What is the Self that is not a self? R*

On By Alexander DuncanIn Dharma Talk

By Ankh (Jos Joszpe) (Ankh van der Sterre , Nijmegen, the Netherlands)

For W.S. 

The issue of the mortality of the self or soul is the central question in all spiritual systems. In this talk we will examine pre-Buddhist Indian thought, i.e., the Brahmanic context, and the exact meaning and use of words, especially the words atta and anatta and we will have a look at the Buddha’s teachings according to the Pali Canon and the Mahayana tradition.

When those who have looked more deeply into Buddhism than the commercial Buddha statue in my house or garden think about what Buddha taught, the doctrine of anatta comes to mind. Wikipedia defines anatta as the doctrine that “that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.” It is often thought to mean that “all things that we experience as existing are impermanent and will cease to exist because they are subject to change.” However, anatta is also often understood as “a doctrine denying the existence of a self.”  The distinction between these two definitions is the topic of this talk.

For many modern Buddhists, especially in the West, and especially among so-called secular Buddhists, this notion that “self does not exist” is at the core of their understanding of Buddhism. I once attended a talk by an American Chinese Buddhist monastic who claimed that since there is no self of any kind according to the Buddha, there is no essential difference between enlightenment and literal suicide. Either way, the self ceases to exist at death. Such an understanding of the doctrine of anatta brings the danger of nihilism and might be a cause of even greater suffering, which would be the opposite effect of what Buddha obviously taught, who expressly rejected nihilism and forbade suicide.

If the Buddha taught anything at all, it is, that it is through rigorous self-analysis and self-control one will be able to attain liberation from suffering in the endless rounds of birth and death, or the liberation from samsara as it is known. Therefore, there must be a mistake somewhere for those who believe that there is no self. Understanding what exactly the Buddha has said about self – and not-self – is necessary to be able to practice the true path.

Religious Philosophy in India Before the Buddha

Whether the self is permanent, changeless, and not affected by sorrow or whether at death we will simply cease to exist, as held by modern secular materialism, is the central question before us. Before the Buddha came along the old Indian doctrines were already wrestling with the issue of self. It should come as no surprise that the pre-Buddhist religious context influenced the Buddha.

According to the Vedas and other ancient Indian texts, “worlds” or “universes” come into existence at certain points and eventually cease to exist at the end of their cycles, in an ongoing and recurring process. Everything that exists is thus illusory, as it is non-absolute. The belief was that all phenomena—whether past, present, or future—would eventually cease to exist, only to be reborn. This doctrine closely aligns with the Buddha’s teachings concerning impermanence and rebirth.

Given this cyclical view, all things and beings are dependent on the conditions and substances that bring them into being. But if everything is contingent upon these factors, where do these conditions and substances originate? Is there a Causeless Cause that precedes all things? In response to this, the ancient seers, the rishis of pre-Buddhist India, taught that there exists an unknowable substratum from which the universe arises, but this substratum itself remains “outside” the universe. It was unaffected by anything within the universe, changeless, perfect, and eternally present, whether it manifested a world or not.

This substratum is beyond human comprehension. It came to be known as Brahman, the Absolute Being, Pure Consciousness, and Pure Bliss (Satchitananda). Brahman is the Causeless Cause of all causes in many Hindu philosophies.

There has long been debate within Hindu thought regarding the nature of the self. Some schools of thought hold that everything in the universe, including the individual self, is identical with Brahman, the unknowable substratum. For these thinkers, one’s personal self is inseparable from the Self that brought it into being. This Self, the essential root cause, is the eternal, unchanging foundation of existence. The reflection of Brahman within the universe is the All-Self, pervading everything that exists.

This inner essence, called Atman by the ancient rishis, is the True Self of all beings. According to this view, all individual selves are Atman, and by living a holy life, an individual could realize timelessness and unity with Brahman.

However, other schools of thought maintain that the universe and all that exists within it must be distinct from the unknowable root cause. These thinkers believe in a deity, Brahma, who resides within the universe and is the Creator God—a personal ruler with distinct qualities. For these adherents, the individual self is a real, permanent entity, and they believe it is possible to preserve this identity and attain timelessness.

