Is the Heart Sutra Nihilism?

[MagnetSoulSP]

I read about it briefly in the Lion's Roar magazine and it just looks like a bunch of "no's" and starting with how our view is inverted and nothing exists. I was failing to see how such a thing could be helpful.

[Budai]

If you read the two PDF’s here from Thich Nhat Hanh, or the page, you should get your answer.

From Plum Village on the Heart Sutra:

https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nha ... anslation/

Here is a brief excerpt from the explanation:

The Heart Sutra was intended to help the Sarvāstivādins relinquish the view of no self and no dharma. The deepest teaching of Prājñāpāramitā is the emptiness of self (ātmaśūnyatā) and the emptiness of dharma (dharmanairātmya) and not the non-being of self and dharma. The Buddha has taught in the Kātyāyana sutra that most people in the world are caught either in the view of being and non-being. Therefore, the sentence ‘in emptiness there is no form, feelings…’ is obviously still caught in the view of non-being. That is why this sentence does not correspond to the Ultimate Truth. Emptiness of self only means the emptiness of self, not the non-being of self, just as a balloon that is empty inside does not mean that the balloon does not exist. The same is true with the emptiness of dharma: it only means the emptiness of all phenomena and not the non-existence of phenomena. It is like a flower that is made only of non-flower elements. The flower is empty of a separate existence, but that doesn’t mean that the flower is not there.

-From Thich Nhat Hanh on said Plum Village Webpage.

The Sutra itself is a very short read and very powerful!

Teyata Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Soha!

[FiveSkandhas]

No, nihilism is not Correct View. Form is emptiness but emptiness is also form.

Anyway, don't confuse "emptiness" (shunyata) with "nothingness." To be "empty" in a Buddhist sense means to be empty of intrinsic self-existence...it does not mean "nothing exists," but rather that all things are interconnected and open-ended.

[Johnny Dangerous]

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Emptiness

Emptiness =/= non existence. The reason this is so hard for people new to Buddhism to grasp is that we think in polarities, which is even mentioned in the Pali Canon:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

Simply put, reality is beyond those categories.

Buddhism is the "middle path" between nihilism and eternalism. Those are the default choices of most ways of thinking that people adhere to, so when people read the Heart Sutra they assign it the category of nihilism. However, once you study Buddhism it becomes very clear that "nothing exists" is not a Buddhist view, and would be considered explicitly a Wrong View.

[muni]

Whether nihilism or absolutisme, both are ideas by self-experience ( independence, personhood).

Ouch, there is nothing. This is clinging to emptiness. Makes cold careless in a way who cares, because it is just a dream? This is dangerous view.

Or believing in a perceived outer world as being "there" and "me here", results in clinging to form/appaerances.

Then how to discover Nature, what is not clinging in no any way, is practice.

[Supramundane]

I read about it briefly in the Lion's Roar magazine and it just looks like a bunch of "no's" and starting with how our view is inverted and nothing exists. I was failing to see how such a thing could be helpful.

Be very careful my friend because the risk is that you are making a dangerous simplification and, when you do that, it will reverberate through all the other concepts of Buddhism you are trying to master. You need to get on the right track and perhaps you should read the sutra yourself or speak to a teacher who can guide you.

Sunyata is not nihilism. Far from it. Emptiness means that nothing has a self.

All things are inter-beings, if you will.

This is not nihilism.

I don't see nihilism in any of the statements of the Heart Sutra, but rather negation. Buddhism is about paring away. The truth is not in another dimension or in a distant parallel universe: it is the here and now. We only need to look closely, and we will see it. It is a stripping away, a paring away to see truly. This when you think about it is uplifting and liberating.

Can you imagine the sublime moment when the Buddha opened his eyes and said, "Mara... I can see you...!"

[PadmaVonSamba]

If nothing existed, then the heart sutra wouldn’t exist.
If the heart sutra didn’t exist, the question about it would never have arisen.
Since the question about it has arisen, then the heart sutra can’t be nihilism.

[Malcolm]

I read about it briefly in the Lion's Roar magazine and it just looks like a bunch of "no's" and starting with how our view is inverted and nothing exists. I was failing to see how such a thing could be helpful.

That's not what the Heart Sūtra says.

It says: The material skandha is empty; emptiness is the material skandha; there is no material skandha other than emptiness, there is no emptiness other than than the material skandha. The same applies to the aggregates of sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness."

[Supramundane]

I would like to echo Malcolm's comments, and to complement my original post, OP should also be aware that the Heart Sutra is one of the most important Mahayana sutras.

I would surely place it in the top five.

Therefore, it is my humble view that you should cultivate a very clear understanding and Right View of this Sutra.

