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

The question asked in the title of this presentation could be answered in a single sentence. Just a few words. I will save that to the end of course.

The issue of the mortality or immortality 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 mostly according to the Pali Canon and a little according to 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, but we will give the last word to the Buddha.

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 a purported Chinese Buddhist monastic (actually an American) who actually claimed that since there is literally no self of any description 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.

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 has to be a mistake somewhere for those who believe that there is literally no self, because If the Buddha supposedly taught a practice of self-analysis and self-control, there is literally nothing to analyze or control if there would be no literally self.

Understanding what exactly the Buddha has said about self – and not-self – is necessary in order to be able to practice the true path.

Religious Philosophy in India Before the Buddha

The central philosophical question in early Indian thought was whether the self (ātman) is permanent, changeless, and free from suffering, or whether, as in modern materialism, it simply ceases to exist at death. Long before the Buddha, Indian traditions were already deeply engaged with this question, and the Buddha’s teachings can be understood as responding to this earlier intellectual background.

Cyclical cosmos and impermanence

According to the Vedic and other ancient Indian traditions, the universe is not linear but cyclical: worlds arise, exist for a time, and eventually dissolve, only to arise again in an ongoing process. Because everything is part of this cycle, all phenomena are considered non-absolute and therefore ultimately impermanent. This view resembles the Buddhist emphasis on impermanence and rebirth. Since everything depends on conditions, the question arises: what is the ultimate origin of these conditions?

Brahman as the ultimate substratum

Pre-Buddhist seers (ṛṣis) proposed the existence of an “underlying”, unknowable reality from which all existence arises. This substratum lies beyond the universe itself: it is changeless, perfect, and eternal, whether or not a world is manifest. This principle is called Brahman, understood as the Absolute Reality, Pure Consciousness, and Pure Bliss. It is often described as the “uncaused cause” of all existence.

Atman and differing philosophical schools

Within Hindu thought, different schools developed different interpretations of the relationship between the world, the self, and Brahman.

Some traditions argue that everything—including the individual self—is ultimately identical with Brahman. In this view, the personal self is not separate but a manifestation or reflection of the absolute reality. This universal essence is called Ātman (literally ‘breath’), the true Self present in all beings. Realizing this identity through spiritual practice leads to liberation and immortality, according to these Vedic traditions.

Other schools, however, maintain a distinction between the world and its ultimate source, sometimes positing a personal creator deity (Brahma) within the universe. In these views, the individual self is real and permanent, like the soul in Christianity and is understood as the preservation of this individual identity.

Atman as the True Self

In the non-dual interpretation, Atman is regarded as the inner reality of all beings. Since Brahman pervades everything, Atman also pervades everything and is ultimately identical with Brahman. Therefore, Atman is changeless and universal, not limited to individual personality but representing the deepest essence of existence itself. This describes the early Vedic view.

Originally, in the early Veda’s, Ātman likely meant “breath” or “life-force,” referring to the animating principle of life. Later in the Upanishads, Ātman is being described as the innermost Self: eternal, unborn, unchanging, and distinct from body, mind, and ego. It is described as the ultimate Subject or Witness of all experience.

The Upanishads’ central insight is the identity of Ātman and Brahman: the deepest Self of all beings is identical to ultimate reality. This is expressed in the statements “Tat Tvam Asi” (“That thou art”) and “Aham Brahmāsmi” (“I am Brahman”), where “I” refers not to the ego but to the deepest Self.

So in the old Vedic tradition we clearly see the doctrine that a personal identity view is denounced and the deepest spiritual realization lies in the recognition of the reality of the Atman as the True Self, which again, is said to be eternal, unborn, unchanging, and distinct from body, mind, and ego.

The Brahmanic misinterpretation

At the time of the Buddha, many Brahmanical thinkers held a range of views about the self (ātman) and its fate after death. A common idea in some strands of Brahmanical religion was that a true, eternal self or soul exists and can attain a permanent, blissful state after death, often in relation to Brahma or a divine realm.

In popular religious practice, this was sometimes linked to the belief that ritual action, correct conduct, and knowledge of the Vedas—especially performed by Brahmins—could secure a privileged post-mortem destiny. This contributed to the social idea that Brahmins held a special religious status, both in society and in the cosmic order.

