The heart sutra

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Has anyone read this, and what do you make of it?

Hi and welcome. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific. It is a very complex Sutra and considered to be hard to comprehend from the western perspective. It is very popular in Asia and here in Japan is the mainstay of the Shingon Sect of Buddhism of which my Mother-in-Law is a practitioner.

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

What are the conclusions the sutra makes?(in your opinion)

You sure ask tough questions:)
I have never studied the Heart Sutra in depth, it is not the Sutra followed by my sect, we follow the Lotus Sutra.

My limited understanding of it is that the Heart Sutra advocates that by letting go of our preconceived notions, opinions, and attachments, we can become open to all the wonders of our life. It states that all things are empty, referred to as the realization of nothingness. But that the emptiness or nothingness in this context does not just mean nothing. It means not being attached to anything, especially our own perceptions and ideas, and only by loosing these attractions can we gain the perfectly insight to see our life clearly.

This emptiness refers to the fact that no thing -- including human existence -- has ultimate substantiality. That no thing is permanent and no thing is totally independent of everything else. (The use of the word "no thing," is not a typo for "nothing." No thing relates to things as we as an unenlightened person perceive them.) In other words, everything in this world is interconnected and in constant flux. If we can understand and accept this idea of emptiness we can then save ourselves from the suffering caused by our egos, our attachments, and our resistance to change and loss.

The Heart Sutra is also known as the Sutra of Perfect Wisdom and is said to contain the entire secret of the truth of the universe and life. The Sutra is said to require intense meditation to grasp its full meaning. In layman terms, if you can grasp this Sutra, you have attained enlightenment. All of this is condensed down at the end of the Sutra in the one great Chant:

Gone,
gone,
gone over,
gone fully over.
Awakened!
So be it!

Thats about my limit to an understanding of this Sutra. I believe one also needs to understand the Diamond Sutra to be able to grasp fully the meaning contained within the Heart Sutra

In answer to your question "What are the conclusions the sutra makes?"
If I could answer that I would be enlightened, and know I am not. The issue I think that needs to be really understood from the Sutra is an understanding of what exactly is meant by "ultimate substantiality" in the phrase "Emptiness refers to the fact that no thing -- including human existence -- has ultimate substantiality."

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

I think I came by this sutra by another route. When reading anthony de mello's book about awareness and trying to practice awareness, I think I had a glimpse into what this sutra's about.
It was difficult to describe.

Try to describe it, it helps all of us. I am sure there are many others here who also have insight into its meaning. The major difficulty with this Sutra is that it is so highly condensed that it is very difficult to grasp all the concepts in it. The Dali Lama also wrote a book on it trying to explain its meaning to western practitioners of Buddhism. He went on to explain that one of the major difficulties with it was in of giving names to concepts that do not exist in the English language or western canons. He considered the Sutra to be a valuable tool whereby a monk could gage his progress, via meditation, by his understanding of these concepts. No surprise then that it is a very hard Sutra to come to grips with.:)

I think the sutra describes how an awakened person sees the world, rather than describing how to become awakened.

Very well done with your observations, you are correct.

I began to see what I thought was me, was not me. That my mind, body, emotions were things I was aware of, but separate from the "real me". That the "real me" was just observing them.

Still correct, but the real me is not separate from the not real me. It does very much influence the way the not real me acts, and does very much affect how the not real me awakens. I'm sorry, that probably sounds very confusing. I will try to explain what I mean

As I see it at this point in my life, your observations are correct in relation to yourself. The Sutra does describe to you how an awakened person sees the world. Surprised?
You have hit on a very important aspect or concept of Buddhism and one that can be very difficult to comprehend. Unlike the western approach to religion, Buddhism has never said that every Buddhist must follow the same path to attain enlightenment, nor does it say that enlightenment is the same for each individual. It just states that achieving Buddhahood or enlightenment is our current ultimate goal.

Lets take Christianity as an example since I know it best to look at some of the different concepts at work in Buddhism. Simplistically speaking, because it is far more complex than I make out to be here, Christianity defines where one comes from, how one should live a correct life by strictly following the rules put in place/passed down by God and administered by his body of representative here on earth, and where one will go or not go to if one follows the rules. It applies to everyone equally, and though you have free will (this bit I do not understand) it is pre-ordained where you will end up and is based on the one life you have led. It is what I will call a single-shot, one-plan-for-all approach. You either do it this way and make it to be with your God, or you reject the way and you don't make it. Please remember I am not knocking Christianity in any way. I respect many of its principles, disagree with much of its approaches, but at the end of the day, it is not my chosen path.

