This is the second part of an ongoing discussion of the Heart Sutra. This Discussion will cover the meaning and
       philosophy behind the sutra. Hopefully we will apply the ideas which are presented here to our understanding, scientific,
       philosophical or otherwise, of the contemporary world. I will post the entire sutra on this page, and the portion of sutra
       we’ve covered at the head of each subsequent essay.
 

       THE SUTRA OF THE HEART OF TRANSCENDENT KNOWLEDGE

            Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagriha at Vulture Peak mountain, together
            with a great gathering of the sangha of monks and a great gathering of the sangha of bodhisattvas. At
            that time the Blessed One entered the samadhi that expresses the dharma called "profound illumination,"
            and at the same time noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, while practicing the profound
            prajnaparamita, saw in this way: he saw the five skandhas to be empty of nature.

            Then, through the power of the Buddha, venerable Shariputra said to noble Avalokiteshvara, the
            bodhisattva mahasattva, "How should a son or daughter of noble family train, who wishes to practice the
            profound prajnaparamita?"

            Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, said to venerable Shariputra,
            "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita
            should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also
            is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling,
            perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness.
            There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There
            is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no
            perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no
            appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas, no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no
            dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and
            death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path,
            no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no
            attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita.

            Since there is no obscuration of mind, there is no fear. They transcend falsity and attain complete
            nirvana. All the buddhas of the three times, by means of prajnaparamita, fully awaken to unsurpassable,
            true, complete enlightenment. Therefore, the great mantra of prajnaparamita, the mantra of great
            insight, the unsurpassed mantra, the unequaled mantra, the mantra that calms all suffering, should be
            known as truth, since there is no deception. The prajnaparamita mantra is said in this way:

            OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA

            Thus, Shariputra, the bodhisattva mahasattva should train in the profound prajnaparamita.

            Then the Blessed One arose from that samadhi and praised noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva
            mahasattva, saying, "Good, good, O son of noble family; thus it is, O son of noble family, thus it is. One
            should practice the profound prajnaparamita just as you have taught and all the tathagatas will rejoice."

            When the Blessed One had said this, venerable Shariputra and noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva
            mahasattva, that whole assembly and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced
            and praised the words of the Blessed One.

            Lotsawa Bhikshu Rinchen De translated this text into Tibetan with the Indian pandita Vimalamitra. It was
            edited by the great editor-lotsawas Gelong Namkha and others. This Tibetan text was copied from the
            fresco in Gegye Chemaling at the glorious Samye vihara. It has been translated into English by the
            Nalanda Translation Committee, with reference to several Sanskrit editions.
 
 
 

       The Title of the Sutra

       3.1
       The title of the sutra is “The Sutra of the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge”, and its meaning is explained as follows.
       Sutra (Skt; "a juncture"): refers to Hinayana and Mahayana texts in the Buddhist canon that are attributed to
       Shakyamuni Buddha; the teaching often takes the form of a dialogue between the Buddha and one or more of his
       disciples. Heart means the essence, or the key point. Because this sutra is one of the shortest and most pithy
       expositions of prajnaparamita, it is referred to as "the heart." As stated above, Transcendent Knowledge is a
       translation of the Sanskrit word Prajñaparamita.

       The Main Body of the Sutra

       3.2
       Generally, sutras are laid out in a particular style. First there is a description of the circumstances of the teaching: who
       said it; when it was given, where it was, who was there and what was going on. This is the Common Explanation of
       the Background, or the Common Prologue. The purpose of the common explanation is to, first, establish the
       authenticity of the sutra as the words of the Buddha, and to provide a valid basis for establishing the authenticity by
       giving details about who said what to whom, where and when. Then, in this case, there is the Uncommon Explanation
       of the Background, or the Uncommon Prologue, which explains aspects of the circumstances that not everyone who
       was there may have known. This is no doubt a means by which Mahayanists validated the authenticity of the sutra; in
       many of the Mahayana sutras the teaching is given by a bodhisattva – rather than by the Buddha. Often the Buddha is
       not even present. The second part of the sutra is what was actually said, and it is the “Explanation of the Sutra”. Lastly
       there is the conclusion. So, sutras are generally divided into three parts; the first provides background details to establish
       the authenticity of the teaching; the second part is the teaching itself and the third is conclusion which summarizes how
       the listeners responded to the body of the sutra.

