Form is emptiness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
chownah
Posts: 8436
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by chownah » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:55 am

atipattoh wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:49 am
The post is actually not just address to you,
You started your post with "Hi chownah" which means that it actually is addressed to me. Perhaps you did not intend to address it to just me but in fact you have addressed it to me. So, since you addressed it to me I would like to tell you that I do not understand what you are saying because knowledge of chinese is necessary to understand what you are saying.
chownah

atipattoh
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by atipattoh » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:01 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:55 am
Yes, it would require quite fluent in chinese language to fully understand it. But, to a small extend, i believe you should have grabs the msg.

If, i did not quote the sutra text to point out the variation, that will attract unnecessary further inquiry for sources of claim; that, heart sutra, is not Buddha's word, rather a distortion!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:34 am

atipattoh wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:01 am
chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:55 am
Yes, it would require quite fluent in chinese language to fully understand it. But, to a small extend, i believe you should have grabs the msg.

If, i did not quote the sutra text to point out the variation, that will attract unnecessary further inquiry for sources of claim; that, heart sutra, is not Buddha's word, rather a distortion!
So what in your view is the correct translation for this bit of the Heart Sutra?

Some possible options, though there may be others:

"Form is empty"
"Form is emptiness"
"Form is only emptiness"
"Form is none other than emptiness"
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
phillyy
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:52 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by phillyy » Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:35 am

The Heart Sutta says: form does not differ from emptiness emptiness does not differ from form, that which is form is emptiness that which is emptiness form.


So form is emptiness.

And emptiness is form.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:39 am

phillyy wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:35 am
The Heart Sutta says: form does not differ from emptiness emptiness does not differ from form, that which is form is emptiness that which is emptiness form.


So form is emptiness.

And emptiness is form.
So rupa = sunyata?

And skhandhas = sunyata?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

atipattoh
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by atipattoh » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:52 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:34 am
Some possible options, though there may be others:

"Form is empty"
"Form is emptiness"
"Form is only emptiness"
"Form is none other than emptiness"
Hi Dinsdale
I find that it is tricky to translate the 2 separately, into english.
You can see Philly’s translation of “that which is form is emptiness that which is emptiness (is) form” which is an affirmative equation. Reverting that back to Chinese would be
即色是空,即空是色.That was what I’m trying to say.
If 大般若波羅蜜多經 really meant to give a affirmatively equating both, that is the phrase that should have appear in scroll 37 & 409
The problem is the upper 2 phrases in heart sutra, “form does not differ from emptiness emptiness does not differ from form” limiting the possible translation. By ignoring these 2, i'm tempted to read both as one
“Form, is empty of self; which is its intrinsic nature”.
The word self comes from the five aggregates.

But, with “form does not differ from emptiness emptiness does not differ from form” is former in the sequence, then I still run into a problem of making a Thing out of it on intrinsic nature.
That is the reason why I said the composer of heart sutra did a serious harm to the teaching by putting “form does not differ from emptiness emptiness does not differ from form”; but the 2 scroll has “色性空……是色非色空,是色空非色”, which is definitive. I shall attemp to direct translate this.

是色非色空 – is form, not form is empty in nature
是色空非色 – is, form is empty in nature, not form
I'm putting in the word nature, from "色空"

But the phrase doesn’t make sense, right.
“is form, not form is empty” is a statement denying exploded interpretation of intrinsic nature; so not making a Thing out of it. To me, it means to say, direct knowledge requires cultivation. With knowing and seeing, the noble sees form’s intrinsic nature of empty of self, does not get cooked up in form further, and that include empty of intrinsic nature (in cessation attainment).

The unfortunate part is heart sutra eliminates "是色非色空,是色空非色", un-limiting intrinsic nature, making it into a true-sELF.

User avatar
phillyy
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:52 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by phillyy » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:56 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:39 am
phillyy wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:35 am
The Heart Sutta says: form does not differ from emptiness emptiness does not differ from form, that which is form is emptiness that which is emptiness form.


So form is emptiness.

And emptiness is form.
So rupa = sunyata?

And skhandhas = sunyata?
Sir?

The Honorable and Beneficient Buddhadasa teaches us that all form is emptiness and and emptiness is form sir.

Note it.


If you find that this is not true, please do the needful. :namaste:

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:18 pm

What do you all make of this new translation of the Heart Sutra by Thich Nhat Hanh - any good?

https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat ... anslation/
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8436
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by chownah » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:03 pm

If form is emptiness and feeling is emptiness and, fabrications are emptiness, and perception is emptiness and consciousness is emptiness....then.....why do the scriptures talk like these are different things?....how can you tell if you are contempating which one......it could get confusing....
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:23 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:03 pm
If form is emptiness and feeling is emptiness and, fabrications are emptiness, and perception is emptiness and consciousness is emptiness....then.....why do the scriptures talk like these are different things?....how can you tell if you are contempating which one......it could get confusing....
chownah
I guess the aggregates describe different aspects of our experience. So you can notice any aspect of experience and classify it as empty/emptiness. Presumably this is similar to classifying aspects of experience as anicca, dukkha, anatta, etc.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8436
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by chownah » Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:00 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:23 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:03 pm
If form is emptiness and feeling is emptiness and, fabrications are emptiness, and perception is emptiness and consciousness is emptiness....then.....why do the scriptures talk like these are different things?....how can you tell if you are contempating which one......it could get confusing....
chownah
I guess the aggregates describe different aspects of our experience. So you can notice any aspect of experience and classify it as empty/emptiness. Presumably this is similar to classifying aspects of experience as anicca, dukkha, anatta, etc.
...but if emptiness is empty then what could it contain from which a delineation could be made?....how would the emptiness (being empty of everything) be classified?
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:06 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:00 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:23 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:03 pm
If form is emptiness and feeling is emptiness and, fabrications are emptiness, and perception is emptiness and consciousness is emptiness....then.....why do the scriptures talk like these are different things?....how can you tell if you are contempating which one......it could get confusing....
chownah
I guess the aggregates describe different aspects of our experience. So you can notice any aspect of experience and classify it as empty/emptiness. Presumably this is similar to classifying aspects of experience as anicca, dukkha, anatta, etc.
...but if emptiness is empty then what could it contain from which a delineation could be made?....how would the emptiness (being empty of everything) be classified?
chownah
We're back to nouns and adjectives! If you say "the nature of the aggregates is emptiness", that's similar to saying the nature of the aggregates is anicca, dukkha and anatta.
Or you could say "the aggregates are empty (of own-being)", or "the aggregates are marked by emptiness", similar to the "three marks" in the suttas.
Have a look at the TNH translation I posted above.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8436
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by chownah » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:15 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:06 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:00 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:23 pm