Looking back once more towards the ancient Indian religious philosophies as described before, let us remind ourselves that they call the reflex of Brahman by the name or word ‘Atman.’ This word means ‘Self.’ This Atman is either the same as Brahman, or a perfect reflection of Brahman. But Brahman and Atman are one. The major difference to realize is that Atman is inside the universe of phenomena.

This Atman or ‘Self’ is the True Self in all beings in the universe or the world. Since Brahman pervades all and nothing can exist outside Brahman, Atman must also pervade everything. Since this Atman or ‘True Self’ is identical to Brahman – the changeless substratum of the universe or being – it too must be changeless.

The definition of atta(n) in PED is as follows:

The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent. B.C. It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the body at death, then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its own.  … Buddhism repudiated all such theories, thus differing from other religions. … A ‘soul’ according to general belief was something permanent, unchangeable, not affected by sorrow.” Anatta is defined as “not a soul, without a soul” (p. 22).

Clearly the Buddha is reacting to a specific notion of a soul in which the “soul” exists as an object with specific identifiable characteristics in the world yet is simultaneously permanent, changeless, and unaffected by sorrow. This is what the Buddha rejected, on the premise that nothing identifiable has or can have these characteristics, not even the so-called devas or ‘gods,’ more properly translated as ‘divine beings.’ Everything in the world, absolutely and without exception, is impermanent, changeable, and sorrowful.

This is further elaborated in the following quotation:

Among all the things that do exist in the universe, none do exist by itself. Any object or being can be nothing else than a compound of elements that undergo ceaseless modifications and which are themselves the outcome of a large number of conditions. As a consequence, nothing can be controlled; neither material objects, nor consciousnesses.

The Pali Canon

Born from a wealthy and important family and well educated, Gautama must have been aware of all those religious philosophies. Buddha has spent years training under several different teachers before reaching his Enlightenment. After Gautama attained his Enlightenment and Liberation, he started to teach the way to become able to attain the goal of Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering. In the Parinibbana Sutra in the Udana (350–300 BCE), the Buddha says in the following famous passage:

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, Bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought to being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought to being, made, conditioned. (8.3)

In other words, the very illusoriness of the world necessarily posits a “a not-born, a not-brought to being, a not-made, a not-conditioned,” whereas the impermanence and changeableness of the world posits the possibility of escape.

Thus, although the Buddha rejected theism, the Buddha posited that dharma itself is permanent, changeless, and blissful, corresponding to the Hindu concept of Brahman, though without reifying Brahman as an ontological substrate or a creative deity. In the Buddha’s conceptualization, dharma is simply “the way things are.” He also refers to the realization of the dharma, which effects escape from the world, as nirvana (“emancipation”) and the realization of “the Deathless” (timelessness). Such a one is a tathagata (“he who has thus come and gone”).

The Buddha repudiated nihilism and specifically repudiated suicide as a means of liberation. He also averred that the ontological status of such a one, a tathagata, is non-dual, trans-rational, and non-linguistic, and therefore difficult to comprehend. For this reason, the Budha eschewed speculative metaphysics and ontology and preferred to describe the path in existential, phenomenological and, indeed, “process” terms. He also denied the extremes of permanence on the one hand and annihilation on the other. Rather, the “self,” in particular, is not a “thing” but a process, conceptualized in the well-known term “stream of consciousness” (santana). Just as a river cannot be identified with any of its elements, whether it be the shore, water, course, direction of flow, etc., all of which change constantly, but is nonetheless identifiable as a river, so the self cannot be identified with anything identifiable and yet is nonetheless a self. 

The Pali Canon confirms that this ‘Deathless’ is the core of Buddha’s doctrine. The Buddha describes the Deathless as “unborn, unmade, unbecome and unfabricated,” which obviously is the opposite of “borne, made, become and fabricated.”  The Deathless therefore is something that is, in some sense, but since it “is not fabricated and not become” it must have been the same always and thus it is changeless in some sense. From this text in the Udana, it becomes clear the Buddha’s attainment of liberation could not exist without the concept of “the Deathless.” According to this discourse, liberation is dependent on the reality of that Deathless.

Nevertheless, the Buddha’s concept of the Deathless is neither an ontological substratum nor a deity. The possibility of attaining the liberation Buddha called the Deathless must mean that this state of attainment always must have been present, at least as a potentiality. This is ‘Buddha nature.’

