Introduction
Having summarized my own metaphysical principles, I will now attempt to understand
the Mahayana conception of 'emptiness' in terms of these principles. This fundamental
idea appeared at the beginning of the Mahayana movement, which coincidentally
occurred somewhat before the time of Christ. It was emphasized in the famous
Prajnaparamita Sutras, which we will examine shortly. The idea of emptiness
had a profound influence on all later Mahayana philosophy and thinking, and
it was interpreted in a variety of ways. (Indeed, Mahayana Buddhism developed
into a living universe of religious inspiration and insight, rather than into
a tight and closed system.)
Mahayana was a reform movement within Buddhism that arose around 100 BC, or
about 400 years after the death of the historical Buddha (called Shakyamuni).
Whereas the earlier Hinayana (or Theravada) tradition concentrated on achieving
enlightenment for an elite of monks, in a somewhat austere and conservative
way, the Mahayana was filled with a compassionate zeal to bring enlightenment
to every conscious being. It placed emphasis on spiritual insight rather than
on scholarly philosophy. While the earlier Buddhism stressed wisdom and meditation
as a means to attain a rather sober inner peace called 'Nirvana', the Mahayana
expanded on this to blossom into a mystical vision of Enlightenment that embraced
the entire Universe and every conscious being within it into one blissful and
harmonious whole.
I cannot resist pointing out a certain similarity of spirit and feeling between
Mahayana and Christianity (or at least the original Christianity of Jesus).
There is the same gentleness and wisdom, as well as a sympathetic concern for
all humans and an evangelical zeal to 'liberate' them to a pure spiritual life.
One can only speculate whether the fact that they were roughly contemporaneous
is mere coincidence or something else. The something else may have been the
spread of ideas through trade and travel, or it may have been the manifestation
of a new stage in the evolution of the consciousness of mankind, perhaps even
intended by God. Of course, the notion of God's intervention in history has
a distinctly Judaeo-Christian flavor and perhaps represents too much of a digression.
Emptiness can be briefly summarized as the correct spiritual or psychological
attitude for achieving enlightenment. (This attitude also has ontological implications,
as we will see.) It is supposed to represent a significant advance (or at least
change) from the Theravada approach, although similar ideas can be found in
the earlier Buddhism. (Really the different schools of thought represent different
aspects of the Buddha's original intuition, and the psychological continuity
between the schools is much closer than the differences in name and tradition
might lead one to suppose.)
Ironically, I have already committed a bit of a 'sin' by calling emptiness an
'idea'. The whole point is to achieve a state of mind that transcends mere concepts,
so that our original underlying Buddha Mind can be realized as a living reality,
and this is enlightenment. Nevertheless, as rational beings we must resort to
some kind of conceptual thinking if we are to discuss it at all, and so we must
use words and ideas. Of course, my understanding can only be incomplete, finite
being that I am, but I will try to quote enough scripture to give my interpretation
plausibility.
The idea of emptiness held a curious fascination for me many years ago, when
I was a philosophy student, even though I found it quite confusing. I think
that many Buddhists today continue to be confused, and many of the books that
I have read on it do not really provide a satisfying explanation, at least not
to me. However, some of what has been written is quite clear, and it is not
a completely hopeless task to acquire some insight, even if we have not spent
many years in deep meditation.
Nowadays, I think that I have at least a handle on the idea of emptiness. In
fact, I believe that it is quite compatible with the 'idealistic' metaphysics
presented above (i.e. the philosophical principle that everything is consciousness).
Indeed, there is an important Buddhist tradition (Yogacara) that can only be
described as idealistic, and many other Buddhist traditions such as Zen have
a strong idealistic flavor, with many famous masters making unmistakably idealistic
pronouncements. Nevertheless, I should warn you that many Buddhists refrain
from going quite so far as to embrace 'Subjective Idealism' - the philosophical
view that only consciousness exists.
Amusingly enough, the important and seminal Buddhist tradition of Prajnaparamita
(Perfection of Wisdom) or 'transcendental wisdom', which gave us the Prajnaparamita
Sutras, would say that nothing exists (or that nothing exists inherently), and
this is the true meaning of emptiness. I will argue that this, too, is implicit
Idealism, coming from visionaries who were more interested in celebrating a
fresh view of enlightenment than in analyzing it with philosophical precision.
At least this was true initially, around the beginning of the Common Era, when
the Prajnaparamita scriptures first appeared, along with the birth of the Mahayana.
The Prajnaparamita literature includes such well known texts as the brief Heart
Sutra, recited everyday in Buddhist temples around the world, the pamphlet-sized
Diamond Sutra, and the Prajnaparamita Sutras in 8,000, 18,000, 25,000, or even
100,000 lines (as well as other lengths). (There is also a Prajnaparamita Sutra
consisting of the single letter 'A'!) A number of translations of the Heart
and Diamond Sutras are available on the web. For many years, the Prajnaparamita
Sutras were considered too obscure and scholarly for mere mortals, but a new
translation by Lex Hixon called Mother of the Buddhas is quite elegant and readable.
Later, famous commentators, such as Nagarjuna (2nd century AD), tried to give
the somewhat cryptic Prajnaparamita statements a philosophical basis. In the
following, I will emphasize the Prajnaparamita inspiration itself, by quoting
from it and applying my own interpretation. Understanding the commentaries is
made complicated, in my opinion, by the fact that they are enmeshed in the same
philosophical confusion that has plagued Western philosophy, such as the meaning
of 'substance' and 'causation'.
To tell the truth, I am misrepresenting Nagarjuna. He was really arguing against
the views of other contemporary philosophers, rather than propounding a specific
view of his own. However, his actual writings are often obscure, and much of
the literature surrounding his interpretation of emptiness is philosophically
flawed and confusing. It gives me a headache to read or discuss it! Nevertheless,
I will discuss the closely related topic of dependent origination in the next
section, without specifically addressing Nagarjuna's writings.
The essence of emptiness, according to my view, is that True Reality is one
vast, pure, infinite and blissful consciousness, and that we realize this reality
when our mind is empty, that is, wiped clean of any trace of discriminative
or dualistic thinking. This does not mean that our mind becomes blank and that
we become like stones. On the contrary, our mind becomes pure and vast as space
itself (and space is indeed a common simile for enlightenment in the Prajnaparamita
literature). This nondualistic consciousness means that we do not discriminate
between subject and object (i.e. between ourselves and the world), and neither
do we discriminate different 'things' in the world. In this way, we eventually
reach the pure and 'mystical' state of consciousness, after all of the roots
of dualistic thinking hidden deep within our subconscious have been eradicated.
These roots have developed over many years, or even lifetimes, nourished by
deluded thinking, clinging attachments, and poisonous passions, and so 'dissolving'
them may take many years of meditation and 'mindfulness'.
A rich source of material on nondualistic philosophy is the Realization.org
website, especially the references to 'Advaita Vedanta' and to 'realized' masters
such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta. See also the Nonduality Salon. The
fact that the Advaita Vedanta and the two names just cited belong to 'Hinduism'
should not matter if the truth is one, as it must be by definition. Mahayana
Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are historically and spiritually intertwined, and
the leading proponent of Advaita, the 8th-9th century Indian philosopher Sankara,
has even been accused of being a 'crypto-Buddhist' by his detractors.
Of course, the same shapes and colors as presently in our consciousness will
continue to manifest after we become enlightened. As I said before, I could
never tolerate a philosophy so absurd as to claim otherwise. However, our attitude
towards these shapes and colors changes dramatically, and this leads to a profound
transformation of our entire consciousness.
And of course, for any proponent of Idealism, a profound change in consciousness
must imply a profound change in ontology. This will help us to understand why
the Mahayana maintains that, not only must our mind be 'empty' (of ego and concepts),
but also the entire world should be viewed as 'empty' (of inherent or substantial
existence). This has caused considerable confusion for countless students of
Buddhism and led to the notion that 'emptiness' is perhaps an irrational or
nihilistic concept, possibly even a concept that is dangerous to our sanity!
