by Red Pine
Fa-tsang says, “Before they enter nirvana, followers of lesser paths see the skandhas as devoid of a self and dharmas as empty. They look on the emptiness of the skandhas as referring to the absence of a self in the skandhas and not to the skandhas themselves being empty. Thus, for them, the skandhas are different from emptiness. But now they are told that the self-existence of the skandhas is essentially empty, which is not the same. Thus, it says ‘form is not separate from emptiness’ and so on. Also, according to their understanding of what happens after they enter nirvana, the body and knowledge both disappear into emptiness devoid of form. Thus, for these followers of lesser paths, form is not emptiness. Only when form ceases to exist is there emptiness. But now they are told that it is not so, that ‘form is emptiness’ and not ‘form cancels emptiness.’ Thus, this is in answer to the doubts of shravakas and pratyeka-buddhas.
“Bodhisattvas also have doubts. First, they wonder if form is different from emptiness and grasp an emptiness external to form. To put an end to this doubt, they are now told ‘form is not separate from emptiness.’ Second, they wonder if emptiness destroys form and grasp an emptiness that puts an end to things. To put an end to this doubt, they are told ‘form is emptiness,’ not form is destroyed by emptiness. Third, they wonder if emptiness is a thing and grasp an emptiness that has existence.And to put an end to this doubt, they are told that since ‘emptiness is form,’ they cannot use emptiness to grasp emptiness. Once these three doubts are put to rest, true emptiness reveals itself.
“If you take form as illusory, it cannot obstruct emptiness. And if you take emptiness as true emptiness, it cannot harm illusory form. If it obstructed form, it would be destructive emptiness, not true emptiness. And if form obstructed emptiness, it would be real form, not illusory form. The Maha Prajnaparamita Shastra says, ‘If all dharmas were not empty, there would be no path and no attainment.’ And according to the Madhyamakakarika Shastra, ‘It is because of emptiness that all dharmas come to be.’”
Chen-k’o says, “Ordinary people don’t understand. They see form, but they don’t see emptiness. Followers of the Two Paths are biased and see emptiness, but they don’t see form. It is just like the water of the Ganges. Fishes and dragons see it as a cavernous home. Devas see it as aquamarine. Humans see it as a flowing current. Hungry ghosts see it as a roaring blaze. What these four beings see is nothing but their emotions. Those who wake up understand that none of these exist.”
Deva says, “Ordinary people can’t conceive of emptiness without eliminating form. Bodhisattvas, regardless of the phenomena, understand that form and emptiness share the same body.”
Conze says, “Aristotle pointed out in his Metaphysics that the rejection of the principle of contradiction must lead to the conclusion that ‘all things are one.’ This seemed to him manifestly absurd. Here, conversely, the insight into the oneness of all is the great goal, and only by contradictions can it be attained” (Buddhist Wisdom Books, p. 84).
9. THE SAME HOLDS FOR SENSATION AND PERCEPTION, MEMORY AND CONSCIOUSNESS: evam eva vedana sanjna sanskara vijnanam
Form is usually listed as the first of the Five Skandhas into which early Buddhists analyzed any given state of awareness. This is because we have become so trapped by our materialistic delusions that our first line of defense in contesting attacks on the validity of our existence is our “body.” Certainly this body of ours exists, or so we think. But trying to define our selves in terms of form, we find only emptiness and cannot overcome the indivisibility of “our” form with all forms (the entire external world). Thus, we look elsewhere for a self by considering the remaining four skandhas. Commentators seldom have anything to say about this line of the text, but it is one of the most important lines in the sutra. Without it, a person might limit their understanding of emptiness to its relationship with form. But by extending the same equation to the other four skandhas, Avalokiteshvara treats everything we might think of as our selves in the same light. Thus, all Five Skandhas are emptiness, and emptiness is all Five Skandhas, both individually and as a whole. But how can this be? If emptiness is equal to form, how can it also be equal to the other skandhas? This is because no matter how many skandhas or aspects we analyze our experience into, they are all delusions. They do not exist other than as delusions. Thus, there is no limit to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Te-ch’ing says, “If we know that form and emptiness are equal and of one suchness, thought after thought we save others without seeing any others to save, and thought after thought we go in search of buddhahood without seeing any buddhahood to find. Thus we say the perfect mind has no knowledge or attainment. Such a person surpasses bodhisattvas and instantly reaches the other shore of buddhahood. Once you can look upon the skandha of form like this, when you then think about the other four skandhas, they will all be perfectly clear. It’s the same as ‘when you follow one sense back to its source, all six become free.’ Thus it says, ‘the same holds for sensation and perception, memory and consciousness.’”
The Buddha told Shariputra, “Form is simply a name. Likewise, sensation, perception, memory, and consciousness are simply names. Shariputra, the self is simply a name. There is no self that can ever be found. And it cannot be found because it is empty” (Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-five Thousand Lines, translated from Sanskrit by Kumarajiva, Chinese Tripitaka, vol. 8, p. 221c).
