Form and Emptiness in Heart Sutra

[Zenkon]

In our reciting of the Heart of Great Perfect Wisdom sutra, we say "...form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form..." I have been wrestling with this statement for quite some time. I keep putting it aside and I try to understand the remainder of the sutra, but I keep coming back and getting stuck. Emptiness is a characteristic. This statement seems to be saying that all form (and the other skandas) are empty. Ok, so far so good. How can the characteristic (emptiness) be the same as the "thing" (form)? And, I can understand how all form is empty. However, it seems to say that all emptiness is form. How can this be? All perception and formations are empty, but they are not all form.

Maybe I am over-thinking this, and the point is simply that form and all the skandas are empty. But, maybe I am missing some key point where it says "emptiness is form". Can someone help me understand this. Any comments or suggestions greatly appreciated.

Gassho

Dick

sat/lah

[Dogukan]

Hi Dick,

It's way beyond me. But I can quote Taisen Deshimaru's explanation on this very subject. I hope it can be helpful for you and all of us.

"Phenomena themselves are ku. All through summer, the chestnut tree is green with foliage. The leaves hide its branches. When autumn comes, the tree's colors change and the leaves fall. Winter strips the tree bare. Shiki becomes ku. This lasts until spring, when little by little, the buds appear, and the tree becomes green again. This is ku soku ze shiki.

Therefore we must always consider the two aspects of any phenomenon. Such an attitude reflects compassion. Ku is totality, but all things are ku, emptiness. The infinite is included in nothingness. Everything is created, composed, connected by a chain of interdependent causes and interacting effects. All material phenomena are shiki, without substance, without noumenon. Created through en, the principle of interdependence, they cannot exist in isolation. This is the meaning of shiki soku ze ku. Shiki itself is ku.

But to consider things in this way alone shows an erroneous understanding, as there is also the second phrase: Ku soku ze shiki. To say 'shiki in itself is nothing' only expresses a partial view, tending towards ontological nihilism, a dangerous attitude because it is simply destructive. Common sense tells us that phenomena are nothing other than phenomena: shiki soku ze shiki. And nothing is nothing: ku soku ze ku. This view contains a portion of truth. However, 'shiki soku ze ku' and 'ku soku ze shiki' are the complementary aspects of the truth, the opposite and necessary poles. This is Buddhist philosophy.

There is unceasing movement between one pole and the other. With ku, nothing, even the poor can become rich. The negative potentially contains the positive and actualizes it at the right moment. In this way, the negative annihilates itself by liberating the positive. The same process applies to all the forms and phenomena of the manifested world. From death appears life; birth leads inevitably towards death. The beautiful becomes ugly; the ugly becomes beautiful. Youth contains old age; old age contains youth. Everything exists in its potential, and everything contains its opposite, and exists only relative to it. Everything is in the process of becoming its opposite. Nothing and everything are not mutually exclusive but exist only by virtue of the other, through the other, in unity. If you see ku, also see shiki. If you see shiki, also see ku. This attitude is the basis of wisdom. The whole of the Hannya Shingyo is based on the formulation of this law. Understanding it (not intellectually, but within, knowing it with the whole of your body-mind) smoothes all obstacles, removes all pseudo-difficulties. It is to possess the Great Wisdom that vanquishes all obstacles."

These sentences are from Deshimaru Roshi's book "Moshokotu Mind: The Heart of the Heart Sutra".

[Risho]

This should come from a qualified Zen teacher, which I am not; at the same time, I play one on the internet Shohaku Okumura Roshi says it points to interconnectedness. I think this is right on - I swear Jundo has a talk on this - I guess one could argue that all of his talks are about this topic and zazen is the embodiment of this.

Traditionally I believe there was a prevalent idea in India that humans had a permanent abiding "true" self called an atman, sort of like a soul. This idea of emptiness is a reaction to this; basically emptiness is a reference to an enduring permanent self, that is our "self" is empty (doesn't have) any permanent and enduring anything - we are subject to the laws of cause and effect and are part of this dynamic changing universe - moreover we are this dynamic changing universe (form is emptiness). The dance of life (to steal from Jundo) is an ever flowing, changing and dynamic reality --> empty of a permanent, unchanging anything. Yet we are still here and quite real just perhaps a bit more plastic and not at all as fixed as we would think (emptiness is form: perhaps we are each instances of the universe - its very unique expressions of itself) - we are not only participants in the dance but the dance itself.