A Key Point
Above all, I wish to avoid confusion in the mind of the reader regarding this
curious notion of 'Emptiness'. Such confusion arises because our discriminating
mind cannot resist asking questions such as: What is it? Why? How? What does
it look like? Show me. And so on. Indeed, what does it mean to 'understand'
it unless we answer these questions? However, the Mahayana scriptures will insist
that it cannot be truly understood until it is experienced, and then it is more
a question of 'realization' than conceptual understanding.
So, I think that it would be helpful always to keep the following observation
in mind. There is a universal school of 'mystical' literature in the world (Mahayana,
Advaita, Eckhart, Sufiism, and so forth) that asserts the existence of a 'higher'
state of consciousness that can best be described as 'non-dualistic'. It is
'higher', because, among other things, it is free of discord and suffering and
is permeated by peace, bliss and illumination. (Who wouldn't like that?) It
is 'non-dualistic', because our ordinary discrimination of experience into subject
and object, ego and world, and of the world into separate 'things', somehow
vanishes, even though the 'shapes and colors' remain the same. Non-dualism and
emptiness are essentially the same thing. A non-dualistic consciousness is 'empty'
of any kind of discrimination.
Just what this might mean is discussed further in many places on my philosophy
pages. But if we are willing to have faith in these numerous mystics - acquired
through the sincerity and authority that permeates their recorded texts - then
we should begin by at least accepting this state of consciousness as a psychological
reality. Only then should we try to understand it, in so far as it can be understood
at all. Any further ontological interpretations, such as the ones offered here,
might be considered helpful, but the reality of the experience is what ultimately
matters.
Remember the 'noble silence' of the Buddha, who refused to be drawn into metaphysical
arguments. Instead, he emphasized the actual realization of our spiritual potential,
through self-control and meditation. In this light, the 'anti-conceptual' tendencies
of the Prajnaparamita harmonize with the Buddha's original attitude.
Dependent Origination
In many books on Buddhism, an explanation of emptiness is provided in terms
of the concept of 'dependent origination', which was part of the Buddha's original
teaching. In particular, the famous Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna based his
argument for emptiness on dependent origination. It is my opinion that this
point of view, insofar as I understand it, is not satisfying and does not express
the deeper meaning of emptiness. I will briefly state my reasons, but please
bear in mind that I have not studied this aspect of Buddhism as deeply as I
would have liked, and I may be mistaken about some basic points. So the following
is only something to keep in mind when you read other Buddhist texts. (Indeed,
this is the case for everything that I write!)
Dependent origination, also called 'conditioned arising', basically says that
everything happens for a reason or cause: If event A happens, then event B will
follow. (Note that this is essentially the same as the concept of causation
of the famous British philosopher Hume.) Dependent origination, or causation,
provides a way - some would say the way - of understanding experience. Events
do not happen because of blind chance or because of the whims of gods; they
happen because of preceding events. There is a one-to-one correspondence between
successive events, provided we know all the details. This view is also called
'determinism'. (Let's ignore the indeterminism of Quantum Mechanics for now.
Also, see my Philosophy Page for a discussion of so-called 'free will' and its
relation to determinism.)
The Buddha was particularly interested in applying this understanding of experience
to our psyche in order to relieve our discontent. His 'psychology' says that
our present condition is determined by our past intentions and behavior. This
is called karma, the fruit of past intentions and actions. If we continue to
see everything in terms of our self, if we have excessive attachments to transient
things, if we are ignorant that true happiness comes from a peaceful mind and
not from a desperate attempt to satisfy every insatiable desire, then we will
continue to dwell in self-created frustration and discontent. This manifests
itself both in our internal psychological state and in terms of the world into
which we are born. We become enlightened as we calm our minds and hearts, dissolve
clinging attachments to objects and ideas, and recover the inherent purity and
bliss of our 'true inner nature'.
To be precise, we should say that dependent origination is true for all events
in Samsara, that is, in the phenomenal world of everyday experience. It does
seem that every event that happens in the world of perception, or even in the
internal world of thoughts and feelings, is correlated with other preceding
events. The framework of causation is essential for science, which could not
proceed without it. (Even quantum mechanics uses a deterministic Schrodinger
equation to describe the evolution of a 'probability cloud' of subatomic particles.)
However, it may be that a consciousness that is 'liberated' from Samsara through
enlightenment is also released from cause and effect. Some Buddhists seem to
believe this. Or perhaps the enlightened mind is still subject to cause and
effect, but because of wisdom and insight, it skillfully navigates the world
of Samsara without generating further destructive karma.
So far we have discussed the Buddha's original teaching regarding dependent
origination. Now we come to the application of this concept to the Mahayana
teaching of 'emptiness'. Many Buddhists try to explain emptiness in terms of
dependent origination, often to the point where the two are virtually identified.
The basic idea seems to be that everything is dependent on everything else,
so that nothing has an 'inherent existence'. This lack of inherent existence
is said to be the same as emptiness. Realizing this lack of inherent existence
provides the wisdom that leads somehow to enlightenment. Perhaps by becoming
aware of our lack of inherent existence, as well as that of all objects that
we perceive, the bonds of attachment are dissolved, through some psychological
or spiritual process.
Without going into too much detail, let me briefly say why I do not consider
this explanation of emptiness to be useful or convincing. Basically, my feeling
is that dependent origination is entirely compatible with the philosophy of
materialism, which says that only discrete material objects exist behaving according
to cause and effect. Therefore, the realization of the truth of dependent origination
is not, in itself, sufficient to lead us to an attitude or philosophy other
than that of materialism. In particular, materialism tends to deny (or at least
to be highly skeptical of) the existence of 'spiritual' entities such as consciousness,
spirit, afterlife, God and so forth. At most, consciousness is allowed as a
mere 'epiphenomenon' of the brain, the 'ghost in the machine' that disappears
when we die and our brain decays (or loses blood and oxygen).
It may be true that realizing the dependence of everything on everything else
fosters a less self-centered and more compassionate attitude, which is conducive
to the spirituality that Buddhism is trying to inculcate in us. However, this
does not explain the rather peculiar notion of 'emptiness', in my opinion. Why
can we not become kind, loving, and altruistic without such a recondite notion
as that of emptiness? Many religions achieve this kind of spirituality without
introducing such a rarefied and abstract idea. There must be something more
to emptiness.
Idealistic Interpretation
Indeed, I feel quite convinced that the idea of 'emptiness' was introduced to
describe a psychological state attained during deep meditation (and carried
over into everyday life). As explained above, when our consciousness is completely
free of its usual dualistic thinking, i.e. in terms of self and objects, then
a transformation of consciousness occurs which is pure, blissful, compassionate,
beautiful, deeply satisfying, and has an experiential quality or flavor of expansiveness
such that the word 'emptiness' seems like a good metaphor. When the usual conceptual
and psychological barriers between ourself and the world break down, all of
reality appears as one vast and pure 'thusness' or 'suchness' (to use common
Mahayana terms), which is also often described in the Prajnaparamita literature
as 'like space' or 'like a dream'.
Really, this vast and pure 'thusness' is not different from consciousness, after
the latter has been purged of discriminative notions such as 'self' and 'other',
'like' and 'dislike', or anything else that disturbs its unity, purity and harmony.
When consciousness is in a state of perfect calm and nondiscrimination, its
'original nature' is recovered, and this evidently radiates bliss from deep
within, somewhat as the calm surface of a lake reflects the sky. The 'emptiness'
in question is the lack of conceptual barriers, such as self and other, which
produce disquiet in the mind. This disquiet, or lack of unity, in turn produces
our ordinary and 'unmystical' state of consciousness, according to the almost
universal testimony of mystics. Of course, the enlightened person sees the same
shapes and colors as the unenlightened person, only his attitude and psychological
reactions have fundamentally changed, and this produces a profound change in
his overall 'state of consciousness'.
