This article was a small paper for Teacher Shangzhou’s “Selected Readings in Buddhist Original Texts” course back then, but I felt it was written awkwardly and in a complete mess, and I was too embarrassed to post it on my blog at the time. However, looking at it now, since my blog already has plenty of lousy text, one more piece of that sort hardly matters.
I had originally been quite interested in Buddhism and Buddhist studies. Besides being deeply impressed by the philosophical depth of Primitive Buddhism (atheistic Buddhism), I was also rather interested in Tibetan esoteric Buddhism. Back then I found a number of audio recordings of mantras and dhāraṇīs being chanted, and while listening and chanting along, before I knew it I was able to recite by sound approximately, in Sanskrit version, the “Heart Sūtra,” the “Fundamental Mantra of the Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara,” the “Hundred Syllable Mantra,” and many others. To this day I still haven’t forgotten them. (I just changed the background music on my blog http://buddha.goodweb.cn/music/musicdownload/boruo_1.mp3, and it is a Sanskrit chant of the Heart Sūtra; I can recite it completely by sound.) Why is it that I could hardly sing a single karaoke song, yet I went and memorized those things? I don’t know either. In any case, it was pretty fun.
But because Buddhist studies is truly vast and profound, and because serious research requires reading a great deal of classical Chinese, I have not touched it again since the Selected Readings in Original Texts course; perhaps when I have more free time in the future I will take up the subject again.
Form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form
Part One: Variant translations of the Heart Sūtra and related original texts
Variant translations of the Heart Sūtra
Relevant passages from the Prajñā Sūtras
Part Two: On Buddhist prajñā thought
The relationship between the Heart Sūtra and the Prajñā Sūtras
General characteristics of prajñā thought
Part Three: Comparison of the various translations of the Heart Sūtra
The omission and interpolation of the phrase “Form is not different from emptiness” in translation
Comparing several expanded versions of the Heart Sūtra
January 10, 2006
When studying the Prajñā Sūtra, I was responsible for the passage “Śāriputra! Form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form. Form is precisely emptiness; emptiness is precisely form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.” This passage is identical to the opening portion of the Heart Sūtra. Among these lines, “Form is precisely emptiness; emptiness is precisely form” is probably, after “Namo Amitābha Buddha,” the Buddhist phrase people can most readily chant by heart. But on the other hand, it is also perhaps the most difficult to understand and the most bewildering sentence of all. In the original-texts reading course, I spent a full class period discussing just this passage, yet many questions still remained. Here, by comparing the relevant passages from the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the various translations of the Heart Sūtra, and by consulting some related annotations and scholarly works, I will again discuss this passage somewhat further. The first two parts of this article are mainly a compilation of related materials, while my personal understanding will be expressed chiefly in the latter two parts. In addition, the reference materials I used in the classroom discussion, as well as some of the views I held at the time, will not be repeated here.
Part One: Variant translations of the Heart Sūtra and related original texts
Abbreviated Sanskrit Prajñā Heart Sūtra Romanization
Iha Sariputra:Rupam shunyata,shunyataiva rupam. Rupan na prithak shunyata, shunyataya na prithag rupam.Yad rupam sa shunyata,ya shunyata sa rupam.Evam eva [①]
The Sanskrit original of the Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra, personally taught by Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva and the Tripiṭaka Master, unembellished
伊賀捨哩補怛囉噜畔戍儞焰戍儞也（口幣）嚩噜畔噜播曩比（口栗）他戍儞也哆戍儞也哆野曩比（口栗）他（上薩下女）噜畔夜怒畔娑戍儞也哆夜戍儞也哆娑噜畔噎嚩弭嚩……
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 851）
Variant translations of the Heart Sūtra
1. The Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra, translated by Xuanzang of the Tang
Śāriputra. Form does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from form. Form is precisely emptiness. Emptiness is precisely form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 848）[②]
2. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Mahāmantrodhāraṇī Sūtra, translated by Kumārajīva, Tripiṭaka Master of the Tianzhu region of Yao Qin
Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep prajñāpāramitā, illumined the emptiness of the five skandhas and crossed beyond all suffering and distress. Śāriputra, because form is empty, there is no sign of distress or destruction. Because feeling is empty, there is no sign of feeling. Because perception is empty, there is no sign of knowing. Because volition is empty, there is no sign of action. Because consciousness is empty, there is no sign of awareness. Why? Śāriputra, form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form. Form is precisely emptiness. Emptiness is precisely form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Śāriputra, this emptiness of all dharmas is unarisen, unceasing, undefiled, immaculate, unเพิ่มed, undiminished. This empty dharma is neither past nor future nor present. Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, perception, volition, or consciousness……
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 847）
3. The Universal Wisdom Storehouse Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra, retranslated by Master Fayue, Tripiṭaka monk of the kingdom of Magadha
The wise Śāriputra said to Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva Mahāsattva: “O supreme pure one, please expound this for us. Now is precisely the time.” Then he said to Śāriputra: “All bodhisattva mahāsattvas should train in this way. The nature of form is emptiness, the nature of emptiness is form. Form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. Form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. The nature of consciousness is emptiness, the nature of emptiness is consciousness. Consciousness does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from consciousness. Consciousness is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely consciousness.”
