Emptiness Sees Emptiness
(Article from the October, 2011 newsletter "Flatbed Sutra Zen News")
The Buddhist teaching
of emptiness is most comprehensively treated in the scriptures known as the
prajna paramita sutras, revered as primary sources of authority by all Mahayana
traditions. "Prajna" is a rich term with many potential meanings and
connotations depending on the context; in general, it refers to Buddhist wisdom.
In the context of "prajna paramita" it refers specifically to "perfect" or
"transcendent" wisdom, that is, the wisdom of "emptiness." From at least as
early as the Sixth Ancestor of Zen in China, Huineng (638 - 713 C. E.), Zen has
been more closely associated with the prajna paramita sutras than any other
scriptures. According to Zen lore, the Sixth Ancestor realized enlightenment
simply upon hearing a prajna paramita sutra, the Diamond Cutter
Sutra, recited by a stranger on the street. Huineng's record, the "Platform
Sutra," is the only text revered as a "sutra" (i.e. scripture) other than those
attributed to the Buddha. The Platform Sutra expounds on the importance and
significance of a number of sutras, but is particularly insistent on the supreme
vision of the Diamond Sutra, not only promising enlightenment to those
that practice it, but even to those that simply memorize it.
While the Diamond
Sutra continues to be highly revered in Zen, which remains deeply steeped in
its methodology, the marvelously concise Heart Sutra
(Prajnaparamita-hrdya-sutra) came to occupy a position as the definitive
statement on "emptiness" in Zen, as in many Mahayana traditions. As its title
suggests, this succinct scripture presents a remarkably clear image of the
profound wisdom at the heart of the vast corpus of prajna paramita literature.
In Dogen's day, as in our own, this short scripture was known well enough that
Buddhists hearing a single line would recognize it instantly. Dogen's own
commentary on the Heart Sutra - the earliest writing included in
Shobogenzo - opens by quoting the first line of the sutra. Dogen uses
this quote (the only direct reference to the sutra in his commentary) to
illumine a profound implication of emptiness by creatively altering the reading
(thus significance) of the opening line of the Heart Sutra. The first
line of the Heart Sutra actually reads:
Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep
prajna paramita clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending
anguish and distress.
(Note:
"Avalokitesvara," is an enlightened being (bodhisattva) of Buddhist
mythology; the hero of the Heart Sutra.
"Transcending anguish and distress" is realizing the Buddhist goal,
liberation from suffering; nirvana, enlightenment).
Dogen's creative
alteration of the line is not achieved by eliminating or substituting words, nor
by transposing or changing their order, but through the addition of a
single word.
This move by Dogen
should not be glossed over, dismissed as accidental, or understood as a simple
attempt to clarify the original meaning by providing an interpretive element.
The Heart Sutra was well known to his audience, and his alteration, while
slight, would have been stark in their ears. Upon first sight, the additional
word jumps out as if erroneous, but as the implications of it dawn, its
intentional placement becomes clear. The added word is, "konshin," which roughly
translates as "whole-body," or "complete body-mind." Thus:
Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep
prajna paramita whole body-mind clearly saw that all five skandhas are
empty transcending anguish and distress.
Although only one
word, an English rendering conveying the significance of the alteration asks for
some interpretive suggestions, perhaps, "Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing
deep prajna paramita with his whole-body clearly saw that all five
skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress," or, "The
whole-body-Avalokitesvara-Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita
clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress."
To appreciate the
implications of this we should understanding that the "five skandhas" are a
traditional classification for the elements constituting the (whole) body-mind
of a human being. In light of this we see that "five skandhas" is
another way of saying "whole-body." Thus, the implication is clear; to say "The
whole-body (of Avalokitesvara) sees that all five skandhas are empty," is
equivalent to saying, "The whole-body sees that the whole-body is
empty."
(Note: The five
skandhas are form, feeling, sensation, mental formulation, and
consciousness. In Buddhist literature the term "form" by itself serves as an
abbreviation for all five skandhas).
Being a crucial
element to every aspect of Buddhism, the teachings on emptiness (shunyata) are
complex and multi-faceted. However, in order to grasp the main points of the
present discussion it is enough to know that emptiness is regarded (at least by
Mahayana Buddhists) as the reality, or true nature of all things, beings, and
events (i.e. dharmas). This is the key point indicated by the
pivotal statement of the Heart Sutra, "Form is emptiness; emptiness is
form."
With this in mind we
can see that Dogen's statement unequivocally identifies the subject (i.e.
Avalokitesvara; whole-body) that clearly sees with the object
(i.e. Avalokitesvara; all five skandhas) that is clearly seen. The
overall effective result of Dogen's alteration, then, is to forceful manner of
drawing attention to the actively dynamic, energetically animated nature of
"emptiness." Here are two things we know about Avalokitesvara according to
Dogen's statement:
The whole of
Avalokitesvara clearly sees the whole of Avalokitesvara.
The whole of
Avalokitesvara clearly seen is empty.
Two crucial points;
emptiness can see, and emptiness can be seen. Thus we know that, whatever else
it might be, "practicing prajna paramita" is emptiness clearly seeing
(experiencing) its own true nature - in short, practicing prajna paramita is
emptiness seeing emptiness.
Even after this short
foray into his commentary we see that, from Dogen's view, emptiness should never
be understood or described apophatically or in purely
negative terms like non-existent, absent, undifferentiated,
motionless, insentient, unknowable, or incommunicable. This point merits
emphasis; the propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent emptiness negatively
is pervasive. Judging by the Zen records, this propensity has plagued every era
of Zen history. The meticulously detailed refutations of negativistic views of
emptiness permeating Dogen's writings testify to the pervasiveness of such
distortions in his own era. Dogen view that this issue merited the energy he put
into it seems clear; the distorting power of negativistic views of emptiness can
obstruct practitioners from accurately understanding every aspect of Buddhism,
not to mention putting it into practice and actualizing it.
From Dogen's
perspective, it is better to have no understanding of emptiness than to adopt a
negative understanding. At this point, then, we want to stress that, whatever
else might be included in Dogen's view of emptiness, it is inclusive of at least
these positive qualities:
Emptiness is present
in/as existence-time
Emptiness is
differentiated
Emptiness is active
Emptiness is
sentient
Emptiness is
intelligible
Emptiness is
communicable
After opening
Shobogenzo,
Maka-hannya-haramitsu, with the (altered)
quote from the Heart Sutra, Dogen presents a series of affirmative
expressions on the nature of the self, the world, and the myriad dharmas that
reads like a crystallization of the reality illumined by the grand vision of
Shobogenzo:
The five skandhas are form, sensation,
perception, mental formulation, and consciousness; they are five instances of
prajna. Clear seeing is prajna itself. To present this truth for realization it
is expounded that "form is exactly emptiness, and emptiness is exactly form."
Thus form is form, and emptiness is emptiness. They are the hundred particular
things, the myriad dharmas.
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Ted Biringer
By enumerating each of
the five skandhas and then affirming them as "five instances of prajna," Dogen
immediately emphasizes the differentiated quality of emptiness. This serves to
counter the reductionist propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent emptiness
apophatically as just discussed. Notice also,
that by citing each of the skandhas, Dogen compels us to dwell longer on what is
being conveyed than we might if he simply used "form," the common abbreviation
for the five skandhas. This reduces the likelihood of missing the point by too
hastily moving on. The greatest effect of Dogen's enumeration, however, is its
setup for the next phrase, the key point of the whole commentary; "Clear seeing
is prajna itself." Each of the five skandhas constituting Avalokitesvara (thus
of all human beings) plays a specific role in the "clear seeing" that
"transcends anguish and distress." Form "distinguishes" it, sensation "conducts"
it, perception "receives" it, mental formulation "fashions" it (produces an
intelligible image), and consciousness "realizes" it (understands, or interprets
it in its particularity, thus facilitating its manifestation) in context and
contrast to what is not-it.
Thus, Dogen utilizes
the opening line of the Heart Sutra to illumine the heart of Zen;
"Clear seeing is prajna itself." In perfect harmony
with his conception of knowledge, existence, and soteriology the activity of
clearly seeing the form of prajna (perfect wisdom), the form of
prajna that is clearly seen, and the liberation actualized by prajna are
not three different things. This dynamic process and its implications are
repeatedly brought into relief throughout the whole Shobogenzo. To
clearly see (i.e. sense, know, perceive, experience, etc.) is to be (i.e.
actually manifest, exist), thus to clearly see liberation is to actualize (make
actual, cause to exist) liberation.
Not, "I think,
therefore I am," but, "Wherefore I think, I am." Or, to put it in the terms of
our present discussion, "I am what I clearly see (sights, sounds, flavors,
odors, tactile sensations, and thoughts) therefore what I clearly see I am."
It should go without
saying, but since it usually does not, I should clarify that "clear seeing" is
not "mere seeing." "Clear seeing" should not be construed as "passively"
perceiving via the sense organs (i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind)
as advocated by some so-called Zen teachers. Clear seeing is a skill that must
be intentionally developed through sustained effort in accurately directed study
and cultivation. It is the "clear" of clear seeing that qualifies it as "prajna
itself." Such clear seeing is, of course, inclusive of sense perception, but
only if that sense perception is actualized by the healthy mind referred to in
Zen as the "normal mind" or "Buddha mind." This distinction is succinctly
elucidated by Dogen in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan by the line:
Those who are enlightened about delusion are
Buddhas. Those who are deluded about enlightenment are ordinary
beings.
Shobogenzo,
Genjokoan, Ted Biringer
(Note:
"Ordinary beings" here refers to common or typical (unawakened)
beings; thus "ordinary" should not be confused with the "normal" of the "normal
mind" of Zen usage which is sometimes rendered into English as "ordinary mind."
The "normal" in the Zen sense means "healthy," this normal mind is the awakened
mind, also called the Buddha mind.)