10. HERE, SHARIPUTRA, ALL DHARMAS ARE DEFINED BY EMPTINESS: iha shariptura sarva dharmah shunyata lakshana
Again, Avalokiteshvara tries to shake Shariputra out of his earlier understanding. Having told the compiler of the earliest texts on the Abhidharma that the Five Skandhas are empty of self-existence, Avalokiteshvara now applies this to all their subsets. The difference is that the skandhas represent a rather simple view of reality, while the matrix of dharmas, the number of which varied from sect to sect, represents a more complex attempt to analyze and explain the world of our experience. A great deal has been made by some commentators in this shift of analysis from skandhas to dharmas, as if dharmas somehow represented a higher level of reality. And the same commentators have never tired of viewing the realization of the emptiness of dharmas as representing a greater insight than the realization of the emptiness of the skandhas. But there is no difference. In fact, the lists of dharmas used in the matrices of such sects as the Sarvastivadins were arranged according to which skandha each dharma belonged to. Thus, the dharmas of the Sarvastivadins covered the same reality extrapolated from the same raw material of awareness as the skandhas. The only exception was that space and nirvana were included in their matrices as unconditioned dharmas but excluded from the skandhas. However, according to the Prajnaparamita, even space and nirvana are defined by the same emptiness as the skandhas and thus do not exist outside of the skandhas.
The Sarvastivadins, as their name indicates, believed the doctrine (vade) that all (sarva) dharmas exist (asti) and that the self-existence (svabhava) of dharmas traverses the three periods of time. The Sarvastivadins were quite familiar with the Buddha’s teaching that the skandhas are empty of a self, but they were not willing to admit that the skandhas were completely empty. They believed that each dharma included an underlying substrate, a defining characteristic that persisted through time. The Heart Sutra counters this by saying that all dharmas are empty of any self-existent quality, substance, or entity that would set them apart in time, space, or mind, and that the only sense in which they are real is as emptiness, and that it is only in terms of their emptiness that we can distinguish them at all. Thus, all dharmas are marked, characterized, and distinguished by emptiness and emptiness alone.
It should be noted that the Sarvastivadin conception of dharmas as ultimate, discrete entities was not shared by other sects, such as the Sthaviravadins, who followed up their analysis of experience as a plurality of dharmas with a synthesis showing that such dharmas are not discrete but can only be defined by their relationships with other dharmas. But the Heart S
utra was not composed with the Sthaviravadins in mind.
Hui-ching says, “As for ‘all dharmas are defined by emptiness,’ this means the Five Skandhas, the Twelve Abodes of Sensation, and the Eighteen Elements of Perception are all essentially empty.”
Fa-tsang says, “Because dharmas manifest the appearance of emptiness, they are said to be defined by emptiness. To be defined by emptiness means there is no one who grasps and nothing that is grasped. It means without duality.”
Deva says, “The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana says, ‘What is meant by “dharmas” is the mind. Dharmas don’t exist by themselves. Dharmas exist because of the mind.’ But then neither does the mind exist by itself. The mind exists because of dharmas. And how so? If there are no dharmas, the mind has nothing to think about. And because it has nothing to think about, there are no dharmas and no mind. Know then that to discriminate is to be deluded. Not to discriminate is to understand the nature of dharmas. This non-discrimination does not mean no discrimination at all. It means the discrimination of discrimination. This is non-discrimination.”
11. NOT BIRTH OR DESTRUCTION, PURITY OR DEFILEMENT, COMPLETENESS OR DEFICIENCY: anutpanna aniruddha amala avimala anuna aparipurnah
This is a restatement of the Buddha’s teaching of the Three Insights (tri-vidya) into what characterizes a dharma, or fundamental entity of the mind. These are impermanence (anitya), suffering (duhkha), and no self (anatman). This is the basis for the application of the word dharma by early Buddhists, and this formula linking impermanence, suffering, and no self is repeated again and again in the canons of the Sarvastivadins and other Buddhist sects. Only those entities marked or defined by these three qualities were of interest to early Buddhists, for only such “things” were seen as having a bearing on their spiritual welfare. This was the origin of the Abhidharma. Thus, houses and trees and sunrises and dogs and governments were not included. The world of dharmas revolved, instead, around such entities as the Five Skandhas, the Twelve Abodes of Sensation, the Eighteen Elements of Perception, the Twelve-Link Chain of Dependent Origination, and the Four Truths.