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 849）
4. The Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra, translated by Prajñā, Tripiṭaka monk of the country of Kāśmīra in the Tang
At that time Śāriputra, relying on the Buddha’s power, joined his palms respectfully and said to Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva Mahāsattva: “Good son, if one wishes to learn the practice of profound prajñāpāramitā, how should one cultivate?” Having asked this, then Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva Mahāsattva told Venerable Śāriputra: “Śāriputra, if a good man or good woman practices the profound prajñāpāramitā, one should contemplate the empty nature of the five aggregates. Śāriputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form, form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.”
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 849）
5. The Heart Sūtra Spoken by the Holy Mother Buddha
Then Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva Mahāsattva said to Venerable Śāriputra: “Listen carefully now; I will explain this for you. If there are good men and good women who delight in learning this profound dharmaparyāya of prajñāpāramitā, they should contemplate that the self-nature of the five aggregates is all empty. What is meant by the self-nature of the five aggregates being empty? That is to say, form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. Form is no different from emptiness; emptiness is no different from form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.”
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 852）
6. The Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra, translated from a Dunhuang stone inscription by Facheng, Tripiṭaka Master and monk of the great virtuous one of the nation
At that time Venerable Śāriputra, relying on the Buddha’s power, said to the noble Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva Mahāsattva: “If a good man wishes to cultivate the profound prajñāpāramitā, how should he study further?” After speaking thus, Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva Mahāsattva answered Venerable Śāriputra: “If a good man or good woman wishes to cultivate the profound prajñāpāramitā, they should contemplate in this way: the essence of the five aggregates is all empty, form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form, and thus too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness all empty.”
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 850）
7. The Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra, translated by Zhihuilun, Tripiṭaka monk of Daxingshan Monastery in the Tang capital, by imperial command
At that time the Venerable Śāriputra, relying on the Buddha’s divine power, joined his palms respectfully and said to Avalokiteśvara Free Bodhisattva Mahāsattva: “Venerable One, if someone wishes to learn the practice of profound prajñāpāramitā, how should one cultivate?” Having asked this, then Avalokiteśvara Free Bodhisattva Mahāsattva told Venerable Śāriputra: “Śāriputra, if a good man or good woman practices the profound prajñāpāramitā, one should illumine and see that the self-nature of the five aggregates is all empty, and depart from all suffering and distress.” “Śāriputra, form is emptiness, the emptiness-nature sees form, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form, this form is precisely emptiness, this emptiness is precisely form. So too are feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.”
（Taishō Tripiṭaka, vol. 8, Prajñā section, p. 850）
8. The Heart Prajñā, translated from Tibetan
Śāriputra. If a good man or good woman wishes to cultivate the profound prajñāpāramitā, they should thoroughly and carefully contemplate that all the self-natures of the five aggregates are empty. Form is precisely emptiness. Emptiness is precisely form. Form does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from form.
