Becoming Reconciled
Naturelessness does not arise or cease. What does not arise or cease is not of the past, future, or present. Naturelessness is (also) not stained or purified, does not increase or decrease, and (thus) is not of the past, future, or present.
Naturelessness is a singular concept which applies to everything else we experience. Thus, naturelessness is naturelessness: it is not the case that something can be partially natureless, that naturelessness applies differently depending on the phenomenon, or that a phenomenon’s degree of naturelessness increases or decreases. Naturelessness simply and automatically applies to anything you might experience, and naturelessness no longer “exists” once you stop experiencing something. Naturelessness is therefore independent of change, and thus time in which change necessarily occurs.
Of the passage just above, only the first sentence is found in the Heart Sutra. Therefore, the final two sentences, which provide necessary context for why there is no actual form or other phenomena in the passage below, are not in the Heart Sutra.
Of the passage just above, only the first sentence is found in the Heart Sutra. Therefore, the final two sentences, which provide necessary context for why there is no actual form or other phenomena in the passage below, are not in the Heart Sutra.
Therefore, there is no (actual) form or other aspects of experience, no twelve sensory supports and no eighteen elements of experience. There are no links of ignorant fabrication and their cessation, nor are there Four Noble Truths, spiritual attainment or realization. There is no stream entrant, once-returner, non-returner, arahant or the fruits of these attainments, nor is there a privately awakened one: they are also not of the past, future or present. There are no aspects of the path to awakening, one who aspires to fully awaken, awakening itself or one who is fully awake.
It is in this way, Śāriputra, that a commendable one who aspires to fully awaken and who proceeds on the basis of awakening understanding is to be spoken of as “reconciled”.
As above, if we are reconciled to and with awakened understanding, we do not perceive form or any other aspect of experience to have the nature of arising or ceasing, nor of being blemished or being purified. We also do not (and cannot) attribute any descriptor or nature to naturelessness either. To no longer perceive anything as arising and ceasing in time (and space) is a critical step along the path to awakening. In the unfettering process, this occurs when the seventh fetter is “broken”, at which point we finally see that everything we experience is really just an interpretation of sensory information, thus an appearance projected in our minds.
When that shift occurs, we no longer create the notion of time and space, by which the arising and ceasing (and thus “impermanence”) of things is no longer a believable explanation of what is happening, other than at the level of convention. We also no longer suppose we can or should see “things as they really are”, but instead only see things “as we have created them” in our minds. Knowing this, there no longer appears to be actual “somethings”, by which naturelessness is no longer just a concept but is a constant aspect of daily experience to the extent phenomena are recognized. By this, to say something is not of the past, future or present is equivalent to saying that it does not actually exist. Therefore, the point at which both phenomena and naturelessness no longer arise, cease or otherwise change is the point at which we are truly reconciled to and with those phenomena. Phenomena no longer appear to arise or cease (they just “are”), and naturelessness is no longer needed as a reminder.
Of course, it’s not that we no longer recognize things such as frying pans or stoplights, otherwise daily life would not be possible. As the Large Sutra clarifies in a later section, it is true enough to say that a “frying pan” arises and ceases in conventional terms, keeping in mind that the term “frying pan” is really just a concept or symbol. Thus, if we are careful to not assume that assigning a name to something means that it actually arises, exists and then disappears, we remain reconciled with what is being taught.
At the beginning of this final passage, in the original Sanskrit, is the small but important word tatra, which can mean either “therein” or “therefore. If we choose “therein”, this passage starts “in naturelessness (emptiness), there is no form…”, which is often how this section of the Heart Sutra is rendered. If so, then this final passage can either mean that (1) naturelessness or emptiness is a type of container in which one doesn’t find form, which cannot be, given how naturelessness is defined; or (2) one does not find form in a temporary meditative state such as the “empty abiding”, which is technically true, though inconsistent with the Large Sutra generally where one is clearly not in such a meditative state while reconciling themselves to awakened understanding, such as when engaging in generosity or patience. If we instead choose “therefore”, it extends to form and all other phenomena the principle that if something does not arise or cease, it is not of the past, future or present, and therefore does not “exist” as we might normally assume.
Summary
To summarize this section of the Large Sutra from which the compilers of the Heart Sutra extracted selected passages, you must reconcile yourself to and with the naturelessness of everything you experience. Phenomena such as frying pans, stoplights and “me” are conceptual aspects of daily life, thus reconciliation to their naturelessness doesn’t actually involve anyone who is reconciled to or with anything. However you parse what you experience, such as with the five aspects of experience, nothing actually arises, changes, ceases or combines in the way it might be described at the level of convention. Because there is nothing about phenomena that is of the past, future or present, there are no actual phenomena, including and especially you. In this, naturelessness is strictly a conceptual aspect of awakened understanding, and is defined in relation to phenomena but is neither identical to nor separate from a phenomenon that is natureless. Like phenomena, naturelessness does not arise, cease or otherwise change, therefore is not of the past, future or present.
This particular section of the Large Sutra is but one section of an incredibly massive scripture. As a result, though the topics covered such as reconciliation, naturelessness and awakened understanding are central to the Large Sutra as a whole, this particular section was never intended to be a stand-alone scripture, even prior to redacting certain portions of it. Further, the compilers of the Heart Sutra only selected certain passages, by which the context that the surrounding text provides was lost. A summary of my suggested translation of this particular section of the Large Sutra is below, where the text in bold/italic is that which has a corresponding passage in the Heart Sutra. This shows that less than half of the text of this section from the Large Sutra was included by the compilers of the Heart Sutra.
How meaningful are the resulting differences between the two scriptures? In addition to casting this teaching as being taught by Avalokiteśvara rather than the Buddha, the Heart Sutra contains no description of one becoming reconciled (yukta) to this way of understanding what they experience, which is the primary focus of the whole section. There is no explicit guidance that there is no one that is reconciled to anything, and that nothing in “their” experience actually changes; the Heart Sutra only states that naturelessness does not change, leaving open the possibility that phenomena change, therefore are impermanent as their nature. There is no description of naturelessness being outside of time, and there is also no description of the nuanced relationship between naturelessness and phenomena that are natureless which, as it turns out, contradicts the typical Heart Sutra translation that “form is emptiness, emptiness is form”. Finally, that there is no actual “being” who aspires to awaken or does eventually awaken is not made explicit.
Because the Heart Sutra was taken out of context in this way, the text may seem to be enigmatic, perplexing and even mysterious which, for some, might actually increase its appeal. However, any perceived mystery obscures the fact that the Awakened Understanding (prajñā-pāramitā) texts were used by those who had awoken to put into words, as best they could, what awakened experience is like, as this section from the Large Sutra demonstrates.
Of course, a reader who has not awoken will nevertheless find these texts difficult to grasp. Eventually, though, what at first sounded enigmatic, perplexing or mysterious ends up being completely comprehensible: once awake, our response to a given passage might be “ah, that’s a good way to describe it”. Thus, while the setting and conversations within an Awakened Understanding text may be fictional, the teachings themselves are facts to, and with, which we must eventually be reconciled.
When that shift occurs, we no longer create the notion of time and space, by which the arising and ceasing (and thus “impermanence”) of things is no longer a believable explanation of what is happening, other than at the level of convention. We also no longer suppose we can or should see “things as they really are”, but instead only see things “as we have created them” in our minds. Knowing this, there no longer appears to be actual “somethings”, by which naturelessness is no longer just a concept but is a constant aspect of daily experience to the extent phenomena are recognized. By this, to say something is not of the past, future or present is equivalent to saying that it does not actually exist. Therefore, the point at which both phenomena and naturelessness no longer arise, cease or otherwise change is the point at which we are truly reconciled to and with those phenomena. Phenomena no longer appear to arise or cease (they just “are”), and naturelessness is no longer needed as a reminder.
Of course, it’s not that we no longer recognize things such as frying pans or stoplights, otherwise daily life would not be possible. As the Large Sutra clarifies in a later section, it is true enough to say that a “frying pan” arises and ceases in conventional terms, keeping in mind that the term “frying pan” is really just a concept or symbol. Thus, if we are careful to not assume that assigning a name to something means that it actually arises, exists and then disappears, we remain reconciled with what is being taught.
At the beginning of this final passage, in the original Sanskrit, is the small but important word tatra, which can mean either “therein” or “therefore. If we choose “therein”, this passage starts “in naturelessness (emptiness), there is no form…”, which is often how this section of the Heart Sutra is rendered. If so, then this final passage can either mean that (1) naturelessness or emptiness is a type of container in which one doesn’t find form, which cannot be, given how naturelessness is defined; or (2) one does not find form in a temporary meditative state such as the “empty abiding”, which is technically true, though inconsistent with the Large Sutra generally where one is clearly not in such a meditative state while reconciling themselves to awakened understanding, such as when engaging in generosity or patience. If we instead choose “therefore”, it extends to form and all other phenomena the principle that if something does not arise or cease, it is not of the past, future or present, and therefore does not “exist” as we might normally assume.
Summary
To summarize this section of the Large Sutra from which the compilers of the Heart Sutra extracted selected passages, you must reconcile yourself to and with the naturelessness of everything you experience. Phenomena such as frying pans, stoplights and “me” are conceptual aspects of daily life, thus reconciliation to their naturelessness doesn’t actually involve anyone who is reconciled to or with anything. However you parse what you experience, such as with the five aspects of experience, nothing actually arises, changes, ceases or combines in the way it might be described at the level of convention. Because there is nothing about phenomena that is of the past, future or present, there are no actual phenomena, including and especially you. In this, naturelessness is strictly a conceptual aspect of awakened understanding, and is defined in relation to phenomena but is neither identical to nor separate from a phenomenon that is natureless. Like phenomena, naturelessness does not arise, cease or otherwise change, therefore is not of the past, future or present.
This particular section of the Large Sutra is but one section of an incredibly massive scripture. As a result, though the topics covered such as reconciliation, naturelessness and awakened understanding are central to the Large Sutra as a whole, this particular section was never intended to be a stand-alone scripture, even prior to redacting certain portions of it. Further, the compilers of the Heart Sutra only selected certain passages, by which the context that the surrounding text provides was lost. A summary of my suggested translation of this particular section of the Large Sutra is below, where the text in bold/italic is that which has a corresponding passage in the Heart Sutra. This shows that less than half of the text of this section from the Large Sutra was included by the compilers of the Heart Sutra.
How meaningful are the resulting differences between the two scriptures? In addition to casting this teaching as being taught by Avalokiteśvara rather than the Buddha, the Heart Sutra contains no description of one becoming reconciled (yukta) to this way of understanding what they experience, which is the primary focus of the whole section. There is no explicit guidance that there is no one that is reconciled to anything, and that nothing in “their” experience actually changes; the Heart Sutra only states that naturelessness does not change, leaving open the possibility that phenomena change, therefore are impermanent as their nature. There is no description of naturelessness being outside of time, and there is also no description of the nuanced relationship between naturelessness and phenomena that are natureless which, as it turns out, contradicts the typical Heart Sutra translation that “form is emptiness, emptiness is form”. Finally, that there is no actual “being” who aspires to awaken or does eventually awaken is not made explicit.
Because the Heart Sutra was taken out of context in this way, the text may seem to be enigmatic, perplexing and even mysterious which, for some, might actually increase its appeal. However, any perceived mystery obscures the fact that the Awakened Understanding (prajñā-pāramitā) texts were used by those who had awoken to put into words, as best they could, what awakened experience is like, as this section from the Large Sutra demonstrates.
Of course, a reader who has not awoken will nevertheless find these texts difficult to grasp. Eventually, though, what at first sounded enigmatic, perplexing or mysterious ends up being completely comprehensible: once awake, our response to a given passage might be “ah, that’s a good way to describe it”. Thus, while the setting and conversations within an Awakened Understanding text may be fictional, the teachings themselves are facts to, and with, which we must eventually be reconciled.