My e-mail reply to JP on Nov. 10

Thank you for your reply and for sharing your ideas.



I was not surprised about your ideas of emptiness and

impermanence. In a way, I expected them to be that way.

I myself was "hit in the head" when I came upon the

doctrine of dependent origination, and had to re-evaluate

my ideas of the Buddha Dharma, which I've kept studying

for more than three decades. Before that, I even went as

far as Tantra, just to research on the origin of Tibetan,

Chinese, and Japanese vajrayana Buddhism.



I maintain that all phenomena are impermanent. To me,

the aggregates, consciousness, and even the Dharma are

impermanent. In this sense, I maintain that, for instance,

there is no eternal soul or entity that is going from one

life to the next. I, however, maintain that there is

rebirth due to karmic conditioning (if you feel a

logical/mental knot here, I shall elaborate for you in the

future when needed).



I *encourage* you to research on this topic, especially on

the part where the Buddha corrected (actually reprimanded)

Bhikkhu Sati (a monk in His sangha group) for his insistence

on the belief of an eternal consciousness or soul that goes

from one life to the next. Bhikkhu Sati, like so many

practitioners then and today, believed in an eternal self or

soul. Other bhikkhus in error, like so many practitioners

then and today, also believed that the doer of a deed is the

*same* receiver of karmic repercussions. The key error being

the belief on the same entity or a permanent self. In this way,

the bhikkhus in error harbored a concept of eternal existence

("chang jien" in Chinese) - an extremity, thus, not of the

Middle Path - whereas the Buddha specifically taught the

doctrine of dependent origination or the idea of impermanence.

(mind blowing? go research)



To my understanding, the term "sunyata" (emptiness or void)

is a term used to describe the effect of dependent origination

or impermanence. For instance, a fruit exists only as long as

its supporting conditions hold. The present state of fruit

(taste, texture, etc.) is due to causal conditions (karmic

conditioning in the case of a person). When the supporting

conditions change, so does the fruit; like it rottens in

time. In this sense, the fruit is impermanent and, therefore,

"empty" because it is devoid of an *independent* self.

Otherwise, it would be an entity that exists independent of

causal conditions or karmic conditioning, like how the

Christians believe their God to be. This same principle of

impermanence applies to all persons, things, phenomena,

consciousness, and even the Dharma (remember the line "all

dharmas are empty?" All as in all forms of dharma, from

"chu fa kong hsiang").



To my understanding, the term "emptiness" (or "void") used

in Buddhism, whether in Chinese or English, is most misleading.

People are prone to interpret the Dharma as preaching nihilism

("duan jien" in Chinese) - the other extremity, thus not of the

Middle Path - whereas the Buddha specifically taught the doctrine

of dependent origination or the idea of impermanence.



A long time ago, I also held the same concept as you do

about "emptiness" in my practice. It got me nowhere because I

could only repeat what the teachers or books said. Isn't it the

same with you now? Repeating the lessons; repeating what you are

taught about emptiness when you talk about it? As I see it, the

problem in this case is you can't even begin to comprehend

emptiness by attending to "emptiness" - because it is simply

a term used to describe the effect of dependent origination

or impermanence.



Since I was small, I always wondered what the Buddha

contemplated on under the tree. I wanted to have it so I could

become a Buddha. Today, I know it was the doctrine of dependent

origination that the Buddha Gotama discovered when he practiced

under the tree. I used "discovered" because, according to Him,

the doctrine was about the law of nature, which he discovered.

He did not invent the doctrine. Therefore, according to Him, any

person who is not a Buddhist but knows the doctrine can still

become a Buddha like Him. I am fortunate on being able to come in

touch with the doctrine. Now, I feel I have found the magga (Way).

Of course, the other part of the practice is actual.



Regarding your concerns... Rest assured that I have no intention

of misleading practitioners. To the best of my understanding,

my translation of the Heart Sutra is the right way to interpret

and report on the Buddha Dharma. As you will notice, my translation

of the Sutra is not literal, because my purpose is to relay the

message and not simply to repeat the words in another language.



If you take this discussion seriously enough, and would like

to explore, I can imagine it will bring about certain contradictions

or conflicts in your understanding of the Dharma. Especially, if you

hold the teachings of your school or teacher close to heart. Well,

I am not encouraging dissidence (he he he!), but, like how the

Buddha always wanted His tudents to do before, you might want to

investigate and find out the truth by yourself (refer to the

Kalama Sutra: http://www.alc.enta.net/kalama.htm). I believe every

person has his "yuen" in the Practice. There are many roads to the

destination. All I can suggest to you, on this issue, is pray for

guidance to be able to have the Right View and practice in the

Right Path.



As for me... I am not afraid to maintain my view - although it

goes against the mainstream and popular belief, which is apparent -

because of my vow. I do not seek freedom from rebirth - even if I

can attain the level of an arhat (!) someday, if ever anyway -

or stay in the Pureland (as many Chinese Buddhists hope for)

because of my vow. My only wish is, in my next lives in samsara,

I won't have to spend this much time (more than four decades!) in

coming to the magga and carry out my mission.



I am glad my e-mail started this discussion. I look forward to

reporting my personal discoveries to you by e-mail or in person

(now, we have something to discuss about when we meet in the future).



Should you find it worthwhile to read about the doctrine, my

Web pages have links to some helpful materials.  Also, I hope

you won't mind my sharing this discussion with others.