9. English translation (abbreviated version)
Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. [③]
10. English translation (expanded version)
Then, through the power of the Buddha, venerable Shariputra said this to noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, “How should a son or daughter of noble qualities who wishes to practice the profound Prajnaparamita train?” Addressed in this way, Noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, replied to venerable Shariputra: “O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble qualities who wishes to practice the profound Prajnaparamita should regard things in the following way: The five skandhas should be seen to be completely empty in nature. form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. form is none other than emptiness. Emptiness is none other than form. In this same way feeling, perception, Mental formation, and consciousness are empty.[④]
Relevant passages from the Prajñā Sūtras
Volume 4 of the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Initial Section, “The Chapter on Learning Contemplation”), translated by Xuanzang
The Buddha told Venerable Śāriputra: Śāriputra! When a bodhisattva mahāsattva practices prajñāpāramitā, he should contemplate in this way: there is in truth a bodhisattva, yet he does not see a bodhisattva, nor does he see the name “bodhisattva”; he does not see prajñāpāramitā, nor does he see the name “prajñāpāramitā.” He does not see practice, and he does not see non-practice. Why? Śāriputra! The bodhisattva’s self-nature is empty; the name “bodhisattva” is empty. Why is this so? The self-nature of form is empty; it is not because of emptiness that form is empty and not form. Form is not apart from emptiness; emptiness is not apart from form. Form is precisely emptiness; emptiness is precisely form. The self-nature of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness is empty; it is not because of emptiness that feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are empty and not feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are not apart from emptiness; emptiness is not apart from feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Why? Śāriputra! This is only a provisional name, called bodhi; this is only a provisional name, called sattva; this is only a provisional name, called bodhisattva; this is only a provisional name, called emptiness; this is only a provisional name, called form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Such self-nature is unproduced, unceased, undefiled, and immaculate. When a bodhisattva mahāsattva practices prajñāpāramitā in this way, he does not see birth, does not see cessation, does not see defilement, does not see purity. Why? Only provisional guest-names are established, and distinctions arise separately with regard to dharmas; provisional guest-names are established, and with them speech arises. As things are spoken of, thus and thus attachment arises. When a bodhisattva mahāsattva practices prajñāpāramitā, he sees none of these things, and because he does not see them, he does not give rise to attachment.
（The Taishō Tripiṭaka, volume 5, p. 17）
Volume 402 of the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Part Two, Chapter on Contemplative Illumination, Section Three, Part One, translated by Xuanzang
Then Śāriputra said to the Buddha: “World-Honored One, how should bodhisattva mahāsattvas cultivate and practice prajñāpāramitā?” The Buddha said: “Śāriputra, when bodhisattva mahāsattvas practice prajñāpāramitā, they should contemplate in this way: there is in truth a bodhisattva, yet they do not see a bodhisattva, nor do they see the name ‘bodhisattva.’ They do not see prajñāpāramitā, nor do they see the name ‘prajñāpāramitā.’ They do not see practice, and they do not see non-practice. Why? Śāriputra, the bodhisattva’s self-nature is empty; the name ‘bodhisattva’ is empty. Why is this so? The self-nature of form is empty; it is not because of emptiness that form is empty and not form. Form is not apart from emptiness; emptiness is not apart from form. Form is precisely emptiness; emptiness is precisely form. The self-nature of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness is empty; it is not because of emptiness that feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are empty and not feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are not apart from emptiness; emptiness is not apart from feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are precisely emptiness; emptiness is precisely feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Why? Śāriputra, this is only a provisional name, called bodhi; this is only a provisional name, called sattva; this is only a provisional name, called bodhisattva; this is only a provisional name, called emptiness; this is only a provisional name, called form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Such self-nature is unproduced, unceased, undefiled, and immaculate. Bodhisattva mahāsattvas practice prajñāpāramitā in this way, not seeing birth, not seeing cessation, not seeing defilement, not seeing purity. Why? Only provisional guest-names are established, distinctions are made in relation to dharmas, and discriminations arise. Provisional guest-names are established, and speech arises accordingly. As things are spoken of, thus and thus attachment arises. When bodhisattva mahāsattvas practice prajñāpāramitā, they do not see any of these things. Because they do not see them, attachment does not arise.
