Losing Ourselves in The Heart Sutra
Losing Ourselves in The Heart Sutra
Losing Ourselves in The Heart Sutra
Most Buddhists will have heard of the Heart Sutra, the enigmatic scripture chanted
every day by millions of people. The brief sutra appears to negate the central doctrines
of Buddhism by saying, for example, that there are no four noble truths. A common
interpretation of the text is that mere words cannot express the truth about reality, so we
don’t expect it to make sense. Recent scholarship offers a new way of seeing the text:
rather than denying the existence of form, or the noble truths, the Heart Sutra is
describing the results of a meditation practice—the yoga of nonapprehension (an-
upalambha-yoga).
The Perfection of Wisdom sutras, including the Heart Sutra, were concerned with this
state, referred to in Sanskrit as śūnyatā (usually translated as “emptiness”). It was only
later that Buddhist schools began to view the state of absence of sense experience as a
metaphysical principle, a historical development that would have been lost to time if
scholars had not revealed a new way—or rather a much older way—of thinking about
the Heart Sutra.
F or a long time, Buddhists believed that the Heart Sutra was composed in India, in
Sanskrit. It was then transmitted to China and translated along with the rest of the
Perfection of Wisdom literature.
This means that when the Heart Sutra says “there are no four noble truths” or “there is
no form,” for example, these statements are qualified twice—first by “in emptiness,”
and second by the statement “through the yoga, or exercise, of nonapprehension.” In
this context, in emptiness means in the state of absence in which all sense experience
has ceased but the practitioner remains conscious. The state of absence can be attained
through a particular practice, namely, the yoga of nonapprehension. So the sutra
declares that, if we persist in this practice, we will experience a cessation of sense
experience, at which point, for us, there will be no sense experience of any kind.
In other words, the Heart Sutra does not deny the existence of things as such. Rather, it
states a truism about having lost ourselves in meditation so that we no longer experience
form or self or world. However, this meaning was lost. Comments ostensibly about the
absence of sensory experience were seen as referring to the nonexistence of things. And
apparently paradoxical statements, such as the denial of essential Buddhist doctrines,
were rationalized as reflecting the inadequacies of language to communicate an
essential truth about reality.
Of course, to better understand this practice-oriented view, we must first understand the
practice in question.
When we focus on our breath, for example, sounds that were prominent fade into the
background and we just stop noticing them. Concentration meditation practices aim to
keep the object of meditation centered and to zoom in on finer and finer details.
Nonapprehension involves using focus to withdraw attention from the periphery and
noticing the subsequent absence of qualities.
As we focus, we may lose track of spatial awareness and feel that we are
floating in an endless, dimensionless space.
The sutta tells of further levels through which we can take this process, noting each time
the absence of earlier experiential components and the presence of what remains. We
lose track of our sense of self—our sense of being someone having an experience in
terms of “I, me, mine.” In the final stage, we can even lose track of losing track. The
sutta describes attaining a state called suññatā–vihara, “dwelling in absence.” That is,
dwelling in the absence of all sense experience or, in Buddhist technical terms, in the
absence of conditioned dharmas. In this context, dharmas are the objects of the mind-
sense (mano). The fact that they are absent does not mean they are nonexistent. Without
attention, experience does not arise even in the presence of a sense object.
The Theravada Buddhist teacher and author Bhikkhu Analayo has described a
contemporary approach to this style of meditation in his book Compassion and
Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation. He takes his cues from the Chinese counterpart
of the Cūḷasuññata Sutta and has developed his own unique approach to cultivating
absence.
R evising the Heart Sutra will not detract from its profound value for Buddhists. In
the religion for which “everything changes” is a prominent sentiment and attachment is
problematic, mistakes in texts should be admitted and corrected without a fuss. Thich
Nhat Hanh, for one, tried in 2014 to correct what he perceived as an error in the Heart
Sutra, and although I disagree with his analysis and conclusion, I applaud his courage in
admitting that something was wrong with this text. My own research on the text has
confirmed many of Jan Nattier’s conclusions, including the Chinese origins of the texts.
I also demonstrated, to my own surprise, that there are several mistakes in Edward
Conze’s Sanskrit edition of the Heart Sutra, first published in 1948 and revised in 1967.
The revised reading of the Heart Sutra outlined above contributes to demystifying
Buddhist meditation. It draws attention away from metaphysical speculation and
grounds the practice in the phenomenology of experience, and specifically the cessation
of experience. The resulting interpretation is allied to a similar approach that emerged
from the work of Dr. Sue Hamilton on Pali suttas. Hamilton, now long retired,
pioneered a new approach to reading early Buddhist texts as focused on experience.
Connections between the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and texts such as the
Cūḷasuññata Sutta help us to see the whole field anew. More than this, they show that
the Perfection of Wisdom authors did not set out to confuse us by using contradictions
and paradoxes. Seen in the appropriate context, in fact, they set out to write clearly and
insightfully about the state of absence of experience and its implications. And they did a
remarkably good job of it.