What Naturelessness is Not
Śāriputra, form is not one thing and naturelessness another; naturelessness is not one thing and form another. Form is only naturelessness; naturelessness is only form. Thus, the naturelessness of form is not form. In like manner, the naturelessness of form does not form (anything). The same is true for sensation, recognition, conditioning and consciousness.
In the original Sanskrit, the conclusion that the naturelessness of form is not form and that it doesn’t form anything is stated first, and then is followed by the underlying principles by which those conclusions are valid. The translation above reverses this, starting with the underlying principles, followed by the conclusions. While both orderings end up saying the same thing, I suggest the ordering above makes the passage clearer. Exploring what this passage means therefore starts with:
Form is not one thing and naturelessness another; naturelessness is not one thing and form another.
Naturelessness is meaningless without something that is natureless, such as form; conversely, form is merely the occasion for, and the current example of, naturelessness. Form and naturelessness thus define each other: in that way they are inseparable. While form and the naturelessness of form are separate concepts, they are not separate entities or “somethings”. This is similar to the situation where, if you are to have a long straw and a short straw, you need both for that to be true - you can’t have one without the other, since they mutually define each other as “long” and “short”.
This first sentence is typically translated as “form is emptiness (naturelessness), and emptiness is form”. However, the above translation is what the text from the Large Sutra explicitly states.
This first sentence is typically translated as “form is emptiness (naturelessness), and emptiness is form”. However, the above translation is what the text from the Large Sutra explicitly states.
Form is only naturelessness; naturelessness is only form.
Form’s only true attribute or descriptor is naturelessness; in this manner, form is only naturelessness. For example, we cannot say that form is necessarily round, impermanent or anything else: all we can truly say about form is that, as a mental creation, it is natureless. This also cautions us against the notion that form has naturelessness as its nature, which is a contradiction in terms.
Also, because of how naturelessness is defined, the only application is in the context of form or other aspect of experience; for example, naturelessness is here the naturelessness of form. In other words, the concept of “naturelessness” is not a free-standing principle or entity. Because of this, naturelessness is only form or, perhaps better, naturelessness only “is” because form apparently “is”.
Also, because of how naturelessness is defined, the only application is in the context of form or other aspect of experience; for example, naturelessness is here the naturelessness of form. In other words, the concept of “naturelessness” is not a free-standing principle or entity. Because of this, naturelessness is only form or, perhaps better, naturelessness only “is” because form apparently “is”.
Thus, the naturelessness of form is not form.
Because of how naturelessness is defined, it is strictly limited in application, which precludes naturelessness from being anything else, including an example of form, or even form itself. While naturelessness is not a separate entity or “something”, it is a separate concept, albeit one with a very narrow and specific function.
This means that the way in which the first sentence of this passage (above) is often translated, as something similar to “form is emptiness (naturelessness), and emptiness is form”, is potentially misleading. Not only is this translation inconsistent with the “the one… the other” phrasing in the original Sanskrit text in the Large Sutra, but this could be interpreted as a sort of shorthand for the logical or philosophical leap to say that if two things aren’t different, then they must be the same.
This means that the way in which the first sentence of this passage (above) is often translated, as something similar to “form is emptiness (naturelessness), and emptiness is form”, is potentially misleading. Not only is this translation inconsistent with the “the one… the other” phrasing in the original Sanskrit text in the Large Sutra, but this could be interpreted as a sort of shorthand for the logical or philosophical leap to say that if two things aren’t different, then they must be the same.
In like manner, the naturelessness of form does not form (anything).
The way naturelessness is defined not only precludes it from being anything else, but it also precludes it from doing anything other than specify that form and all other phenomena are natureless. In other words, naturelessness doesn’t “do” any forming by which “form” is or comes about. Naturelesness also isn’t something within which form appears, as if a specific property of naturelessness manifests as form or allows form to manifest. It might be said that the naturelessness of form has nothing to do with form, other than to remind us what form is not, should we need that reminder.