With respect to self, we all experience self directly, at the most fundamental level of our daily life and experiences. Even if we ignore the experiential content of the self, we still experience consciousness, which is fundamentally changeless, because it has no qualities or characteristics, like Laozi’s “uncarved block” (樸). It is perfectly empty or void. This intimation of Buddha nature the Tibetans call ‘rigpa’ (རིག་པ), and is the actual “object” of meditation, as far as we can reify it as an “object” at all.

The word anatta has at its root the word atman or atta, meaning ‘self.’ The prefix ‘an’ simply means ‘not.’ In the same way we can analyze the word unwise; ‘un-wise’ means ‘not wise.’ This is a different meaning than there is no such thing as wisdom. The Buddha never denied the existence of the self, but rather the identification of the self with phenomena. The internationally renowned Japanese professor Hajime Nakamura, for instance, confirms that the Buddha never denied the existence of self. For example, Nakamura writes:

Buddhism denies the assumption of the existence of atman as metaphysical principle; hence this Buddhist theory is called the theory of ‘not-self.’ However, it never denies atman itself. It merely insists that any object which can be seen in the objective world is not atman. Regarding the question whether atman exists or not, Buddhism gives no answer, neither affirming nor denying the existence of atman. … Therefore, it is not correct to understand Buddhism as the theory of the non-existence of soul. … The Buddha clearly told us what the self is not, but he did not give any clear account of what it is. It is quite wrong to think that there is no self at all according to Buddhism.” (pp.104f.).

Nakamura calls this the True Self. Nakamura says, “the realization of Nirvana can be explained as taking refuge in one’s true self” (p. 107). Since the Buddha did not deny the existence of a self, I would argue to no longer use the words ‘no self’ as a translation for anatta, since ‘no self’ sounds like an absolute negation of the existence of self. Now that we realize that the Buddha did not deny the existence of the self, we also need to realize that the Buddha did not deny individuality.

Personality view

The Buddha explains what personality is in the Culavedalla Sutra in the Majjhima Nikaya;

…these five aggregates affected by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One; that is, the material form aggregate affected by clinging, the feeling aggregate affected by clinging, the perception aggregate affected by clinging, the formations aggregate affected by clinging, and the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging. These five aggregates affected by clinging are called personality by he Blessed one. (MN 44.2)

According to the Buddha all substances and qualities that make up a person’s being, the so-called aggregates or skandhas, are “empty of self.”  They are “not the self” and the whole complex, the whole being they constitute is also “not the self”; personality is ‘not self’ according to the Buddha. A little further in the same sutra the Buddha explains what brings about this personality or personality view. I again quote from the same source.

…it is craving which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the origin of personality by the Blessed one. (MN 44.3)

In the Chachakka Sutra (MN 148) (5th cent. BCE) we find an interesting few paragraphs on the issue of self and personality. It is because of this sutra that I find it very necessary to talk about what the Buddha said about ‘self’ and ‘not self.’ Obviously, it is a topic that is very much misunderstood. If we, for instance. read the comments on this Chachakka Sutra in the introduction we see Bodhi come to this following conclusion; I quote from the introduction, from the paragraph in the introduction called “The Teaching of Non-Self,” in which the translator’s appear to dwell on their notion that the Buddha actually did teach that there is ‘no self’:

The notion of self has only a conventional validity, as a convenient shorthand device for denoting a composite insubstantial situation. It does not signify any ultimate immutable entity subsisting at the core of our being. (p. 28)

Bodhi very much finesses his language here. It depends very much on what is meant by the term “entity.” Although he may be technically correct, he certainly gives the impression that there is no True Self (“the notion of self has only a conventional validity”), which as we have seen is wrong. Nakamura points out that “Nagasena drew a negative inference that there was no soul from the silent attitude of the Buddha on the problem of the soul. This opinion became the orthodox teaching of Hinayana Buddhism” (p. 109), so it is quite possible that Bodhi, as a committed Theravadin, is ambivalent here. At the same time, it is certainly true that we should not reify “the Deathless” or even the “stream of consciousness” (santana) as an “entity.”

