Form and Emptiness in Heart Sutra

[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