       The Common Explanation of the Background

            Thus have I heard
 
 

       3.3
       All sutras, or reports of the Buddha's oral teachings by his disciples, begin with these words. They are said to have been
       uttered by Ananda, the Buddha's constant attendant, who later recounted his master's teachings. I have read different
       traditional interpretations of this. In one, the Buddha asked Ananda to take on certain responsibilities that would have
       kept him from being at all of the Buddha’s teachings. Ananda agreed on the condition that he be given a full explanation
       of whatever he had missed. Thus Ananda eventually heard all of the Buddha’s teachings. The other version is that
       Ananda simply was present for all the teachings.

       3.4
       There are four points to consider here. They are: 1) Are what the words that were spoken at Rajagriha and the words
       that have become the literal rendering of the Sutra, the same? 2) Could Ananda, a hinayana disciple, have understood
       the teaching, dealing with shunyata as it does, well enough to recall it? 3) Are the Mahayana sutras teachings given by
       the Buddha, or did the ‘sutra’ appear sometime after the Buddha’s death like the gospels of the New Testament were
       written after Jesus’ death? 4) What are the implications of the first three points on the meaning of the sutra, the
       realization pointed to in the sutra, and the practice of Buddhism?

       3.41
       Three thoughts come to mind in attempting to answer the first question. The first is to keep in mind that the Buddhist
       tradition is largely an oral one, and that until only recently (in the whole history of humankind), knowledge and wisdom
       were transmitted from teacher to student directly. One implication of that is that memorization is a principle tool in the
       transmission of knowledge within oral traditions. Indeed, in Tibet for example, the oral tradition continues to this day
       (alongside an equally accomplished literary tradition). So, for example, my first teacher, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
       (1940 ~ 1987) was able to read a page once and then memorize it. In that way he memorized thirty pages a day. This is
       not, as far as I can tell, a remarkable feat within cultures where oral traditions survive. Similarly, I’ve had the experience
       of being with teachers whose ability to speak for hours on a text, without notes, or to pull arcane knowledge out of
       nowhere is tremendous. I think it’s important to consider the possibility that, in the absence of books, TV, the internet
       and so on, people did and do rely on their memorization skills much more than they do today, and that to cultivate those
       skills they actively practiced memorization techniques. No doubt poetry and song were (and continue to be) important
       tools.

       3.42
       The second thought pertains to the convening of the so called ‘Buddhist Councils’ in the years after the Buddha’s death.
       The first was supposedly convened immediately after the Bhagavat’s paranirvana in order to establish agreement about
       the contents of the Buddha’s teachings. To the extent that the sangha was accustomed to gathering every two weeks, it
       does seem reasonable they would have assembled in the wake of the Buddha’s death. What took place at the first
       council was recitation of the Vinaya pitaka i and the Sutra pitaka. Different accounts suggest that the monk Upali gave a
       recitation of the Vinya, while Ananda gave a recitation of the Sutras. Other accounts say they presided over recitations
       by other monks, of the Vinaya and Sutras. In either case, it appears that at the first council, what became the corpus of
       the buddhist teachings were standardized, and Ananda is credited with an important role.

       3.43
       The third thought is that there are significant differences between Hinayana sutras and Mahayana sutras. Noble Ross
       Reat writes that the former “tend to be formulaic, and repetitive, like songs with choruses – relatively easy to memorize,
       pleasant to hear, but somewhat tedious to read. They tend to be the end product of a preliterate, oral tradition.
       Mahayana scriptures are more literary in form. They appear to be the products of a literate age in which works were
       composed and transmitted in writing Many Mahayana sutras contain complex narratives and elaborate descriptive
       passages which would have been extremely difficult to memorize and pass on orally.” ii

       3.5
       This segues into the second point for consideration: whether or not Ananda, a Hinayana practitioner, unimbued with the
       ‘superior qualities’ of a bodhisattva, could have – or even would have – heard and understood the teaching given on
       Vulture Peak mountain. From the Mahayana view it’s rather like a high school physics student sitting in a corner while
       Stephen Hawking explained his latest ideas to his cronies, and then went back to his school and recited back what he’d
       heard in Hawkings’s office. You have to wonder, how did he get there, and what’s the likelihood of him understanding
       what was being said? That at least is the issue to Mahayana practitioners. And that view is reflected in the various Indian
       commentaries as well.

