Posts
中文版：
白话优化版: 不可得的圆满：鼓声、虹光与海市蜃楼如何开启《心经》
I wrote this for my mother, who asked for an explanation of the Heart Sutra. After reading the Chinese translation of this article, John Tan said, 'This translation is quite good, although it could be expanded.' Version 0.2
The Unfindable Fullness: How a Drum, a Rainbow, and a Mirage Unlock the Heart Sūtra
The Heart Sūtra presents a profound challenge to our everyday perception. Its central declaration, “form is emptiness; emptiness is form,” and its sweeping negations—“no eye, no ear… no mind… no attainment”—can easily be mistaken for a nihilistic denial of the world. Yet, this radical teaching is not about annihilation but about de-reification: a precise dismantling of our tendency to project solid, independent existence onto a fluid, interdependent world. To truly grasp this, we need not leap into abstract philosophy but can begin with tangible, elegant analogies found within the Buddhist tradition itself. The sound of a drum, the appearance of a rainbow, and the eight classic examples of illusion reveal that emptiness, or śūnyatā, is not a void but the very unfindability and lack of an independent core that allows phenomena to manifest vividly and function flawlessly.
The Drum: Emptiness as the Unfindability of Essence
The analogy of the drum, detailed in The Questions of an Old Lady sūtra (Mahallikāparipṛcchā, Toh 171), provides the foundational logic. When a drum is struck, a sound arises. Our immediate instinct is to locate this "sound." Is it in the wood frame? The stretched hide? The stick? The hand that strikes it? The sūtra systematically deconstructs this search, concluding that “The sound does not dwell in the wood… hide… stick… [or] the person’s hand.” The sound is utterly unfindable in any of its constituent parts, nor does it exist as a separate, free-floating entity apart from them. This investigation is a search for the sound's essence or core—a self-sufficient "sound-thing" that can be pinned down. The failure to find such a core reveals its emptiness.
Because no self-contained "sound-thing" can be located, what we conventionally call its "existence" is revealed to be nothing more than a dependent designation—a label we apply to this functional confluence of conditions. This points to the crucial Middle Way, which is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. The sound is not an inherently existing entity (eternalism), nor is it a complete nothingness (nihilism), since it clearly functions. Its functioning is purely conventional, designated upon dependencies. Remove any one condition—the hide, the effort, the air to carry the vibration—and the sound vanishes. The sūtra is explicit: “Because of these conditions, it is termed sound… That which is termed sound is also empty. It has no coming. It has no going… all phenomena are inherently stopped.” (Mahallikāparipṛcchā, Toh 171, 84000). It doesn't travel from a sound-realm to our ear. This is the essence of what the Heart Sūtra compresses into the terms “unborn, unceasing.” The drum’s sound is empty of a findable, static core, and precisely because of this unfindability, it can arise and function unmistakably when conditions gather.
(Parallel note: the same sūtra generalizes the point to birth/death and to the aggregates and sense-consciousnesses—stating they have “no producer,” do not come or go from anywhere, and are designated on conditions. This anticipates the Heart Sūtra’s triad negations.)
The Drum Analogy and Nāgārjuna’s Eight Negations (Applied Point-by-Point)
Nāgārjuna’s homage verse (MMK 1.1) encapsulates the Middle Way with eight “neither/nots”: neither cessation nor origination; neither annihilation nor permanence; neither coming nor going; neither difference nor identity—followed by “the pacification of conceptual proliferations (prapañcopaśama).” The drum thought-experiment from The Questions of an Old Lady (Toh 171) makes each negation concrete. When a drum is struck, “sound” is nowhere in the wood, hide, stick, or hand; it is designated in dependence on those conditions—“Because of these conditions, it is termed sound… It has no coming, it has no going.”
Below, each negation is shown to be a direct consequence of that unfindability plus dependent designation (cf. MMK 24:18: “Whatever is dependently arisen, that we declare to be emptiness; that is a dependent designation; just that is the Middle Way”).
1) Neither Arising (Unborn)
If “sound” were a self-existent thing, it would either exist before the strike (and thus not need to arise) or be wholly nonexistent (and could not be made to arise). But the text demonstrates the sound cannot be found in any basis (wood/hide/stick/hand) or apart from them. So what we call “arising” is just our designation when requisite conditions converge—no self-standing “sound-entity” is produced. This is why, in Madhyamaka, thorough dependence is precisely what makes “production” empty.