[MagnetSoulSP]

I would like to echo Malcolm's comments, and to complement my original post, OP should also be aware that the Heart Sutra is one of the most important Mahayana sutras.

I would surely place it in the top five.

Therefore, it is my humble view that you should cultivate a very clear understanding and Right View of this Sutra.

I read it over but it made no sense to me. I also didn't see how it was meant to help one person out. From where I stand if I saw things as empty that isn't much of a step from being cold. If all is transient then why bother having things to hold on to and to help in such matters (like doctors to heal the sick).

[Johnny Dangerous]

Read a book on it, you have no idea what it is saying.

Red Pine, The Dalai Lama, and Thich Nhat Hanh - as well as lots of others have written books on it.

If you don’t want to bother understanding it beyond your initial impressions, then maybe it’s not for you.

[Jesse]

I would like to echo Malcolm's comments, and to complement my original post, OP should also be aware that the Heart Sutra is one of the most important Mahayana sutras.

I would surely place it in the top five.

Therefore, it is my humble view that you should cultivate a very clear understanding and Right View of this Sutra.

I read it over but it made no sense to me. I also didn't see how it was meant to help one person out. From where I stand if I saw things as empty that isn't much of a step from being cold. If all is transient then why bother having things to hold on to and to help in such matters (like doctors to heal the sick).

I read the heart sutra many times a few years ago, I had very much a similar experience as you. In fact my misunderstanding of it made me extremely sad/depressed.It was like having something I loved ripped away from me. Don't dismiss it so easily, come back to it from time to time.

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha

[PadmaVonSamba]

From where I stand if I saw things as empty that isn't much of a step from being cold.

What do you suppose is meant by the word, “empty”? What do you think it means in the heart sutra?

If all is transient then why bother having things to hold on to and to help in such matters (like doctors to heal the sick).

Holding onto things and helping others
are two entirely different things.

Firstly, You can enjoy things without holding onto them. You need to breathe to live. But what would happen if you just held your breath and never exhaled? You would die. You have to hold and then let go. Holding can also be confining. Some people are control freaks or try to emotionally box in other people. That’s also holding, in a sense.

If you love someone, yes, you can hold them, you can hug them. Suppose you saw a dear loved one after many years and you just wanted to hug them, and it is the best feeling. But what if somehow you got permanently stuck together in that position? Suddenly, that wonderful hugging experience would become a nightmare. Especially when either of you needed to use the toilet.

So, it isn’t the things or the events themselves.
Grief is the most painful of all human emotions, yet, ironically, the most painful grief comes from recalling the happiest memories that one has held on to. So, even thoughts do not contain any intrinsic qualities. Things, thoughts, events, in that regard they are empty. Holding onto them is fine, but it’s not a guarantee if anything.

Ultimately, everything you think you can hold onto is transient. So, when you ask, “...if everything is transient...” what “if” are you talking about exactly?

Secondly, the true motivation to help others isn’t dependent on or based on some kind of permanence. A doctor will try to keep a person alive and without pain until death comes. But no doctor ever kept a person alive forever.

Every‘thing’ arises from interconnectedness, ftom an interdependence on everything else. It is ‘empty’ of self-arising. That is its form. It’s like the roar of the ocean waves on the beach. That’s what a billion dripping faucets sound like all at once.

HH Dalai Lama’s book, Essence of the Heart Sutra is, I think, one of the best writings on the subject. He’s quite an expert, I’m told.

[Supramundane]

From where I stand if I saw things as empty that isn't much of a step from being cold.

What do you suppose is meant by the word, “empty”? What do you think it means in the heart sutra?

If all is transient then why bother having things to hold on to and to help in such matters (like doctors to heal the sick).

Holding onto things and helping others
are two entirely different things.

Firstly, You can enjoy things without holding onto them. You need to breathe to live. But what would happen if you just held your breath and never exhaled? You would die. You have to hold and then let go. Holding can also be confining. Some people are control freaks or try to emotionally box in other people. That’s also holding, in a sense.

If you love someone, yes, you can hold them, you can hug them. Suppose you saw a dear loved one after many years and you just wanted to hug them, and it is the best feeling. But what if somehow you got permanently stuck together in that position? Suddenly, that wonderful hugging experience would become a nightmare. Especially when either of you needed to use the toilet.

So, it isn’t the things or the events themselves.
Grief is the most painful of all human emotions, yet, ironically, the most painful grief comes from recalling the happiest memories that one has held on to. So, even thoughts do not contain any intrinsic qualities. Things, thoughts, events, in that regard they are empty. Holding onto them is fine, but it’s not a guarantee if anything.

Ultimately, everything you think you can hold onto is transient. So, when you ask, “...if everything is transient...” what “if” are you talking about exactly?

Secondly, the true motivation to help others isn’t dependent on or based on some kind of permanence. A doctor will try to keep a person alive and without pain until death comes. But no doctor ever kept a person alive forever.

Every‘thing’ arises from interconnectedness, ftom an interdependence on everything else. It is ‘empty’ of self-arising. That is its form. It’s like the roar of the ocean waves on the beach. That’s what a billion dripping faucets sound like all at once.

HH Dalai Lama’s book, Essence of the Heart Sutra is, I think, one of the best writings on the subject. He’s quite an expert, I’m told.

HH Dalai Lama’s book, Essence of the Heart Sutra is, I think, one of the best writings on the subject. He’s quite an expert, I’m told.

I heard the same! Lol

[mechashivaz]

I read about it briefly in the Lion's Roar magazine and it just looks like a bunch of "no's" and starting with how our view is inverted and nothing exists. I was failing to see how such a thing could be helpful.

Always read commentaries of sutras, it really helps in solidifying understanding. After you wrestle with the Heart Sutra a while give the Diamond Sutra a read...

[Bristollad]

You can also listen to HHDL recent teaching on the Heart Sutra:

[SilenceMonkey]

It doesn't make the world disappear, just our own ignorance.

[SilenceMonkey]

I read it over but it made no sense to me.

It only made sense to me when I was practicing zen.

[PeterC]

I read about it briefly in the Lion's Roar magazine and it just looks like a bunch of "no's" and starting with how our view is inverted and nothing exists. I was failing to see how such a thing could be helpful.

I wouldn't say it is. But then again, I probably wouldn't say it isn't, either. I definitely wouldn't say it is and it isn't, but then again, I couldn't say the opposite.

[MagnetSoulSP]

From where I stand if I saw things as empty that isn't much of a step from being cold.

What do you suppose is meant by the word, “empty”? What do you think it means in the heart sutra?

If all is transient then why bother having things to hold on to and to help in such matters (like doctors to heal the sick).

Holding onto things and helping others
are two entirely different things.

Firstly, You can enjoy things without holding onto them. You need to breathe to live. But what would happen if you just held your breath and never exhaled? You would die. You have to hold and then let go. Holding can also be confining. Some people are control freaks or try to emotionally box in other people. That’s also holding, in a sense.

If you love someone, yes, you can hold them, you can hug them. Suppose you saw a dear loved one after many years and you just wanted to hug them, and it is the best feeling. But what if somehow you got permanently stuck together in that position? Suddenly, that wonderful hugging experience would become a nightmare. Especially when either of you needed to use the toilet.

So, it isn’t the things or the events themselves.
Grief is the most painful of all human emotions, yet, ironically, the most painful grief comes from recalling the happiest memories that one has held on to. So, even thoughts do not contain any intrinsic qualities. Things, thoughts, events, in that regard they are empty. Holding onto them is fine, but it’s not a guarantee if anything.

Ultimately, everything you think you can hold onto is transient. So, when you ask, “...if everything is transient...” what “if” are you talking about exactly?

Secondly, the true motivation to help others isn’t dependent on or based on some kind of permanence. A doctor will try to keep a person alive and without pain until death comes. But no doctor ever kept a person alive forever.

Every‘thing’ arises from interconnectedness, ftom an interdependence on everything else. It is ‘empty’ of self-arising. That is its form. It’s like the roar of the ocean waves on the beach. That’s what a billion dripping faucets sound like all at once.

HH Dalai Lama’s book, Essence of the Heart Sutra is, I think, one of the best writings on the subject. He’s quite an expert, I’m told.

I don't know, if I don't hold onto things I can't really enjoy them. I mean if I didn't care about a game I was playing or the sensation of a breeze on my skin then I would just regard everything as gray.

Grief is even more complicated for me as letting go of the happy memories isn't something I want to do, it just feels heartless...cold. Like if I forget then I didn't care about them. I like the memories I have of my dog, even if it hurts sometimes.

To me empty is the same as nothing, not there, doesn't exist. Everything being empty means that nothing exists, not even existence.

I get that everything is transient, but I don't see how understanding that mindset breeds anything but callousness. Why save someone if "eventually everyone dies". I can recall a number of cases were patients were saved because neither them or the doctor would let them go, among others. I just don't think it's that simple as "everything ends". It is true, I won't deny that, but it just feels like a cold thing to live by.

From what I see on the Heart Sutra it says existence does not exist, everything is but an illusion, which sounds traumatic. I mean that's Maya right? Nothing exists, existence doesn't exist, everything is illusion right? I know that it's call Heart because it gets to the literal heart of the matter, not because it's caring. I read somewhere that there were stories of people reacting violently or vomiting when Buddha recited it, though that could just be embellishing. Though looking at it I can see why.