I think the language gets confusing - and believe me it is for everyone - since language is boolean/binary describing a middle way, that does not allow itself to be pinned down by opposites, between both using words is very very tricky. The Heart Sutra is pointing out that middle way.

I also think this is what saves Buddhism from being nihilistic, which it is oftentimes mistakenly portrayed as being. When we die, where do we go? where do we come from? It is a mystery - in many ways I think that those who pass from this visible world may not really be gone - although they are also gone in the way we normally think of them. Additionally, we oftentimes feel isolated and separated but that isn't really the case at all. And not to get woo woo (because I am not lol) but I feel as if the universe takes care of us in many real ways, almost as if things happen for us - maybe this is because we are the universe already. At the same time I better get back to work or this universe will need to look for a new job. hahahah

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

PS Apologies for going over

[Kokuu]

Traditionally I believe there was a prevalent idea in India that humans had a permanent abiding "true" self called an atman, sort of like a soul. This idea of emptiness is a reaction to this; basically emptiness is a reference to an enduring permanent self, that is our "self" is empty (doesn't have) any permanent and enduring anything - we are subject to the laws of cause and effect and are part of this dynamic changing universe - moreover we are this dynamic changing universe (form is emptiness). The dance of life (to steal from Jundo) is an ever flowing, changing and dynamic reality --> empty of a permanent, unchanging anything. Yet we are still here and quite real just perhaps a bit more plastic and not at all as fixed as we would think (emptiness is form: perhaps we are each instances of the universe - its very unique expressions of itself) - we are not only participants in the dance but the dance itself.

Sounds good to me, Risho!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Inshin]

Hi Dick,

It's way beyond me. But I can quote Taisen Deshimaru's explanation on this very subject. I hope it can be helpful for you and all of us.



These sentences are from Deshimaru Roshi's book "Moshokotu Mind: The Heart of the Heart Sutra".

Thanks for this quote!

I think I prefer “boundlessness“ as a translation of Shunyata. Still the limitations of language...

Gassho,
Sat

[Bion]

In our reciting of the Heart of Great Perfect Wisdom sutra, we say "...form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form..." I have been wrestling with this statement for quite some time. I keep putting it aside and I try to understand the remainder of the sutra, but I keep coming back and getting stuck. Emptiness is a characteristic. This statement seems to be saying that all form (and the other skandas) are empty. Ok, so far so good. How can the characteristic (emptiness) be the same as the "thing" (form)? And, I can understand how all form is empty. However, it seems to say that all emptiness is form. How can this be? All perception and formations are empty, but they are not all form.

Maybe I am over-thinking this, and the point is simply that form and all the skandas are empty. But, maybe I am missing some key point where it says "emptiness is form". Can someone help me understand this. Any comments or suggestions greatly appreciated.

Gassho

Dick

sat/lah

Since everything is devoid or empty of independent existence, nothing exists solely because of itself. But emptiness itself, the lack of something, can only be perceived in relation to the existence of something else. The mere “concept” of emptiness is a form, as it requires mind, thoughts, logic to exist. So, emptiness manifests as form and form is the result of emptiness. Like good can’t exist without evil, or night without day, life without death, like the feet one behind the other creating balance and walking.

That is however just my understanding of it.


SatToday Sorry for the length


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zenkon]

Thank you all for the help. I think I have a much better understanding of this now.

Gassho

Dick

sat/lah

[Jundo]

Hi,

First, this is best felt and experienced, rather than just thought about, which is what our Zazen is for ... as it softens and sometimes drops away the hard borders that separate 'this' from 'that,' me from you and the other thing.

I speak of "Emptiness" as actually the flowing Wholeness of all that sweeps in all individuality, and yet is all things too. Sometimes mystics use the image of the individual waves rising and falling on the surface of the sea which are actually nothing more or less than the moving sea itself (I use in my book the Great Dance that comes alive in all its individual dancers, yet the dancers are just swept up and vanish in the total dance). The sea or dance is not a "thing," can't be nailed down or pinned to the wall with a label, but is the very motion and change itself. When the wave or the solo dancer recognizes itself as not only an individual, subject to birth and death, rising and falling, but as the whole Sea, the whole Dance ... we are free.