I guess the aggregates describe different aspects of our experience. So you can notice any aspect of experience and classify it as empty/emptiness. Presumably this is similar to classifying aspects of experience as anicca, dukkha, anatta, etc.
...but if emptiness is empty then what could it contain from which a delineation could be made?....how would the emptiness (being empty of everything) be classified?
chownah
We're back to nouns and adjectives!
Yeah! I am actually assuming that what is said is what is meant. To say that form is emptiness and emptiness is form in the engish language means that they are the same thing and strongly implies (if not actually saying) that they are equivalent.

If whoever translates the heart sutra into english is listening please know that you have made a mistake in your translation (I guess)....according to dinsdale (I guess) you are really trying to say that form is empty and empty is form.....this puts emptiness in the role of being one of the characteristics of form and does not elevate it to a position of equivalence with form.

Correct it......dinsdale's interpretation of what you say indicates that the way you have said it is wrong...correct it.

Personally, I don't know what they mean....perhaps dinsdale is wrong in his interpretation....I don't really know.

There is a sutta (I brought the link before) where the buddha talks about emptiness (as a noun...imagine that...they use a noun to mean a noun!) and maybe that is what the heart sutra is all about....I don't know so I won't even guess.
chownah
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:40 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:15 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:06 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:00 pm

...but if emptiness is empty then what could it contain from which a delineation could be made?....how would the emptiness (being empty of everything) be classified?
chownah
We're back to nouns and adjectives!
Yeah! I am actually assuming that what is said is what is meant. To say that form is emptiness and emptiness is form in the engish language means that they are the same thing and strongly implies (if not actually saying) that they are equivalent.

If whoever translates the heart sutra into english is listening please know that you have made a mistake in your translation (I guess)....according to dinsdale (I guess) you are really trying to say that form is empty and empty is form.....this puts emptiness in the role of being one of the characteristics of form and does not elevate it to a position of equivalence with form.

Correct it......dinsdale's interpretation of what you say indicates that the way you have said it is wrong...correct it.

Personally, I don't know what they mean....perhaps dinsdale is wrong in his interpretation....I don't really know.

There is a sutta (I brought the link before) where the buddha talks about emptiness (as a noun...imagine that...they use a noun to mean a noun!) and maybe that is what the heart sutra is all about....I don't know so I won't even guess.
chownah
chownah
All I can suggest is reading different translations of the Heart Sutra, and doing some more research on sunyata. I assume you looked at the TNH article I posted above?

Also check out "emptiness of emptiness", which says that sunyata itself is empty - so it's not a "thing".
This Triratna blog is relevant here:
http://fwbo-news.blogspot.com/2008/02/c ... a.html?m=1
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Caodemarte
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Form is emptiness

Post by Caodemarte » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:44 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:15 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:06 pm
chownah wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:00 pm

...but if emptiness is empty then what could it contain from which a delineation could be made?....how would the emptiness (being empty of everything) be classified?
chownah
We're back to nouns and adjectives!
Yeah! I am actually assuming that what is said is what is meant. To say that form is emptiness and emptiness is form in the engish language means that they are the same thing and strongly implies (if not actually saying) that they are equivalent.

If whoever translates the heart sutra into english is listening please know that you have made a mistake in your translation (I guess)....according to dinsdale (I guess) you are really trying to say that form is empty and empty is form.....this puts emptiness in the role of being one of the characteristics of form and does not elevate it to a position of equivalence with form.

Correct it......dinsdale's interpretation of what you say indicates that the way you have said it is wrong...correct it.

Personally, I don't know what they mean....perhaps dinsdale is wrong in his interpretation....I don't really know.

There is a sutta (I brought the link before) where the buddha talks about emptiness (as a noun...imagine that...they use a noun to mean a noun!) and maybe that is what the heart sutra is all about....I don't know so I won't even guess.
chownah
chownah
Emptiness is not a thing so it cannot contain anything. It is not a possession of form, it is exactly form as the standard translations state and the original texts state. A gold statue does not exist separately as gold (substance) and the form of the statue. Substance and form are one in a gold statue. Divide the two and you may have a mass of gold and a plan for a statue, but you no longer have a gold statue. The statue is the form and the gold. The form, in this case, is the statue and the gold. The gold is the form and the statue in this case.

A chair over there does not have emptiness as a quality. The chair is empty. If you take it apart you will find only pieces. Take the pieces apart and you will still not find a chair existing independently. Everything is dependent on everything else, existing because of dependent or, as Nhat Trich Hahn calls it, interdependent origination. The chair is empty. The chair is emptiness and vice versa. All is empty. That is what we call emptiness as a concept. No atman, no eternal self, etc.
Last edited by Caodemarte on Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests