Skip to main content
JohnMurray

Sadāprarudita – The Ever Weeping Bodhisattva – Kannon Do May 2024

Norman gives a talk at the Kannon Do Meditation Center on “Sadāprarudita – The Every Weeping Bodhisattva” from the Prajna Paramita 8,000 lines.

Suggested donation: $7

https://bit.ly/donate-edz-online-teachings

We cannot continue offering teachings online without it. Thank you!

edz

Prajna Paramita in 8,000 Lines – 2007 (Part 3 of 4)

Third in a series of four talks on “The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines” translated by Edward Conze.

Prajna Paramita in 8,000 Lines (Part 3 of 4)

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | September 12, 2007

Abridged and edited by Ryūsen Barbara Byrum

I think we have to admit that the prajna paramita is an intellectual/spiritual yoga. It’s the practice of examining the limitations of the intellect, the limitations of the conceptual mind. It really is a sutra that is talking about the extent to which the mind is constantly grasping after something that can be understood and mastered and controlled. But the sutra resists that. It is always taking us to the point of understanding and control, and then shifting the ground, and showing us that emptiness means that there is nothing to grasp; nothing to understand; nothing to control; nothing to depend on; nothing to lean on; nothing to have; nothing to see; nothing to be. It is an exercise in constantly noticing how much we want something to hold on to.

Of course, the trouble with holding on to something is that everything that we would hold on to is, in the end, unreliable, and therefore ultimately disappointing. The only thing that we can depend on, and absolutely rely on, is nothing-to-depend-on. That is the only thing that is really going to be reliable in the end. There is nothing that we can absolutely rely on, because there is nothing to rely on. We don’t have to be disappointed in that which is fundamentally not there.

This teaching of prajna paramita is one of the underlying, assumed teachings of Zen, although only in a few instances does Zen directly refer to them. There are some koans that contain quotations from the Diamond Sutra and other sutras. Mostly it is implicit rather than explicit. But when you think about it, most of the Zen stories have to do with the reality that there is nothing to hold on to; nothing to depend on; nothing fixed that you could even point to as the teaching. A lot of the stories – in a very different literary format – make the same point exactly, without mentioning the word emptiness. They make the same point that this sutra is making.

Zen teachings are always saying that we accept and embrace the relative with awareness and love, but without ever getting caught in it. Without ever taking it as actually there. Without ever taking it as real. That is why the examination of language and concept is such a huge theme in Zen. It is in the sutra, and it is for Dogen too. Because without our knowing it, through the process of our language and our concept-making, we have a million assumptions about the nature of reality that are unexamined, and that are literally causing us suffering on a daily basis. Both these teachings and Zen teachings are challenging that – the unthinking assumptions we make about language and concept.

So the sutra is saying, over and over again, that nothing is real in the sense of actually being there in any substantial way. And that even includes the perfection of wisdom. So there is really no practice that we can say is something. There is really no enlightenment that we can say is something. There is no perfection of wisdom as a really existing entity, or a really existing understanding. Understanding this is the perfection of wisdom. Understanding this without being distressed, terrified, or depressed – but rather being buoyed up – is freedom. Nothing to rely on is freedom. Basically what it comes down to is just being ready on all occasions to find out something new. To be totally surprised, totally willing to start all over again.

When you really think about it, doesn’t it come down to just something as simple and clear as Suzuki Roshi’s “beginner’s mind”? That is what beginner’s mind is, right? Nothing is fixed. Nothing is known. No foundation to rely on. We are beginning every minute in freedom.

The other thing, before I go through some quotations from the text, is that I wanted to do an historical overview, in order to put these things into context. A lot of us don’t spend a lot of time on the history of texts and chronologies. This year we were studying In The Words of the Buddha. These are the earliest written teachings that people think are closest to the Buddha’s original teachings, written down a few hundred years after his death, around 300 BC. These are the Pali Canon teachings, the earliest teachings, on which what we call now Theravada Buddhism is based.

The earliest prajna paramita texts were written a couple of hundred years later. When western scholars first started studying Buddhism, they understood the history of western religions, so they assumed that Buddhism would have a similar development. So they invented this thing called “Mahayana Buddhism.” The idea was that there was Catholicism, and then there was a schism, and then there was Protestantism – a new religion based on the original religion. So [they assumed] the same thing happened in Buddhism. There was Theravada Buddhism, and then there was Mahayana Buddhism. But actually that seems not to be true. It seems to be an imposition on what really happened.

In Christianity there was a very strong, central authority early on, which could decide, “This is what we believe. This is what we don’t believe.” Buddhism was very pluralistic and disorganized, so that different people in different places were studying different things; but they all thought they were Buddhists. They didn’t think, “We’re Mahayanists.” They didn’t say, “We don’t agree with those other people.” They said, “This is how we do it. These are the things we understand and emphasize.” So it was disorganized in the sense of not being a coherent movement. The tendencies that we call Mahayana Buddhism probably existed from the very beginning of Buddhism. It was probably not a later development.

Basically the two main teachings of Mahayana Buddhism are emptiness and compassion. Mahayana Buddhism is like a bird: one wing is compassion and the other wing is emptiness. The bird soars on these two wings. But it is not as if the original teachings in Pali did not also have those same teachings. They were there from the beginning.

The Buddha had a formula: the wish-less, the sign-less, the empty. These were the characteristics of someone who really saw reality. That person would see reality as wish-less: there is nothing to wish for, nothing to want, and nothing to have. The sign-less: there is no essential reality to anything. The empty has just the same sense as the prajna sutras.

These sutras focused on the question of emptiness at length. The Buddha mentioned these ideas in a few paragraphs, but there were those that really focused on them. There were people who were really impressed: “Oh, this is the essential point.”

So western scholars came along and said, “Oh, the Mahayana movement is a schism, a different religion.” But it was just different expressions of Buddhism.

In Zen there were supposedly – Zen history is notoriously spurious – five generations of ancestors. The sixth ancestor, Huineng, was the one who crystallized a style, a kind of practice that came to be known as Zen. He was a tremendous advocate of the Diamond Sutra, so that is why the emptiness teachings from that time on have become foundational in Zen.

So now I will read from the text. This passage is on page 138 and is in the section “Causes of Belief in the Perfection of Wisdom.”

Subhuti: Is it at all possible to hear the perfection of wisdom, to distinguish and consider her, and to make statements and to reflect about her? [I don’t think he means the goddess Perfection of Wisdom; he means the teaching. In other words, can you think about this? Can you make statements about it?] Can one explain, or learn, that because of certain attributes, tokens, or signs, this is the perfection of wisdom, or that here is the perfection of wisdom, or that there is the perfection of wisdom? [What are we talking about? Can we actually talk about it and identify it, and say that it is this and not that? That is a good question, isn’t it? I was wondering the same thing myself.]

The Buddha: No, indeed, Subhuti. [How could you distinguish this is empty, and that’s not?] This perfection of wisdom cannot be expounded [even though this whole book is expounding it! And we are spending six weeks studying it, but it cannot be expounded!] or learned, or distinguished, or considered, or stated, or reflected upon by means of the skandas [which, of course, is the only way we could think of or reflect on anything – by means of the skandas: forms, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness], or by means of the elements [which is also the skandas], or by means of the sense fields. [In other words, our whole way – the only way – that we human beings have as a way of perceiving or understanding anything – that way won’t work in order to perceive or learn the perfection of wisdom. So it can’t be learned. It can’t be perceived.] This is a consequence of the fact that all dharmas are isolated, absolutely isolated.

Essentially what the word “isolated” means is that every dharma is absolutely all-inclusive. All practices are included in one practice. Every dharma includes the whole of space and time. Instead of saying “isolated,” I believe we could say “all-inclusive.” When we think of “isolated,” we think, “Oh, I am so isolated. There are a whole lot of people out there, but they are not in my house, and I wish that they could be. And I feel bad because I am over here by myself.” This does not mean isolated like that. This means that the entire universe is in my house. So I am isolated in that I am completely included in everything. There is nothing else.

The Buddha: Nor can the perfection of wisdom be understood otherwise than by the skandas, elements, or sense fields. [So it can’t be understood by the skandas, elements, or sense fields, or in any other way.] For just the very skandas, elements, and sense fields are empty themselves, isolated and calmly quiet. [So in other words, it’s not that the skandas are going to look at something and see that it is empty. The skandas are themselves emptiness.] It is thus that the perfection of wisdom and the skandas, elements, or sense fields are not two, not divided. As a result of their emptiness, isolatedness, and quietude, they cannot be apprehended.

We want to think about emptiness. We want to perceive emptiness. We want to have an experience of emptiness. But thinking, perceiving, experiencing are already emptiness. So we are looking for something, but we are not seeing something, and we are frustrated in the looking. But in the looking itself, emptiness is already present. There is a quietness in the middle of all our experience. Even though we might not see that, because we are distracted or confused, it is there!