The 'lack of inherent existence' of self and objects, propounded so often in
Buddhist literature, would seem to be the same as the present 'idealistic' view
of true reality as one vast and pure consciousness, uncontaminated by discriminative
thinking. It is true that most Buddhist authors do not argue specifically in
terms of idealism, the philosophy that everything is consciousness, although
some do. However, I believe that the denial of 'inherent existence' is really
the same as the denial of discrete material objects external to the mind. The
'inherent existence' is what Western philosophers call 'material substance'.
I can see no other reasonable explanation. The 'emptiness' that remains when
inherent existence or material substance is denied is the same as consciousness,
for what else if left? Surely, phenomena continue to appear, but they appear
in consciousness only. Also, with no 'external objects' to juxtapose against
the 'self', how can a concept of self remain? The dissolution of all conceptual
boundaries achieves the aim of the original Buddhism, and perhaps more.
Some would say that I am thinking too much in terms of 'ontology' and not enough
in terms of 'soteriology'. That is, the doctrine of emptiness is intended primarily
as a kind of spiritual medicine, as a remedial attitude towards experience that
leads to a transformation of consciousness, rather than as a statement of how
the world actually 'is'. I would respond by saying that how we perceive the
world and how the world really is are not two different things. Instead, they
are closely related. (This idea can be found in the Buddhist scriptures. For
example, what appears as water to humans seems like ambrosia to the gods and
like filth to the demons.) If only consciousness exists, then there must necessarily
be a close relationship between the two.
The argument for emptiness based on dependent origination does have the following
virtue. It may be one of the best ways of inducing the 'egoless' state of mind
advocated by Buddhism for those who still believe in some kind of materialism
(i.e. in some kind of 'objective reality' independent of consciousness). Many
people will continue to believe this, because it is so deeply ingrained in our
thinking. The argument for emptiness based on dependent origination then suggests
that we meditate on all things as being composed of parts, that arise based
on conditions and causes. In this way, all 'entities' in the world are dissolved
into atoms and conditions and deprived of 'inherent existence', of absolute
existence 'from their own side' as the Tibetans like to say. (Indeed, the argument
for emptiness based on dependent origination is quite popular in certain Tibetan
schools, and for this reason has found its way into much of the popular Buddhist
literature.)
Really this view has much in common with some words from the Old Testament,
namely, 'ashes to ashes and dust to dust'. In other words, if there were a material
world, we would still have to admit that we have a brief life in a fragile body,
that is made of dust, and that will return to dust. Any kind of pride or ego
is foolishness, a kind of delusion similar to that of an actor who believes
that he really is the king that he is playing. The famous words from Shakespeare's
play Macbeth have a strong Buddhist ring to them,
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
The difference is that for Shakespeare, this view is merely depressing, whereas
for Buddhism, it is the key to liberation. And whether one views emptiness from
the standpoint of 'consciousness only', or from the standpoint of dependent
origination applied to an external world, the basic psychological motivation
is the same, namely, to purge our instinctive tendency to see the world as composed
of independent, self-sustaining 'things' with a permanent solidity and sharp
boundaries between them. The culmination of this attitude, according to Buddhism,
is the egoistic view of our petty self as the supreme 'thing' around which all
else revolves. This deeply felt attitude, by its very nature, obstructs the
enlightened state of mind, and results, sooner or later, in tension, frustration,
depression, conflict and the loss of the bliss and energy of the purified mind
of enlightenment.
It should be realized that this nondual philosophy of 'dissolution of conceptual
boundaries' only becomes effective when it has penetrated into the deepest recesses
of our 'subconscious'. This is achieved through years of meditation. It does
not arise through a few minutes of idle speculation. We must understand that,
although Buddhism has implications for the 'armchair philosophy' of academia,
it is primarily concerned with a deep transformation of the roots of consciousness.
So when I say that concepts of 'self' and 'other' affect our state of mind,
I am referring to the predispositions and tendencies buried deep in our minds
through years or even lifetimes of such thinking. We have towards our experience
a deeply ingrained 'reactive' mentality that we take so much for granted that
it is practically invisible to us. We must become much more sensitive to our
inner mind and feelings before we can start to make spiritual progress.
It must also be emphasized that no sane Buddhist wants to preclude our ability
to think rationally about daily events so that we may deal appropriately with
the mundane necessities of life. We must of course use some degree of conceptual
thinking in order to get up, get washed, get dressed, go to work, eat and otherwise
live. However, behind all this, or over and above all this, there should be
a pure nondiscriminative awareness that views the spectacle of life like clouds
passing across the sky (a metaphor found in some Buddhist scriptures). Above
all, we must eliminate concepts and judgments that lead to deep subconscious
tendencies, predispositions, and blind reactions to daily events, and which
affect our overall state of mind and obstruct the blossoming of enlightenment.
I cannot claim to fully understand all of this, but I have a considerable degree
of faith that this can be achieved, based on my limited experience and on a
respect for enlightened 'masters' that I have acquired through extended reading
(and reflection upon this reading). To be more precise, I have acquired faith
in their experience, and I am trying to understand the ideas that they derive
from this vivid - indeed overwhelming - experience as best I can.
The main stumbling block in the word 'emptiness', at least for those raised
in a Western tradition, is that it seems to refer to 'nothing', so that a kind
of nihilism is suggested. In fact, the authors of the Prajnaparamita literature
were also aware of this pitfall and constantly warn against a nihilistic interpretation.
I think it would be helpful to consider 'emptiness' as synonymous with 'space',
provided this denotes the state of consciousness just described rather than
an external entity. Indeed, according to my idealistic philosophy, there are
no external realities; there is only consciousness. So space and consciousness
are in fact the same, and the word 'space' is more than a mere metaphor. The
important point to remember is that consciousness has been raised to a much
higher state than the one to which we are accustomed, due to the transformation
brought about by the purging of our psychological bondage to dualistic thinking.
It is worth emphasizing that the removal of psychological obstructions, which
originate from the belief in and attachment to discriminative concepts such
as 'self' and 'other', leads to a transformation of our entire consciousness
- a transformation that affects thought, feeling and perception. So not only
do the enlightened identify (or embrace) at a perceptual level with all of space
(and all beings in space), but I strongly suspect that they also acquire a blissful,
floating, euphoric feeling that has the 'taste' of space. If 'space' is a synonym
for both emptiness and consciousness, then we can see how this 'experience of
infinity' permeates all aspects of consciousness. (This reminds me of something
funny attributed to the famous Japanese Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki. He said
that enlightenment was like everyday consciousness but 'two inches above the
ground'.)
Furthermore, I do not think that the only good feeling is the emotion of euphoria.
To the enlightened, perception itself probably also has its associated good
feeling, which I imagine as a kind of 'sublime quiescence'. Indeed, the feeling
of sublime quiescence suffuses all of consciousness, spreading a 'cool and beautiful
blissfulness' everywhere, and ultimately becomes indistinguishable from emptiness
itself. At least, this is how I imagine it, for some reason; my intuition and
readings suggest this to me, even though I do not have the actual experience.
Emptiness, purified consciousness, blissful quiescence - all these are different
names for the same 'transcendent' experience.
And again, to avoid needless confusion, it is essential to remember that concepts
are to be used when appropriate. It is really our psychological attachment to
concepts (or discriminations) that must be eradicated - e.g. our identification
with our body (or thoughts or emotions) rather than with all of reality, with
all of consciousness, with the entire universe, with Buddha, with the Dharmakaya,
with God, with the One Reality, with the One Mind (see my Avatamsaka Page for
further elaboration). The concepts that we use to live and get by then become
mere neutral images passing across the sky (or screen) of purified consciousness,
as are all other elements of consciousness (all of our thoughts, feelings and
perceptions). The fundamental reality is then the one vast and purified consciousness
containing all 'things' as mere transient images; we no longer see a world consisting
essentially of discrete objects each having an ultimate reality. The one reality
is the vast emptiness of consciousness.
In fact, insight into the psychological process of 'identification' may provide
one of the clearest ways to understand how we can use concepts appropriately
while maintaining the nondiscriminative and nondualistic awareness that virtually
all mystics consider essential to achieving higher states of consciousness.