Buddha’s response

The Buddha’s teaching, while primarily aimed at liberation from suffering, also clearly responds to contemporary Brahmanical ideas of religious exclusivity. He rejects the notion of an inherently superior priestly status and the belief in a permanent, privileged self or guaranteed spiritual rank based on birth or ritual. Instead, he emphasizes that liberation depends on ethical conduct, insight, and mental training, which are accessible to all, regardless of caste or social position.

Buddha’s teaching

Now that we have examined the original meaning of the term Ātman as referring to the True Self in the early Vedic tradition, we will turn to what the Buddha taught about the self, non-self, and the concept of True Self.

The Pali Canon

Born from a wealthy and important family and well educated, Gautama has to 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)

Clearly the Buddha teaches the impermanence of the existing world. That one would want to escape from this impermanence and its accompanying suffering is self evident. In the quote the Buddha states there is this ‘something’ , whether thing or state of being never gets resolved in the Nikaya’s’, but this something is an absolute necessity for the possibility of escaping the impermanence to exist.

Thus, although the Buddha rejected theism, the Buddha posited that ‘the Deathless or the Unborn’ is permanent, changeless, and blissful. The Deathless quite obviously corresponds to the Hindu concept of Brahman, but the Buddha never gave any indication that this Deathless or Unborn is supposedly a creator god in need of worship.

The Buddha refers to the realization of the dharma, which effects escape from this world of impermanence, as nirvana (“emancipation”) and the realization of “the Deathless”. This ends the otherwise endless cycle of becoming over and over again, through repeated births and deaths. Such a liberated one is called an Arahant. The Buddha too, of course was, an Arahant, but he was a Sammāsambuddha, he liberated himself through his owen Superknowledge and he often refered to himself with ‘the Tathagata (“he who has thus come and gone”)’.

The Buddha repudiated nihilism and never taught suicide as a means of liberation. Rather than defining the liberated state ontologically, he repeatedly declined to answer such questions, indicating that the liberated one cannot adequately be described by the ordinary categories of existence and non-existence.

Obviously the Buddha was aware what the brahmanic caste had done with the ontological approach of reality; they claimed to have been born from Brahma’s mouth – which Buddha openly proved wrong.

The Pali Canon confirms that this unchanging refuge or ‘Deathless’ actually is the heart 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 has to have been the same always and thus it is changeless in every conceivable sence.

Again; 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 totally dependent on the reality of that Deathless.
The possibility of attaining the liberation Buddha called the Deathless has to mean that this state of attainment always has to have been present, at least as a potentiality. When a person attains to this liberation, attains the Deathless. This is what they speak out loud: “My mind is liberated.” Immediately thereafter follows the absolute knowing:

“Birth is ended.
The holy life has been fulfilled.
What had to be done has been done.
There is no return to this state of existence.”

Just to make sure what is being said here is clear: the still-living, embodied person attains the Deathless. The Deathless is described as unchanging. The liberated person is no longer caught in the flowing river of constant change and becoming. They have attained the unchanging freedom of liberation. This, of course, does not mean the death of ‘mind’, since they remain alive and the mind has been liberated.

We of course know that the Buddha after having attained liberation had to leave the body for its natural decaying. However the Arahant Tathagata remained a liberated mind.

This seems to stand in absolute contrast with the notion that a self does not exist and is supposedly just a comfortable label to be used in daily life.

Non-self and self

The word anatta has at its root the word atman or atta, meaning ‘self’, as we already saw when looking at its Vedic root.

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 any 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; …

this is a strange thing to say if we see the way Nakamura continues this quote, but he wrote it down neverthelss so again Nakamura wrote:

Buddhism denies the assumption of the existence of atman as metaphysical principle; hence this Buddhist theory is called the theory of ‘non-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). Based on the fact that 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. ‘Non-ego’ or ‘no-personality-soul’ would be a better and more understandable term. It is the absoluteness of the empirical self or ego, bound up as it is with phenomena, that is rejected. 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, not self and personality. It is because of this sutra that I find it very necessary to talk about what the Buddha actually 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 (in a moment) will 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 wording ‘Teaching of non self’ at a minimum feels much more like an ontological statement than sutta itself is posing. In the sutta the paragraph actually is called ‘Demonstration of not self ‘, this subtitle itself is not from the original Pali sutta, but added by the translators too.

Here now is the quote from the introduction called ‘Teaching of non 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 in the introduction certainly gives the impression that there is no self by saying “the notion of self has only a conventional validity” and “the notion of self does not signify any ultimate immutable entity subsisting at the core of our being” This statement comes on top of misleadingly labeling the reference in the introduction ‘Teaching of non self ‘ which we should not imagine to be done by mistake.

Nakamura, the Japanese professor, 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 it seems that Bodhi, as a committed Theravadin, is adhering to his tradition here. At the same time, it is certainly true that we should not reify “the Deathless”) as an “entity.” More likely the Deathless is a description of experience, since the Buddha always used the entry point of direct experience to look at reality. There of course is supposed to be an entity to experience it; the liberated mind.

Self and not self

Let us therefore now have a look at Chachakka Sutra, and see what it says. The topic we need to have a look at is called “Demonstration of Not Self,”Lets read what the sutta 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 totally different statement than saying that self does not exist, which would constitute a teaching of ‘non-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 was to prove that there is no self, that the self does not exist, the obvious clear conclusion to be spoken at the end of this train of reasoning would be: ‘Thus self does not exist’.

The translators named the chapter correctly “Demonstration of Not Self,” since the demonstration only is showing that those skandhas are not the self.

Interestingly the Buddha then in the Chachakka sutta, 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 to be drawn from reading these paragraphs 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’; the illusionary idea that the body and its components would constitute some permanent being.

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

Chain of interdependent arising

The chain of interdependent arising, of course, is Buddha’s description of the way a person becomes precisely that, a being, or a person in the world. The standard, twelvefold chain of interdependent arising starts with ‘ignorance.’ When ignorance has arisen or exists the potential being takes the steps that lead ultimately to becoming and to 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 perhaps 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.” Being ignorant of its true nature and lost in the illusory ego the being wanders about in dualistic samsara until it liberates itself.

Having said all this, and as a last point here in the section on the Pali Canon it is of the utmost importance to remember that the Buddha taught us not to cling to anything, and especially not to any notion of self in the MN 2 ‘Abbāsava Sutta ‘.
Clinging to any conception of self, however subtle or refined, imposes limitations and gives rise to suffering.

I especially want to emphasize that clinging to the belief that there is no Self is itself a form of clinging to a particular view of self. Such view and attachment is, in my understanding, not supported by the Buddha’s teaching on attā (“Self”) and anattā (“not-self”). For that reason, it is one of the most restrictive views of self to which one can cling.

Not clinging to notions of self is wise advice, since our notions of self lead to corresponding destinations in saṃsāra. The creative force that drives the universe is reflected within us; therefore, we ultimately become what we truly believe ourselves to be and what we deeply aspire to experience. For this reason, do not project any notion or concept of self from your mind if you wish to attain the perfect enlightenment and liberation taught by the Buddha.

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, were founded and many disappeared again. Of course, the biggest remaining branch on the tree of Buddhist schools is the Mahayana tradition. The Mahayana tradition is not accepted by a minority of Buddhists 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. The Heart Sutra is mostly very misunderstood I believe, but it actually 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 in Buddhism are named ‘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.

Dzogchen imagery

Before coming to a conclusion of this presentation we really should have a short look at the way our topic is seen or imaged, in the Dzogchen Buddhist tradition:

In Dzogchen, the primordial nature of awareness is called Rigpa—the pure, self-knowing awareness that is empty, luminous, and ever-present. It is like a perfectly clear mirror: unstained by whatever appears within it, yet capable of reflecting everything without preference or effort.

The opposite of Rigpa is Marigpa, fundamental unawareness or misrecognition. Marigpa does not destroy the mirror, nor does it alter its nature. Rather, it is like a reflection in the mirror imagining itself to be a separate entity. The image mistakes itself for an independent self, forgetting that it has no existence apart from the mirror in which it appears.

Likewise, a ripple upon the surface of a still lake may imagine itself to be an isolated wave, born and destined to disappear. Yet the ripple has never been anything other than the water itself. Its apparent individuality is only a temporary pattern. In the same way, the individual mind mistakes passing thoughts, emotions, and experiences for “I” and “mine,” while overlooking the timeless awareness in which they arise.

Realization is not the creation of something new, nor the attainment of another state. It is simply the recognition that one has always been the mirror rather than the image, the water rather than the ripple. Nothing needs to be added or removed; only the mistaken identification comes to an end.

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.

So what is the answer to the question in the title of this presentation?
Well, that self is an honest mistake, like a wave believing it’s the ocean! It is wet and flexible like the ocean, but it just is not the ocean.

Buddha Centre, Saturday, July 11, 2026.

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

• 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.
• 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.”)