The Chapter on Practice in Accordance with Contemplation of the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, translated by Kumārajīva
The Buddha said to Śāriputra: when a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practices and accords with the seven emptinesses, he does not see form as either corresponding or not corresponding. He does not see feeling, perception, formation, or consciousness as either corresponding or not corresponding. He does not see form as either having the mark of arising or the mark of ceasing. He does not see feeling, perception, formation, or consciousness as having the mark of arising or the mark of ceasing. He does not see form as having the mark of defilement or the mark of purity. He does not see feeling, perception, formation, or consciousness as having the mark of defilement or the mark of purity. He does not see form as combining with feeling. He does not see feeling as combining with perception. He does not see perception as combining with formation. He does not see formation as combining with consciousness. Why is this? There is no dharma that combines with another dharma, because their nature is empty. Śāriputra, in the emptiness of form there is no form, feeling, perception, formation, or consciousness. In emptiness there is no consciousness. Śāriputra, because form is empty there is no mark of affliction or destruction. Because feeling is empty there is no mark of feeling. Because perception is empty there is no mark of knowing. Because formation is empty there is no mark of acting. Because consciousness is empty there is no mark of awareness. Why is this? Śāriputra, form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form. Form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form. Feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are also thus. Śāriputra, these dharmas are empty in their marks: they do not arise, they do not cease, they are not defiled, they are not purified, they do not increase, they do not diminish. This empty dharma is not past, not future, not present. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness. No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind. No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or dharmas. No eye realm, and so on up to no realm of consciousness. No ignorance, and also no end of ignorance, and so on up to no old age and death, and also no end of old age and death. No suffering, no arising, no cessation, no path. Also no wisdom and no attainment. No stream-enterer, no fruit of stream-entry. No once-returner, no fruit of once-returning. No non-returner, no fruit of non-returning. No arhat, no fruit of arhatship. No pratyekabuddha, no path of pratyekabuddhas. No Buddha, and no path of Buddhahood. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practices and accords in this way. This is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā
Part Two: On the Buddhist Prajñā Thought
The Relationship between the Heart Sūtra and the Prajñā Sūtras
According to the requirements of the course, this essay should be related to the three Buddhist sūtras we read this semester. However, my discussion below will revolve more heavily around the Heart Sūtra, so it is necessary first to point out the close relationship between the Heart Sūtra and the “The Practice and Accord” chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra:
Dongchu, the old gentleman, points out in A History of the Thought of the Heart Sūtra of Prajñā that “the Heart Sūtra is the quintessence of the six-hundred-fascicle Great Prajñā, as well as the crystallization of the Great Prajñā. Although the Heart Sūtra is not included within the Great Prajñā Sūtra, in the second assembly, second division, third subsection of the ‘Contemplative Insight’ chapter of the Great Prajñā, there is a passage in its alternative translation as the third of the ‘Practice and Accord’ chapter of the Great Text Prajñā, which is quite similar to the Heart Sūtra. Some say this passage is the original model of the Heart Sūtra; others say that the Heart Sūtra was formed as an independent scripture based on this passage. Here one can not only see the quintessence of the Great Prajñā Sūtra, but also glimpse the source of the Heart Sūtra’s composition.[⑤]”
The similarity between the content of the Heart Sūtra and the relevant passage in the “Practice and Accord” chapter is quite obvious. In fact, the phrase under discussion in this essay, “form is not different from emptiness,” is exactly the same in these two places—Kumārajīva’s translation of the “Practice and Accord” chapter uses “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form,” and correspondingly Kumārajīva’s Heart Sūtra translation also reads “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form.” From this we can see that the “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form” in the “Practice and Accord” chapter is the “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form” of the Heart Sūtra. (See the foregoing alternative translations.)
Yet in the Heart Sūtra, the appearance of the phrase “form is not different from emptiness” seems extremely abrupt. Dongchu, the old gentleman, points out—“Yet when one is practicing deep prajñā, why would one suddenly speak to Śāriputra about the dharma? Since this is not the time for preaching the dharma while contemplating, and since every sūtra has a sixfold beginning to establish the scripture’s provenance. The Heart Sūtra has no sixfold beginning, and thus no attendant listener Śāriputra among those who assembled.” In Luo Shi’s translation of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra there are six kinds of introductory proof—now one suddenly calls upon Śāriputra, and then “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form” does indeed feel somewhat abrupt. To answer these questions, one must of course seek the source of the Heart Sūtra, that is, study the full text of the third “Practice and Accord” chapter. In the third “Practice and Accord” chapter, the Buddha first tells Śāriputra: “only if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva can cultivate the seven marks of emptiness of prajñā” can he be in accord with prajñāpāramitā.[⑥] At the same time, Dongchu, the old gentleman, argues: the Great Text Prajñā belongs to the middle period of the development of prajñā thought, and the content of the Heart Sūtra is completely the same as that of the Great Text, and both take Śāriputra as their center; therefore, there is no doubt that the Heart Sūtra comes from the Great Text.[⑦]
That is to say, as the “heart marrow” of the Prajñā sūtras, the Heart Sūtra derives from the Prajñā sūtras, and its thought, standpoint, and mode of expression should be consistent with the Prajñā sūtras, especially with the Great Text Prajñā, which also belongs to the middle period of prajñā thought. Thus, by reading the relevant texts of the Great Prajñā sūtras such as the “Practice and Accord” chapter, we can help ourselves understand the thought of the Heart Sūtra, and vice versa. Since there are many related translations and commentaries on the Heart Sūtra, to understand the meaning of the phrase “form is not different from emptiness,” it is more convenient to begin with the Heart Sūtra and connect it with the broader thought of Prajñā studies.
General Characteristics of Prajñā Thought
Whether the Heart Sūtra or the “Practice and Accord” chapter, since both belong to the scriptures of prajñā thought, they should of course accord with the general characteristics of prajñā thought. Let us first look at some characteristics of Buddhist prajñā thought. On this point, since I have not done enough reading in the prajñā scriptures, I will mainly cite the research findings in Teacher Yao Weiqun’s doctoral dissertation, The Buddhist Prajñā Thought and Its Development in China.
Teacher Yao Weiqun lists the “main contents of prajñā thought” as “the idea of non-discrimination,” “the idea of emptiness,” “the thought of the Middle Way,” “the theory of the two truths,” and “a mode of thought in negative form”, among others. In fact, even in the single phrase “form is not different from emptiness,” we can already find reflections of all the characteristics above; I will discuss this in more detail below. Here let me first quote Teacher Yao Weiqun’s explanation.
“As a religion, Buddhism, from the very beginning of its emergence, paid close attention to distinguishing itself from secular ideas, opposing the use of ordinary modes of thought to look at problems. By the time Mahāyāna Buddhism took shape, prajñā thinkers pushed this tendency to the extreme, explicitly putting forward the idea of ‘non-discrimination,’ making it a fundamental thought of prajñā doctrine, or the point of departure for theory. For example, in volume 24 of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, it says: ‘Sentient beings only dwell in the false imaginings and discriminations of names and marks; therefore the bodhisattva practices prajñāpāramitā to pull sentient beings out of the false imaginings of names and marks.’”[⑧]
Objectively speaking, things themselves are “empty”; there is no need to analyze them—thus the saying, “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form. Feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are also just so.” In other words, the reason things are “empty” is their own nature; it is not that they become “empty” through analysis.[⑨]
Not only is the Madhyama group’s “emptiness of the unfortunate realms” a form of fanaticism or wrong view, but the other conceptions of emptiness in the various schools of Hīnayāna Buddhism are also incompatible with the thought of the Middle Way, and must likewise be removed. In the eyes of Mahāyāna prajñā thinkers, whether one can overcome the “extreme view” (or clinging view) of “nonbeing” is not an optional matter; it is an important criterion distinguishing Hīnayāna from Mahāyāna Buddhism. Mahāyāna Buddhism even thinks that clinging to emptiness to the extreme is more dangerous than clinging to being. So what is the correct method? In the second fascicle of the Xiaopin Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra it says: “Do not destroy the provisional name and speak of the real meaning,” and it also says: “Prajñāpāramitā should not be sought in form, nor should it be sought in feeling, perception, formation, or consciousness. Nor should it be sought apart from form; nor should it be sought apart from feeling, perception, formation, or consciousness. Why is this? Form is not prajñāpāramitā; apart from form, it is also not prajñāpāramitā. Feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are not prajñāpāramitā; apart from feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness, they are also not prajñāpāramitā.” (Taishō 8—541) This passage clearly shows that the “emptiness” spoken of in the Prajñā sūtras is not absolute nothingness or voidness. Although the fifteen kinds are empty and illusory, there are still “provisional names”; if, when speaking of “emptiness,” one denies even the “provisional names,” it becomes “emptiness of the unfortunate realms,” and therefore one is required to “not destroy the provisional name and speak of the real meaning.”[⑩]
The makers of the Prajñā sūtras wanted to promote “all is empty” and “all dharmas are empty,” yet did not want to speak of emptiness in a way that went to extremes, and therefore had to avoid taking the old road of the Madhyama group’s “emptiness of the unfortunate realms.” Thus, on the one hand they used the concept of upāya to restrain the degree of negation of the reality of things, easing the contradiction between Buddhist religious faith and secular life; on the other hand, they relied on the concept of the two truths to ensure that the “friend” meaning contained within the prajñā notion of emptiness could occupy, in a proper way, a place within the system of Buddhist doctrine.[11]
The mode of thinking in negative form can generally also be called the apophatic method in Buddhism or Indian religious philosophy, and it is an important theoretical characteristic of prajñā doctrine.[12] The “not not” or “non-non” pattern of expression in the Prajñā sūtras, on the surface, appears to be a broad and thorough negation, that is, a denial of any property whatsoever of things. But this does not mean that the authors of the Prajñā sūtras are substantively negating everything. On the contrary, this kind of negation in the Prajñā sūtras is precisely meant to affirm something; that is, affirmation is contained within negation, and affirmation is carried out through the form of negation.[13]
Teacher Yao Weiqun discusses these characteristics in detail in his dissertation, analyzing a large number of scriptural texts, and making a deep investigation of the development of prajñā thought at various stages and its relationship with other schools, beginning with Brahmanism and early Buddhism. Here I have only borrowed his results; in what follows, I will make some discussion of how these issues are reflected in the phrase “form is not different from emptiness.”
Part Three: A Comparison of the Various Translations of the Heart Sūtra
Before unfolding my own understanding, let me first return to the various versions of the Heart Sūtra I excerpted in Part One. We find that although these alternative translations are generally consistent, there are many noteworthy differences in expression. By comparing them with other alternative translations, we can more comprehensively understand what the phrase “form is not different from emptiness” is actually saying.
Ellenipses and additions in translation of the phrase “form is not different from emptiness”
First let us look at the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra. Here we will first discuss the so-called “short version” of the Heart Sūtra: I have not studied Sanskrit, and because of limitations of time and ability, I cannot verify it from the original meaning of Sanskrit. However, even just by looking intuitively, one can discover a problem—I only know that “Rūpam” is “form” and “Śūnyatā” is “emptiness,” so let us observe the order and structure of the appearance of “Rūpam” and “Śūnyatā” in the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra’s phrase “form is not different from emptiness”:
We discover that, intuitively from the Sanskrit, the structure of this sentence should be “form, emptiness, emptiness…form, form…(negative word)…emptiness, emptiness…(negative word)…form, form…emptiness, emptiness…form…,” that is to say, the structure “form—emptiness—emptiness—form” appears repeatedly three times, rather than the two times found in the standard Heart Sūtra. In addition, in the English translation of the short Heart Sūtra, the order “form—emptiness” is consistent with the Sanskrit version; whereas the structure of Kumārajīva’s translation of the short Heart Sūtra.
From this, two possibilities may be inferred: first, the Chinese translator shortened the text in order to avoid repetition; second, the Sanskrit short Heart Sūtra also has different versions, and the extant Sanskrit short Heart Sūtra is not entirely the same as the version translated by Xuanzang—because Xuanzang’s translation style has always been to strive for a literal translation following the word order and habits of the original text. And it is also consistent with Kumārajīva’s translation.
However, if one consults Xuanzang’s phonetic Chinese rendering of the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra, the doubt can be cleared up—there the structure “Rupam…Śūnyatā…Śūnyatāya…Rūpam, Rūpa…Śūnyatāya, Śūnyatāya……Rūpa…Śūnyatāya…Śūnyatāya…Rūpam……” is obviously in accord with the Sanskrit version cited above; there is no doubt that the phrase “form is not different from emptiness” is Xuanzang’s abridged translation.
If the Sanskrit original on which the short Heart Sūtra translation depended was the same, then in Kumārajīva’s version we discover an interpolated passage—in front of “form is not different from emptiness” there is an extra sentence, “because form is empty, there is no mark of affliction and destruction. Because feeling is empty, there is no mark of feeling. Because perception is empty, there is no mark of knowing. Because formation is empty, there is no mark of acting. Because consciousness is empty, there is no mark of awareness.” At the same time, somewhat later in Kumārajīva’s Heart Sūtra there is yet another added sentence: “This empty dharma is not past, not future, not present. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness.” We find that in the Heart Sūtra portion of the “Practice and Accord” chapter, Kumārajīva likewise adds these two passages before and after; comparing this with the alternative translation of the “Contemplative Insight” chapter of the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, these two passages should both be additions made by Kumārajīva in accordance with the meaning of the surrounding text. Of course, here I cannot verify exactly what the Sanskrit original of the “Practice and Accord” chapter was, but in any case, Kumārajīva’s insertion in the Heart Sūtra of the phrase “because form is empty, there is no mark of affliction and destruction” fully displays the connection between the Heart Sūtra and the “Practice and Accord” chapter. Clearly, when translating, Kumārajīva must have consciously compared the Heart Sūtra with the “Practice and Accord” chapter. Perhaps precisely because he felt that the statement “form is not different from emptiness” in the Heart Sūtra was somewhat abrupt, Kumārajīva first added a topic before “form is not different from emptiness,” and only then introduced the phrase “why is this?” to lead into “form is not different from emptiness.”