The Buddha: The lack of a basis of apprehension in all dharmas [apprehension meaning to perceive or know], that is called perfect wisdom. Where there is no perception, appellation [meaning naming of], conception, or conventional expression, there one speaks of perfect wisdom.

So perfect wisdom is where there is no perception. The idea is that the quietness at the heart of perception is no perception. The quietness at the heart of conceptualization is non-conceptualization. The quietness at the heart of all our conventional expressions is that they don’t refer to the things that they seem to refer to. Expression is non-expression. That’s where you find the perfection of wisdom.

Okay, I am going to page 159, the first paragraph on the page. This is a lovely, surprising moment.

Sariputra: It is through the Buddha’s might, sustaining power, and grace that bodhisattvas study this deep perfection of wisdom and progressively train in thusness? [He is asking, “Is that how we do it?” Because when you think about it, how could we do it? There is no way that we could make this study.]

The Buddha: They are known by the tathagathas, they are sustained and seen by the tathagathas, and the tathagatha beholds him with his Buddha eye. [That is, those who study the perfection of wisdom.]

So Sariputra says that it must be through the power and grace of the buddhas that we are able to do this. He asks, “Is that right?” And the Buddha says, “Yes, yes, that is exactly it.”

The point is that this becomes a faith practice. There is a sense in which just to undergo this study is to have the faith that the buddhas are looking after you. There is a wonderful phrase that you often see in Mahayana sutras, “You will be seen by the buddhas.” There is this deep, human need to be seen. A lot of us suffer; we can be psychologically messed up if we feel unseen. There are people who feel, “My whole life, nobody has seen who I am.” It is a painful thing. If it is necessary to be seen, how much better to be seen by the buddhas? Not only by people, but by the buddhas?

So just to study the perfection of wisdom is to be seen by the buddhas, to be known by the buddhas, to be sustained by the buddhas. To me it is a very beautiful thing.

edz

Prajna Paramita in 8,000 Lines – 2007 (Part 2 of 4)

Second in a series of four talks on “The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines” translated by Edward Conze.

Prajna Paramita in 8,000 Lines (Part 2 of 4)

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | September 12, 2007

Abridged and edited by Ryusen Barbara Byrum

 

I want to start with one passage that we read last week. I want to repeat it, because I think it is such a great and important passage. It appears on page 94, the last paragraph. Subhuti is the mouthpiece for the sutra.

Subhuti: The perfection of wisdom, beneficial to all the three vehicles, is also the perfection which [allows them not to] lean on any dharma, because it shows that all dharmas have no support and can therefore give none. [Here dharmas mean everything.]

The virtue of the perfection of wisdom is that it allows all practitioners not to lean on anything, or to depend on anything, because there is nothing to depend on. “Lean on” you could read as “attached to; get entangled in.” You don’t have to get entangled in anything, because when you appreciate the teachings of the sutra, you realize that there was never anything to get entangled in. So to be unsupported in terms of this sutra is the ultimate security.

Subhuti: For if a Bodhisattva, when this deep perfection of wisdom is being taught, remains unafraid, then one should know that she has adjusted herself to the perfection of wisdom, and that she is not lacking in this attention [to the true facts about dharmas.]

So, these are two things that we stressed last week, and that were mentioned so often in the beginning of the sutra. One is to realize the unsupported nature of all dharmas, the empty nature of all dharmas, the insubstantial nature of all dharmas. The other is to not be afraid or freaked-out, or not to fall into despair and lacking motivation. To realize the empty nature of all dharmas, and not to be afraid, is to course in the perfection of wisdom. Then a particular kind of attention – of mindfulness – arises.

Then Sariputra, who is the spokesperson for those who do not understand the perfection of wisdom and have a great resistance to it, appears. He questions Subhuti, saying:

Sariputra: How is it that a Bodhisattva does not lack in attention when he is adjusted to perfect wisdom? [In other words, he is saying, “No, I think a Bodhisattva would lack in attention when he is adjusted to perfect wisdom.”] For if a Bodhisattva is not lacking in attention, then he should automatically lack in adjustment to the perfection of wisdom.

