The Heart Sutra is the world's most popular Buddhist sutra. Sadly, from a young age, even I recognized something in its magical wording (Edward Conze translation). It had a small tract of it in English and Chinese, and I would approach Chinese friends to translate some of the incomprehensible parts -- one line in particular: "until we come to."
What in the world? It turns out that was just Conze's way of saying "...". And other parts were explained to me as having been written in an archaic form of Old (liturgical) Chinese few people spoke, which they were very embarrassed to admit. The Berkeley Zen Center was even more forthcoming, suggesting it was just something to chant, not something one could hope to make sense of, like a Sanskrit seed-mantra. So they just chanted it, on the one hand, rote, mindlessly, thoughtlessly, with no investigation that it might actually mean something sensible. I, on the other hand, was tenacious, spending years making sense of it. And every year it made more and more sense.
The lost meaning has been recovered.
My Theravada study of it revealed exactly what it was all about after a few years due to some key phrases that do not make sense on their own but make perfect sense as references to ancient Buddhist texts, such as lists of the BASES (ayatanas). The final crowning explanation came from Alan Watts* making sense of the strange wording, which might trip one up for years. I attribute this to a flexible way of translating any Sanskrit or Pali word, all of which have much wider valence, admitting to a range of translations, not one fixed English word to serve all situations.
The key secret is to realize that Śūnyatā ("Emptiness," void) is synonymous with the Pali suññatā ("impersonal" = anatta). Then everything else falls into place.
This is because what the Heart Sutra (Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdayaDiscourse) is talking about are the Five Aggregates clung to as self, pointing out that every "heap" -- each one of the Five Aggregates -- is actually devoid of self. It is impersonal and is in that sense "empty." It has no "independent existence." What kind of existence does it have? It has a dependently-originated one. It is foolish to think there is nothing there at all as if all things were the void: There is no thing there, but there is something, some stuff, something is appearing. In the ultimate sense, "things" (dhammas, dharmas, phenomena) have an existence and so are called "things." The one thing that is not a thing is nirvana (the deathless, amata/amrita, the unconditioned element). Nirvana, being free of conditions, does not bear the (three universal) marks of "things." This "self" we cling to is just such a "thing," a conglomeration of other "things" (aggregates, groups, heaps), bearing the universal marks of being impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal.
"Self" arises in this way, not as a real entity but an illusion brought about by the presence of the aggregates. When one grasps that all there has ever been are phenomenal aggregates -- impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal -- then the heart naturally lets go with no prompting and becomes free of all clinging and all further suffering.
It is called the "Heart" (hṛdaya) Sutra not because of emotions or sweetness but because it comes as the culmination, the brief summary, the pith, the essence of 100,000 lines or verses of detailed explanation. It is the essence of perfected wisdom. It is the key to stream entry, that which when not grasped keeps us as ordinary worldling but when grasped causes a "change of lineage" (gotrabhu) to the noble ones. The Buddha himself said it. There are not enlightened disciples to be found in other traditions, at least not in the Buddhist sense of the term bodhi ("awakened," "enlightened," "liberated") because nowhere else is this Doctrine of No-Self ever taught, ever revealed, ever explained, although all popular religions seem to have an innate understanding that being egoless is far wiser than being full of ego. For example, in popular Christianity, in the eyes of God, what is the worst sin? Pride.
Beloved Kwan Yin (Guanyin)
Better than [the Goddess of Compassion] Kwan Yin (the feminine form of Avalokiteshvara)? More beloved than [the Cosmic Buddha of Light] Amitabha? No, probably not, but what is higher and more exalted than wisdom?
The Buddha himself noted how popular and beloved Ananda was, whereas the monastics did not seem to realize the kalyana-mitta (noble/enlightening friendship) potential of Ven. Sariputta, the male monastic he declared foremost in wisdom. One can easily imagine the same thing must have happened among the females with the Buddha highlighting the value of the great bhikkhuni Ven. Khema, the nun he declared foremost in wisdom.
Now, one may ask, Why is Avalokiteśvara -- who is later transformed into the Goddess or Personification of Compassion (Kwan Yin/Guanyin) -- addressing Ven. Sariputra of all people in this most famous of all apocryphal "discourses"?
UCLA Prof. Robert E. Buswell Jr. (who ordained as a monk in Korean Zen then Sri Lankan Theravada before becoming a Western academic) explained the reason to us in class. Brahminical/Chinese Mahayana is holding up the monk disciple (shravaka) the Buddha declared "foremost in wisdom" as a scarecrow, stick figure, or punching bag to mock his supposed "wisdom," as if he were a mere intellect, a clueless egghead, a Brahmin nerd, a clueless dork compared to their god (deva, deity) Avalokita, whom they declare an "enlightenment being" (bodhi-sattva) and "great being" (maha-sattva, a Mahayana maha-sthamaprapta).
Wow, this perfection of wisdom is cool! It's eye-opening!
Avi, awake and wanting to awaken others, was reviewing the wisdom that has gone beyond. He looked down from on high and saw just five heaps, saw that in and of themselves they are impersonal, NOT A SELF, empty.
Herein, Sali, form implies emptiness, and emptiness implies form. Emptiness is not different than form, and form is not different than emptiness. They are mutually dependent. Anything that is empty, impersonal, and not-self is form.
[Conze translates these famous line as: "Form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form; form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is emptiness, that is form; [whatever is form, that is emptiness;] the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses (cetana, volitions), and consciousness."
What in the world does it mean? "Form" (Rūpa) and "Emptiness" (Pali Suññatā, Sanskrit Śūnyatā), Alan Watts explains in the video below, go together, are inseparable, are relational, one revealing the other, making no sense without the other. The instant one comes into being (arises), the other necessarily comes into being at the same time, for one cannot be without the other, just as opposite pairs depend on one another: being/nonbeing, birth/death, origin/cessation, yin/yang, figure/background. One would be meaningless without the other, for the other provides contrast and give it its definition.
So it would, in fact, be more sensible (better for meaning) to translate this line as, "Form (shape, color) reveals (exactly is, is inseparable from, always goes with, is inseparably related to) emptiness..." or "Form (solidity, density, tangibility) is not (designated, defined, found) without emptiness (a hollow or void) because they co-arise mutually. "One (exhibits) brings out the fact of the other.]
Herein [here within this Doctrine], Sali, all phenomena are impersonal. They bear the mark of being impersonal, empty: They are not produced and not stopped, not dirty and not clean, not missing something and not full.
There are no bases for these things [that are all dependently originated]: no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, nor the things that impinge on them: forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or objects of mind, nor the things these sense depend on for their sensitivity: no element (sensitive tissue) of sight, and so forth, until we come to: no element (sensitive tissue) at the heart of consciousness.
[Why? It is because, after all, all things are impersonal, empty, not a self, so a bunch of them together don't make a self either).]
Likewise, really, there is no ignorance, so there is no end of ignorance [since it doesn't really exist except as an illusion), and so forth, until we come to: There is no aging and death, no end of aging and death. There is no disappointment, no coming into being, no extinction, and no path to the extinction of disappointment. There is no knowing, no attainment, and there is no non-attainment of this realization.
And so, Sali, because of one's not-attaining anything that a being-bent-on-enlightenment, perfecting this wisdom that has gone beyond, dwells free of discursive thoughts. In their absence, one is free of trembling. One has overcome all that can upset and so realized nirvana.
All those who appear as supremely awakened teachers the three periods of time -- past, present, and future -- fully awake to this utmost realization, right and perfect awakening because they have perfected the wisdom that has gone beyond.
So, Sali, everyone should know this perfection of wisdom as a kind of mantra, the mantra of great knowing, the utmost mantra, the unequalled mantra, the allayer of all disappointment and ill. It's true; I mean, what could really go wrong except that it be an illusion?
By perfecting the wisdom that has gone beyond, this mantra becomes clear, and it runs like this:
Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!
("Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, oh what an awakening, it's true!")