In contrast, Buddhism as I see it in my current existence does not tell you where you came from, it sets down a series of guideline that encourage us to define or seek for ourselves an appropriate path to followed that will lead us to enlightenment over a period of time/lifetimes. It is a multi-shot, multi-plan-for-me approach, and every one makes it, the only differing factor is in the time period it takes for one to get there. The path to follow is custom tailored for you alone based on your current understanding and actions.

Think of it this way. You life is like a diamond, the brilliance of your life is determined by the number of facets and the quality of each of the polished surfaces. Each surface represents a different perspective or understanding gained through our studies and experiences. These act to polish the current facet we are perceiving life through. Over time our perspective changes and we start to polish a different facet. This process continues on,as we polish the diamond gets smaller and smaller, till eventually we have polish the whole diamond away to a single point, then to nothing. We are now left with only the essence of the diamond that was always contained within in the diamond that was. You can relate this process directly to the Chant in the Heart Sutra. Gone, gone, gone over, gone fully over, awakened, so be it.

That unfortunately is as far as I have currently got in working this out. Right now it seem good to me, later, I am sure I will see a different aspect. I will just keep on polishing. Thanks for your original post, I hope you can see how it encouraged me to dig deeper into the observations you raised. We can all learn a lot from one another. Each of us has within the seed of enlightenment. We never know where the next piece of the puzzle is going to come from. Each of us brings a different piece to the table. I am very curious to know which work of De Mello led you to these observation, I would like to read it.

Anyway, I tried to find stuff on the net about my experience...

And you did:) We have a nice little saying, you don't find Buddhism, it finds you.

Thanks for a very interesting reply. There is a lot I can agree with, some I do not yet agree with. I am curious, how did this all come about. Were you reading and it just came to you. Did you sit/meditate and think about it?

What I would agree with is your comment "I think our true self is like a blind spot, we can only know it, by knowing what it is not." I think that is true up to a point. I also like your comment ""the eye cannot see itself". There is a similar one that I was given when I challenger a Buddhist teacher on a point he was trying to teach me "Your eyes can see everything, but they cannot see your own eyebrows and they are right in front of your face." I am sure the meaning of that is obvious to you too. The teacher went on to point out that the moment you look in a mirror, or more to the point here, you look at your reflection, you can then see your own eyebrows. His point was to use the tools given to me to perceive my own reflection.

In my case the tools were meditation, study, practise in the real world and chanting. These tools would enable me to see through the Blind Spot to the nature within. I believe that with enough practice one will indeed both perceive and unlock one's own nature. That is the whole point of Buddhism.
At least that is what I have experienced after 28 years of practice. I have also learned that what we believe today, we can just as easily not believe tomorrow.

I will look forward to reading that book.
Thanks again for your reply.:)

by Pappy o' daniel...you are the one who observes.

What you say is true to a point. To get to that point and practicing it continuously, is almost enough. Ultimately, though - as in enlightenment - saying "you are the one who observes" is also wrong. You are not even the one who observes.

In the end there is a union of the observer and the observed that dissolves the last split of something to be observed and an observer. In this oneness you and anything that could possibly be observed, disappear completely for an infinite and eternal realization of I AM.

Here You Are

I am ("experiencing") this, now as I AM.

Let me try to be more helpful, though.

On October 21, 1987 - I say this as if it could have a date in the past, a beginning or an end - I experienced who I am beyond any doubt and beyond anything further that could be known. As a result "I" thought that "I" had had that experience; that "I" woke up. This also turned out not to be so.

This "me" who "had" that experience still was not itself the "I AM" that "I" experienced. For that to come about, "enlightened me" had to still dissolve into the far more simple, elusive, total, infinite and eternal "I AM".

You just remembered who you are, but now you are back as the one you have always known, who you now have to forget again and again and again no matter the circumstances, experiences, realizations etc. until this happens instantly at all times, and the forgetting of the false self and the remembering of the true self become one and the same in I AM.