Dogen affirms the
authenticity of his comment by asserting its harmony with the heart of the
Heart Sutra, "Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness is
exactly form" - which he summarizes as, "form is form, emptiness is emptiness."
What is going on here? At first glance, this seems to contradict the Heart
Sutra's statement, not summarize it.
To clarify Dogen's
point we can appeal to a method provided by the Diamond Sutra to
illustrate that "form" only exists because of emptiness, and
emptiness is only exists because of form. This basic method can be
depicted like this (with "A" standing for (any particular) form, and "not"
standing for emptiness): A = not-A, therefore A = A.
To explain, a dharma
(i.e. any real, particular form) is only a dharma insofar as it is
differentiated from everything "other than" that dharma. In other words,
to experience a dharma is to distinguish something from everything else,
everything that is not it. If there was nothing that was not it -
it could not be distinguished as it (a particular dharma). From
this we see that the existence of "a dharma" is dependent on the
existence of something "other than" that dharma; and the existence of "other
than" that dharma is dependent on the existence of "that dharma."
Therefore, the existence of a dharma necessarily presupposes the existence of
"other than" that dharma (and vice versa). In short, the real existence of "A"
depends on the real existence of "A" and "not-A," the real existence of
"not-A" also depends on the real existence of "A" and "not-A."
The Heart Sutra
concisely portrays the nature of reality; A is exactly (equals, is coessential
with, depends on) not-A, and not-A is exactly A. The Diamond Sutra
illumines the dynamic process of reality; the existence of A is essential
to, therefore inclusive of, the existence of "other than" A (and vice
versa). The significance of this is; if A exists, not-A must also exist (and
vice versa), and if A does not exist, not-A cannot exist (and vice versa). Thus,
A is not-A, therefore A is A; not-A is A, therefore not-A is
not-A. In Dogen's terms, form is form, emptiness is
emptiness.
As already suggested,
Dogen's "clear seeing" (as prajna itself) is inclusive of right-understanding
and right-views as well as accurate sense perception. In harmony with all Zen
masters, Dogen frequently reminds us that it is not enough to hear, or even to
understand the teachings in order to realize Buddhist liberation. The "clear
seeing" that is Zen practice-enlightenment is a process not a product, an
activity not a resolution. The teachings must, of course, be learned,
studied, and accurately understood, however, liberation or realization cannot be
actualized unless these teachings are put into actual practice and personally
verified (clearly seen). Avalokitesvara was able to accurately "practice prajna
paramita" because s/he had come to accurately understand the Buddhist teaching
on prajna - but only with the actual experience of clear seeing was liberation
actualized.
Accurate understanding
is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly
be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of
"right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization,
the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of
success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then,
as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it."
To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of
what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do
the inquiring.
(Note: The
realization of this prajnāpāramitā is the
realization of buddha-bhagavats. We should inquire into it, and we should
experience it. Shobogenzo,
Maka-hannya-haramitsu,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross).
We inquire into it
through study and training; we experience it through sustained, wholehearted
effort in practice (usually after much trial and error). The "it" we need to
inquire into and experience is the true nature of ourselves. The process of
inquiring into and experiencing the true nature of ourselves is succinctly
expressed in a passage from Genjokoan, Shobogenzo.
To learn the Buddha's truth is to learn
ourselves. To learn ourselves is to forget ourselves. To forget ourselves is to
be experienced by the myriad dharmas. To be experienced by the myriad
dharmas is to let our own body and mind, and the
body and mind of the external world, fall away.
Shobogenzo,
Genjo-koan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
The actual experience
of this learning begins with coming to an accurate understanding of it. To that
end, we need to understand that here "the Buddha's truth" means enlightenment
(liberation, nirvana, etc.), and "learning" means study, training, practice, and
verification. Understanding this, we can begin to consider the significance of
this from the Buddhist perspective of emptiness; hence, if "to learn the
Buddha's truth is to learn ourselves" then "to learn ourselves is to learn the
Buddha's truth." Similarly, the implications of emptiness apply to "forgetting,"
"experience," "our body and mind," "the myriad dharmas," etc.
In Dogen's Zen,
"forms" (dharmas) are the fundamental units constituting reality; they are
viewed as "empty" and "mental" in nature - when Avalokitesvara clearly saw all
five skandhas were empty, emptiness clearly saw emptiness. With this we were
able to see that emptiness is not ineffable, absent, or undifferentiated, but
rather, emptiness is intelligible, present, and particularly distinct.
Emptiness, being the true nature of all the myriad dharmas, is the very form of
all the myriad dharmas.
This, then, brings us
to the point of our present discussion; "To forget ourselves is to be
experienced by the myriad dharmas" describes exactly "emptiness clearly seeing
emptiness." Emptiness seeing emptiness is emptiness seeing the myriad dharmas,
the myriad dharmas seeing emptiness, the myriad dharmas seeing the myriad
dharmas, the myriad dharmas seeing seeing, and seeing seeing
seeing.
"Seeing your nature is
Zen. If you don't see your nature it's not Zen."
~Bodhidharma, Red
Pine
Peace,
Ted
FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