2) Nor Cessation (Unceasing)
If nothing self-existent was ever born, nothing self-existent can cease. When vibrations die down, conditions that supported the designation “sound” dissolve; function ends, but no core “thing” perishes. This is “unceasing” in the same sense as “unborn”—the event was only ever a coreless, dependently designated appearance.
3) Nor Annihilation
“Annihilation” would mean a truly existent essence has been destroyed. But the sūtra makes plain that the so-called sound is empty of any findable essence—there is nothing there to annihilate. This avoids nihilism while still acknowledging that conventionally the hearing stops.
4) Nor Permanence
Equally, permanence is excluded. The sound’s very possibility depends on momentary conditions (tension, impact, air, hearing). Take away any one and there is no sounding. What relies on shifting supports cannot be an unchanging permanence.
5) Nor Coming
The text states explicitly: the sound does not dwell in wood, hide, stick, or hand—and it does not “come” from anywhere else either. “Because of these conditions, it is termed sound.” There is no entity traveling from a hidden locus into audibility. “Coming” is a projection imposed on a dependently designated event.
6) Nor Going
Likewise, when the sound fades, it does not “go” anywhere—no retreat into the wood, no departure to another realm. With conditions absent, the basis for that designation is gone. No “thing” departs. The verse’s “not going” is already spelled out in the drum passage.
7) Nor Difference (Without Distinction)
If sound were different from its conditions, it should be conceivable without them. But the analysis shows you cannot have “sound” apart from hide/wood/impact/air/hearing. Because the sound is inseparable from its enabling network, positing it as something over-and-above those supports is incoherent. Thus, not different.
8) Nor Identity (Without Identity)
If sound were simply identical to any condition (e.g., the hide), then the hide would just be sounding—even when unstruck. Or if “sound” were identical to the sum of conditions as a static whole, then the mere presence of drum, stick, and air—even without impact—would entail sounding. Neither follows. So “sound” is not identical with any part or static sum. Thus, not identical.
“Pacification of Conceptual Proliferation” (prapañcopaśama)
Having blocked the eight pairs of extremes through this single example, the homage concludes with prapañcopaśama—ending the mental habit that reifies events into self-standing entities with fixed metaphysical statuses (born/ceased, coming/going, same/different). The drum shows why those statuses never apply ultimately: the sound is only ever a dependent designation (upādāya-prajñapti) on a nexus of conditions (MMK 24:18). Seeing this, conceptual fabrications fall silent.
The Rainbow: Vivid Display and Luminous Knowing
The rainbow offers a brilliant visual parallel, illustrating the principle of vivid display that is nowhere stored. A rainbow appears as a dazzlingly precise and vibrant arc of colour, yet it has no substance or location. It requires a specific convergence of conditions: sunlight, water droplets suspended in the air, and an observer positioned at the correct angle (~42°); move slightly and ‘the rainbow’ is gone—there was never a ‘thing’ hiding anywhere to begin with. It never came from anywhere, isn't hidden in the droplets or the sun, and doesn't retreat to a secret place when it disappears. (On the ~42° geometry of primary rainbows, see NOAA SciJinks.)
While a scientific account lists these physical dependencies, it often overlooks the most crucial condition from an experiential standpoint: the radiance of our own mind. Without the knowing, sentient capacity of consciousness, the physical conditions could align perfectly, but there would be no experience of a rainbow. Thus, the radiant mind, or pristine consciousness, must be included as an indispensable condition for the dependent origination of the phenomenon as a known event.
This introduces a crucial complement to emptiness: luminosity (Pāli pabhassara, Skt. prabhāsvara). This quality does not refer to literal light, like that from a lamp, but to the pristine knowing quality of consciousness—the vivid, clear presence that is the very knowing of any experience (cf. AN 1.49–52: “Luminous, monks, is the mind…”). There is no knowingness apart from the vivid appearances themselves; the knowing is the appearing. Crucially, this pristine consciousness is not a separate, underlying substance or a "True Self." Just like the rainbow, this luminous knowing is itself empty of intrinsic existence. It is not a subjective cognition illuminating an objective appearance; rather, phenomena are realized to be the nondual, self-luminous display—and this very luminosity, too, is empty of own-nature. This is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, recognizing that a separate subject and object never arose in the first place. The world of form is not a dull, empty void; it is a radiant, clear, and vivid display of our pristine consciousness, and our experiencing of it is this very luminosity.
The Eight Illusions: The Union of Appearance and Emptiness
To deepen this understanding, the Mahāyāna tradition employs the eight examples of illusion. (Traditional enumerations of these eight similes vary slightly across texts and lineages; see also the Foam Sutta, SN 22.95, for closely related imagery of insubstantiality.) These similes are not meant to suggest the world is "fake" but to train the mind to see that all phenomena are illusory. The distinction is crucial. To call something "fake" implies a binary opposition to something "real"—a counterfeit bill versus a genuine one, a hallucination versus a verifiable object. This view still operates within a framework that assumes a baseline of inherent, solid reality. To say phenomena are illusory, however, is far more subtle. An illusion, like a mirage, is not nothing; it appears vividly and functions conventionally (it can cause thirst and hope). But when its nature is investigated, it is found to be completely dependent on causes and conditions, empty of any findable, independent essence of its own. Thus, "illusory" affirms the conventional appearance while revealing its ultimate, empty, and non-arisen nature.
The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā expresses this view directly, showing how bodhisattvas teach this very principle:
“On the other hand, bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom teach the Dharma to beings, [F.215.b] while abiding in the twofold emptiness—that is to say the emptiness of the unlimited and the emptiness of that which has neither beginning nor end—[and they say], ‘These three realms are empty. In them there are no physical forms, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, sense fields, or sensory elements. They are a dream, they are an echo, they are an optical aberration, they are a magical display, they are a mirage, and they are a phantom. In them there are no aggregates, sense fields, or sensory elements. In them there is no dream or viewer of dreams. There is no echo or hearer of echoes. There is no optical aberration or viewer of optical aberrations. There is no magical display or creator of magical displays. There is no mirage or viewer of mirages. There is no phantom or viewer of phantoms. All these phenomena are nonentities and of the essential nature of nonentity, but you perceive aggregates when there are no aggregates! You perceive sense fields when there are no sense fields! You perceive sensory elements when there are no sensory elements! Since all these phenomena arise erroneously from dependent origination, and have been grasped through the maturation of past actions, why else would you perceive the nonentity of all phenomena as entities?’”
Each example reveals how the luminous appearance of phenomena—their inseparable clarity and display—is inseparable from its unfindable, insubstantial nature. Furthermore, they point to the “emptiness of emptiness”—the profound realization that there is no hidden truth or void behind these appearances. The emptiness of emptiness just means that when you realize an entity is empty, then there is no longer an entity to be empty. This is a non-reductive insight; there is no emptiness as a nature left over in the end. Penetrating their emptiness leads one back to the surface of the everyday, revealing that all things have "one nature, that is, no nature."
A Mirage: In the desert, the vivid presence of shimmering water arises with powerful, functional clarity, dependently originating from conditions of superheated air, light, and a perceiving mind. This potent display is inseparable from its complete insubstantiality. When examined carefully, as the Buddha taught in the Pheṇapiṇḍūpamasutta (SN 22.95), the mirage appears completely vacuous, hollow, and insubstantial. For what core could there be in a mirage? The knowing of 'water' and the emptiness of water are not two; the vividness is the groundlessness. This reveals the emptiness of emptiness: there is no deeper truth of 'nothingness' hiding behind the mirage. The shimmering, deceptive surface is the entire groundless display of the event. Penetrating its emptiness simply returns us to the vivid, ungraspable appearance itself.
The Moon's Reflection in Water: The reflection is a perfect, radiant knowingness—clear, bright, and detailed. Its appearance is entirely dependent on a confluence of conditions: the celestial body we designate as "the moon," the reflective surface of the water, and the specific angle of the observer. After the initial realization of radiant knowingness, it is inevitable that one reifies it—first as a timeless, eternal witness or 'I AM', and hence deeper insight is needed. Even after the illusion of a separate knower is seen through, this radiant knowingness as a vivid display can still be mistaken for a truly existing, external world. It is only the subsequent, penetrating insight into the dependent origination and empty nature of all phenomena that reveals this very radiance to be, by its nature, completely illusory and empty of any findable core. The clarity of the reflection and its emptiness are inseparable. This logic applies all the way up: the "real moon" is also a dependently originated phenomenon. Thus, the reflection is an illusion of an illusion. Its ultimate nature is therefore 'no nature.' Realizing its emptiness doesn't reveal a void; it reveals the vivid, shimmering reflection as the complete, groundless presencing of that moment.
A Dream: The dream world is a totally immersive field of vivid presence—sights, sounds, and intense emotions feel completely real, arising in dependence on the sleeping mind and karmic traces. This immersive vividness is inseparable from its complete lack of a locatable essence. When examined upon waking, the entire dream world is found to be hollow and insubstantial, for what core could there be in a dream? The presencing of the dream is its fundamental groundlessness. There is no ontological depth lurking beneath the dream's deceptive surface; the vivid, transient dream-world is the whole story, seen without the illusion of a solid ground beneath it.
A Magical Illusion: A magician's display conjures the potent display of a horse, so convincing it captivates the audience. This convincing presence dependently arises from the magician's skill, props, and the audience's perception, and is, by its very nature, unfindable. When examined carefully, the display is revealed to be vacuous and hollow, without any real substance. For what core could there be in a magic trick? The inseparable union of this vividness and its emptiness is what makes it illusory. Penetrating the illusion doesn't lead to a hidden truth, but back to the conventional world of the magician, the props, and the audience—the luminous and conventional surface of things.
An Echo: An echo manifests as a clear, distinct presence of sound, arising in dependence on an initial sound, a reflective surface, and a medium like air. This audible clarity is inseparable from its complete lack of an independent source. When examined closely, it is found to be hollow and insubstantial, for what core could there be in an echo? The knowing of the sound is its essenceless nature. The clear sound and its emptiness are not two. Realizing this, one finds that the echo's ultimate nature is simply its own audible, transient, and groundless appearing.
A City of Gandharvas: This atmospheric illusion appears as a grand, complex, and radiant knowingness, dependently arisen from clouds, light, and atmospheric conditions. This magnificent appearance is inseparable from its utter insubstantiality. When examined, it is seen to be completely vacuous and insubstantial, for what core could there be in a city in the clouds? Its vividness is its groundlessness. There is nothing beneath this deceptive surface; its vivid, illusory appearance is the whole of the event.
A Phantom: An apparition can appear with terrifying, vivid presence, its appearance dependent on certain mental or causal conditions. This powerful appearance is inseparable from its complete lack of any findable core. When examined, it is revealed to be hollow and insubstantial, for what core could there be in a phantom? The terror it may induce is not inherent to the phantom but arises from failing to recognize its empty, illusory nature. When its emptiness is seen, the vivid presence remains, but the fear, which depends on reification, dissolves. The knowing of the apparition and its groundlessness are a single, inseparable event.
A Reflection in a Mirror: The image in a mirror is a perfectly clear, precise, and radiant knowingness, dependently originated from your face, the mirror's surface, and light. When we investigate this vivid presence, we find that no inherent essence can be located, either in the appearance itself or in its clarity. When examined, the reflection is found to be completely vacuous and hollow, for what core could there be in a reflection? This inseparable union of a vivid, knowing appearance and an unfindable essence is what makes it illusory. To be ultimately empty is, ultimately, to lack emptiness. The reflection's nature is simply its own clear, dependent, and vivid appearing on the surface of the mirror.
Each of these examples hammers home the central point: all phenomena are illusory. Their luminous presence is not separate from their unfindable nature—the inseparable union of clarity and emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. They are not two separate qualities but a single, indivisible display. They dependently arise as a vivid, spontaneous presence; this appearance, when cognized conceptually, is a dependent designation, and this very appearing, this vivid knowingness, is its groundless, essenceless nature.
Deconstructing the Perceptual Triad: “No Eye… No Form… No Consciousness”
With this foundation, we can approach the Heart Sūtra's most challenging passage. The Heart Sūtra (Toh 21) compresses this into a few strokes: “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form… in emptiness there is no eye, no ear… no mind; no ignorance and no end of ignorance… no attainment.” (84000). This sweeping negation is a concise and systematic deconstruction of the entire perceptual process, resolving the false dichotomy between mind and matter. (For a practice-driven unpacking, see the ATR posts "Mind, Matter, and the Middle Way" and "A Practitioner's Reflection on the Kōmyōzō Zanmai".)
The Sūtra's shorthand dismantles the entire perceptual triad by negating the inherent existence of each of its components:
“No Sense Faculty” (no eye). What makes a lump of tissue an eye? Only its relational function in a seeing-event. Take away either a visible form or the corresponding consciousness and it’s not functioning as an eye. So “eye” is dependently originated, and because it is so, it’s empty of any findable essence and is merely a dependent designation—a valid label based on conditions and functions, nothing intrinsic. (See SN 35.93 on contact as the meeting of the three.)
“No Sense Object” (no form). What is a "form"? As a visible form, it’s defined relationally—as what stands in the right relation to a visual faculty and a visual consciousness. Its object-of-sight-ness is not an intrinsic property, but designated dependently within the triad. Thus, as a perceived form, it’s empty and merely designated in dependence on the other two.
“No Sense Consciousness” (no eye-consciousness). Consciousness is always consciousness-of; it never arises “in a vacuum.” The Buddha states repeatedly that consciousness arises in dependence and “apart from a requisite condition there is no origination of consciousness” (MN 38). Hence it too lacks any independent core and is empty and dependently designated (we call it “eye-consciousness” precisely when eye and form converge).
Putting it together. The triad—faculty, object, consciousness—is a single, momentary, dependently arisen event (contact is “the meeting/convergence of these three,” SN 35.93). Because none of the three can be established on its own, the Heart Sūtra can say “no eye … no form … no eye-consciousness” in emptiness—it’s denying intrinsic nature, not everyday function. (A related early image is the “two sheaves of reeds” leaning against each other to illustrate mutual dependence—SN 12.67.) And Nāgārjuna clinches the logic:
“Whatever is dependently arisen—that we declare to be emptiness; that, being a dependent designation, is itself the Middle Way.” (MMK 24.18)
(Terminology note: It is crucial to distinguish this correct view of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) from a reified "dependent existence" (parabhāva), a view Nāgārjuna refutes. "Dependent existence" mistakenly assumes that things truly exist by borrowing their essence from other conditions, which is just a subtle guise for inherent existence (svabhāva). For Nāgārjuna, dependence is not a real mode of existence; rather, because things are dependent, they are empty of any inherent nature and are thus merely conventional, or dependent, designations (upādāya-prajñapti). Our talk about them is valid convention, without reification.)
Yin Ling shared two years ago: “Buddha says, If this arise, that arise. If this cease, that cease. . I add- because of dependency, hence there is no this, nor that, to be pinpointed inherently. It’s empty. . John tan says, If bell, air , ear , consciousness , stick are needed to produce a sound, Where is the sound? Where? We cannot pinpoint it. . If you press on the table, The earth element is hard, Where is the hardness? Where? This arise, that arise, Lift up ur hand, This cease, that cease, Where is the hardness? In your hand? In the table? . He also says, If A always depend on B, and B always depend on A, We will not be able to pin down A or B. A and B is not two, nor one. It’s empty, It’s dependent origination! 😁 All the “self” and “thing” we feel are imputations, They are not there. Release them. Release till none . My short Singapore reflection Emptiness eating emptiness, All my own empty clarity 😊”
From Mental Releasing to the Heart of Radiance
The foregoing analysis of the drum, the perceptual triad, and the eight illusions provides the indispensable logical framework for understanding emptiness. It demonstrates how our conventional concepts—"self," "agent," "seer-seeing-seen," "mind," "body," and "phenomena"—are dependent designations, abstracted from the luminous flow of experience and lacking any inherent essence. This is a critical and liberating insight. However, if this understanding remains at the level of deconstructing concepts, it is what can be called a "mental level releasing" only. One might understand that reified mental and nominal constructs are empty, but this is freeing only at the mental level.
To illustrate this, we can examine the different phases of understanding emptiness through the classic analogy of the chariot. One might first understand emptiness in a manner like 'weather,' where 'weather' is merely an imputation upon a collection of phenomena like rain falling or the sun shining. This can be understood in terms of the emptiness of the imputed label, leaving the collection—the aggregates, the very manifest and vivid experience—"un-emptied." This is an incomplete view. A deeper understanding comes from applying the chariot analogy to all phenomena. As John Tan once remarked, "Don't keep thinking of aggregates as also empty. If you understand the chariot is empty, what is not empty?" The problem, however, is that the aggregates themselves do appear real unless one has had the direct realization that "name-only" or "empty" is, in fact, the vivid, appearing presence itself.
The crucial shift is from a conceptual understanding to a direct, experiential one. If we conceptualize a label like "chariot" and then think, "that labelled chariot is empty of essence," this remains an inferential analysis. The direct realization occurs when one sees that the empty "chariot" is the vivid, appearing presence. Emptiness is this very presence. The label or chariot that is empty is the vivid, appearing presence itself—as unfindable and shimmering as a mirage. It is not a mere mental label. Like any object you see—a handphone, a table, a car—that vivid presencing is the 'chariot'; it is a vivid, unfindable, appearing presence. That being so, there is no handphone, no pain, no suffering, and all the other negations in the Heart Sūtra. At this level of direct insight, it is the very unfindability, ungraspability, and referencelessness of empty luminosity—an appearing “absence.” "No weather" does not mean weather doesn't exist, but that the very vivid, empty appearing or presencing we call "rain falling" is nothing there, an appearing absence like a rainbow or a hologram. Emptiness is none other than form.
The deeper and more fundamental actualization, therefore, is to directly authenticate this "freedom" at the level of the phenomena themselves—at the level of vivid, appearing presence, or radiance. Without the direct recognition of emptiness at this foundational level, the understanding of Nāgārjuna's Eight Negations cannot touch the "heart of radiance." The crucial obstruction to this direct authentication is the subtle, often unexamined assumption that "the mirror is not the reflection"—the belief that there is a real, underlying ground or substrate (the mirror) that is separate from the transient appearances that play across it (the reflections). Although one may experience the mental release of constructs at this level, everything may be subsumed into an overarching, substantialist and unchanging nondual awareness. We will still be attached to a changeless purity resisting change if understanding remains at the mental level, and the empty nature of radiance remains unpenetrated.
To go deeper, in addition to understanding that reified constructs are empty, we must contemplate further and ask ourselves: how can these conventions be reified in the first place, and then deconstructed later? The answer is that they are abstracted from the raw, radiant display of experience. Therefore, the inquiry must turn to the nature of radiance itself. This deeper inquiry might take the form of a koan-like contemplation: "How can this radiance, this vivid presence, change so effortlessly, so miraculously and seamlessly with differing conditions, if it has a solid core?" If this ever-changing display had a true, inherent nature, it would resist such fluid transformation. This leads to a profound shift in understanding: the very "changingness" of radiance is the direct authentication of no ultimate production and no ultimate cessation. The seamless flux of appearances is the living proof that no solid "thing" is ever truly born or truly dies.
Ultimately, this profound insight into the illusory and non-arisen nature of all phenomena transcends even the foundational Buddhist teaching of impermanence. The emphasis on impermanence serves as a vital and skillful means—a "raft"—to guide the mind away from grasping at permanence and toward the realization of no-self and emptiness. However, once phenomena are directly seen as illusory, the very conceptual framework of "permanent" versus "impermanent" is also released. As the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra advises, the ultimate practice involves not engaging with the notions that phenomena are permanent or impermanent, a self or not a self, empty or not empty. When practice becomes natural and spontaneous, one releases the raft of these Dharma seals and abides in the mind's ungraspable nature. This leads to a more subtle Mahāyāna understanding of "permanence" itself—not as an unchanging, real entity, but as that which, being unborn, is free from the causes of origination and cessation.
However, it is crucial to understand that this "transience" or "changingness" of Dōgen’s “Impermanence is Buddha-Nature” is not a mere philosophical concept of impermanence/permanence to be intellectually understood or transcended. Rather, in the spirit of Zen masters like Dōgen, it is a direct pointing. It is an instruction to authenticate the Buddha-Nature directly in and as the very transient phenomena themselves—the mountains, the trees, the sunshine, the fleeting sound of footsteps—not in some transcendent, changeless awareness separate from the world. Even after the realization of “Impermanence is Buddha-Nature,” which is the realization of anātman, one must realize how dependent origination and the eight negations are directly pointing to the nature of radiance.
This insight allows the Eight Negations to be realized not as a philosophical conclusion, but as the direct taste of experience:
No Arising & No Cessation: Where does the redness of a rose come from? Where does the sound of a bell go? The momentary and seamlessly dependent flash of radiant presence was never a real entity that was "born," so it cannot be an entity that "ceases."
No Permanence & No Annihilation: The transient nature of every sight and sound is self-evident proof of no permanence. Because no "thing" was ever truly born, its passing is not the annihilation of an entity.
No Coming & No Going: The radiant presence does not come from anywhere or go anywhere. It is a momentary, unlocatable, condition-dependent display.
No Identity & No Difference: The redness is not different from the seeing of it, nor is it identical to the "rose-object." The dependently originated, non-dual and seamless nature of experience dissolves these conceptual fabrications.
When the view penetrates to this level, the understanding of emptiness is no longer a dry, mental negation. It is the direct recognition that the luminous, vivid, and ever-changing display of the world is its emptiness. This is the crucial breakthrough in view that contrasts a merely conceptual framework with the direct taste of the nature of radiance.
The Practical Path to Insight: From Luminous Mind to Emptiness
While the Heart Sūtra presents the ultimate view of emptiness, the experiential path to that view is crucial. In this commentary, I delineate a path that unfolds in phases, based on my interpretation of texts from the Zen tradition like the Kōmyōzō Zanmai (Treasury of Light).
Phase 1: The Foundational Realization of Luminous Presence ("I AM"). The essential first step is to realize the "luminous Mind" itself—the ever-present pure Presence and capacity of Knowingness that is the baseline fact of all experience. This provides the stable ground from which to explore the profound truth of non-duality and emptiness, even though Presence is still falsely reified as an eternal Witness at this stage.
An Intermediate Phase: Substantialist Nonduality ("One Mind"). Following the "I AM" realization, a practitioner often enters a profound non-dual state where all phenomena are seen as the display of a single, unified Mind. This is a powerful insight, but it can become a subtle trap as one continues to reify "Mind" as a truly existing, ultimate substance that is nondual with everything, or modulates as everything. This is a substantialist view and must be penetrated by the deeper wisdom of anātman, which reveals that this luminous knowing is itself dependently arisen and empty.
Phase 2: The Deepening Insight into Anātman and Emptiness. Once this luminous ground is realized, the path then turns the light of inquiry back upon itself.
Emptiness of Self (pudgala-nairātmya): The practitioner investigates this luminous Mind and discovers it is empty of any inherent, independent self-nature (svabhāva). This is the direct, non-conceptual realization of agentlessness, often expressed in stanzas:
There is thinking, no thinker There is hearing, no hearer There is seeing, no seer
And furthermore:
In thinking, just thoughts In hearing, just sounds In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.Emptiness of Phenomena (dharma-nairātmya): The insight then deepens to perceive the empty, dream-like nature of all appearances.
This progression is vital. By first realizing the luminous, vivid nature of Mind and appearance, the subsequent insight into their emptiness does not lead to nihilism. Instead, one realizes that phenomena are like a rainbow: vividly apparent, yet utterly empty.
Scaling the Principle: From Drums to Buddhas
This principle scales universally. The Ornament of the Light of Awareness (Toh 100) uses the example of a cloud, stating, “the cloud is non-arisen and non-ceasing; free from coming and going.” Strikingly, it then applies this very same logic to the Tathāgata, whose appearance is for the benefit of beings yet is ultimately as non-arisen and unceasing as the cloud. (84000 translation; see the rain-cloud analogy.) This logic culminates in Nāgārjuna's famous verse: “Whatever is dependently arisen, we declare that to be emptiness; It is a dependent designation; Just that is the middle path” (MMK 24:18).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Heart Sūtra’s wisdom is unlocked when we see that emptiness is not an absence but a dynamic potential. Because the drum’s sound is unfindable in any single part or apart from its conditions, its very emptiness is what allows it to manifest unfailingly as a luminous, dependently-designated display. Everything in our experience—from the sound of a drum to the luminous appearing of a mirage—functions on this same principle. However, to fully realize this requires penetrating the true meaning of dependent origination. A common, superficial understanding sees dependent arising merely as an explanation for how a seemingly solid, existing whole is constructed from its parts and conditions. This view, while a step away from naive realism, still subtly grasps at an inherent essence, a 'whole' that truly exists, reflecting the mind's deep-seated propensity to solidify experience.
The profound and correct understanding, as articulated by masters like Tsongkhapa, is that the radical dependence of a phenomenon on its parts and conditions reveals its complete lack of any findable core. Because no essence can be found, from an ultimate perspective, there is no true arising. What remains is a coreless, luminous appearance, like a hologram—vividly present yet utterly ungraspable. This is the true meaning of 'non-arising,' which is synonymous with dependent origination and emptiness. This unified insight is precisely what Tsongkhapa pointed to as the completion of the view. This point is powerfully underscored by John Tan's reflection on Tsongkhapa's insight: "This is perhaps the most important point for me post anatta insight. so profound and deep.🙏 You must see not only from freedom from elaborations but dependent arising." Tsongkhapa explained that as long as the understanding of appearance (the regulated world of dependent origination) and the understanding of emptiness (the absence of all standpoints) remain separate, the Sage's intent has not been realized. The analysis is complete only when, in a single moment, the perception of undeceiving dependent origination dismantles all grasping at inherent existence.
Furthermore, this unified view is the true Middle Way. As Tsongkhapa wrote, appearance, correctly seen, dispels the extreme of existence, while emptiness dispels the extreme of nonexistence. One understands how emptiness itself functions as cause and effect, and is thus freed from all extreme views.
By first grounding ourselves in the direct realization of luminous presence, we provide an experiential foundation for the profound view of emptiness. This initial authentication of presence ensures that the subsequent deconstruction of reality does not lead to a nihilistic misunderstanding. When emptiness is approached from this ground of vivid, knowing presence, it is not mistaken for a mere conceptual negation or a sterile void. Instead, we can then safely and profoundly realize the truth to which the Sūtra points: that all phenomena, including the mind itself, are unborn and unceasing. This is not an erasure of the world, but the revelation of its true, magical nature: a vivid, functional, and radiant display, utterly free of any solid, findable core.
References (primary & supporting)
The Questions of an Old Lady Sūtra (Mahallikāparipṛcchā). Toh 171. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. (Drum-sound passage: “Because of these conditions, it is termed sound… no coming, no going… all phenomena are inherently stopped.”)
The Perfection of Wisdom, The Heart Sūtra. Toh 21. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. (“Form is emptiness… in emptiness: no eye… no mind… no attainment.”)
The Ornament of the Light of Awareness That Enters the Domain of the Tathāgatas. Toh 100. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. (Cloud/Tathāgata non-arising, “free from coming and going.”)
Nāgārjuna. Mūlamadhyamakakāri-kā (MMK) 24:18. (Dependent arising = emptiness = dependent designation ∗upaˉdaˉya−prajn~apti∗.)
Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN) 35.93. Contact defined as the meeting/convergence of faculty, object, and consciousness.
SN 12.67. “Two sheaves of reeds” simile for mutual dependence.
Majjima Nikāya (MN) 38. “Apart from a requisite condition, there is no origination of consciousness.” (Refutation of a transmigrating, selfsame consciousness.)
Aṅguttara Nikāya (AN) 1.49–52. “Luminous is the mind” passages; luminosity as baseline capacity, not an uncaused essence.
SN 22.95 (Pheṇapiṇḍūpamasutta / Foam Sutta). Aggregates likened to foam, bubble, mirage, plantain trunk, and a magic trick—insubstantiality imagery.
References (secondary & explanatory)
“Mind, Matter, and the Middle Way.” Awakening to Reality.
“A Practitioner’s Reflection on the Kōmyōzō Zanmai.” Awakening to Reality.
NOAA SciJinks. “How Is a Rainbow Formed?” (Observer-angle ~42° of primary rainbow.)
Rigpa Shedra Wiki. “Eight Similes of Illusion.” (Overview of enumerations.)
(Terminology: śūnyatā; Pāli pabhassara / Skt. prabhāsvara for “luminosity”; upādāya-prajñapti = dependent designation.)