Let us therefore have a look at Chachakka Sutra, ourselves and see what it says. The topic is the “Demonstration of Not Self,” which interestingly is different from the label given to it, in the introduction by the translators, in which they talked about “The Teaching of Non-Self” (p. 27). But lets first read what the sutra says in the paragraph “Demonstration of Not Self”:

If anyone says ‘The eye is self’, that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the eye are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The eye is self.’ Thus the eye is not self. (MN 148.10.(i))

This paragraph repeats the same reasoning for all skandhas; all these skandhas are not self according to the Buddha: the eye, forms, eye consciousness, eye contact, feeling, craving, the ear, sounds, ear consciousness, ear contact, the nose etc. , the tongue etc., the body etc., mind, mind objects, mind consciousness and mind contact — they all are labeled as not self by the Buddha. According to Buddha all these skandhas, together, make up the “person.” According to the Buddha, saying that one (or all) of these skandhas are Self, would lead to the conclusion that the Self would also be subject to rise and fall, since these skandhas are subject to rise and fall. The Buddha however clearly says that the conclusion that self is subject to rise and fall is an untenable position. The Buddha only wanted to make clear that the skandhas are not the Self, which is a different statement than saying that self does not exist, which would constitute a teaching of not-self. The Buddha ends his statement with the clear conclusion of his reasoning, being: “Thus the eye is not self.”

If the goal of these paragraphs were to prove that there is no self, that the self does not exist, the obvious clear conclusion of this train of reasoning would be: Thus, self does not exist. The translators named the chapter correctly “Demonstration of Not Self,” but the demonstration only was showing that those skandhas are not the True Self. Interestingly the Buddha then, after explaining that the skandhas are not Self, goes on explaining what gives rise to personality view, the illusory notion of a permanent self (Bodhi’s “entity”) in the skandhas or the form and faculties of a person:

Now, bhikkhus, this is the way leading to the origination of personality. One regards the eye thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ One regards forms thus…One regards eye-consciousness thus…One regards eye-contact thus…One regards feeling thus…One regards craving thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ (MN 148.16)

Then, after explaining that the skandhas are not self and explaining that identifying with the skandhas as Self, will give rise to personality view, the Buddha goes on explaining how to cease (the arising of) personality view, by realizing that the skandhas are not the Self. The Buddha does not explain anywhere the need for, or how to cease the notion of being ‘a Self.’ Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is a mistake to think the eye or any, or all, of the skandhas or bases is the Self and that thinking like that gives rise to personality view. The wrong notion of ‘self’ is the illusory idea that the body and its components would constitute some permanent being.

Throughout the Pali Canon there are no instances where the Buddha denies the existence of Self. There are plenty of instances referring to the enlightenment and the Deathless throughout and one must wonder what enlightenment would be like if there would not be a ‘self’ to experience it.

Chain of interdependent arising

Even in the Pali Canon we can see how much this line of reasoning is correct when we study the chain of interdependent arising. The chain of interdependent arising, of course, is Buddha’s description of the way a person becomes a being or a person in the world. In the standard, twelvefold chain the chain of interdependent arising starts with ‘ignorance.’ When consciousness has arisen this consciousness takes the steps that lead to becoming and birth and death. This process is universal, but it is also individual, especially with reference to past volitional formations or skandhas.

Also, in this doctrine of the chain of interdependent arising we see the same principles presented; it starts with consciousness-potentiality (in the tenfold variation) which includes the inherent potential of the Deathless or Buddha-nature, corresponding to Brahman or Atman, respectively. Then at some point “it” takes name and form which results in a series of the steps leading to an illusory being that is “not self.” Lost in the illusory ego the being no longer knows its true nature and wanders about in dualistic samsara until it liberates itself. Most important however, the Buddha taught we should not cling to anything and especially we should not cling to any notion of self, because clinging to any notion of self whatsoever limits us and leads to suffering.

I especially want to underscore that holding on to the idea that Self does not exist, also is clinging to a specific notion of self, a notion that is not supported by the Buddha’s teachings on the subject on atta, ‘Self,’ and anatta, or ‘not self,’ which for that reason is one of the worst notions of self to cling to. Not clinging to notions of self is good advice, since notions of self will lead to corresponding destinations in samsara. The creative force driving the universe reflects itself in us and therefore we will make happen what we believe and/or wish to experience. So do not project any notion or any concept out from your mind if you wish to attain the perfect enlightenment and liberation the Buddha taught.