The perception of the body is still there, and we may even think about it, but
we do not identify with it. We either identify with all of consciousness, including
all other conscious beings, or we transcend any notion of identification and
simply merge with the pure thusness of consciousness.
It is common experience that our identification with finite things - thoughts,
symbols, feelings, body, property, accomplishments, social position, social
group, nation, or any other object of the discriminative mind - nourishes deep
subconscious currents and roots, which then affect how we interpret and react
to events, thus setting up a pernicious feedback loop in our psyche. Feelings
and prejudices are the concrete manifestation of the subconscious currents,
which bind us and pervert our mind, so that we fall far from a state of enlightenment.
We then spend our life justifying ourselves and in conflict with others. Emptying
our spirit of all of this garbage, throwing it all overboard, may be one of
the most 'down-to-earth' interpretations of emptiness, which nevertheless goes
to the heart of Buddhism and any true spirituality. Emptiness is freedom, bliss
and reality.
Excerpts from the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 8,000 Lines
with commentary
The Prajnaparamita (Perfect Wisdom) literature could
be called the 'Mother of the Mahayana'. This voluminous and inspired collection
of Sutras (scriptures), dating from about a century before Christ (or about
400 years after the death of the historical Buddha) to several centuries after
Christ, expounds the closely related 'doctrines' of Perfect Wisdom and emptiness
in texts of varying length, from the single letter 'A', to a short chant (the
Heart Sutra), recited everyday in Buddhist temples around the world, to the
pamphlet-sized Diamond Sutra, to massive scrolls of verses containing 8,000,
18,000, 25,000 or even 100,000 lines.
This literature is truly the motherlode of the Mahayana vision. Indeed, Perfect
Wisdom, poetically represented as a goddess, has been called 'Mother of the
Buddhas'. In particular, Prajnaparamita is the foundation of the famous Chan
(Zen) lineage of direct (rather than scholarly) insight into enlightenment.
Hence, it is appropriate that Lex Hixon's translation of excerpts from the seminal
Prajnaparamita Sutra in 8,000 Lines should be called Mother of the Buddhas.
It is from this translation that I shall quote and upon which I shall comment.
The earlier translation by Edward Conze was a work of dry, careful scholarship,
which was appropriate for its time. Lex Hixon's translation is more 'literary',
and in the opinion of many (including myself), it captures the beauty of the
original inspiration in clear and elegant language. I now feel that the ice
is starting to melt for me on this once forbidding yet tantalizing expression
of mystical vision.
Since Lex earned a Ph.D. in Religious Studies at Columbia University, I am satisfied
that the translation is sufficiently accurate, even if the back cover of the
book warns us that it is not intended as scholarship but rather as a 'contemplative
expansion'. And the fact that Lex studied intensively under a variety of Buddhist
and other spiritual masters enables me to have confidence in his interpretations
and colorations. In the following, quotations from the book are given in purple
and my comments in black. The section headings corresponds to chapters in the
book.
Mahayana is Immeasurability
Buddha: Mahayana is synonymous with immeasurability. Immeasurability is synonymous
with infinity, and infinity with ineffability. ...
These are the first lines of the book. Even if they seem puzzling, we should
appreciate their grandeur and sweep, which is characteristic of this entire
scripture. Already we sense the vastness of what is surely a 'mystical' vision.
Notice that we start with a pronouncement on the Mahayana, rather than, say,
a definition of Perfect Wisdom. Mahayana is the 'great vehicle' that will carry
all willing conscious beings to enlightenment. One of the main themes of the
Mahayana is that the insight into Reality provided by Perfect Wisdom is not
separate from the compassion that seeks to enlighten all beings. Enlightenment
is not for oneself alone. It is not just a matter of mundane generosity, but
at a deeper level it is the realization that we are all connected through the
Universal Mind discussed on my Philosophy Page and recapitulated here. (The
extent to which my notions of Universal Mind agree with the Prajnaparamita literature
and with Mahayana in general can only be determined as my various Mahayana pages
develop over time.)
With this in mind, the words 'immeasurable' and 'infinite' can be understood
at different levels. On the one hand, it is the wonderful vision of a vast cosmic
ship carrying blinded and suffering souls to a heavenly realm of peace and bliss,
which is not to be found on any planet but rather in the purification of the
spirit, so that its inherent luminosity may shine forth. But on the other hand,
it is the vastness of the vision itself, which knows no restrictions imposed
by dogma, by preconceptions, by merely conceptual thinking, by particular points
of view, or by any attempt to contain in a bottle. It is a vision that embraces
the universe while 'transcending' it, in some sense, that can ultimately only
be understood at an intuitive level, acquired through spiritual development.
Hence the 'ineffability' of the vision. The celebration of a vision which cannot
be described in words will be one of the key paradoxical themes of this scripture!
It is also a common theme of mysticism in general. Nevertheless, I believe that
we will be able to learn something and acquire some inspiration by studying
these verses. Otherwise, why would the authors have bothered to write them!
The courageous diamond being, the bodhisattva who travels in this vehicle of
immeasurability, is therefore traveling nowhere. Nor is there any separate traveler.
Nor does this uncontainable vehicle move through any substantial realm. Simply
by its perfect freedom from all notions of location, substance and limitation,
the Mahayana already abides as omnipresence and omniscience. No separately self-existing
personality is traveling on the Great Vehicle, has ever traveled on the Great
Vehicle, or will ever travel on the Great Vehicle. Neither the personality structure
of the traveler nor the philosophical structure of the Mahayana possess even
an atom of substantial or independent self-existence.
Therefore, neither practitioner nor practice can be grasped, crystallized or
objectified in any way. What transparent structure can travel in what transparent
vehicle?
These lines can be considered a condensation of the entire scripture. They are
also quite obscure to the newcomer. Even experienced readers cannot claim to
have penetrated their full depth, unless they are already Buddhas! So it will
be appropriate to comment on them at some length, to the best of my ability
and insight.
The bodhisattva ('enlightenment being') is a Buddha-in-training, who has vowed
to relinquish ultimate Nirvana (heavenly escape from the world of suffering)
until all conscious beings have been enlightened. Hence, the bodhisattva has
a motherly concern for all beings, as does Mother Prajnaparamita herself. The
bodhisattva is guiding beings on to the vehicle of the Mahayana, which will
deliver them from delusion into enlightenment.
But what does it mean to say that there is no 'separate traveler', who is 'traveling
nowhere', through 'no substantial realm'? This is our first allusion to the
core of Perfect Wisdom, namely, the notion of the 'emptiness' of all things.
The historical Buddha taught the 'emptiness' or unreality of our ego, of our
sense of self. The Mahayana expanded this notion into the emptiness or unreality
of all things, and it claimed that this was implicit in the Buddha's original
message but was held back, because people were not yet mature enough to understand.
In the introductory sections above I discussed my interpretation of 'emptiness'
- the Mahayana word that encapsulates the entire vision of this scripture. It
is the non-discriminative attitude that sees all reality as one infinite consciousness
or 'thusness'. It is the pure, original 'Buddha Mind' - pure awareness itself
- that underlies (and sustains) our everyday dualistic awareness and that is
retrieved through the stilling of the mind and the abandonment of all preconceptions
and mental reactions that try to divide the immediacy of experience into discrete
'objects' seemingly in isolation from each other. The 'mother' of all discriminations
is of course the distinction between self and world, which feeds that powerful
whirlpool of negative energy called the 'ego'.
This is not to deny that common sense distinctions may be made between tables
and chairs. Only we must not allow our mind to indulge its predisposition to
becoming addicted to discrimination, to constantly identifying and grasping
at objects, so that this mentality colors our entire outlook at a deep instinctive
level and traps us in our ordinary unenlightened state of consciousness. (My
belief that nondualistic awareness is the precondition for the enlightened state
of consciousness is based on my confidence in the pervasive mystical testimony
of mankind.)
The identification of objects leads to our identification with objects, in particular
the body. This in turn sets us in opposition to other objects. At a practical
level, endless conflict may be generated, requiring morality and self-restraint.