Here is a typical example of the connection among the Three Insights from what the Sarvastivadins considered the earliest and most authoritative collection of the Buddha’s sermons: Thus have I heard: Once, when the Buddha was dwelling near Shravasti at Anathapindada Garden in Jeta Forest, the Bhagavan told the monks, “Whatever is form is impermanent. And whatever is impermanent is suffering. And whatever is suffering is devoid of a self, devoid of a self and anything that might belong to a self. One who views things like this sees things as they really are. So, too, are sensation, perception, memory and consciousness impermanent. And being impermanent, they are suffering. And being suffering, they are devoid of a self and anything that might belong to a self. One who views things like this sees them as they really are. Those noble disciples who view things like this are repulsed by form and repulsed by sensation, perception, memory, and consciousness. And because they are repulsed by them, they do not delight in them. And because they do not delight in them, they are free of them. And those who are free give rise to the knowledge of how things really are and can claim: ‘My life is finally over, I have set forth on the path of purity, I have done what had to be done, and now I know I will experience no future existence. ’” Hearing these words of the Buddha, the monks were pleased and put them into practice. (Samyukt Agama: 9)
According to the above formula, the fundamental mark (mulalakshana ) is impermanence, which itself includes the marks of birth and destruction (the Sarvastivadins inserted duration and aging as well). But if, as Avalokiteshvara tells us, all dharmas are empty of self-existence, impermanence no longer applies, as they neither come into being, nor do they cease to be. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus, a contemporary of the Buddha, declared, “Hanta pei.” Everything flows. But if there is no beginning and no end, then there is no impermanence. Impermanence is based on the concept of at least two states of temporal existence: the birth and death of an animate being and the origination and destruction of an inanimate object. 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. Actually, nothing is born, and nothing is destroyed. The only things that seem to be born or destroyed are the illusions conjured by our misunderstanding. And if we looked closely enough, we would see that these, too, are neither born nor destroyed. According to the Sarvastivadins, in the course of a single day we experience 6,400,099,998 such births and deaths. But each birth and each death is illusory. For birth and death are devoid of anything real. Thus, Avalokiteshvara tells Shariputra that dharmas are neither born nor destroyed.
As the Buddha noted in the short sutra quoted above, it is because of impermanence, it is because something is born and something is destroyed, that there is suffering. The response to this by early Buddhist sects was to embark on a course of practice designed to sever the connection between suffering and impermanence. Suffering only exists because of our attachment to what is impermanent. Thus, attachments are viewed as burdens to be abandoned, as obstructions to be transcended, or here, in the language of the Sarvastivadins, as defilements to be purified. This was the usual view of such things by early Buddhists. The problem with this for later Buddhists, especially those inclined toward the Mahayana, was the practice of repulsion inherent in this teaching. Reflecting on this, many concluded that such a negative attitude was just as likely to result in further attachment as in liberation.
When Hung-jen, the Fifth Patriarch of China’s Zen sect, decided it was time to choose an heir, he asked the monks at his temple to express their understanding in a poem. His chief disciple, Shen-hsiu, offered this one: “The body is a bodhi tree / the mind is a spotless mirror / keep it always clean / don’t let it gather dust.” Hui-neng, whose monastic duties normally kept him busy pounding rice, saw Shen-hsiu’s poem and responded with this one: “Bodhi isn’t a tree / what’s spotless isn’t a mirror / actually there isn’t a thing / where do you get this dust?” After reading Hui-neng’s poem, Hung-jen made him the Sixth Patriarch. And ever since then it has been Hui-neng’s understanding, not Shen-hsiu’s, that has dominated the teaching of Zen. This is also Avalokiteshvara’s point. Since the defining characteristic of all dharmas is their emptiness, they cannot be purified, nor can they be defiled. Thus, the reason the doctrine of suffering no longer applies is that there is nothing that suffers. Or, as Hui-neng might have said, “Where do you get this suffering?”
Of course, impermanence and suffering do arise if there is a self, if there is something subject to impermanence and suffering. But such a self cannot be found. And because such a self cannot be found, dharmas are said to be “empty of self-existence.” And being empty of self-existence, dharmas are therefore not complete (nuna). But while dharmas lack anything self-existent that would qualify them as “complete,” neither are they parts of anything else, for there is nothing that can be distinguished as a part, much less a whole. Therefore, they are not incomplete or deficient (paripurna).
The terms nuna and paripurna have often been interpreted here as meaning “increase” and “decrease.” While such translations are possible, they have prevented readers from seeing these three pairs of terms as synonyms for the Three Insights of early Buddhism and have even misled them into seeing these terms as descriptive of emptiness rather than dharmas. Apparently aware of this problem, the authors of the longer version of the Heart Sutra replaced paripurna with sanpurna, which still means “incomplete” or “deficient” but which does not share paripurna’s additional meaning of “decrease.”
Hui-ching s
ays, “If we see dharmas born, then we see dharmas destroyed. But dharmas are not really born, and they are not destroyed. They are like cataracts that appear as flowers in the sky. They are false appearances that obstruct our eye of wisdom. The attachment to individuality of ordinary people is called defilement, and the realization of the emptiness of the individual is what is meant by purity. But if defilement can be eliminated and can then be called purity, then defilement is essentially empty, and in emptiness there is also no purity. When the reality of suchness is submerged, it doesn’t shrink. And when it reappears, it doesn’t grow. Bound by attachments, it’s called the womb of the tathagatas (tathagata-garbha). Unbound, it’s called the body of reality (dharma-kaya). Although the names vary, its real essence doesn’t differ.”
Fa-tsang says, “To be neither born nor destroyed is to be an ordinary person at the beginning of the path. To be neither pure nor defiled is to be a bodhisattva at the middle of the path. And to be neither complete nor deficient is to be a buddha at the end of the path. These three have no nature of their own, hence they manifest the marks of true emptiness.”
Hui-chung says, “All dharmas are the mind. But the mind has no body or limbs. So how can it be created or destroyed, pure or impure, whole or incomplete?”