       3.6
       Bhavaviveka,a fifth century CE mahayana philosopher argues that the Perfection of Wisdom sutras were beyond the
       ability of Hinayana disciples like Ananda to comprehend, and that they were complied by the Bodhisattvas
       Samantabhadara, Manjushri, Maiterya and Vajrapani. iii Jñanamitra concludes that Manjushri heard and compiled all
       the Mahayana teachings . iv Still, others argue that while Ananda was incapable of fully grasping the meaning of the
       sutra, he was still capable of getting the words.

       3.7
       The third point is concerned with the authenticity of the Mahayana sutras, and the Prajnaparamita sutras in particular. By
       some accounts the Mahayana sutras didn’t begin appearing until some four hundred years after the Buddha’s death,
       with the Heart Sutra most likely appearing (in written form) somewhere between 100 CE and 400 CE. And, as noted,
       stylistically, they are different. However, they do draw on the same ideas found in the Hinayana sutras in perhaps the
       same way that what is complex or esoteric in mathematics draws upon what is most fundamental. Nonetheless, “the
       basic concepts of Mahayana, such as the bodhisattva ethic, emptiness (shunyata), and the recognition of the distinction
       between arhatship and buddhahood as spiritual ideals are known from the earliest sources available in the PáIi canon.” v
       Still though, six hundred years is a long time for those ideals to remain obscure. vi Bhavaviveka argues that the
       Mahayana teachings were intended only for bodhisattva’s and not for Sravakas. He goes on to quote the Awakened
       One in the Simsapavanasutra, “Ananda, the doctrines that I have understood but have not taught to you are more
       numerous than the leaves in this grove of simsapa trees.” vii So, the logic here is that these prajnaparamita teachings
       were given to a select audience and continued to be transmitted selectively until they were written down. Even still, in my
       tradition at least, one must develop a basis of knowledge and practice before being expected to understand these
       teachings.

       3.8
       Which brings us to the fourth point. What bearing does all of this have on the meaning of the sutra, and on the practice
       and realization of its meaning? I can only speak for myself here. It matters not if the sutra expresses actual the words of
       the Buddha. The only matter of importance is whether or not the prajnaparamita sutras express the intention and the
       realization of the Buddha. The Buddha’s intention is to work for the well-being of all sentient beings. His ability to do
       so completely is the result of his realization. In this instance, the meaning of the words does not contradict the intention
       of the Buddha’s Hinayana teachings. And while I certainly do not possess the Buddha’s realization, the meaning of the
       words here, as well as I understand them, suggests a profound realization and means of obtaining such realization. So, in
       short, the sutra, whether it comes from the Buddha or not, is inspired by the Buddha’s intention and realization and is
       thus worthy of study.

       3.9
       This may seem a very peculiar position. On the one hand, if Buddhism is a religion, such as Christianity or Islam, it
       would seem crucial that the gospel be attributed to the prophet or the godhead. On the other hand, to say it’s not
       important puts me in the odd position of excusing the ‘religion’ for not being literal. It’s important to note that out of all
       the world’s religions Buddhism may be the only one in which its main character claims not to be the source of wisdom,
       not to be the direct means (i.e. through intervention) to liberation and that his words should not be accepted without
       scrutiny. Instead, the Buddha claims to have experienced things as they are; he taught a means to achieve that realization
       – but stressed that one has to do the work themselves; he admonished his disciples to find out for themselves if what he
       taught was true or not. So, again, what matters is not whether the sutra is the word of the Buddha, but whether it is true
       or not.

            Once the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagriha at Vulture Peak mountain, together with a great
            gathering of the sangha of monks and a great gathering of the sangha of bodhisattvas.
 
 

       3.10
       Here, ‘Blessed One’ (Skt: bhagavat): refers to the Buddha Shakyamuni. Rajagriha is the modern town of Rajgir in
       Bihar, northeastern India. The Buddha, it is said, ended up there after having, first, given the teachings associated with
       the First Turning viiiat Varanasi, and, then, having wandered extensively, finally ending up in Vaishali. There he is said to
       have debated six other teachers and, of course, he defeated them and took on many of their students as his own. From
       there he went to Vulture Peak mountain, which is a small mountain near Rajgir. There the Buddha delivered the
       Mahayana teachings of the Second Turning of the wheel of dharma, all of which emphasize shunyata.

       3.11
       The Sangha is the community of buddhist practitioners. The term sangha originally was applied only to the monastic
       community; at this point it includes lay practitioners. In this case, however, it refers to the community of monks and
       arhats. The arhats were practitioners who had realized the essence of the teachings of the Hinayana. Bodhisattvas are
       practitioners committed to the Mahayana teachings, who vow to attain enlightenment in order to work for the benefit of
       sentient beings. So, to summarize: the Time was after the Buddha had defeated his challengers in Vaishali; the Place is
       Vulture Peak mountain; the ones to whom the sutra was spoken were the sangha of monks and Bodhisattvas. The
       Speaker, Avalokiteshvara, is introduced in the Uncommon Explanation.

       The Uncommon Explanation of the Background

            At that time the Blessed One entered the samadhi that expresses the dharma called "profound
            illumination,"
 
 

       3.12
       This is where things start to get interesting. Samadhi is a Sanskrit word which means meditative absorption, or the
       condition of mind being placed ‘one-pointedly’ on an object of virtue xii. ‘Profound’ refers to emptiness. The quality of
       emptiness is illuminating because it dispels the darkness of ignorance x. The term translated as illumination has a second
       connotation, which is perception, or appearance. xi So, taken together, illuminating and appearances refer to what are
       known as the Two Truths; ultimate and conventional reality. The former is the way things actually are, empty of inherent
       existence , and the latter is how things appear – i.e. to exist seperately, and independent of our modes of perception and
       conception.

       3.13
       The Two Truths are central to the Buddhist view. Here ‘truth’ refers to our experience of things. Thus ‘mode of
       existence’ (often truncated to ‘mode’) or ‘reality’ are often used as a synonyms for truth. The Tibetan translations of the
       two are kündzup, which means that which is obscured, and döndam, which means ultimate. The first truth is concerned
       with how we regard appearances. Quite simply, it refers to our experience of objects. For example, our perceptions of
       the building in which we live are that wee can touch it, pound holes in it with a hammer, burn it down, add-on to it and
       so on. We can go into it, we can go out of it. It was there yesterday, it’ll be there tomorrow. We have the experience of
       the building as existing independently of our selves, as being separate and as being unchanging. It is “other”. We have
       the same view of ourselves. We exist and we relate to phenomena as a result of that existence. We are separate, we are
       individual, we are unique and we are unchanging (we know our bodies change – but our sense of self, of who we are, is
       that of an uninterrupted continuum). Based on this experience of self, we believe in an independent “I”, or subject.
       Everything we experience, from shapes and colors, to food to love, to irritation, to concepts of time falls under this view.
       Why? Because there is a subject/object relationship, that is a dualistic relationship between that which we call our self,
       and all other phenomena, which is the foundation for conventional existence. Additionally, certain qualities are ascribed
       to objects, such as separateness, uniqueness, individuality, and permanence.

       3.14
       Ultimate truth is things as they are, empty of inherent existence; empty of subject, action and object. It is the same as
       prajna, or shunyata. (For a traditional teaching on the two truths, click here. I recommend this. ) It is important to keep
       in mind that emptiness does not mean non-existent. It may be useful to refer back to the brain teaser in paragraph 2.6 of
       the Introduction. Likewise, it is useful to refer back to the meaning of the Tibetan word, kündzup. The meaning here is
       that the ultimate truth is existent in an object but it is obscured. So we’re not talking about two separate truths or
       realities – rather we are talking about not seeing clearly things as they exist ultimately. Typically, teachings on this topic
       use analogies. For example, relative truth is likened to a dream in which the dreamer, unaware that she is dreaming,
       takes the objects of her dream to be real. There’s passion, aggression and all manner of emotions in dreams, as well as
       innumerable places, times and situations. But eventually, one wakes up and realizes that there is no existing basis for the
       fear or love or anger one experienced in the dream. Nor is there the dreamer or the objects that appeared in the dream.
       Another analogy is that of the reflection of the moon on a still pond. One can have some experience of the moon that
       way – but it is different from the moon in the sky. Finally, one may look at the sky and call it blue – the relative truth –
       but if goes into an airplane to try to find the blue, one will never find it – this is analogous to the ultimate truth.

       3.15
       So, what does this mean? What are the implications of this? The Two Truths go straight to the heart of the Buddhist
       view. We begin with relative truth, which is a mistaken view. In short, whatever we experience appears as though it
       existed in and of itself, utterly independent of our modes of perception and conception. Ignorance of the true nature of
       reality begins with the mistaken view that there is a “self”. As soon as there is an “I”, “other” arises. The self relates to
       “other” favorably, unfavorably or with indifference. From this mistaken view of self and other all suffering arises; either
       we want to acquire the object of our perception or, if we already possess it, we want to keep it. Thus there is some
       dissatisfaction in not having it, or some fear in losing it. Conversely, we may not like the object of perception, in which
       case we see to abandon it if it is ours, or to avoid it if it isn’t. Thus there’s dissatisfaction or fear at work. We will get
       further into the meaning of, or types of suffering further in the discussion of the sutra. Likewise, we will also examine the
       epistemology and ontology that ‘proves’ this view. For now, it’s important to understand this basic idea: There is no
       self, nor any phenomena or noumena which possesses inherent existence.

       3.16
       Here, ‘self’ means mind, or sem in Tibetan. Mind has a different meaning here than we are necessarily accustomed to. It
       refers to a moment of awareness, or a thought. The traditional definition of mind is that which knows. It’s nature is
       clarity, openness, and sensitivity; its function is knowing, i.e. it cognizes. Mind’s nature is clarity because it always lacks
       form xiii, and because it possesses the ability to perceive. Form here includes the body and the sense faculties. It is open
       because like space, it cannot be located; it is omnipresent and it embraces and pervades all things. Keep in mind, we’re
       not talking about the brain or a brain function – we’re talking about a moment of consciousness. To say that mind
       pervades all things is quite true; there is not one phenomena that is not an object of mind. Sensitivity means an absence
       of impediments. That means that mind is capable to experience phenomena completely. These three qualities are
       concomitant. xiv

       3.17
       Minds are either conceptual or nonconceptual. A conceptual mind is defined as one that apprehends its object through a
       generic image xv. A generic image is like a reflection of the object, it is the opposite of a non-object. So a conceptual
       mind which perceives an apple perceives a generic image of an apple which is the opposite of a non-apple. (Clear as
       mud?) Thus, a conceptual mind doesn’t perceive its object directly, whereas a nonconceptual mind does. The
       conceptual, conventional mind, makes a distinction between itself and its object; the subject/object duality. This is simply
       a process of reifying itself and its object of knowledge. The Nonconceptual mind does not make this mistake, however;
       there is no perceiver, no object of perception and no act of perception to which existence inheres. So, from this, one
       sees that at a conventional level, at the level of relative truth, Buddhism deals with the subject/object problem – but at
       the level of ultimate truth it finds that subject and object are of the same nature. That is, reality is not separated into
       subjects and objects; there is no thing that can be pointed to as self-existing, upon which we could impute a self or an
       object. It matters not whether they are mind and form. This view transcends all spatial, temporal and ontological
       reference points.

       3.18
       This is in contrast with the western view which struggles with the a dualism based on mind and body. This is a truly
       fascinating topic, for me, at least. Although the dilemma of the mind body relationship goes back thousands of years and
       has been dealt with by the Indians, the Greeks, the Romans, the fathers of the Christian Church and so on, its relevance
       to us probably begins with Descartes. In The Taboo of Subjectivity Alan Wallace quotes Descartes that “there exists
       nothing in the whole of nature which cannot be explained in terms of purely corporeal causes, totally devoid of mind and
       thought.” and continues “Descartes introduced two exceptions to this principle: (I) biblical miracles have no mechanical
       explanations and (2) the human mind which can be equated with the soul is an immortal gift from God... The cosmos as
       conceived by Descartes and his followers was entirely explicable in terms of inert matter, and it was the task of the
       natural philosopher to articulate this underlying process of the natural world. In this view, nature was seen as a domain in
       which neither angels nor demons nor even God interfered, though a crucial theme of his philosophy was that bodies
       continue in existence only because God preserves them in being.” xvi.

       3.19
       This was a pivotal turning point in science and it is a key point in the development of the materialist view which
       predominates science today. Essentially, Descartes suggested of a bifurcation between mind and body. The natural
       philosopher focused his gaze on the body and physical world, and the mind was left for philosophers and theologians to
       understand. Well, in the centuries that have passed, philosophers and theologians have not come up with much in the
       way explaining consciousness, let alone a consciousness that is separate from the body, or from matter. In the meantime,
       science has charged through the centuries and come up with myriad physical explanations for the universe. But only
       recently, in the past one hundred years or so, has science even begun to look at the question of mind. Their answer?
       Mind is only a function, or an emergent quality of an activated brain. In its most extreme view, that of the eliminative
       materialists, “mental states as we experience them do not even exist.” xvii. So, the materialist view of mind, or
       consciousness, then, is that there is no such thing, per se, only brain activity, which can be understood in mechanistic
       terms. On the other hand, things, phenomena, do exist in and of themselves and their nature is matter/energy. So, the
       solution of the mind/body problem is to, for all intents and purposes, reduce the mind to matter, i.e. the brain and just do
       away with the problem all together. Pretty slick.

       3.20
       The problem is that most practitioners of this view are unaware of the metaphysical assumptions underpinning their
       worldview, or the extent to which they are hemmed in by that ideology. In particular the materialist view assumes there
       is an objective reality which exists independently of our means of perception. For example, colors, sound and other
       subjective phenomena are objectified through reductionism. The experience of red becomes a photon emission at a
       certain frequency, for example, and scents become molecules wafting through the atmosphere and sound becomes
       fluctuations in that same atmosphere. But this process doesn’t explain the subjective experience of red, of perfume or
       of music. At best it merely redefines the experience; at worst it just ignores it. And why is this? Perhaps it has to do, in
       part with the original Cartesian view that there are no nonphysical influences in evolution or human affairs. This notion is
       asserted in the closure principle which believes that there are no causal influences on physical events besides other
       physical events. Here we might do well to recall Werner Heisenberg: “What we observe is not nature in itself but nature
       exposed to our line of questioning” xviii. The truth of the matter, however, is that, as far as I know, no device or method
       has ever been devised to detect the influence of nonphysical influences of any kind. Not only that, but so far, science has
       no explanation for the cause of nor the function of consciousness, nor any means to detect it. And, if you simply
       eliminate subjective experience, the experience of consciousness, you save yourself the trouble of ever having to explain
       it. That’s a neat trick.

       3.21
       Clearly Buddhism and Science are at odds. The Buddhists believe that mind and body are separate (but interactive –
       this is an area I don’t understand well), but that ultimately their nature is the same, empty of inherent existence. Likewise,
       all other phenomena also possess the same nature of emptiness. The materialist view holds that consciousness, or
       subjective mind does not exist at all – but that everything else does. The means of apprehending the truth of the buddhist
       view involves, first inference, and ultimately direct experience. In both cases mind is used to examine mind through the
       process of contemplation and meditation. Thus the proof, or evidence for the view is empirical, but subjective. The
       materialist view objectifies the mind and relies on correlation between the objectively identified activities in the brain –
       and, ironically, the subjectively related responses of the object of study (because measuring devices and data are not
       self interpreting).

       3.22
       So, I’ve tossed the gauntlet. I hope very much to come back to this discussion when we get into the body of the sutra.
       And I believe we can do so in our examinations of ontology and perhaps of epistemology. If you can’t wait till then I’d
       like to recommend any of the following books, and in particular the first two:
       Choosing Reality:A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind
       The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness
       Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind
       Two Views of Mind : Abhidharma and Brain Science
 

       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       End Notes
 

       i The Buddha’s teachings are divided into three ‘baskets’ or pitaka. The first is the Nikaya, or sutras. These are the oral
       teachings of the Buddha. It is said that there are three types of Buddha words. The first are those he spoke directly to
       his disciples. the second are those he gave permission to his disciples to speak. The third type are those that originate
       from the Buddha’s blessing. The second basket are the monastic rules, or Buddhist ethics. these are the Vinaya. The
       third basket is the Abhidharmapitaka, which sets forth the psychology of Buddhism.
       ii Buddhism: A History p. 24; Noble Ross Reat; Asian Humanities Press
       iii Lopez, p 34.
       iv Ibid.
       v Mipham’s Beacon of Certainty; p. 44; Pettit, John W.; Wisdom Pub’s 1999.
       vi Yet I can’t but wonder: How many people have heard of “super string theory”? And how many of those understand
       it? How many more have heard of QM, and of those how many understand quantum mechanics? Now suppose that
       there were no telephones, no email, no postal system and the literacy rates and population densities were very low.
       Under those conditions how much more slowly would those ideas proliferate? Given those restrictive conditions, how
       motivated would those who understood string theory (which I do not) be to explain it to the remote populace? Under
       such circumstances as those, it does not seem unreasonable that QM would remain hidden from the world and shown
       only to those with a genuine desire to understand and the aptitude to go along with that desire.
       vii Lopez; p. 34
       viii The Buddha gave three main series teachings in his lifetime. The first series occurred at Varanasi shortly after his
       enlightenment. He taught that existence is pervaded by suffering; that the origin of suffering is ignorance of one’s true
       nature and attachment to dualistic mind. He taught that by cutting through such ignorance one could arrive at the
       cessation of suffering, and that the means of doing so was the eight-fold path. This teaching is known as The Four Noble
       Truths. He also taught that suffering pervades existence; that all things are impermanent; that all things are empty of
       inherent existence. This teaching is known as the Three Marks of Existence. These and other teachings comprise what is
       known as the First Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma. the Second Turning includes the teachings on prajnaparamita.
       The third Turning concerns teachings on Buddha-nature and the qualities of emptiness.
       ix Tsongkhapa
       x Illumination also points to the Third Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma, the contents of which we will touch on further
       in other sections. Suffice to say, mind has three qualities: it is open, it is luminous (or clear) and it is unimpeded.
       xi Lopez p. 41
       xii Inherent existence is a mode of existence whereby phenomena are held to exist from their own side, independent of
       other phenomena. In reality, however, no phenomena possess inherent existence because they exist in dependence on
       their causes and conditions, on their parts and attributes, on their names and on concepts.
       xiii Form the first of the five skandhas is comprised of four causal elements, earth, water, fire and wind, the five sensory
       faculties and their objects, and an eleventh type which includes atomic particles, imagined forms, unapparent forms and
       others. We will discuss this in the next installment. It is important to note that ‘form’ is not synonymous with matter.
       xiv Kalu Rinpoche Luminous Mindp. 21, 22, 23 Wisdom Pub’s.
       xv Geshe Kelsang Gyatso; Undrstanding the Mind p. 23 Tharpa Pub’s.
       xvi Alan Wallace The Taboo of Subjectivity p. 47 Oxford Press.
       xvii Ibid p.139
       xviii Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science p.58 Harper & Rowe

       Tim A