But at a deeper and more psychological level, we harm ourselves simply by disturbing
the purity and calm of our own consciousness, like throwing a rock on a pond.
A calm mind - one that is calm and detached and purged of all restlessness at
a deep subconscious level - can then experience the bliss and peace inherent
in the very nature of pure consciousness, much as the surface of a quiet pond
can reflect the blue sky.
Now the identification of discrete objects is closely related to our attribution
of reality to them. To say that a table is real, according to the common view,
is to believe that it is a discrete, material object, distinct from our mind,
and isolated and self-contained from other discrete, material objects. This
deeply-rooted psychological tendency to discriminate and identify discrete,
independent objects and attribute reality to them reaches its culmination in
our utter faith in the reality of our own self, of our own ego.
However, as we have discussed, there is only one consciousness; there are no
discrete material objects. (Even the ego is conceived of as a discrete, material
object in that we tend to identify ourselves with our body.) These are only
powerful illusions, as discussed at length on my Philosophy Page and recapitulated
here. (To be precise, we might have to allow for a distinction between your
consciousness and mine, although I believe that these are also ultimately manifestations
of the single Universal Consciousness or Buddha Mind, as explained on my philosophy
pages.)
So what seems like a harmless ontology - the belief that the world is ultimately
made of discrete material objects - is closely related to our spiritual imperfection,
according to the wisdom of this and similar scriptures. Ontology is not harmless!
Ignorance is the cause of bondage to Samsara! Of course, at a practical level,
we must interact with our experience as though it were made of discrete objects,
but we must not allow this view to seep into the deepest recesses of our mind
and become our belief of how reality ultimately is. This has psychological repercussions
that prevent the blossoming of a higher state of consciousness, that discovered
by Shakyamuni under the Boddhi tree.
Hence, the paradoxical statements like the one quoted above, which can be found
on almost every one of the thousands of pages of the Prajnaparamita Sutras.
Reality is denied to the most common-sense objects, because this is how the
enlightened awareness sees the world. The shapes and colors are the same; if
anything, they are intensified as the enlightened mind enjoys its greatly increased
sensitivity. However, to the enlightened mind, the fundamental reality is the
one vast consciousness or 'thusness'; the so-called 'objects' are like clouds
passing across the pure blue sky of consciousness.
And not only are there no objects. There is also no 'space' containing the objects,
which explains why the bodhisattva is traveling 'nowhere'. As explained on my
philosophy pages, space, conceived of as something external to the mind, must
be denied along with objects external to the mind. They are intimately linked,
two sides of the same coin, so that if one goes, then so must the other. Space
is within consciousness; consciousness is not within space. Space is as much
of an illusion as the apparent objects of perception that seem to be contained
within space. (However, as I explained above, we can view Thusness or Emptiness
as being like space, provided we do not confuse this with the external space
of materialism.)
...
Subhuti: Buddha, bodhisattva, prajnaparamita - these are merely abstract terms,
composed of certain sounds and letters, correlated with certain conventional
perceptions and concepts. What they point at has never substantially come into
being. What they indicate is an uncreated and, hence, ungraspable and unthinkable
presence. The same is true of the terms self and universe. ... That all structures
and processes have never been created simply means that they appear vividly
and function coherently without possessing any independent essence that can
be isolated, grasped or formulated in anyway.
...
The absence of the substantial creation of any form is not different from the
radiantly transparent, harmonious and coherent functioning of all forms. Thus
absolute openness and relative functioning are not divided. They are not two
alternative dimensions, but utter simplicity. If one labels and thereby experiences
this expansive simplicity as material form and personal consciousness, one is
foolishly numbering and labeling that which has no multiplicity and no identity.
Some temporary out-of-place notes:
Enlightenment is the immediate apprehension of the shining miracle of consciousness
as it is, before discrimination has reduced it to the 'dead' world of objects
that is our ordinary mind. The discriminative mentality first divides the world
into 'self' (ego) and 'other' and then divides the other into many 'things'.
Turning a raw appearance into an object in this way evidently 'kills' it, due
to some subtle yet profound psychological process. The mystery and magic of
fresh perception are replaced by the reactive thought, 'It is just a this, it
is just a that'. We recapture some of the fresh perception when we see some
beautiful or awesome sight of nature for the first time, such as the first time
we see the Milky Way. But even the most beautiful and mysterious sight will
become jaded as we grow accustomed to it, and our mind says, 'It is just the
Milky Way'. The mind of a child is full of wonder; the mind of an adult rarely
is.
The conceptual transformation of raw experience into 'dead objects' is closely
related to the belief that the world is made of dead matter (rather than living
consciousness). In turn, the psychological process of objectification has its
roots in our sense of self, which is the 'mother' of all objectifications.
The mystical state would seem to be simply Pure Awareness (or 'Pure Presence'
or 'Suchness' or 'Thusness'), which is cultivated simply by being aware - purely,
constantly, and without discrimination or conceptual distraction or confusion.
Perhaps the Buddhist exercise of 'mindfulness' is intended to cultivate, purify
and intensify awareness, to lift it from its present state of torpor. Are not
muscles developed through exercise?
Also, the 'Perfect Wisdom' that produces 'Pure Awareness' is not ultimately
different from this awareness. They only seem different while we are still on
the path, and we speak conventionally of using the former to attain the latter.
Prajnaparamita may not mention the word 'God', but Perfect Wisdom would seem
to be the 'vision' of God (i.e. God's vision or awareness). That is, it is the
purified awareness of any more highly developed spiritual being, ultimately
culminating in a state of perfection that we may call 'God'. Since dualistic
thinking has been transcended, it makes no sense to ask whether we are having
a vision of God, or whether 'God' is manifesting himself (or itself) in our
awareness. Indeed, there ultimately is no distinction between awareness and
what we are aware of, whether this be the 'Universe' or 'God'. There are no
distinctions at all; there is just one pure and 'unitary' experience, which
we may call 'consciousness' or 'pure consciousness'.
This is all in accord with the philosophical principles that I have developed
on my Philosophy Page. But let me hasten to add that, in the present context,
these philosophical ideas should be considered merely as a dry and abstract
'explanation' or 'logical verification' of an intense spiritual and psychological
process. This is not to deny the validity of these ideas; only we must not be
content with mere ideas, which are only copies of reality.
So by now you have some idea how I interpret this scripture in the light of
my idealistic metaphysics, which says that consciousness is everything. However,
problems can still arise with the use of a word such as 'consciousness', since
so many people feel the need to think that consciousness must be consciousness
of something, which in turn seems to imply a distinction between consciousness
and the object of consciousness. This helps to explain the insistence of this
scripture on transcending conceptual discrimination, which was taken up by Chan
and Zen.
Unthinkable and Unfindable
Shariputra: Revered brother disciple of the Lord, though luminous and transparent,
are not the thinking subject, the thought and its object still some reality
which actually exists?
Subhuti: Can assertions such as it exists or it does not exist apply to pure
presence, which is entirely without modification and hence remains untouched
by any possible discrimination or definition?
...
The Reality to which these and all other terms [bodhisattva and prajnaparamita]
refer is ungraspable and inconceivable, possessing no physical or metaphysical
self-existence.
...
The adamantine awareness who flows as Perfect Wisdom does not define, formulate
and thereby experience Reality in terms of personal forms, personal feelings
or personal consciousness. ... Whoever remains crystallized as personality cannot
melt and flow as the Perfection of Wisdom. ... One can never blossom into the
omniscience which is total awakeness. Prajnaparamita never attempts to grasp
or define What Is. Prajnaparamita can never be grasped or defined. With selfless
freedom and openness alone can the bodhisattva truly flow as Perfect Wisdom.
The transcendent insight of the diamond being is called the vision which simultaneously
sees and sees through all subjective and objective structures without remaining
to grasp or even encounter them. This gnostic vision is limitless, unwavering,
sublime. ...
