Our basic results are as follows: 1. For “無得” (wúdé) [as used in one section of the Heart Sutra], we followed the part of the Heart Sūtra extracted directly from the larger text to adopt a reading of “no attainment”, in the sense of realization of spiritual fruitions. This is still in conformity with the majority of modern readings. 2. Regarding the phrase “以無所得故” (yĭ wú sŭodé gů) [used in a later section of the Heart Sutra], we concluded that it most closely corresponds to the notion of “due to engagement in nonapprehension”. This clearly differs from the common notion that it is the same basic term as the first phrase, i.e. “attainment”, and means the non-apprehension of an object of the senses or of a contemplative practice. The term is more likely from “an-upa-√labh(-yoga)” in the instrumental, and not from “prāpti(tva)” in the ablative. ...
Finally, we would like to take our new readings of these passages in the Heart Sūtra [to create the following new translation]:
Therefore, Śāriputra, in emptiness
there is no form, no sensation, perception, volitions or cognition;
no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind;
no sight, sound, aroma, flavor, tactile or mental object;
no eye, sight, visual cognition, up to, no mind, mental object,
mental cognition;
no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, up to, no aging and death,
no extinction of aging and death;
no dissatisfaction, origin, cessation, path;
no gnosis, no realization;
due to engagement in non-apprehension.
... The key difference in this framing is that here ... the frame is “In emptiness, … due to engagement in non-apprehension”. It is our view that this shifts emphasis from an ontological negation of classical lists, i.e. “there is no X”, to an epistemological stance. That is, when the bodhisattva is “in emptiness”, i.e. the contemplative meditation of the emptiness of phenomena, he is “engaged in the non-apprehension” of these phenomena. “Engagement” can be seen as a broad term covering practices, meditations, contemplations and so forth of perfect wisdom. Such a reading thus does not run counter to the notion that when not “in emptiness”, such phenomena may still be apprehended, perceived to exist and function as objects of contemplation.
The next division, VI, now shorn of the statement which most editions and translations place at the start, therefore reads as follows:
The bodhisattvas, due to being supported by transcendental
knowledge, have minds which do not hang on anything;
due to their minds not hanging on anything, they are without fear;
removed from perverted perceptions and views, they ultimately
realize nirvāna.
The bodhisattva, who at V was said to be “engaged in non-apprehension”, i.e. meditating on emptiness, is here “supported by transcendental knowledge”, i.e. prajńāpāramitā. The two phrases are basically synonymous. Therefore, due to not apprehending phenomena, the mind of the bodhisattva does not hang up on anything at all. They are “not hung up”, possibly from “asakta” (or “asatta”), and thus a bodhi-“sattva” (or “satta”) is freed of views of a living being “asattva” (or “asatta”) by his non-apprehension, his engagement in the contemplation of emptiness.