I like your blind spot idea. You have to become the blind spot itself, though.
Non-identification is still identification in disguise and we have to be alert. I am this, or, I am not this, is still not the peaceful abiding in I AM.

by studs - many years ago DeMello's teachings on just this subject, of non-identification, helped me through some difficult times. However it seems to have left me in a pretty awful place. I wonder if any of you can shed light on what possible difference there is between the idea of non-identification and nihilism. I used to think that spiritual enlightenment came from non-idenification with anything, while nihilism was an identification with nothing. I'm no longer so sure there is any meaningful difference between them. I know that De Mello insists there is a difference, but I no longer see what that difference might be. The erasure of the ego may seem like a necessary step on the path to enliightenment, but if you're not a tree or a flower but an actually living human being with choices, with responsibilities, what practical use has it?

There is no practical "use" for enlightenment."Usefulness" is a very human idea.

Flowers will be flowers and human beings will be human beings. A human being will make human choices and flowers will make flower choices. A flower will turn towards the light and open to warmth, and retreat from coldness and darkness. Human beings are the same - until they get confused. They think too much.

This distinction between "nihilism" and "emptiness" is very important.

Nihilism is the result of thinking (philosophy) whereas Buddhist teachings about emptiness are a result of not-thinking (meditation). The mistake many people make is that they approach Buddhism as a philosophy. They try to grasp and understand Buddhist teachings through intellect, rather than confirming them through meditation.

If a person studies Buddhism without meditating he or she will often end up a nihilist. Nihilism concludes that nothing matters and life is meaningless - so depression or insanity is a common side effect. Nihilism, as well as Buddhism emphasize non-attachment. This leads to arrogance and coldness - a false kind of detachment which avoids attachment and as such is nothing but attachment in disguise. A more experienced Buddhist teacher is often around to pull the student out of this blindness by demonstrating to him his attachment to the idea of non-attachment itself. The Nihilist usually has no such teachers.

Genuine non-attachment, on the other hand, as a side effect of maturity developed through meditation, leads to warmth and compassion, even glad self-sacrifice and service. It does not avoid responsibility or making choices, at all.

Nihilism - and even the teachings of non-attachment of Buddhism - are a great attraction for the young - because it helps with overcoming the heartbreak of failed romance. But only initially, because later it becomes an excuse for avoiding love altogether. Therefore, this so-called non-attachment creates suffering as it serves to protect the self rather than risk it.

Meditation leads to the discovery of what is behind existence. Through it we encounter the source of all things. Everything is recognized as of no ultimate importance because of impermanence. At the same time everything becomes infinitely precious and miraculous, not because of its usefulness, but simply because of its very existence and interconnectedness.

Attaching importance of meaning to things, ideas and people imprisons us, while deepest gratitude without attachment - frees us. The Buddhist goes about his daily tasks in gratitude valuing even the tiniest insect. The Nihilist, on the other hand, values nothing, and is only almost right. He is even a step ahead of others. Therefore Nihilism is dangerously deceiving.

The infinite and eternal - manifests as something finite and impermanent - therefore pointing towards the eternal... in an inexhaustible variety of forms, endlessly appearing and disappearing - for our enjoyment, inspiration, and in-formation about the beyond. The Nihilist, attached to his intellect, ideas, and insights, does not go beyond - he stays here with nothing - dying of thirst while swimming in the river.

So after the "dissolving" of the ego (every I-thought - all thoughts- imaginable), you claim fearlessness, boldness, strength, responsibility, care, love, peace as your birthright - without identification.

I came across an relevant article, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html, arriving at it from the wikipedia page Three marks of existence.

This is interesting as it presents a Theravada approach to teachings on emptiness and based on the Pali Canon whereas all the teachings I have heard/read come from a Mahayana perspective. The teachings in the sutras mentioned in the article seem to resonate considerably with the Heart Sutra, a Mahanyana text. The article talks about the understanding of no-self and how the teachings aim to counteract, weaken and remove our grasping onto concepts of reality. Only when all notions of self and existence have been cut through does the true experiential realisation arise. Concepts of self and existence are divided into 4 kinds of view:

There is a something
There is nothing
There are both something and nothing
There are neither something nor nothing

According to teachings on the heart sutra, these 4 kinds of incorrect views are negated in the lines:
Form is emptiness
Emptiness is form
Form is no other than emptiness
Emptiness is no other than form
(and likewise for the all 5 aggregates Form, Feeling, Formation and Consciousness)