Obviously, omniscience cannot be grasped. By its very allness, it is precluded
from possessing any particular mark, sign or limit which the mind might cognize
or even attempt to cognize. If total awakeness manifested a sign by which it
could be defined, discriminated and separately encountered, it would not be
total. ... The omniscience or total awakeness of Buddhahood can simply not be
located or formulated.
Taking as sole guideline the true nature of all structures, which is the absence
in them of any substantial self-existence, one should generate powerful conviction
concerning the essential selflessness and signlessness of What Is, so as no
longer to assume, even unconsciously or instinctively, the independent self-existence
of any structure which one might then attempt to grasp, isolate, cognize and
encounter separately. One should not attempt to encounter separately some state
of final release, or Nirvana, because desiring or even acknowledging final release
implies that there exists some independent structure of consciousness which
is released at a certain moment. There is only Prajnaparamita.
...
Shariputra: And still there is a bodhisattva who, cultivating this Perfect Wisdom,
will attain omniscience?
Subhuti: My noble brother, of course there is! Simply by this clear recognition
that no processes, structures or characteristics of any kind are substantially
generated, the bodhisattva blossoms as total awakeness. The thought flow and
even the physical body of an awakened bodhisattva become perfectly pure, because
they manifest solely for the sake of guiding and maturing all conscious beings.
With body and thought flow completely purified from subtle egocentricity, the
bodhisattva, who actually embodies the omniscience of Prajnaparamita, will meet
spontaneously with living Buddhas upon all planes of being and awareness.
...
The awakened bodhisattva does not indulge in analyzing and constantly reviewing
the skandhas, or structural processes of personality, nor even in contemplating
the advanced notions that the skandhas themselves are mere signs. Much less
does the bodhisattva observe any apparent arising, diminishing or destruction
of the skandhas.
...
Why? Because all beings and events, by their very nature are inconceivable and
therefore unapproachable, ungraspable, unfindable, unrepresentable. Thus the
awakened bodhisattva manifests spontaneously the transcendent insight known
as not grasping any separate thing - the omniscient insight which is limitless,
unwavering, sublime. This panoramic awakeness transcends even the widest vision
of any contemplative practitioner who remains subtly self-conscious and self-involved.
...
Even while remaining immersed in Prajnaparamita, the adamantine awareness never
forms or entertains any self-conscious notion such as 'I am now deep in sublime
concentration' or 'I have now entered the meditation beyond all meditations'.
...
Buddha: The appearance of separately self-aware and substantially self-existing
beings and events is the result of primordial ignorance which unconsciously
and instinctively projects the notions of individuality, substance and separation.
...
This largely unconscious reasoning blinds naive realists and even naive contemplatives
to the transparent, insubstantial and yet totally functional existence of all
structures and processes... They attempt to crystallize Reality temporarily
or permanently into names and forms. ... They remain asleep to the pure presence,
or total awakeness, which constitutes all worlds and dimensions.
Absolutely Nothing To Understand
Subhuti: Dear friends, you cannot understand, because there is absolutely nothing
finite to understand. You are not lacking in refinement of intellect. There
is simply nothing separate or substantial in Prajnaparamita to which intellect
can be applied, because Perfect Wisdom does not present any graspable or thinkable
doctrine and offers no method of contemplation.
... Those conscious beings who are mature enough to receive the radical teaching
of Perfect Wisdom regard themselves simply as a display of magical power without
any substantial self-existence. There should be no residual tendency to hear
or grasp as some independent reality the words of the teaching, nor to isolate
or reify their meaning, nor to experience as a separate reality whatever they
are indicating.
...
The phrases magical display, dream display, own existence and all conscious
beings are simply synonymous. Every objective or subjective structure that is
directly experienced as factual or palpable should be regarded as a magical
display, as dream display.
...
Dear divine friends, even if there could be any reality more perfect, more transcendent
or more liberated than Final Nirvana, that, too, would be magical or dreamlike.
The terms magical display, dream display, Buddha and Nirvana are all synonymous.
True Infinitude
Subhuti: One must remember that Prajnaparamita is inconceivably great, limitless,
immeasurable and infinite simply because whatever the conventional mind separates
and discriminates as material forms and conscious states are known by Prajnaparamita
to be its own inconceivability, immeasurability and infinity. There is no reason
to become fixated on or to extol the Perfection of Wisdom as some isolated form
of greatness of perfection, because Prajnaparamita recognizes every single being,
event and perception as precisely the same limitless, immeasurable, infinite
perfection. This recognition is what constitutes the greatness of Perfect Wisdom.
The perfection of Prajnaparamita is infinite because it demonstrates that no
one can isolate or analyze the genesis, evolution or goal of any subjective
or objective process. The perfection of Prajnaparamita is infinite because it
recognizes that all processes are inherently infinite and, therefore, ungraspable
and unthinkable. This freedom from being perceptually and conceptually confined
by the habitual mind, this opening to the limitless, immeasurability and infinite
of all realms and dimensions is why Prajnaparamita is an inconceivably great
perfection.
...
This ungraspable purity, openness and transparency is precisely what is meant
by the limitlessness, immeasurability and infinity of all beings, realms and
dimensions. Recognizing this purity, openness and transparency everywhere is
what constitutes the inconceivable greatness of Prajnaparamita. Rather than
infinity of number or infinity of extension in space and time, this transparent
depth of unthinkability is the true perfect infinitude. This alone makes Perfect
Wisdom supremely perfect.
What Buddha Mind Knows
Buddha: Awakened Ones know the minds of living beings as intrinsically infinite
and inexhaustible. Through all-embracing compassion, living Buddhas manifest
an all-embracing mind which blissfully recognizes that just as empty space cannot
disintegrate or be destroyed, neither can the infinitely open space of all minds
ever be narrowed or extinguished. This inconceivably marvelous Buddha mind which
knows this openness - which simply is this openness - can itself never be extinguished.
Why? Because it never comes into being in the first place, and therefore possesses
no duration through time that can be interrupted.
Buddha mind is the one mind of all beings - fully awakened, fully matured, fully
sensitized, fully liberated.
...
Tathagatas compassionately know the polluted thoughts of conscious beings precisely
as they are. How? By realizing directly that the minds of those living beings
who do not practice any spiritual disciplines are not actually stained by the
pollution of false viewpoints. Wrong ideas possess absolutely no substantial
self-existence, nor do the conventional minds in which they are claimed to lodge
possess any such self-existence.
...
Tathagatas kindly know that reactive thoughts react simply to their own false
representations of Reality - representations which, whether subjective or objective,
are empty of substantial self-existence. Tathagatas equally know nonreactive,
harmonious, peaceful thoughts to be the total simplicity of Reality, never independently
existing in themselves.
...
Awakened Enlightenment sympathetically knows, precisely as they are, the ingrained
tendencies of countless conscious beings to engage in literal affirmations and
negations concerning the transparent structure of reality. Such beings - themselves
constructs - take their own linguistic constructions at face value to be solidly
self-existing entities. Awakened Enlightenment clearly knows that these kaleidoscopic
affirmations and negations arise like a play of reflected light beams from the
constituent processes of personal awareness called form, feeling, impulse, perception
and consciousness. How? Because Buddha mind realizes that all possible statements
have reference not to Reality but only to transparent processes and structures
called personal awareness. Included in this mere kaleidoscopic play are various
metaphysical statements about the Tathagata - that the Tathagata does or does
not continue to exist after physical death; that the Tathagata in some sense
does and in some sense does not exist after death; or that the Tathagata cannot
be said either to exist or not to exist after death. None of these statements,
however refined, refer directly to awakened Enlightenment - birthless as well
as deathless.
Buddha mind, unveiling the inherent emptiness of self-existence, dissolves metaphysical
assumptions, such as the doctrine that the self and its consciousness are eternal
and that other phenomena are mere delusion. Equally inadmissible as truth are
statements that the self and its consciousness are eternal, temporal, both eternal
and temporal or neither eternal or temporal. It is inadmissible as well to maintain
that the self and its consciousness are finite, infinite, or both or neither.
Referring also to false abstractions and projections and not to Reality are
doctrines which claim that the soul is confined and identical to the body or
that the soul is independent from the body and from other structures of relativity.
Though the unwavering principle of Prajnaparamita, Tathagatas know all possible
positive and negative assertions precisely as they are, for Buddha mind realizes
the transparent processes and structures of personal and communal awareness
to be simply suchness, or pure presence. Through awakening fully as pure presence,
the Tathagatas know the suchness of all beings and events and of all statements
about them. The whole image of phenomenal manifestation is the play of universal
enlightenment through the constituents of individual and communal awareness.
All is simply suchness. ... All material and mental structures manifest as one
continuous presence, one absolute depth of unthinkable purity, without trace
of positive or negative assertions. This pure presence is inextinguishable,
indistinguishable simplicity.
...
That is why the mysterious title Tathagata is conferred upon Buddhas, for Tathagata
means the one who has disappeared entirely and beautifully into suchness.
Universal Principle of Inconceivability
Buddha: And why is Perfect Wisdom unthinkable? Because unthinkably profound
are all points of reference: Tathagata, the disappearance into pure presence;
Buddha nature, the Reality which is simply awakeness; spontaneous selflessness,
the essenceless essence of all phenomena; and luminous omniscience, which knows
without knower, knowing or known. Upon none of these points can thought be focused,
because they are not objects or subjects. They cannot be imagined or willed,
perceived or felt. They cannot be touched or approached in any way by any finite
mode or procedure of consciousness.
...
Can you count, compare, measure, conceive, imagine, perceive, touch or divide
the principle of space?... In precisely the same manner as the principle of
space are all appearances whatsoever unthinkable, unimaginable, incalibratable,
unapproachable, unattainable, incomparable. For all phenomena are Buddha phenomena,
arising as the open space of total awakeness, in which dividing, discriminating
and discursive thought is absent, in which no comparison is feasible. ... This
impossibility of any comparison is the core of the universal principle of inconceivability
called Prajnaparamita.
Mirror Image of Pure Presence
Subhuti: The suchness of the Tathagata, the one who has disappeared by awakening
as Reality, is the very same as the suchness of all possible structures of relativity.
So the pure presence of Subhuti the Elder is universal pure presence. ... Thus
it can be said that the unidentifiable Subhuti now speaking is simply indivisible,
undifferentiated suchness and is therefore a living image of universal Buddha
nature.
...
The transparent suchness of Buddha and the transparent suchness of all phenomena
are simply suchness - not divided or divisible, not multiple, not even single.
This pure presence, without any second reality or subreality, is not located
anywhere, nor does it come from anywhere, nor does it belong anywhere, much
less is it going anywhere or evolving in any way. It is precisely because this
pure presence does not belong anywhere that it is total and simple.
...
At all times, and timelessly, suchness remains without substantial structure
and therefore without essential description, although it appears effortlessly
as Subhuti, as Shakyamuni Buddha and as all phenomena. Although there may seem
to be two beings - that is, Subhuti the disciple as a separate image of Buddha,
his master - nothing has been broken away from the original Buddha presence
which can now be called the image of Subhuti, because pure presence remains
unbroken and unbreakable.
The Diamond Sutra
The Diamond Sutra is one of the most popular scriptures in Mahayana Buddhism.
In some monasteries, it is recited everyday. It is considered a distillation
of the essence of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, and it belongs to that same tradition.
(For an even more condensed and popular expression, see the Heart Sutra in the
following section.)
Historically, the Diamond Sutra came later than the lengthy Prajnaparamita Sutras
in thousands of lines, such as the one in 8,000 lines that we sampled above.
That is why I am placing it here, although many Buddhists would recommend becoming
familiar with this sutra before tackling the longer ones!
As a distillation of Prajnaparamita thought, the main theme of the Diamond Sutra
is the central but elusive notion of emptiness. So we must once again use insight
and intuition to understand the spirit of the text; a literal reading may cause
confusion! Clearly, the text delights in paradox. Nevertheless, the strong similarities
to what we examined above are evident, so that we are not totally lost.
The following excerpts are from the version by Plum Village, the religious center
founded by the highly respected Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh. Although the
translator is not credited, it is most likely Thich Nhat Hanh, who is well known
for his simple, elegant and beautiful expositions of Buddhism.
The discourse of the Buddha is prompted by the following question from his disciple
Subhuti:
'World-Honored One, if sons and daughters of good
families want to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind, what
should they rely on and what should they do to master their thinking?'
...
The Buddha said to Subhuti, 'This is how the bodhisattva mahasattvas [aspirants
to enlightenment] master their thinking. 'However many species of living beings
there are - whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously;
whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or
do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have
perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all these beings
to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated. And when this innumerable,
immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in
truth, think that a single being has been liberated.'
'Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self,
a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic
bodhisattva.'
Really this is not so illogical. No one is denying that the forms (shapes and
colors) called 'people' pass across our field of vision like clouds across the
sky. However, if we have no sense of self, then naturally we do not think, 'Here
is a person. There is a person.' We can still interact with the world in a spontaneous
and natural way, but the sense of separation and individuation so characteristic
of ordinary, unenlightened consciousness has evaporated. The mystical literature
of the world is unanimous that the higher state of consciousness - which Buddhists
call 'enlightenment' - is characterized by a profound sense that All is One.
...
'What do you think, Subhuti? Is it possible to grasp the Tathagata [Buddha]
by means of bodily signs?'
'No, World-Honored One. When the Tathagata speaks of bodily signs, there are
no signs being talked about.'
The Buddha said to Subhuti: 'In a place where there is something that can be
distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the
signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata.'
We must lose our discriminating and individuating consciousness that always
grasps for 'signs' and 'marks' ... that tries to cut reality into discrete boundaries
and entities in conflict or uneasy peace with each other. Our fundamental view
of the world determines our own state of consciousness. We cannot become enlightened
as long as we retain our usual discriminating mind. This produces a subconscious
feedback which anchors our spirit to the ground of 'common sense' and prevents
it from rising to the sky of enlightenment.
...
Anyone who, for only a second, gives rise to a pure and clear confidence upon
hearing these words of the Tathagata, the Tathagata sees and knows that person,
and he or she will attain immeasurable happiness because of this understanding.
Why?
'Because that kind of person is not caught up in the idea of a self, a person,
a living being, or a life span. They are not caught up in the idea of a dharma
[thing] or the idea of a non-dharma. They are not caught up in the notion that
this is a sign and that is not a sign. Why? If you are caught up in the idea
of a dharma, you are also caught up in the ideas of a self, a person, a living
being, and a life span. If you are caught up in the idea that there is no dharma,
you are still caught up in the ideas of a self, a person, a living being, and
a life span. That is why we should not get caught up in dharmas or in the idea
that dharmas do not exist. This is the hidden meaning when the Tathagata says,'Bhiksus
[monks], you should know that all of the teachings I give to you are a raft.'
All teachings must be abandoned, not to mention non-teachings.'
This paragraph neatly summarizes most of what we have learned about emptiness.
Another concise summary can be found in a quote from the Venerable Master Hsing
Yun, who discusses the Diamond Sutra in an on-line booklet called The Diamond
Sutra and the Study of Wisdom and Emptiness, available at the BLIA website:
When we speak of 'selflessness', we do not mean there is no such a person as
myself. 'Selflessness' is a realm of the mind and prajna [wisdom]. It is a realm
of being free from the bondage of the tangible, dualistic notion of relationship,
of being able to transcend the relative concepts of self and others, and of
being equal to space and the universe. There is fundamentally no differentiation
of the mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings: all living beings are beings in
one's mind, all the Buddhas are Buddhas in one's mind, and all things are things
in one's mind. Outside of the mind, where can there be any living beings? If
we think like this, then although numerous beings are freed, we do not think
that a single being is freed. With such transcendental thinking, we are truly
practitioners of prajna and sunyata.
Clearly, this echoes many of the ideas on this page. The Venerable Master Hsing
Yun, who is based in Taiwan, is well-known for his efforts to bring 'Humanistic
Buddhism' to the world. More details about Buddhism and about the master can
be found at the BLIA website. (BLIA stands for Buddha's Light International
Association).
...
'What do you think, Subhuti, has the Tathagata arrived at the highest, most
fulfilled, awakened mind? Does the Tathagata give any teaching?'
The Venerable Subhuti replied, 'As far as I have understood the Lord Buddha's
teachings, there is no independently existing object of mind called the highest,
most fulfilled, awakened mind, nor is there any independently existing teaching
that the Tathagata gives. Why? The teachings that the Tathagata has realized
and spoken of cannot be conceived of as separate, independent existences and
therefore cannot be described.
...
What do you think, Subhuti? Does a bodhisattva create a serene and beautiful
Buddha field?'
'No, World-Honored One. Why? To create a serene and beautiful Buddha field is
not in fact creating a serene and beautiful Buddha field. That is why it is
called creating a serene and beautiful Buddha field.'
The Buddha said, 'So, Subhuti, all the bodhisattva mahasattvas should give rise
to a pure and clear intention in this spirit. When they give rise to this intention,
they should not rely on forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, or objects
of mind. They should give rise to an intention with their minds not dwelling
anywhere.'
...
'The Buddha said to Subhuti, 'That is quite right. If someone hears this sutra
and is not terrified or afraid, he or she is rare. Why? Subhuti, what the Tathagata
calls parama-paramita, the highest transcendence, is not essentially the highest
transcendence, and that is why it is called the highest transcendence.
...
'The Tathagata has said that all notions are not notions and that all living
beings are not living beings. Subhuti, the Tathagata is one who speaks of things
as they are, speaks what is true, and speaks in accord with reality. He does
not speak deceptively or to please people.
...
... there is, in fact, nothing that can be attained that is called the highest,
most fulfilled, awakened mind. Why? Tathagata means the suchness of all things
(dharmas). Someone would be mistaken to say that the Tathagata has attained
the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind since there is not any highest, most
fulfilled, awakened mind to be attained. Subhuti, the highest, most fulfilled,
awakened mind that the Tathagata has attained is neither graspable nor elusive.
This is why the Tathagata has said, 'All dharmas are Buddhadharma.' What are
called all dharmas are, in fact, not [at] all dharmas. That is why they are
called all dharmas.
...
'Subhuti, if you think that the Tathagata realizes the highest, most fulfilled,
awakened mind and does not need to have all the marks, you are wrong. Subhuti,
do not think in that way. Do not think that when one gives rise to the highest,
most fulfilled, awakened mind, one needs to see all objects of mind as nonexistent,
cut off from life. Please do not think in that way. One who gives rise to the
highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind does not contend that all objects of
mind are nonexistent and cut off from life.'
...
'Subhuti, if someone were to offer an immeasurable quantity of the seven treasures
to fill the worlds as infinite as space as an act of generosity, the happiness
resulting from that virtuous act would not equal the happiness resulting from
a son or daughter of a good family who gives rise to the awakened mind and reads,
recites, accepts, and puts into practice this sutra, and explains it to others,
even if only a gatha of four lines. In what spirit is this explanation given?
Without being caught up in signs, just according to things as they are, without
agitation. Why is this?
'All composed things are like a dream,
a phantom, a drop of dew, a flash of lightning.
That is how to meditate on them,
that is how to observe them.'
After they heard the Lord Buddha deliver this sutra, the Venerable Subhuti,
the bhiksus and bhiksunis, laymen and laywomen, and gods and asuras, filled
with joy and confidence, undertook to put these teachings into practice.
Those four lines of poetry are quite striking and beautiful and capture the
spirit of the sutra. Shakyamuni, the human incarnation of Buddha, said that
we must lose our sense of self to achieve the state of consciousness called
enlightenment. The Prajnaparamita reiterates this idea while adding that of
the emptiness of all things, often expressed as the dreamlike nature of what
we take to be reality. These two views - the unreality of the self and of the
world (dharmas) - are really mirror images of each other. Likewise, our sense
that the world 'out there' is so real and solid is but the mirror reflection
of our sense of our self as something solid and real that we clutch and grasp
in the depth our own heart. In reality, there is one vast and pure consciousness,
which we may call Buddha, which encompasses and transcends both.
The Heart Sutra
The Heart Sutra is similar to the Lord's Prayer in Christianity in that it is
a brief 'statement of faith' recited constantly by Mahayana Buddhists everywhere,
often before or after meditation. It is the most condensed example of the Prajnaparamita
Literature, except for the famous Prajnaparamita Sutra in One Letter - which
I have not been able to find in any bookstore! :) The following version is from
Buddhanet, a comprehensive website on Buddhism. The link to the sutra also provides
a detailed commentary by Grand Master T'an Hsu.
When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara
Was Coursing in the Deep Prajna Paramita
He Perceived That All Five Skandhas Are Empty.
Thus He Overcame All Ills and Suffering.
Oh, Sariputra, Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form;
The Same is True For Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness.
Sariputra, the Characteristics of the
Voidness of All Dharmas
Are Non-Arising, Non-Ceasing, Non-Defiled,
Non-Pure, Non-Increasing, Non-Decreasing.
Therefore, in the Void There Are No Forms,
No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness.
No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind;
No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object;
No Realm of the Eye,
Until We Come to No realm of Consciousness.
No ignorance and Also No Ending of Ignorance,
Until We Come to No Old Age and Death and
No Ending of Old Age and Death.
Also, There is No Truth of Suffering,
Of the Cause of Suffering,
Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path.
There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever.
Because There is Nothing to Be Attained,
The Bodhisattva Relying On Prajna Paramita Has
No Obstruction in His Mind.
Because There is No Obstruction, He Has no Fear,
And He passes Far Beyond Confused Imagination.
And Reaches Ultimate Nirvana.
The Buddhas of the Past, Present and Future,
By Relying on Prajna Paramita
Have Attained Supreme Enlightenment.
Therefore, the Prajna Paramita is the Great Magic
Spell,
The Spell of Illumination, the Supreme Spell,
Which Can Truly Protect One From All Suffering Without Fail.
Therefore He Uttered the Spell of Prajnaparmita,
Saying Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha.
Links
Although there are many websites on Buddhism, there
are few websites to date (October 2001) devoted specifically to the Prajnaparamita
literature. However, the famous Heart and Diamond Sutras can be found at many
Buddhist sites, as can many commentaries on these particular sutras.
Note: I do not necessarily agree with everything at the following sites, nor
do I expect you to, nor do they expect us to.
Pith Instructions on the Great Perfection: Dilgo Khyentse, a kind and revered
Tibetan Buddhist master, clearly discusses the essence of meditation. His description
gives an insight into emptiness. This is true wisdom, which puts philosophers
to shame. Another of his articles can be found here. Dilgo was the teacher of
Sogyal Rinpoche who wrote the famous 'Tibetan Book of Living and Dying', which
is an excellent introduction to Buddhism as well as to Tibetan experiences of
the afterlife. Some of Sogyal's quotes can be found here, and excerpts from
the book can be found here as well as here.
Kheper Buddhism Page: Only one section of a large and interesting website devoted
to spirituality and philosophy. A link to emptiness can be found under 'Shunyata'
- the Sanskrit word for emptiness. Be sure to explore the rest of this site.
Sarva Darshana Samgraha: Nanda Chandran's scholarly site devoted to Indian philosophy.
Clear and not too lengthy discussions can be found of e.g. Nagarjuna. (Look
for 'Madhyamika' under 'Mahayana' under 'Buddhism' under 'Heterodox Systems'.)
Realization.org This website contains of wealth of clear writings on meditation
and nondualistic philosophy, with many references to related trends in Indian
religion (Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism,...).
Nonduality Salon: A website devoted specifically to 'nondualistic' philosophy
in all its manifestations.
Jonah Winter's Dissertation on Nagarjuna: An entire dissertation devoted to
Nagarjuna and his 'Middle way' or Madhyamika.