Frankly, I am not crazy about Deshimaru Roshi's little explanation there, which strikes me as very tangled on some points. I am not sure why it is so, maybe how the translator handled it. Why is he calling "ku" as "nothing"? The tree's leaves falling is not a very good example of "shiki becomes ku," because the tree with leaves is Emptiness, the tree without leaves is Emptiness. The leaves are Emptiness, the falling is Emptiness. Nothing escapes Emptiness which, in fact, is not "nothing," but the wholeness so Whole Holy Whole that it leaps right through all dichotomies, even "something vs. nothingness," "falling vs. not falling" etc. etc.

And what the heck is "There is unceasing movement between one pole and the other. With ku, nothing, even the poor can become rich. The negative potentially contains the positive and actualizes it at the right moment. In this way, the negative annihilates itself by liberating the positive." That sounds more like some kind of Yin/Yang idea, nothing about form and emptiness. Rich is Empty, poor is Empty, as the Dance leaps through all "rich vs. poor," yet is sometimes a dance of being poor and sometimes a dance of being rich! Also, his example is mistaken (if it is meant to show some poles of "form and emptiness") of "From death appears life; birth leads inevitably towards death. The beautiful becomes ugly; the ugly becomes beautiful." One "pole" is not empty while the other "pole" is form. It is a basic Zen teaching that death is Empty (the sea, the dance) and life is Empty (the sea, the dance), likewise for the beautiful and ugly ... all Empty Empty Empty, thus we leap beyond "life vs. death," although sometimes we live and sometimes we die.

Sorry, that is just one very confused passage. Deshimaru was a great teacher of sitting, but sometimes I find his explanations of Zen philosophy a bit his own.

We recently had a series of Talks on the Heart Sutra, if it helps Dick, during our monthly Zazenkai's early this year. Here is the one that dealt with the "form/emptiness" words ...

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...AND-CLOTHES%21

And the whole series is slowly being turned into a Podcast ...

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...Podcast-Series

Gassho, J

STLah

PS - Risho, rather wordy ... but not too bad.

[Bion]

Hi,

First, this is best felt and experienced, rather than just thought about, which is what our Zazen is for ... as it softens and sometimes drops away the hard borders that separate this from that, me from you and the other thing.

I speak of "Emptiness" as actually the flowing Wholeness of all that sweeps in all individuality, and yet is all things too. Sometimes mystics use the image of the individual waves rising and falling on the surface of the sea which are actually nothing more or less than the moving sea itself (I use in my book the Great Dance that comes alive in all its individual dancers, yet the dancers are just swept up and vanish in the total dance). The sea or dance is not a "thing," but the very motion and change itself. When the wave or the solo dancer recognizes itself as not only an individual, subject to birth and death, rising and falling, but as the whole Sea, the whole Dance ... we are free.

Frankly, I am not crazy about Deshimaru Roshi's little explanation there, which strikes me as very tangled on some points. I am not sure why, maybe how the translator handled it. Why is he calling "ku" as "nothing"? The tree's leaves falling are not a very good example of "shiki becomes ku," because the tree with leaves is Emptiness, the tree without leaves is Emptiness. The leaves are Emptiness, the falling is Emptiness. Nothing escapes Emptiness which, in fact, is not "nothing," but the wholeness so Whole Holy Whole that it leaps right through all dichotomies, even "something vs. nothingness."

And what the heck is "There is unceasing movement between one pole and the other. With ku, nothing, even the poor can become rich. The negative potentially contains the positive and actualizes it at the right moment. In this way, the negative annihilates itself by liberating the positive." That sounds more like some kind of Yin/Yang idea, nothing about form and emptiness. Rich are Empty, Poor are Empty, as the Dance leaps through all "rich vs. poor," yet is sometimes a dance of poor and sometimes a dance of being rich! Also, "From death appears life; birth leads inevitably towards death. The beautiful becomes ugly; the ugly becomes beautiful." It is a basic Zen teaching that death is empty (the sea, the dance) and life is empty (the sea, the dance), likewise for the beautiful and ugly ... all empty empty.

Sorry, that is just one very confused passage.

We recently had a series of Talks on the Heart Sutra, if it helps Dick, during our monthly Zazenkai's early this year. Here is the one that dealt with the "form/emptiness" words ...

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...AND-CLOTHES%21

And the whole series is slowly being turned into a Podcast ...

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...Podcast-Series

Gassho, J

STLah

Slowly being the word du jour

SatToday

[Jundo]

Since everything is devoid or empty of independent existence, nothing exists solely because of itself. But emptiness itself, the lack of something, can only be perceived in relation to the existence of something else. The mere “concept” of emptiness is a form, as it requires mind, thoughts, logic to exist. So, emptiness manifests as form and form is the result of emptiness. Like good can’t exist without evil, or night without day, life without death, like the feet one behind the other creating balance and walking.

Hmmm. Maybe you are thinking of opposite poles here too?

Good is Empty, evil is Empty, night is Empty, day is Empty, left foot is Empty, right foot is Empty, the concept of form (in contrast to "empty") is Empty, the concept of "empty" (in contrast to "form") is ultimately Empty ... for all is the Sweeping Wholeness that is also manifest in each moment of good or evil, night passing to day, left feet and right feet, walking or sitting still, Dick and Bion, words like "form and emptiness" ...

... each and all, with no exception, the "can't be nailed down" Sea/Dance of Wholly Holy Whole Whirling Onward!

Gassho, J

STLah

[Bion]

Hmmm. Maybe you are thinking of opposite poles here too?

Good is Empty, evil is Empty, night is Empty, day is Empty, left foot is Empty, right foot is Empty, the concept of form (in contrast to "empty") is Empty, the concept of "empty" (in contrast to "form" is ultimately Empty ... for all is the Sweeping Wholeness that is also manifest in each moment of good or evil, night passing to day, left feet and right feet, walking or sitting still, words like "form and emptiness" ...

... each and all, with no exception, the Wholly Holy Whole Whirling Onward!

Gassho, J

STLah

No, not opposites at all. I don’t think emptiness is the opposite of form or viceversa. They are each other, and inseparable. The distinction we make is, I feel, absurd, but we become oblivious to that one-ness, and so we need reminders in the form of confusing concepts that we then dissect using way too many words.

SatToday.

[Jundo]

No, not opposites at all. I don’t think emptiness is the opposite of form or viceversa. They are each other, and inseparable. The distinction we make is, I feel, absurd, but we become oblivious to that one-ness, and so we need reminders in the form of confusing concepts that we then dissect using way too many words.

SatToday.

I see.

And in Zen, even this word "one-ness" is a trap, as it contrasts with "twoness" and "threeness." One is Empty, zero is Empty, two is Empty, three is Empty ... 145632929402973424 is Empty ... infinity is Empty ....

And, we Soto folks under Dogen's inspiration, feel that the "Emptiness" revalues the individual! What I mean is that, in many corners of Eastern beliefs including Zen, some folks think that the point of our practice is to get totally beyond the "individual" to the "Empty/Wholeness" only, as if we are to calm all the waves on the sea and leave just the water. However, Dogen said that the sea also pours into and comes to life as the individual waves, which are not just separate "waves" as they may ignorantly think they are (before being waves that practice Zazen! ) but yet are each to be cherished for being its own unique jewel too. Mountains are mountains, mountains not mountains, mountains are mountains again. Even two, three, 145632929402973424, zero and infinity are sacred jewel waves too!

Gassho, J

STLah

[Dogukan]

Hi,

First, this is best felt and experienced, rather than just thought about, which is what our Zazen is for ... as it softens and sometimes drops away the hard borders that separate 'this' from 'that,' me from you and the other thing.

I speak of "Emptiness" as actually the flowing Wholeness of all that sweeps in all individuality, and yet is all things too. Sometimes mystics use the image of the individual waves rising and falling on the surface of the sea which are actually nothing more or less than the moving sea itself (I use in my book the Great Dance that comes alive in all its individual dancers, yet the dancers are just swept up and vanish in the total dance). The sea or dance is not a "thing," can't be nailed down or pinned to the wall with a label, but is the very motion and change itself. When the wave or the solo dancer recognizes itself as not only an individual, subject to birth and death, rising and falling, but as the whole Sea, the whole Dance ... we are free.

Frankly, I am not crazy about Deshimaru Roshi's little explanation there, which strikes me as very tangled on some points. I am not sure why it is so, maybe how the translator handled it. Why is he calling "ku" as "nothing"? The tree's leaves falling is not a very good example of "shiki becomes ku," because the tree with leaves is Emptiness, the tree without leaves is Emptiness. The leaves are Emptiness, the falling is Emptiness. Nothing escapes Emptiness which, in fact, is not "nothing," but the wholeness so Whole Holy Whole that it leaps right through all dichotomies, even "something vs. nothingness," "falling vs. not falling" etc. etc.

And what the heck is "There is unceasing movement between one pole and the other. With ku, nothing, even the poor can become rich. The negative potentially contains the positive and actualizes it at the right moment. In this way, the negative annihilates itself by liberating the positive." That sounds more like some kind of Yin/Yang idea, nothing about form and emptiness. Rich is Empty, poor is Empty, as the Dance leaps through all "rich vs. poor," yet is sometimes a dance of being poor and sometimes a dance of being rich! Also, his example is mistaken (if it is meant to show some poles of "form and emptiness") of "From death appears life; birth leads inevitably towards death. The beautiful becomes ugly; the ugly becomes beautiful." One "pole" is not empty while the other "pole" is form. It is a basic Zen teaching that death is Empty (the sea, the dance) and life is Empty (the sea, the dance), likewise for the beautiful and ugly ... all Empty Empty Empty, thus we leap beyond "life vs. death," although sometimes we live and sometimes we die.

Sorry, that is just one very confused passage. Deshimaru was a great teacher of sitting, but sometimes I find his explanations of Zen philosophy a bit his own.

We recently had a series of Talks on the Heart Sutra, if it helps Dick, during our monthly Zazenkai's early this year. Here is the one that dealt with the "form/emptiness" words ...

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...AND-CLOTHES%21

And the whole series is slowly being turned into a Podcast ...

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...Podcast-Series

Gassho, J

STLah

PS - Risho, rather wordy ... but not too bad.

Thank you for your comment on Deshimaru Roshi's explanation. I could not dare to speak about the question itself, and it was the only accessible text about this issue on my bookshelf. So I decided to share it in case it might be helpful. But it seems that it was more of a complicated passage than an explanatory one. Whoops.

Speaking of which, I wanted to share my own limited understanding, as I trust Jundo to correct me if I say something wrong. I think the root of this problem lies in the paradigm difference between philosophy and wisdom. And every paradigm difference naturally results in different uses of language. I tend to believe that texts like the Heart Sutra, Eckhart's Sermons, or the Masnawi always speak some kind of "suburban slang". They keep saying things that seem incomprehensible or that sound simply illogical. You know, sentences like: "The Tathagata has said that all notions are not notions and that all living beings are not living beings.", "The eye in which I see God is the same eye in which God sees me." or "You have a squint eye. Otherwise, you could see that the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning." etc. But what they say has a consistency within their own paradigm, and they make sense if you can look at them from the perspective of their paradigm. Of course, you can always try to rationalize or philosophize their sentences with some kind of quantum-ish version of logic. But I think it would be best to learn the slang they use. There is no handbook to teach it as far as I know. So this kind of understanding probably has strong connections with one's own practice. I guess that's why all of these "wise" men who use this slang insist on clearing the mind, which has naturally dual concepts.

Btw, I listened to the first part of Dharma talk about the Heart Sutra on my way home today. Nice coincidence. I couldn't help laughing at the parts you mentioned Star Wars, and a few old ladies on the bus probably thought I am a lunatic.

Gassho, Doğukan.
Sat today.

[Jundo]

Speaking of which, I wanted to share my own limited understanding, as I trust Jundo to correct me if I say something wrong. I think the root of this problem lies in the paradigm difference between philosophy and wisdom. And every paradigm difference naturally results in different uses of language. I tend to believe that texts like the Heart Sutra, Eckhart's Sermons, or the Masnawi always speak some kind of "suburban slang". They keep saying things that seem incomprehensible or that sound simply illogical. You know, sentences like: "The Tathagata has said that all notions are not notions and that all living beings are not living beings.", "The eye in which I see God is the same eye in which God sees me." or "You have a squint eye. Otherwise, you could see that the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning." etc. But what they say has a consistency within their own paradigm, and they make sense if you can look at them from the perspective of their paradigm. Of course, you can always try to rationalize or philosophize their sentences with some kind of quantum-ish version of logic. But I think it would be best to learn the slang they use. There is no handbook to teach it as far as I know. So this kind of understanding probably has strong connections with one's own practice. I guess that's why all of these "wise" men who use this slang insist on clearing the mind, which has naturally dual concepts.

Hi Dogukan,

Mahayana Buddhism/Zen actually has a logic to it, but it is just not our ordinary logic. As I write in my book ...

For example, in our ordinary experience of life, a mountain is not a cup of tea, and neither a mountain nor a cup of tea are you or me. A is not B, and neither one is C nor D. However, for Mahayana teachers like Dōgen, mountains are mountains and also cups of tea. Tiny teacups hold great mountains within, as well as the whole world and all of time. ... It is not merely that our ordinary eyes might see a nearby mountain reflected on the liquid inside a cup, or painted on its side, or reflected like a kaleidoscope in each poured drop, but that the mountain and the whole universe is truly poured and held in every drop of tea to be tasted, and is contained in the cup itself. The teacup, though held in our hands, is also huge, boundless, as big as a mountain and the whole universe. The whole universe is just a great vessel which is also the vessel in our hands—a vessel that cradles our hands as we cradle it. When we drink tea, as it enters our mouth and we taste it on our tongue and it merges with our body, we too enter the tea, are tasted by and merge with it. Likewise, in drinking tea we enter the mountains and the whole universe. ...

(If this is hard to get your mind around, it is fine to approach it in a poetic sense until, on the zazen cushion, one can actually realize such truths.)

So, for the Zen person, A IS B AND both are C AND D precisely ... and, anyway, all are EMPTINESS!

However, it is not a matter that we just understand this in our heads, even if we can. Most important is to get on the Zazen Zafu and get a feel for this great interflowing, interidentical, one is all and all is one, each is everybit and all bits in each ...

Gassho, J

STLah

[Ugrok]

Yet not realizing it in zazen is also emptiness...

So, nothing to do ?

Gassho,
Uggy,
Stlah

[Inshin]

Jundo thanks for your comment on Deshimaru's quote. As far as I know this book is translation o his lectures by both French and English translators. I watched some of Deshimaru's interviews and he often mixed Japanese with French and English. Hat's off for trying to find and translate the meaning!

As mentioned, we can use as many anecdotes, koans, poems as we like but it all comes down to Zazen.

Gassho
Sat

[Jundo]

Yet not realizing it in zazen is also emptiness...

So, nothing to do ?

Gassho,
Uggy,
Stlah

Not realizing it is Emptiness, realizing is Emptiness, but not realizing is ignorance that does not realize this fact.

Gassho J
Stlah

[Bion]

I see.

And in Zen, even this word "one-ness" is a trap, as it contrasts with "twoness" and "threeness." One is Empty, zero is Empty, two is Empty, three is Empty ... 145632929402973424 is Empty ... infinity is Empty ....

And, we Soto folks under Dogen's inspiration, feel that the "Emptiness" revalues the individual! What I mean is that, in many corners of Eastern beliefs including Zen, some folks think that the point of our practice is to get totally beyond the "individual" to the "Empty/Wholeness" only, as if we are to calm all the waves on the sea and leave just the water. However, Dogen said that the sea also pours into and comes to life as the individual waves, which are not just separate "waves" as they may ignorantly think they are (before being waves that practice Zazen! ) but yet are each to be cherished for being its own unique jewel too. Mountains are mountains, mountains not mountains, mountains are mountains again. Even two, three, 145632929402973424, zero and infinity are sacred jewel waves too!

Gassho, J

STLah

Oh, I am ABSOLUTELY borrowing this: “Emptiness revalues the individual” . It hadn’t occurred to me that some might fall down that trap of thinking the empty nature of things might take away from the “perceived value” of the individual form. Thanks for teaching me Jundo!!

SatToday

[Ugrok]

Not realizing it is Emptiness, realizing is Emptiness, but not realizing is ignorance that does not realize this fact.

Gassho J
Stlah

Thank you,

Gassho,

Uggy
Sat Today
LAH

[Risho]

Bion - Jundo - thank you for you for your discussion on this - it revealed my own traps

Dick - awesome thread/question - thank you

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

[Zenkon]

Thank you all for your insightful and helpful comments. As I follow the trails of the various comments, some thoughts come to my mind:

1) in reading "...Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form...", I think I was expecting these writings to conform to our present day rules of logic. For me, I read "form" as a thing and "emptiness" as a characteristic of things. Using this, my logic told me they could not be the same. Ergo - my dilemma. (growing up, with friendly debates with my lawyer-father, and you learn to think this way) I think I have learned not to expect such logic from these historical writings.
2) like the child's game "Telephone", these writings represent translation, re-translation and re-re-translation, often into languages that don't have words to convey the correct original meaning. Perhaps, I should not expect clarity.
3) these writings represent the documenting of originally oral speeches. Unlike today's dry corporate boardroom presentations, these speeches often have a poetic "art" to them. They seem designed to convey an image, a feeling, rather than just state facts.,
4) Finally, I think I'm learning a new way to learn. My old method - read, digest/evaluate/understand, incorporate doesn't seem to work here. As mentioned in the comments, perhaps I just need to sit and experience these.

Thank you all again

Gassho

Dick

sat/lah

[Jundo]

Thank you all for your insightful and helpful comments. As I follow the trails of the various comments, some thoughts come to my mind:

1) in reading "...Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form...", I think I was expecting these writings to conform to our present day rules of logic. For me, I read "form" as a thing and "emptiness" as a characteristic of things. Using this, my logic told me they could not be the same. Ergo - my dilemma. (growing up, with friendly debates with my lawyer-father, and you learn to think this way) I think I have learned not to expect such logic from these historical writings.
2) like the child's game "Telephone", these writings represent translation, re-translation and re-re-translation, often into languages that don't have words to convey the correct original meaning. Perhaps, I should not expect clarity.
3) these writings represent the documenting of originally oral speeches. Unlike today's dry corporate boardroom presentations, these speeches often have a poetic "art" to them. They seem designed to convey an image, a feeling, rather than just state facts.,
4) Finally, I think I'm learning a new way to learn. My old method - read, digest/evaluate/understand, incorporate doesn't seem to work here. As mentioned in the comments, perhaps I just need to sit and experience these.

Thank you all again

Gassho

Dick

sat/lah

Go sit.

[Risho]

The weird thing about point #2 is that I think the evolution of zen is almost predicated on mistranslation or perhaps stretching what the original intent of the author was. It's pretty wild in a way but I think it's led to some really neat developments in zen.

This is my feeling and I may be completely way off - I mean it's like in our Dogen study group right now; he would switch around words and it would reveal new meaning. It really is mind-blowing; you'd think that doing that would make it nonsensical but in fact it points to the meaning beyond the words etc etc

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

[Jundo]

The weird thing about point #2 is that I think the evolution of zen is almost predicated on mistranslation or perhaps stretching what the original intent of the author was. It's pretty wild in a way but I think it's led to some really neat developments in zen.

This is my feeling and I may be completely way off - I mean it's like in our Dogen study group right now; he would switch around words and it would reveal new meaning. It really is mind-blowing; you'd think that doing that would make it nonsensical but in fact it points to the meaning beyond the words etc etc

Gassho

Risho
-stlah

Go sit.

[Risho]

hahahah - will do

[Kyōsen]

I have two thoughts on this:

1. Whenever there appears to be form, we can say that appearance only happens because of emptiness. If emptiness were not a factor, there would be no appearances. We would perceive nothing, experience nothing. Emptiness enables all things.

2. I agree with Bob Thurman's dislike of translating Śūnyatā not as "emptiness" but as "infinite relativity". All things fundamentally relating to all things. As Jundo wrote: "the flowing Wholeness of all that sweeps in all individuality". "Form is relativity; relativity is form." In order for anything to arise as a form, it must relate to everything else. It must relate to you as an observer of form - you must have senses to perceive the apparent object, a mind to apprehend what it being perceived, etc. The form usually appears compared and contrasted with other forms, so it relates to them in myriad ways. No form is in isolation from any other form; all forms relate to all other (apparent) forms.

3. We can dip back into the "emptiness" of "inherent existence" of Śūnyatā and think of all apparent forms like holograms of light. They have no substance to them. It's all appearances, arising in empty space. A dance of light and color and movement. Light interfering with light to create new, ever-shifting appearances in an infinitely self-reflecting kaleidoscope.

All of this, though, is a bit too conceptual, too intellectual, too analytic. It makes an "object" out of emptiness for the mind to play with, so we end up missing what the Heart Sutra is really pointing to. If we try to drop the analysis, and sit back and relax and maybe we could think of "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" as a call to accept that we don't really know what any of this (reality) is. We can't grasp it, we can't contain it, we can't divide it. Maybe it's enough to accept that "it is what it is" and to let go of the need to know, while also accepting that these are all mysterious appearances and their true nature is something only really known by Buddhas.

Gassho
Kyōsen
Sat|LAH

[Jundo]

We are sitting analyzing whether a breeze is the flowing wind.

[Bion]

We are sitting analyzing whether a breeze is the flowing wind.

I was just thinking that! But less poetic! That’s why you’re the writer!

SatToday

[Rich]

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, no form, no emptiness. So what is this?
Not something your thinking mind can know. So just sit, just don’t know

Sat/lah

[Getchi]

Just a big thankyou for this thread.

All is emptiness, and.unatainable.

Thankyou jundo for "go sit". - this is the way.

LaH
SatToday

Geoff

[Juki]

"When up looks up, up is down. When down looks down, down is up. Not one. Not two. Not same. Not different. Do you see now?"

Ruth Ozeki, from "A Tale for the Time Being."

Gassho,
Juki

Sat today and lah

Sorry for more than 3 sentences

[Jundo]

Hi Dick,

It's way beyond me. But I can quote Taisen Deshimaru's explanation on this very subject. I hope it can be helpful for you and all of us.



These sentences are from Deshimaru Roshi's book "Moshokotu Mind: The Heart of the Heart Sutra".

I wanted to get a second and third opinion about my interpretation of Deshimaru Roshi's passage here, so I asked a couple of close acquaintances of mine who are very familiar with the Deshimaru Lineage and his writings. I also went back to read several works by him that I have not read in many years.

Long story short, everyone seemed to agree with what I said: Deshimaru was a great teacher of Shikantaza, but maybe he was not actually very reliable about other teachings, history, Buddhist meanings, etc. He was perhaps not actually very educated in them given his background in Japan (he was a businessman who loved Zazen, but who became a Zen priest at his teacher's death bed without any particular formal education or training in Zen, and headed immediately off to Europe), and many many of his talks are filled with unusual statements as if he was "winging it" (making it up without really knowing what he himself is meaning). I may write more about this later, but I would always take a book of talks by Deshimaru with a little grain of salt about many things. I am now in the middle of his book on "Zen & Karma" and, frankly, it is strange and hard to follow at best. Combine this with the language issues, and it is even more messy. If you ever read a book by Deshimaru, please remember that ... if it seems confusing, maybe it is not the reader's fault.

I am in danger of breaking the Precept on criticizing other Buddhists, but I always say that there is an exception for constructive criticism meant for education etc.

Sorry to run long.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Rousei]

I thought Emptiness here does not mean void or nothingness as in the opposite of form or mass, but that it meant something like things only exists as comparisons to something else. We take snap shots of ever changing states and claim they're eternal and use them as truths.

As Red Pine said in his translation of the Heart Sutra;

"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."

"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."

"In the light of Prajnaparamita, all such states are seen to be empty of self-existence. That is, they do not exist or occur independently of other states and are only divisible on the basis of arbitrary distinctions. The existence of anything in our material or mental universe cannot be determined without positing the existence of something else. Thus, things only exist in relationship with other things. In fact, their very thingness is simply a convenient label for our ignorance of their true nature, which is emptiness"

Once we see past the additions we add to experience we see true emptiness. There is a nice article on Tricycle that talks a little bit about this.

This is why Form = Emptiness, and why Emptiness = Form.

Just some thoughts I have on the subject!

Gasho
Mark
ST