga, human, or nonhuman, and so forth, he will manifest in such a body and speak Dharma for them.

 

"If they must be saved by someone in the body of a Vajra-wielding spirit, he will manifest in the body of a Vajra-wielding spirit and speak Dharma for them.

 

"Inexhaustible Intention! Guanshiyin Bodhisattva has accomplished merit and virtue such as this and, in all manner of forms, roams throughout the land, saving and liberating living beings.

 

"Therefore you should all single-mindedly make offerings to Guanshiyin Bodhisattva. Guanshiyin Bodhisattva Mahasattva can, in the midst of fear, crisis, and hardship, bestow fearlessness. That is why in this Saha world all call him the "Bestower of Fearlessness." "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xabir, thanks for your reply. Interesting account of Satori, Suzuki is great. Also, thanks for the link to Greg Goode. He seems pretty cool. I haven't looked at his website in depth, but it looks like he is still teaching Advaita philosopy and methods along with emptiness teachings. According to you are these compatible? Would Advaita then be a stepping stone to the higher realization of emptiness? If so why do you think he focuses on it? Skillful means?

 

I'm still with anamatva on this one. I'm not really seeing that your insights aren't influenced by Buddhist conditioning. It seems like what one looks for they will find. In fact, this is an issue I have with certain Vipassana teachings in general. If you look for no-self, impermance, etc, of course you find them. But you could also look for atman and find that too. What makes you think no-self is 'higher' or more true? To make substantive claims about the nature of reality based on subjective experiences is a risky endeavor. It is worthwhile to ponder the contrast of the universality of science and the dissent of religions.

 

Also, what do you think of the Ken Cohen quote? Do you think that 'energy' is real?

First you need to understand what is the realization of I AM or Atman. It is that in a transcendental moment without concepts, one discovers the pure presence-beingness, a pure sense of existence, which is undeniably present and conscious. In that moment of realization there is no reifying it into a purest identity, but due to latent framework of seeing inherently and dualistically, that Pure Presence is taken as a purest identity and reified into something like an Eternal Witness.

 

Then later one discovers that the subject/object framework of seeing reality is false, that there never has been a subject object, observer-observed dichotomy. At this point every perception and sensation is experienced as Pure Presence and Awareness. But even though one has overcome the dualistic framework due to nondual realization, because one still cannot overcome the view of an inherent self, one still subsumes everything to be One Mind, One Naked Awareness - like an inherently existing mirror inseparable from and manifesting itself as all its reflections. There is no witness/witnessed dichotomy, but Awareness is seen as inherent.

 

Then comes the realization that there is no seer-seeing-see, there is no self, no agent, never was and never is. In seeing always just the scenery, shapes, colours, the process of seeing without a seer. Same goes for hearing, thinking, etc. At this point one realizes no subjective self, but objects may still be seen as inherent, until one realizes the emptiness of phenomena.

 

So you can see that each level of realization includes and transcends the previous realization.

 

The next realization does not deny a previous realization and experience, but refines the view. So the masters have said before, "keep the experience but refine the view."

 

For example non-dual realization does not deny the non-conceptual beingness and presence experienced in the gap between thoughts, but understands it is merely one aspect of consciousness pertaining to the mind realm, and actually all manifestations, seeing, hearing, smelling etc are equally pure consciousness without subject/object dichotomy. Hence this takes away the specialness and ultimacy of I AM-ness but seeing the one taste or single flavor of all manifestations - I AM is no more I AM than a sound or a sight.

 

Then the next realization, anatta, sees that there is no self, while not rejecting the previous insight of no subject-object division (if in seeing just the seen no seer, non-dual is already implicit) but further deconstructs the view of an inherent self or awareness into its constituents streams of cognizance or manifestation arising from the various sense doors, so in effect it is realized that the process itself rolls and knows without a knower.

 

By the way realization of anatta and emptiness is not an experience - it is a realization that there never was or is a self or an object of phenomena. In seeing just the seen, no seer, always has been the case. It is not an inferred conclusion, or a mere experience, but a realization that this has always been so - there is no self right from the beginning, self is merely learnt, a deluded framework.

 

In other words no-self is not a state or a thing you find, but a delusion that you permanently see through in a moment of realization, like waking up from a dream, or discovering that santa claus isn't real, or the likes.

 

I do not agree with Ken Cohen's view that sensual reality is real/existing. Appearance cannot be denied but is empty. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

 

"Though the knowing part manifests individually without ceasing [mkhyen pa’i cha ma ‘gag par so sor gsal kyang] since compassion is present as the wisdom of vidyā [thugs rje rig pa’i ye shes su bzhugs pas], the aspect of action and agent [bya ba dang byed pa’i rnam] appearing as [du snang ba] an object and a subject [yul yul can] does not exist."

 

- Kongtrul

 

(Compassion here means something like unceasing manifestation/appearances)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites