What Phenomena Are Not
What has been translated thus far is material that, either directly or indirectly, was included by the compilers of the Heart Sutra. However, the next several passages were not included in what was extracted from the Large Sutra. These sections deal with important clarifications of what phenomena and naturelessness are (and are not), and offer important context for understanding what the Heart Sutra text originally attempted to convey.
What has been translated thus far is material that, either directly or indirectly, was included by the compilers of the Heart Sutra. However, the next several passages were not included in what was extracted from the Large Sutra. These sections deal with important clarifications of what phenomena and naturelessness are (and are not), and offer important context for understanding what the Heart Sutra text originally attempted to convey.
One who proceeds in awakened understanding by means of these examples of naturelessness is not to be called reconciled or non-reconciled (to or with anything). Why is this? It is because they do not perceive (actual) form or other aspect of experience as (something they are) “reconciled” or “not reconciled” (to or with).
To avoid the assumption that awakening is a matter of “me” becoming reconciled to or with any particular “something”, we are reminded that the concept of being “reconciled” is also naturelessness, by which both it and its opposite “not reconciled” have no inherent meaning. The sutra thus alerts us to not fall into the trap of reifying the term “reconciled”, which is inherently dualistic in that it requires that someone is reconciled to or with something else, and also allows for its mutually-defined opposite of “not reconciled”. Instead, “reconciliation” is just a pointer or reminder, and when we no longer project any sort of nature onto experience, the concept of being “reconciled” is no longer needed or even useful. In the end, rather than being “reconciled” to anything, we no longer believe we are separate from anything else, by which the notion of “reconciling” ourselves to anything naturally falls away. We then see that “I” and any particular phenomena I might perceive are but concepts.
They do not perceive form or any other aspect of experience to have the nature of being produced or of ceasing. They do not perceive form or any other aspect of experience to have the nature of being blemished or being purified.
One of the ways we can imagine ourselves to be ostensibly reconciled to what is actually happening is to project the concept of “impermanence” onto ourselves and all that we experience. If we do, as appears to be quite common in the Buddhist community, we will naturally conclude that impermanence is “the way things really are”, and assume that the production and ceasing of everything points to a profound truth. For example, I was taught that having not just a theoretical knowledge of the “fact” of universal impermanence or transitoriness, but a deep spiritual insight into it, is what makes awakening possible, thus we are to see everything as impermanent as the Buddha supposedly did.
The concept of “impermanence” is so prone to being pursued as an end in itself that, elsewhere in the Large Sutra, we are cautioned that impermanence is a counterfeit version of awakened understanding. Once awake, we see that “impermanence”, and the production, change and ceasing of phenomena, are conventional “truths” that we already know enough about to get on with daily life, rather than spiritual truths which we must deepen our realization of. We also find that the notion of being blemished or purified, and thus the concept of “self development”, also has no connection to awakening. Instead, self-development is merely what we want the process of awakening to be about.
The concept of “impermanence” is so prone to being pursued as an end in itself that, elsewhere in the Large Sutra, we are cautioned that impermanence is a counterfeit version of awakened understanding. Once awake, we see that “impermanence”, and the production, change and ceasing of phenomena, are conventional “truths” that we already know enough about to get on with daily life, rather than spiritual truths which we must deepen our realization of. We also find that the notion of being blemished or purified, and thus the concept of “self development”, also has no connection to awakening. Instead, self-development is merely what we want the process of awakening to be about.
They do not perceive form and any other aspect of experience and say “they unite together”, or say that any other pair of aspects unite together. No aspect of experience either unites with or separates from another, because they are inherently natureless.
This passage corrects another common misunderstanding of the five aspects of experience, namely that they comprise what a person or individual is. It can be tempting to think “I am form, sensation, recognition, conditioning and consciousness” and identify with all of those as aspects of “me” that are united in one being. This, combined with the concept of “impermanence”, can enable us to be more firmly entrenched in our identity as an ever-changing agglomeration of the aspects of experience.
While we can provisionally divide our experience into five apparently distinct aspects, what we are doing is merely projecting a mentally-created structure onto ourselves. We therefore need to avoid taking what was intended to be a provisional teaching or pointer and turning it into a description of (our) reality. Instead, we are to keep in mind that the five aspects of experience have no inherent nature, by which “uniting” them would be like imagining that Santa’s reindeer can be united to form a “team” that pulls Santa’s sleigh. We will then avoid inadvertently reinforcing our belief that we and all that we experience are composite and impermanent beings, by which the notion that everything has a composite “nature” might be further reinforced.
While we can provisionally divide our experience into five apparently distinct aspects, what we are doing is merely projecting a mentally-created structure onto ourselves. We therefore need to avoid taking what was intended to be a provisional teaching or pointer and turning it into a description of (our) reality. Instead, we are to keep in mind that the five aspects of experience have no inherent nature, by which “uniting” them would be like imagining that Santa’s reindeer can be united to form a “team” that pulls Santa’s sleigh. We will then avoid inadvertently reinforcing our belief that we and all that we experience are composite and impermanent beings, by which the notion that everything has a composite “nature” might be further reinforced.