(Dalai Lama) Can everyone be enlightened?Moksha("liberation," vimutti, "freedom" from samsara and suffering, "deliverance," salvation) is of two kinds, two levels, a happy life here and now [with possibly a heavenly rebirth for moral behavior hereafter] or attaining liberating-insight and final emancipation here and now in this very life through moral behavior, stillness (samadhi, settled calm, concentration), and vipassana (comprehending and cultivating Dependent Origination sufficient in theory and complete in practice).
Buddha's Wisdom (video); Dalai Lama (Q&A); Khenpo Sodargye (Q&A); Alan Watts (Zen Reconsidered, Pt. 2); Dhr. Seven (text), CC Liu (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly
I was trying to read the Heart Sutra to chant it in Sanskrit. But it doesn't make any sense translated into English. At least it didn't until Wisdom Quarterly's Dharma editor explained it.* Now it's clear. Now I know why "enlightenment" eludes me. Now I know what to study and put into practice to know-and-see. Thanks, WQ!
one is called a noble disciple who is a stream-winner, no longer liable to ever fall into subhuman states of woe [1], assured of full and final enlightenment."
NOTE: 1.
The "stream-winner" (sotapanna) is sure to become fully enlightened (an arahant) within seven rebirths and will not be reborn more than seven more times, and such a person will never again be reborn in any state lower than the human plane.
the one "with seven rebirths at the utmost" (sattakkhattu-parama) ["one with only seven further rebirths at the utmost," is one of the three kinds of stream-winners (sotāpannas).
the one "passing from one noble family to another" (kolankola),
the one "germinating only once more" (eka-bījī, lit. "one seed" or perhaps "at most once more seeded").]
(1) "If a person, after the disappearance of the three lower fetters (personality-belief, skeptical doubt, attachment to rites and rituals), see samyojana), has entered the stream [that leads inevitably to nirvana], that person is no longer subject to any rebirth in the lower worlds [anywhere below the human plane], is firmly established, destined to reach full enlightenment. After having passed among celestial beings (deva) and human beings (manussya) only at most seven times more through the Round of Rebirths, one puts an end to all suffering. Such a person is called "one with seven rebirths at the utmost" (sattakkhattu-parama).
I continued to practice to make an end of all ill.
(2) "If a person, after the disappearance of the three fetters.... is destined to reach full enlightenment, that person, after having passed among noble families two or three times through the round of rebirths, makes an end of all suffering. Such a person is called "one passing from one noble family to another" (kolankola).
(3) "If a person, after the disappearance of the three fetters...is destined to full enlightenment, one, after having only once more returned to the human plane, makes an end of all suffering. Such a person is called "one germinating only once more" (eka-bījī).
7. This is an encouraging message for many! Compare it to the end of MN 22 and also the charming image of the newborn calf in MN 34. The Commentary (MA) to MN 22 says such people are termed "lesser stream-winners" (cula-sota-panna). This term is discussed in The Path of Purification (VM XIX, 27). [This term is more fully explained in The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga).] The stress laid here on the importance of faith (actually saddha, "confidence," "conviction," the trust sufficient to investigate that precedes personal verification) is interesting in view of later developments such as the Pure Land schools (e.g., Jodo-Shinshu or "Shin-Buddhism" in Japan).
(SN 22.109 PTS: S iii 160 CDB i 9650)
Maurice O'Connell Walshe (trans.), Sotapanno Sutta: The Sotapanna, "The Stream-Winner" Pali title based on PTS (Feer) edition; Dhr. Seven (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly
(SEEKER TO SEEKER) Buddhist non-duality [there being no distinction between seen and seer in the Mind Only School] sees all of reality as the activity of consciousness.
Divisions such as subject and object, mind and matter, self and world, [nirvana and samsara], are artificially created by consciousness in the process of simulating an external reality.
This video explores the philosophy of the Yogācāra School of Buddhism, a tradition that specializes in the study of mind—and how insight into the mind's workings can transform our way of being.