The Mahayana Tradition

The Heart Sutra (5th–6th cent CE)

In the early days of Buddhism divisions arose in the Buddhist community on many topics. Many different schools, based on various doctrines, appeared and many disappeared again. Of course, the biggest remaining branch on the tree of Buddhist schools is the Mahayana tradition. A minority of Buddhists do not accept the Mahayana tradition as authentic. Nevertheless, the Mahayana texts and sutra’s hold much to learn about our topic of self.

First, let us all look at the famous Heart Sutra. Remember that all religious philosophies are about the nature of self and whether it is permanent or impermanent as I pointed out at the beginning. I believe that the Heart Sutra is mostly very misunderstood, but it  is about the quest for the nature of self. In the beginning of the Heart Sutra, we find this statement:

…the bodhisattva mahasattva arya Avalokiteshvara looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature.

Avalokiteshvara was looking to perfect his wisdom and was therefore investigating the makeup of the constitution of a human being, which Buddhism calls ‘skandhas’ or aggregates, and he found that there is ‘no Self’ (“empty of inherent nature”) in the skandhas or aggregates. The phrase “inherent nature” refers to ‘that which is permanent. We all know the Buddha taught that everything in the universe is compounded and made up of components and everything that lacks permanence will fall apart at some point in time. Such compounded things lack “inherent nature,” while if they would have “inherent nature” they would not be subject to “rise and fall.” Therefore, realizing that Avalokiteshvara was looking at the constitution of people, the phrasing “empty of inherent nature” can only mean “empty of a permanent self.” The rest of the Heart Sutra simply expounds on that finding by saying, for instance,

Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness are empty.

The Heart Sutra teaches that form is not Self, or in today’s English it would be better to say, “self can not be found in form.” Why is it better to say it that way? This is so because obviously Avalokiteshvara was looking for the location of the ‘self.’ This fact and the fact that Buddha never denied the existence of Self, and therefore did not rebuke Avalokiteshvara for looking for the location of Self is a confirmation of the existence of Self, in Buddha’s view on the topic.

The Diamond Sutra (400–500 CE)

We will have a short look at some quotes from the Diamond Sutra and draw some interesting lessons from them.

All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has been liberated. (chap. 3)

Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple. (chap. 3)

1. In the Sutra, it says it is “me” who will eventually lead all beings to liberation.

This “me” speaking is the Buddha that will lead all to liberation. This refers to the famous and so-called Buddha nature present in all beings.

2. beings are nonexistent or an illusion at best, since the sutra says that when innumerable beings have been liberated, then none have been liberated.

3. clinging to arbitrary illusions of self makes one an unauthentic disciple of the Buddha.

Subhuti, when someone is selflessly charitable, they should also practice being ethical by remembering that there is no distinction between one’s self and the self-hood of others. Thus one practices charity by giving not only gifts, but through kindness and sympathy. Practice kindness and charity without attachment and you can become fully enlightened. (chap. 23)

When we look at the Diamond Sutra (chapter 23) we find the Buddha giving an interesting statement, reminding us that there is no distinction between oneself and the selfhood of others.

Subhuti, do not say that the Buddha has the idea, ‘I will lead all sentient beings to Nirvana.’ Do not think that way, Subhuti. Why? In truth there is not one single being for the Buddha to lead to Enlightenment. If the Buddha were to think there was, he would be caught in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. Subhuti, what the Buddha calls a self essentially has no self in the way that ordinary persons think there is a self. Subhuti, the Buddha does not regard anyone as an ordinary person. That is why he can speak of them as ordinary persons. (chap. 25)

The Diamond Sutra tells us that what the Buddha calls a Self, has no Self in the way that ordinary persons think of a Self. From these few instances of the vast number of Mahayana sutras we learn not only that they maintain what we saw in the Pali Canon, that things or beings inside the universe are not self. But we also see a confirmation that the Buddha does call something a ‘self,’ although it is no ordinary self as people commonly understand a self or ego. On top of that and importantly we learn that the Buddha does not regard persons or being as separate beings; there is no distinction between the selfhood of individuals.

It may now be clearer what Buddha teaches about Self and not-self. There is a distinction to be made between what is not subject to rise and fall and which has permanence, which Buddha calls ‘self’ in the Chachakka Sutra (MN 148), and anatta, not-self, which lacks permanence and what is subject to rise and fall, like the notion of “being a permanent personality.”

Conclusion

If you wish to remember anything from this presentation it first should be that the Buddha taught us not to cling to any notion of a self, since it is clinging to any notion of self that keeps us trapped in samsara. to cling to any notion of a self, since it is clinging to any notion of self that keeps us trapped in samsara. 

This presentation is free of copyright and is released by the author into the public domain.

References

Dalai Lama. The Buddha Nature: Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism. Trans. Christof Spitz. Rev. ed. Catherine Hunter. 1997; rpt. Woodside, CA: Bluestar Communications,  1999.

Ireland John D., trans. The Udana: Inspired Utterances of the Buddha & the Itivuttaka: The Buddha’s Sayings. Second Edition. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society,  1997.

Johnson, Alex. “The Diamond Sutra: The Perfection of Wisdom.” Sacred Texts, 2005. https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dia/index.htm. Accessed January 5, 2025.

Nakamura, Hajime. “The Problem of Self in Buddhist Philosophy.” In Harold Coward and Krishna Sivaraman, Revelation in Indian Thought: A Festschrift in Honour of Professor T.R.V. Murti. Emeryville, CA: Dharma Publishing, 1977, pp. 99–118. 

Nanamoli, Bhikkhu, trans. and Bhikkhu Bodhi, ed. rev. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. The Teachings of the Buddha. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.

Rhys Davids, T.W. and Wlliam Stede. Pali-English Dictionary. 1921–1925; rpt. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2007.

Tomh, Seten, trans. The Good Path of Laozi. Toronto: Eonic Press, 2022.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927–1928. Corrected Edition. Ed. David Ray Griffon and Donald W. Sherburne. 1978; rpt. New York: Free Press, 1975.

Wikipedia. “Anatta.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81. November 3, 2024.

———-. “Mindstream.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream. December 12, 2024.

Wong, Faye. The Heart Sutra 心经 王菲. Pure Land Buddhism. YouTube video, 3:45. February 13, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2pMeScp7k.

Appendix

The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra
(Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra)

Thus have I heard:

The Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, while dwelling in the deep state of meditative absorption known as the perfection of wisdom, clearly saw that the five aggregates (skandhas)—form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness—are empty of inherent nature. Realizing this, he awakened to the truth of the Self that is unconditioned and limitless.

Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.
Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form.
In the same way, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are also empty of separateness. Yet in their emptiness, they are not a denial of existence but a revelation of the boundless, True Self beyond illusion.

O Śāriputra,
All phenomena are like this: devoid of fixed essence, beyond arising or ceasing, neither pure nor impure, neither increasing nor decreasing. They exist as reflections within the mirror of the unconditioned Self, free from distortion. This is the nature of the True Self—the emptiness of all grasping and clinging.

Therefore, Śāriputra,
In emptiness, there is no form, no sensation, no perception, no mental formation, no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no sight, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no thought.
There is no realm of sight, and so on, until there is no realm of mind-consciousness. There is no ignorance, nor its cessation. There is no aging and death, nor their cessation. There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path. There is no knowledge, no attainment, and no non-attainment.

The wisdom of emptiness (prajñā) reveals the True Self—not as a separate, personal entity, but as the unconditioned ground of being. It is free from egoic illusions, unbound by time, untouched by suffering. This wisdom liberates.

Therefore,
Relying on this wisdom, the mind is free from fear. One dwells in the clarity of the True Self, beyond the turbulence of attachment and aversion. This is the great liberation, the awakening to non-dual reality.

By awakening to this truth, all Buddhas of the past, present, and future have relied upon the perfection of wisdom to realize supreme enlightenment—the True Self, luminous and complete.

Therefore, know that the perfection of wisdom is a mantra of great power:
A mantra of truth, a mantra of illumination, a mantra of non-duality.
This is the mantra declared:

Gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā.
(“Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond—Awakening, so it is.”)

Buddha Centre, Wednesday, January 1, 2025.

Edited by Seten Tomh.