In other words, there are two choices. Either you see that everything is unsupported and empty, or you have attention. Because if you saw that everything was unsupported and lacked any substance, you couldn’t have any attention. You could only have attention if you thought there was something there to be attentive to. You might think, “I have been practicing attentiveness and mindfulness, because I think that there is something to be mindful of. You’re saying there is nothing to be mindful of, so it is either one or the other. Either you are going to be mindful of something, or you are not mindful, in which case you are in accord with the teachings of the perfection of wisdom.”

Sariputra: And if he does not lack in adjustment to the perfection of wisdom, then he would be lacking in attention. [So if he is in accord with the perfection of wisdom, then there is no attention.] But if in a Bodhisattva the two facts that he is not lacking in attention, and that he is not lacking in dwelling in the perfection of wisdom, belong together, then all beings also will not be lacking in dwelling in the perfection of wisdom. Because they also dwell in not lacking in attention.

It’s a little convoluted, but basically Sariputra is saying that either you have attention to something, or you see that there is nothing, and there is no attention. If you have attention to nothing, and also understand that everything is nothing, then what are we talking about? There’s nobody out here for attention. Everybody is all the same. Everybody is mindful or not mindful. So what’s the difference? Practice does not seem to exist. This is not an incorrect statement. What he is trying to say is that this doesn’t make any sense.

I am not going to check to see if you are following me, I’m just going on! [Laughter]

Subhuti: Well said, and yet I must reprove you, although the Venerable Sariputra has taken hold of the matter correctly as far as the words are concerned. Because one should know that attention [mindfulness, awareness] has no real existence in the same way in which beings have no real existence. [So attention is empty; attention itself is empty; mindfulness itself is empty, just the same way that all other things are empty.] That attention is isolated in the same way in which beings are isolated. [Last time we spoke about this word “isolated,” which means, “supreme, sovereign, without peer,” not “desperately lonely.”] That attention is unthinkable in the same way that beings are unthinkable; that acts of mental attention do not undergo the process that leads to enlightenment in the same way that beings do not undergo that process; that acts of attention do not in any real sense undergo the process which leads to enlightenment, any more than beings do. It is through an attention of such a character that I wish that a Bodhisattva, a great being, may dwell in this dwelling.

This is a description of Zen mindfulness, in which we are not so interested in something to be mindful of – we are not investigating or figuring something out – we are applying an attention, which has no particular object that is actually existing. I was thinking the other day that one of my teachers had a great way of putting this. It was a brilliant way of putting it. He said, “Awareness, mindfulness, means to drop the significance of everything.” Meaning, drop the conceptual set-up that we are holding about ourselves, about anything that we are dealing with, and just be present without any objects.

It is a different kind of presence. It’s not that I am being mindful of my thoughts, so that I can see the kind of thoughts I’m having (good thoughts or bad thoughts), or mindful of my posture, so that I can have the right posture. But just being present, dropping the significance of everything, so that everything falls away and there is just the being present. It’s a little different way of being mindful. In a way, it looks the same from the outside, but there is a certain level of depth here, of the recognition that you are not working toward something. You are just being absolutely and totally present.

It was in that spirit that I suggested that, in order to prevent us from becoming too heady, those of us who are willing to – and I myself was willing to do this – we would all practice being attentive in this way while we are washing the dishes. I suggested that we pay attention specifically when washing the dishes:, completely being present, with nothing there on each moment of washing the dishes. But then I thought, “Suppose some of these people have dishwashers?” I didn’t think of that. I don’t have a dishwasher. So let me be clear about this. I am about talking not about putting dishes in the dishwasher – you can still do this sometimes – but washing the dishes and seeing everything, the whole cosmos, on each moment.

I was practicing that this week, and I found it really satisfying and interesting and profound. I noticed a few things. I noticed that in a very subtle way, while I was standing there washing the dishes, my body was ever so slightly leaning in another direction. I was there washing the dishes, but really I was, “Let’s get this over with, because I have something more important to do.” Even though it was very subtle – and if you looked at me, you would not have said that – but from the inside, I could feel that very slightly I was turning away in another direction. This clearly meant to me that I had forgotten the empty nature of the dishes, and of myself, and of the next task that I supposedly was going to do. I was thinking that there was actually something important to be done, and the dishes were something that had to be done and gotten through with, so that I could go on to the next thing. So the rest of the week, whenever I noticed myself doing that, I would be there, firmly facing the dishes. It made a big difference, and there was a lot more release in my washing of the dishes. When I did that, I began to notice that washing the dishes has a lot to do with hearing the sound of the water and the movement of the dishes; and once I started hearing that, it made a whole different experience. There was a lot of peace in that practice. I could feel more emptiness. I could feel more a sense that the dishes were far from being something to get through quickly. They were saving me. The empty nature of the dishes was compassionately taking me in hand and giving me something really precious. Releasing me from my quite unconscious fantasies.

So that is my little report on Zen dishwashing, and I recommend that we all try this. I bring it up again, because it is what the sutra is talking about. With all these words and concepts that may seem hard to grasp, it really isn’t about the words and concepts. It is about the reality of our experience in being with our lives in a particular way.

So on to page 100 in chapter two. This is section six, “The Infinitude of Perfect Wisdom.” Sakra is the chief of the gods. The gods all come together to the Buddha and appreciate the teaching.

Sakra: This perfection of wisdom, Subhuti, is a great perfection, unlimited, measureless, infinite.

Subhuti: So it is. And why? Perfect wisdom is great, unlimited, measureless, and infinite because form, feelings, perceptions, consciousness are also unlimited. [So the dishes are infinite; this is the point. The dishes are measureless, infinite. I was not noticing that. If you are washing infinite dishes, it’s a fantastic thing! It’s not a chore.] Hence one does not settle down in the conviction that this is a ‘great perfection,’ an ‘unlimited perfection,’ a ‘measureless perfection’, and ‘infinite perfection.’ [Why? Because those are limited concepts.] That is why perfect wisdom is a great perfection, unlimited, measureless, and infinite. [Not even limited by the concepts.] Perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection because objects as well as individual beings are infinite. [So here you see that “limitless,” “measureless,” and “infinite” are synonyms for emptiness.] Perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection because one cannot get at the beginning, middle, or end of any objective fact. Moreover, perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection because all objective facts are endless and boundless, and their beginning, middle, or end are not apprehended. For one cannot apprehend the beginning, middle and end of form. In that way, perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection by reason of the infinitude of objects. And further again, a being is endless and boundless because one cannot get at its beginning, middle, or end. Therefore perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection by reason of the infinitude of beings. [So we are strangled by the limitations of our everyday experience, including our thoughts and feelings – so ineffable, indefinable, and ungraspable. Frightening to think of that. And yet we hear about emptinesss, and we get frightened. But emptiness is the antidote to that.]

Sakra: How is it, Holy Subhuti, that perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection by reason of the infinitude of beings?

Subhuti: It is not so because of their exceedingly great number and abundance.

Sakra: How then, Holy Subhuti, is perfect wisdom an infinite perfection by reason of the infinitude of beings?

Subhuti: What factual entity does the word “being” denote?

Sakra: The word “being” denotes no dharma or non-dharma. It is a term that has been added on [to what is really there] as something adventitious, groundless, as nothing in itself, unfounded in objective fact. [So all of our language, and most of our thinking, is an add-on, without anything to which it exactly refers.]

Subhuti: Thereby, has any being shown up? [Does any being appear with your words?

Sakra: No, indeed, Holy Subhuti!

Subhuti: When no being at all has shown up, how can there be an infinitude of them? [There aren’t any.] If a Tathagatha, with his voice of infinite range, with the deep thunder of his voice, should pronounce, for eons countless as the sands of the Ganges, the word ‘being,’ ‘being’ [countless beings], would he thereby produce, or stop, any being whatsoever, either in the past, present, or future?

Sakra: No, indeed, Holy Subhuti! Because a being is pure from the very beginning, perfectly pure. [Limitless, measureless, perfectly pure, impervious – all beings, all dharmas, all thoughts, all objects.]

Subhuti: In this way also, perfect wisdom is an infinite perfection by reason of the infinitude of beings. In this manner also, the infinitude of perfect wisdom should be known from the infinitude of beings.

[Page 119]

Sakra: Does a Bodhisattva course only in the perfection of wisdom, and not in the other perfections?

The Buddha: […] Even so, one cannot get at a distinction or difference between the six perfections. All of them are upheld by skill in means, dedicated to the perfection of wisdom, dedicated to all knowledge.

“Skill in means” is a really important Mahayana term. Basically what it means is profound improvisation. The Perfection of Wisdom is the ultimate flexibility, right? Because there are no guidelines. So one needs to drop the significance of everything, to be fully present in any given situation, and to come forth with what is needed in that situation. Sometimes it might look this way and sometimes that way. How to come forth with all knowledge on any occasion, unique to that occasion.

This is very much the spirit of Zen. No guidelines, no rules, no set forms. Just coming forth from the groundless standing. The virtue of all the training forms is to train us in that. Here we have skill in means. The Perfection of Wisdom is all six Paramitas rolled into one.

edz

Prajna Paramita in 8,000 Lines – 2007 (Part 1 of 4)

First in a series of four talks on “The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines” translated by Edward Conze.

Prajna Paramita in 8,000 Lines (Part 1 of 4)

By Zoketsu Norman Fischer | September 5, 2007

Abridged and edited by Ryusen Barbara Byrum

As we study the text, I want to make sure that we remember what the point of it is, and what it is really about. It’s not a text about philosophical thoughts, although that’s part of it. It is really a text that is an argument for a particular way to live in the world, a way of living that recognizes the empty nature of everything, including oneself and one’s own thoughts, impulses, and physical body. To say these things are empty is not to say they are unimportant or that they are null and void. It’s to say they exist in a mode that our conventional way of thinking and being does not understand. So to live with respect for each and every thing is to acknowledge the empty nature of those things – that they exist in a mode more luminous and more present than we imagine them.

If you were really able to appreciate the meaning of this sutra, it would mean that you would live and walk and talk and appreciate things differently. I am mentioning this at the outset, because I don’t think you would necessarily understand this or get this on the first reading of the sutra.

So how do we read this text? Probably you have heard me harp on this point before, because reading is changing in our lifetime. What it means to read something now doesn’t mean what it meant when I was a boy in school. We are losing a lot of dimensions of reading. The kind that we do nowadays is reading for information, because there is lots of stuff that we need to know. But there is reading for inspiration; there is reading for wisdom; there is reading for knowledge; there is reading for the pleasure of the sound and the shape of words; there is reading for companionship; there is a reading for love. There is reading from the head, reading from the heart, reading from the guts, reading with the entire body.

Catholics have a beautiful word for holy reading: lectio divina. It is a lovely term and a beautiful practice. Divine reading. Scriptural reading, contemplative reading, where reading itself is a contemplative practice. Reading with the same mind that you bring to zazen – that mind of non-directed, non-choice, non-accomplishment. Just being there as the text flows by. You surrender yourself completely to the text. You give yourself to the text, and you let the text speak to you. When you do lectio divina, you are not trying necessarily to understand the text. If you don’t understand the text, it does not make any difference. You keep reading as a devotional act, as a contemplative act, with a full willingness not to understand if you don’t understand, or to give yourself up to understanding if you do understand, and if you don’t or do understand, to appreciate the music and sincerity of the text. In lectio divina you might find a passage and read it again, because it is important. You don’t know why, but it is, so you stop and read it again. You might not read anything else for a whole hour, just stopping for one passage or one phrase or one word. Anyway, find a way to read the sutra and experiment with different ways that suit you, but try not to let yourself fall into the pattern of reading the sutra for information.

I copied out the first four lines in the verse summary, which are very beautiful. We should start all our classes with these lines:

Call forth as much as you can of love, of respect and of faith. Remove the obstructing defilements, and clear away your taints. Listen to the perfect wisdom of the gentle buddhas taught for the weal of the world, for heroic spirits intended. [Weal meaning well-being, prosperity, goodness, gladness of the world.]

We’ll start our first reading on page 83, chapter one of the prose sutra.

Thus have I heard at one time. The Lord dwelt at Rajagriha, on the Vulture Peak, together with a great gathering of monks, with 1250 monks, all of them Arhats.

The Lord [the Buddha] said to the Venerable Subhuti, the Elder: Make it clear now, Subhuti, to the Bodhisattvas, the great beings, starting from perfect wisdom, how the Bodhisattvas, the great beings, go forth into perfect wisdom!

Thereupon the Venerable Sariputra thought to himself: Will that Venerable Subhuti, the Elder, expound perfect wisdom of himself, through the operation and force of his own power of revealing wisdom, or through the Buddha’s might?

This introduces the first two important characters of the sutra. Both of them are mentioned in the early sutras as historical disciples of the Buddha. Subhuti was known for his great friendliness, which is why, I think, he was chosen to be one of main speakers of the sutra. He was also famous for being the one who mastered peacefulness. Shariputra was the wisest in the sense of being the most adept at understanding mind, understanding the doctrine, and understanding the early teachings; but he is the fall guy. The attitude of the early texts is that painstaking, psychological work is necessary to overcome defilements and to achieve purity. These sutras are something else. They are talking about seeing into the nature of things all of a sudden – not going from one state to another, but completely letting go. So there isn’t much interest in the many details of the psychological teachings of Buddhism, or at least they are seen in a totally different light. So that is why Shariputra is usually the fall guy.

The Venerable Subhuti, who knew, through the Buddha’s might [in other words, he read his mind; he could see into his mind], that the Venerable Shariputra was in such wise discoursing in his heart, said to the Venerable Shariputra: Whatever, Venerable Shariputra, the Lord’s disciples teach, all that is known to be the Tathagatha’s work. For in the dharma demonstrated by the Tathagatha they train themselves, they realize its true nature, they hold it in mind. Thereafter nothing that they teach contradicts the true nature of dharma. It is just an outpouring of the Tathagatha’s demonstration of dharma, that they do not bring into contradiction with the actual nature of the dharma.

So he is saying that these teachings coming from such people are just as if they came from the Buddha. It is just an outpouring of the Tathagatha’s demonstration of dharma.

Thereupon the Venerable Subhuti, by the Buddha’s might, said to the Lord: When one speaks of a “Bodhisattva,” what dharma does that Bodhisattva denote? [Dharma is an essential unit of reality. In other words, when you say “Bodhisattva,” what is really meant by that word?] I do not, oh Lord, see that dharma “Bodhisattva,” [I see no reality behind that word] nor a dharma called “perfect wisdom.” [You ask me to say how Bodhisattvas enter perfect wisdom, but I don’t see anything real called a Bodhisattva, or anything either called perfect wisdom.] Since I neither find, nor apprehend, nor see a dharma “Bodhisattva,” nor a “perfect wisdom,” what Bodhisattva should I instruct and admonish in what perfect wisdom?”

So, we could stop right here! No need to go on, right?

And yet, oh Lord, if when this is pointed out [that there is no reality in the word Bodhisattva or the phrase perfect wisdom], a Bodhisattva’s heart does not become cowed, nor stolid, does not despair or despond, if he does not turn away or become dejected, does not tremble, is not frightened or terrified, it is just this Bodhisattva, this great being who should be instructed in perfect wisdom. It is precisely this that should be recognized as the perfect wisdom of that Bodhisattva, as his instruction in perfect wisdom. When he thus stands firm, that is his instruction and admonition. Moreover, when a Bodhisattva courses in perfect wisdom and develops it, he should so train himself that he does not pride himself on that thought of enlightenment, with which he has begun his career. That thought is no thought, since in its essential original nature, thought is transparently luminous.

Pretty much that is what the whole sutra teaches. There is no actual, real thing called a bodhisattva, called perfection of wisdom, or anything else. Any word that anybody ever uses should always have quotation marks around it, because it doesn’t really refer to anything real. If you can hear that and understand it, and not freak out when you hear it or become despairing or dejected or lose all your energy for life; if, instead, you stand on ground that is no-ground, then you are a bodhisattva, and that very fact is the perfection of wisdom. That is what the perfection of wisdom is. It is the recognition that nothing is real in the way that we think it is.

This is repeated over and over and over again, because it is clear that when people first heard this teaching, they were angry, they were frightened. If they believed it, they fell into despair and confusion. But that would be a misunderstanding. That would be the expectation of something being real and the disappointment that nothing was, which is different from the liberation and the joy of recognizing that everything is equally unreal and could not be any other way.

Subhuti: A Bodhisattva who does not become afraid when this deep and perfect wisdom is being taught, should be recognized as not lacking in perfect wisdom, standing at the irreversible stage of a Bodhisattva, standing firmly in consequence of his not taking his stand anywhere.

The basis on which we stand in a religion depends on a certain faith or belief or principle or practice. Here the Bodhisattva firmly stands on nothing. If this Bodhisattva can stand on this nothing, without becoming terrified or falling into despair, but be joyful in the doing of it, this is the Bodhisattva who is really manifesting the perfection of wisdom.

Skipping to page 86. This is the question that I would have about now.

Sariputra: How then is a Bodhisattva to course if he is to course in perfect wisdom? [Course meaning to live it, practice it. Entertain it.]

Subhuti: He should not course in the skandas [form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness], nor in their sign [meaning the essential shape or essence of each skanda], nor in the idea that “the skandas are signs,” nor in the production of the skandas, in their stopping or destruction, nor in the idea that “the skandas are empty,” [you shouldn’t course in the idea that something is empty, because that is just another philosophical proposition, another belief], or “I course,” or “I am a Bodhisattva.” And it should not occur to him. [The pronouns are always masculine; I will switch them]. She who courses thus courses in perfect wisdom and develops it. [She courses, but she does not entertain such ideas as “I course,” “I do not course,” or “I course and I do not course,” or “I neither course nor do I not course,” [and other permutations, and believe me, in the original text, the whole thing is repeated.] She does not go near any dharma at all, because all dharmas are unapproachable and unappropriable. [The person in your life that you know very well and have got figured out, she is unapproachable and unappropriable.] The Bodhisattva then has the concentrated insight, “Not grasping at any dharma,” by name, vast, noble, unlimited and steady, not shared by any Disciples or Pratyekabuddhas. [So not grasping at any dharma is the concentrated insight.]

Sariputra: When she thus trains, she trains in perfect wisdom?

The Lord [the Buddha]: When she thus trains, she trains in perfect wisdom.

Sariputra: When she thus trains, which dharmas does she train in?

The Buddha: She does not train in any dharmas at all, because the dharmas do not exist in such a way as foolish, untaught people are accustomed to suppose.

Sariputra: How then do they exist?

The Buddha: As they do not exist, so they exist. And so, since they do not exist, they are called ignorance. [So ignorance means naively thinking that something that fundamentally doesn’t exist does exist as a solid thing.]

Sariputra: When she trains thus, is a Bodhisattva trained in all knowledge? The Buddha: When she trains herself, a Bodhisattva is not even trained in all-knowledge, and yet is trained in all dharmas. When she thus trains herself, a Bodhisattva is trained in all knowledge, comes near to it, goes forth to it. [So that is all-knowledge. Knowing the emptiness of dharmas and that nothing truly exists in the way we think it does. That is what is called in the sutra all-knowledge.]

Skipping again to page 94,

Subhuti: This is the Lord’s absolute, the essence of the disciples who are without any support. So whatever way they are questioned, they find a way out. [They]Do not contradict the true nature of dharmas, nor depart from it, and that because they do not rely on any dharmas.

Why are they without any support? Because there is no support. There could not be any support, and knowing there is not support is the support. And that is the ultimate support. Every other support could be taken away. Right? That’s why I always love this teaching. You can’t get around this. There is no way to get around this. Everything else, there is always a way around, but how could you get around no support?

There is an acknowledgment here that there is a deep-rooted fear and anger in the human heart that comes from our stubborn inability to recognize this teaching, because it causes us to completely revolutionize the whole way we think we are and what our life is. From the standpoint of dharmas being supported and dharmas being real, it is the ultimate loss. But it is also the ultimate liberation, so it is ultimately for our happiness, and we are going to have to go through a very scary passage to get there. In other words, this is an acknowledgment that fear is there, but this is not about crashing through our fear. It is about understanding that there is no actual cause for the fear. The fear is not actually real. If a Bodhisattva hears these same things and is not afraid, that means that the Bodhisattva has not crashed through her fears. It is just that she understands that there is nothing to be afraid of. No support also means nothing to fear. And remember the Heart Sutra has the line, “Without any hindrance no fears exist.”

One small section in chapter two, and then we will stop. On page 98,

The gods came to listen to the teaching, and thereupon the thought came to them, “What the fairies talk and murmur, that we understand, though mumbled. [I love that line.] What Subhuti has just told us, that we do not understand.” Subhuti read their thoughts and said, “There is nothing to understand.”

So if at this point in the evening you are feeling frustrated because you feel like you haven’t understood anything, this is good; because it would be problematic if you thought you understood something, because you would have thought and understood that you had apprehended a dharma that doesn’t actually exist. There are people who dounderstand the emptiness teachings. But what does that mean? It means that they really don’t understand the emptiness teachings. It means they understand some version of something they can call the emptiness teaching. Because there is literally nothing to understand. I will repeat that, because I think that it is beautiful and wonderful and it’s hard to believe, but I think it is true. “There is nothing to understand.” And this is a big problem, because one remains forever convinced that there is something to understand.

There is nothing to understand. Nothing at all to understand, for nothing in particular has been said. Nothing in particular has been explained. Then the gods said, “May the holy Subhuti enlarge on this a bit. [Laughter] What the holy Subhuti here explores, demonstrates, and teaches, that is remoter than the remote, subtler than the subtle, deeper than the deep.”

Subhuti read their thoughts, and said, “No one can attain any of the fruits of the holy life or keep it, unless she patiently accepts this elusiveness of the dharma.”