📝 SCRIPT: Read the script of this video essay on the author's personal Substack page: [soon...]. Video editing by Sempiter & Simeon
#Buddhism #nonduality#AdvaitaVedanta#Neo-Advaita#meditation #philosophy #awakening #enlightenment. How this was made: auto-dubbed
audio tracks for some languages were automatically generated. Learn more
SEEKER TO SEEKER, Jan. 23, 2026; Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
In the West we tend to believe “you can't get something for nothing,” but in this program Watts explores the possibility that nothing may be the very basis of something — and uses the example of sounds emerging out of silence to explain what is discovered in Zen practice.
Watch the full 26-minute version of "Nothingness" along with 33 more full videos and over 70 more audio programs with a low-cost subscription to the official Alan Watts streaming platform COMMERCIAL-FREE at play.alanwatts.org. #alanwatts #alanwattsphilosophy #alanwattswisdom
Who is the one behind our eyes? Buddhist insights beyond no-self
(Buddhism Podcast) Buddhism Explained. Right now, it feels like someone is watching from behind our eyes. Who is it? Buddhism teaches that what we call “self” (atta, atman, soul, ego, personality, essence) is not what it seems.
The Buddha didn’t just deny the self — he pointed to something much deeper, something that remains when the seeker disappears. This video follows the teachings on awareness, no-self, and the quiet presence that doesn’t need a name. The Buddha’s answer isn’t something to find — it’s what’s always been here.
00:00 - "No one there"...but why does it still feel like someone's watching?
05:37 - Not a person, just a process
10:25 - The final trap: holding onto "no-self"
14:46 - No one is seeing, but seeing still happens
(Chogyal Rinpoche) 🇬🇧 This rap was composed with the intention of making the daily recitation of the sacred Heart Sutra easily accessible to young people. May it be of benefit. [Don't show it to your grandmother or her head may explode.]
all dharmas [phenomena] are marked with emptiness;
They are neither produced nor stopped, neither defiled nor immaculate, neither deficient nor complete.
Therefore, O Sariputra,
in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness;
[There is] no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables [tangibles], or objects of mind; no sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to:
[There is] no mind-consciousness element; there is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path.
There is no cognition, no attainment, and no non-attainment.
Therefore, O Sariputra,
it is because of one's non-attainmentness that a bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom, dwells without thought-coverings. In the absence of thought-coverings one has not been made to tremble.
One has overcome what can upset, and in the end one attains to Nirvana.
All those who appear as buddhas in the three periods of time [past, present, future] fully awake to the utmost, right and perfect Enlightenment because they have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.
Therefore one should know the prajna-paramita as the great spell [mantra], the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth -- for what could go wrong? By the prajnaparamita has this spell been delivered. It runs like this:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
(Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, O what an awakening, all-hail!)
It's a beautiful sentiment to present this timeless classic of the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajna Paramita) literature to youth in an idiom they might appreciate and listen to more than grandmotherly droning and chanting in a temple setting. But it does bring up one minor problematic question: What is rap? Is it like poetry in that anything is if it says it is? The phonebook well-read can be [made to be] "poetic." So drop a beat behind it and any ol' grouping of words is "rapping"? May be. We can ask Weird Al or Justin Timberlake. But it seems to us that real rapping, which is why the young at heart like and relate to it so much, is its brutal honesty, simplicity, and funky @$$ beat.
It's the beat, the beat, the beat propelled by a propulsive lyrical accompaniment consistent with the feel or underlying sentiment of the genre. One has to wonder if N.W.A would have had as much success -- with the exact same musical elements -- if their lyrical content and message were "Officers Is Nice" instead of "F*** the Police." Similarly, what is arguably the greatest rap song ever [if such a thing were possible to accurately determine] might not really be with weaker lyrics. In the case of Ludacris' "Excuse Me, Miss, If I May Just Get Through," or as it is known on internet radio "Move B*tch," where "bitch" refers, of course, to a pregnant dog driving in front of him and his featured artists. Ergo, if we're going to really have a Heart Sutra Rap, methinks we need to get real, gritty, and street, not simply rely on poetic feet.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
_LACMA_M.81.90.8_(2_of_2).jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Statue_of_Sveta_Sofia.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Ephesus37.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Holy_Wisdom_(16th_c.,_Vologda_museum).jpg){kind=link}