Form and Emptiness in Heart Sutra

[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!! [emoji2309] [emoji1374]

[emoji1374] 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! [emoji2308]

[emoji1374] 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