Comparing Several Extended Versions of the Heart Sūtra
In order to understand the issue to which the phrase “form is not different from emptiness” in the Heart Sūtra is directed, and the meaning it expresses, in addition to comparing it with the “Contemplative Insight” chapter or the “Practice and Accord” chapter, comparing several extended versions of the Heart Sūtra can also provide some inspiration.
First, regarding the issue of omission, in the various extended versions, the “not different… precisely is…” structure in alternative translation 4 is consistent with Xuanzang’s version, while 5, 6, 8, and 10 all read “precisely is… not different…,” whose sequence of affirmation followed by negation is exactly the opposite of Xuanzang’s translation; whereas versions 3 and 7 both have the three-round structure of the Sanskrit text—relatively speaking, alternative translation 7’s “form emptiness, emptiness-nature sees form, form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form, this form is precisely emptiness, this emptiness is precisely form” may be the closest to the above-mentioned literal translation of the Sanskrit text.
Here, the difference in the order of negation and affirmation may be related to emphasis, but it should not be a very important issue, so I will not explore it further here. Another noteworthy issue is that in all the extended versions of the Heart Sūtra, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all mention the idea of “emptiness by nature” unanimously. This is more explicit than the standard Heart Sūtra’s statement that “the five aggregates are all empty,” emphasizing that the five aggregates are all “empty in their own nature” and “empty in substance.” Even the English translation in number 10 explicitly points out that emptiness is “in nature.” Here, this reflects the characteristic of the prajñā notion of emptiness pointed out by Teacher Yao Weiqun above—that things are “empty” because of their own nature, not because they become “empty” through analysis.
In class I once said that the four clauses “form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form, form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form” in fact all express the same meaning, namely that “form and emptiness are nondual.” The reason it is said four times from both the affirmative and negative sides, and in fact repeated six times, is to break various attachments from different angles. The heterodox wrong views targeted by prajñā studies at that time mainly included “sentient beings cling to being,” “Hīnayāna clings to emptiness,” and so on. The Mahāyāna Buddhism of that period had to face not only the masses, but also Brahmanism and the different claims of various Buddhist schools internally. As a newly emerging religious sect, Mahāyāna Buddhism not only needed to emphasize its religious character in order to face secular wisdom, but it also had to clearly distinguish itself from other doctrines of the same period in order to develop independently.
Therefore, the first aspect of the Prajñā sūtras is aimed at the Hīnayāna Buddhist view of emptiness, pointing out that the Hīnayāna “emptiness” is not yet complete emptiness, namely “the result is empty but the cause is not empty,” “the self is empty but dharmas are not empty.” In other words, when Hīnayāna speaks of “emptiness,” it merely means that the “result,” as the aggregation of the five aggregates, is impermanent, changing, illusory, and unreal, yet it still retains the five aggregates themselves as the substance or source of the “result” as “being”; it merely regards the personal body of “myself” as “empty,” but still preserves the “dharma” as not empty. The consequence of this is that although Hīnayāna Buddhism overcomes attachment to the impermanent phenomenal world and to the small personal self, it remains attached to some illusory and unreal world of substance. Mahāyāna, by contrast, believes that everything in the world is impermanent and changeful; whether one is attached to some thing or some object, or attached to some abstract idea, this is a kind of “ignorance” and will also lead to suffering, preventing nirvāṇa. True liberation should be the abandonment of all attachments, with the heart free of any hindrance whatsoever. Therefore Mahāyāna needs to emphasize “form is precisely emptiness” and “form is empty in its own nature.”
However, if Mahāyāna were to emphasize only “all is empty,” it would inevitably appear to overcorrect, and prajñā thinkers also saw the danger of becoming fixated on “emptiness.” They saw that once all attachment to “being” is removed, “emptiness” can easily become yet another form of attachment. On this point, Teacher Yao Weiqun’s view quoted earlier has already been cited—“Mahāyāna Buddhism even thinks that clinging to emptiness to the extreme is more dangerous than clinging to being.” If one clings to emptiness, one is likely to fall into “nihilism,” because then all of a person’s clothing, food, transportation, conduct, and moral responsibility are “empty,” utterly meaningless, and then one need not eat at all, let alone universally save sentient beings. In that way, it would also be impossible to prove the bodhisattva path. Therefore Mahāyāna needs to emphasize “emptiness is precisely form” and “emptiness is not different from form.”
So what, then, is the correct method? In volume two of the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, it says: “Do not destroy provisional names in speaking of ultimate reality.” This point is made very clearly in the passage immediately following the *Heart Sūtra* section in the “Contemplation Chapter”: namely, “Form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form; form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Feeling, thinking, volition, and consciousness are also thus.” What does this mean (why is this so)? — “Śāriputra. This is only a name called bodhi. This is only a name called sattva. This is only a name called bodhisattva. This is only a name called emptiness. This is only a name called the aggregates of form, feeling, thinking, volition, and consciousness. …… When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practices prajñāpāramitā, he sees none of all such things. Because he does not see them, attachment does not arise.”
We can see that the ultimate aim of Mahayana Buddhism’s discussion of form and emptiness is to eradicate attachment. Therefore, when speaking of form and emptiness, it is carrying through the idea of “non-discrimination”: to say “form is emptiness, emptiness is form” is not merely playing a language game, but telling people not to make any distinction between form and emptiness.
Then why is it said that one cannot speak of form apart from emptiness, nor speak of emptiness apart from form? This is because, on the one hand, the nature of form is impermanent and ever-changing; “illusion” is precisely “emptiness.” In volume four of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* it says: “Form does not differ from illusion; illusion does not differ from form; form is precisely illusion; illusion is precisely form. …… Feeling, thinking, volition, and consciousness do not differ from illusion; illusion does not differ from feeling, thinking, volition, and consciousness.” (Taishō 8—239) At the same time, “emptiness” and “illusion” are not some independent substances. If “emptiness” and “illusion” could exist independently of “form,” then such existence would have become “being” as well. Therefore, when speaking of “emptiness” or “illusion,” one is not speaking of something “self-subsistent” that stands apart from the phenomenal world; their essence is all “non-being.” Thus whenever emptiness is discussed, it is always said that form is empty because it is impermanent and ever-changing; one can never get away from form.
l Edited by Fang Shengwen: Selected Readings on Research into the Prajñā Heart Sūtra, published by Lihua Publishing Co., 1996
l Yao Weiqun: The Prajñā Thought of Buddhism and Its Development in China, in Chinese Buddhist Academic Anthology ○4• “Fazang Library” Buddhist Master’s and Doctoral Theses, First Series, published by the Fo Guang Shan Cultural and Educational Foundation
l Venerable Shengyan: New Interpretations of the Heart Sūtra (*Complete Works of Dharma Drum • Series Seven • Volume One*), published by Dharma Drum Culture Co., Ltd., December 1999
[①] Fang Shengwen, ed., Selected Readings on Research into the Prajñā Heart Sūtra, published by Lihua Publishing Co., 1996, pp. 15–16
[②] Wherever the text notes that something comes from the *Taishō Tripiṭaka*, it is generally a quotation via one of the references listed below, or copied from the internet.
[③] Fang Shengwen, ed., Selected Readings on Research into the Prajñā Heart Sūtra, published by Lihua Publishing Co., 1996, p. 44
[④] Taken from an internet repost; the original source has not been verified.
[⑤] Dongchu Laoren: A History of Thought on the Prajñā Heart Sūtra, in Fang Shengwen, ed., Selected Readings on Research into the Prajñā Heart Sūtra, published by Lihua Publishing Co., 1996, p. 238
[⑥] Ibid., p. 239
[⑦] Ibid., p. 245
[⑧] Yao Weiqun, The Prajñā Thought of Buddhism and Its Development in China, in Chinese Buddhist Academic Anthology ○4• “Fazang Library” Buddhist Master’s and Doctoral Theses, First Series, published by the Fo Guang Shan Cultural and Educational Foundation, p. 58
[⑨] Ibid., p. 68
[⑩] Ibid., p. 211
[11] Ibid., p. 219
[12] Ibid., p. 86
[13] Ibid., p. 217
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply