Form is Emptiness 

I was going to say something but then realized that I've got nothing to say afterall. Thank you.

Long time fan, first-time commenter! My spitball interpretation is that absence (emptiness) and presence (form) depend on one another and as such aren't separated. The classic metaphor being that of a cup: the "cup-ness" of a cup is defined by the presence of glass on the edges and bottom (the form) and the absence of anything in the center (the emptiness). Without the form it's just a vacuum (which is not a cup). Without the emptiness, it's a lump of glass (which is also not a cup). You see this mutual dependency of presence/absence in all sorts of ways. Speech or music is composed of sounds (form) and silence (emptiness). Art and design employ the use of "negative space" (emptiness) to better define the subject (form). The Heart Sutra seems to be applying this concept to human cognition and consciousness itself. The presence of the five skandhas is only possible if their absence is also possible. Perception and cognition are only possible because non-perception and non-cognition are also possible (so much for "I think, therefore I am"). The 色/空 relationship in the Heart Sutra reminds me a lot of Laozi's 有/無 relationship in the Daodejing -- not surprising given the Chinese origins I guess. Both try to use human language to describe things that by definition are non-describable because they are non-cognitive. It's like trying to use glass to make the empty center of a cup. The results are doomed to be inadequate and confusing but here we are still talking about it.

I recommend Thich Nhat Hanh’s commentary and various Dharma talks on this. He has a true gift for distilling the dharma to straight forward insights.

I always thought the standard interpretation was that Form (meaning phenomena) is emptiness and emptiness is form meant that all phenomena are non-different from emptiness because as they are empty of inherent existence (own being). All phenomena only arise in dependence on other phenomena therefore they are seen as being without any true substantiality. They are only ephemeral wisps coming and going in contingency on everchanging conditions and so can never be truly grasped or held on to.

色doesn't just mean 'form' in Chinese. It also means image, colour, lust, gender, expression... the word 色 when used when in Chinese convey more than 'form' alone. Whereas 空 doesn't just mean 'emptiness' in Chinese. It also means void, space, air, futile ... The sentence 色即是空 空即是色 is more profile than the common translation of "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" .

i was waiting 8 years for this video! When i heard it the first time i also knew it is exodinary important, but i didn't understand it.. and still don't. But now i think i found a video which explains it good enough to just rewatch it like 30 times to get it! thank you brad

Thank you very much for posting this video, relating it to that equation helped me out a lot!

This whole time ive been watching, and enjoying myself but still super lost on what it means. But the line “where does form come from if not from my mind” just slammed me with realization. Thank you for this video cuz this was a concept that really intriguing but quite hard to grasp

Hey Brad, I find the most useful moment is when I think I understand form is emptyness, emptyness is form. Then I just relax and stop thinking about it and listen to Stiff Little Fingers. Then I start the process of trying to understand all over again, like mist it will eventually soak in.

It was all so much simpler this morning in meditation. I had been contemplating this passage from the heart sutra. Sometimes I am able in meditation to grasp certain concepts so clearly and then it fades away within a few days. Thought I would share my 2 cents on this topic. The word Emptiness is misleading to the western mind because we automatically think of Form as the opposite of Emptiness. The word emptiness should be seen as the lack of Independent Origination. (the immaterial) Everything is interrelated. Without me thinking and experiencing the world, the world does not exist. The world does not exist if I do not experience it. Form (matter) is brought into existence by Emptiness (the immaterial). Form is the way in which Emptiness expresses itself. Emptiness=Form Form=Emptiness Thank you for sharing Nishijima Roshi's words as well as your thoughts on this matter.

Great video this makes me think of something my teacher sojun roshi teaches on non duality “ two sides of the same coin”

Thanks Brad.

To me emptiness that is explained to me is based on 2 of the Buddhist 3 marks of existence - emptiness is 1. The absence of a self essence for all phenomena AND 2. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. So ‘form is emptiness’ means all form are absence of a self and impermanent. ‘Emptiness is form’ means what is absent of a self essence and is impermanent is what we refer to as ‘form’. Don’t forget the heart sutra goes on to say that this is the same for the remainder 4 mind skandhas (ie feeling, perception, volition, consciousness are also empty: 受想行识亦复如是）so the whole idea is to remind us that the 5 aggregates are devoid of self, and are impermanent.

Thanks for your interpretation Brad, as well as showing us your reading and thinking style - I really liked your drilling around in your bookshelf for us. My version is that forms are always empty. Empty of what? Of fixed and eternal being (or selfhood). So each thing that arises is already shot through with non-being, or emptiness, through interdependent mutual arising, (all together now!) as well as impermanence (not born, not destroyed). Each thing (thoughts, emotions, as well as computers and t-shirts and faces) are not independent from each other thing, this is the Dharmakaya - the impossible to conceptualize manifestation of the Buddha Dharma. Recognizing this, Mahākāśyapa smiled when the Buddha Twirled a flower.

Thank you... Very resourceful.

Your take on the internal vs external being non-different reminded me of an amazing experience I had a few years back under not quite sober circumstances. It basically was a moment of realization in which the way science describes the world from the smallest quantum phenomena to the unimaginable scale of the cosmos just made sense all of a sudden and I finally understood my relation to it all, even if just a little, for a few seconds. Haven't been quite the same since, in a good way. Definitely helped me to grasp ideas about the self and the world easier down the line, for one. Applying said ideas tho, now that's a different matter. Anyhow, your explanation does resonate with me quite a bit if that wasn't clear by now. The way I'd explain it is that despite what your brain/ego would tell you, you can't separate 'yourself' from your experience of your life. Rather, the "you" that is your ego/self image is a construct that by itself, without relation to your life circumstances, is empty. That is to say, form is emptiness. On the other hand, since emptiness is also form, this works backwards as well. What forms your sense of self, and by proxy what "you" really are is the totality of your experiences. Sort of, at least. Really hard to find a grasp on these things with words, lmao Nice explanation, subbed and will be checking out more of your channel. Cheers, mate

Thanks!

All the dogmatists have been terrified by the lion’s roar of sunyata. Wherever they may reside, sunyata lies in wait! Nagarjuna

Great video. Here's my abbreviated take (I'm a novice and new to Buddhism): Any object of consciousness is the sum of its parts. A flower is the rain, sunshine, mud, earth, biology, remnants of at least one supernova, etc. Without its parts, history, and interconnection, the flower cannot exist. The flower is essentially non-flower elements summed together in the form of a flower. In other words, the flower is comprised of everything that it is not. And everything else is not that flower. Following this logic, the flower as an object of consciousness has no individual nature (just a summed history of non-flower elements). Relative to the rest of the Universe, the flower is empty. But a flower has a form because it's obviously a flower in your consciousness. It's empty of an essential nature and a form at the same time. Therefore, emptiness is form, and conversely, form is emptiness. I feel like this conception of Emptiness lines up with Right View on the Noble Path: all views and no view simultaneously.

I like your books my local library has them thank you for your work

I chant the Heart Sutra all the time and have always found it to be pretty mind-blowing and have read the Tanahashi book and one by Thich Nhat Hahn, The Heart of Understanding to clarify it for myself. I think of it as ultimate reality, or infinity and finite reality being one and the same. But your explanation works just as well, which I think can be summed up by saying subjective reality is just as real as objective reality, I think anyway. It is an interesting topic.

I really appreciated that explanation. My take tends to be that because no thing begins or ends so it is literally no-thing, which is emptiness. Nothing can enter or leave the Universe and yet we can perceive form and identify it as a tree or a guitar or a house or whatever. But because everything is changing all the time, there is nothing which can be said to be substantial or physical. Nothing exists. And yet, look at all this stuff! So I cannot communicate the construct of 'tree' without having a perception of my idea of 'tree,' which is emptiness. and yet the tree actually has physical properties, but is changing perpetually.

Highly recommend "Mother of the Buddhas" by Lex Hixon on the Prajnaparamita Sutra. also his book "Living Buddha Zen" - Re-creates (not translation) the important Japanese classic, Denkoroku: The Record of Transmitting the Light. This work is in a format that follows that of the root text: koan, commentary, and concluding poem for each moment of sudden full illumination.

"The short answer is thats just how people do things" idk why but this feels very zen to me

Thanks for the overview Brad...I'm working with my Zen teacher to study Red Pine's translation and this video is great for adding background and context. Your insight adds to my experience that language is often an obstacle in articulating concepts or experiences. The discussion concerning Sanskrit to Chinese to Japanese to English (etc.) was worth a view on its own. Do you have any advice that you give your students on moving from just logically understanding concepts to experiencing or actualizing them? Be well ~ Larry

One lesson we learn in Life Drawing class is how to draw negative space, the space around an object which defines it in our vision. This requires practice and is well worth your time even if you aren't studying art.

Matt Khan did a video on the heart sutra, ....all is emptiness, emptiness is all. One is emptiness, emptiness is one. None is emptiness, emptiness is none. Space is emptiness, emptiness is space. Sound is emptiness, emptiness is sound. Name is emptiness, emptiness is name. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Time is emptiness, emptiness is time. Nothing is emptiness, emptiness is nothing. Everything is emptiness, emptiness is everything. Thinking is emptiness, emptiness is thinking. Feeling is emptiness, emptiness is feeling. Moving is emptiness, emptiness is moving. Still is emptiness, emptiness is still. Perceiving is emptiness, emptiness is perceiving. Noticing is emptiness, emptiness is perceiving. Aware is emptiness, emptiness is perceiving. Breathing is emptiness, emptiness is breathing. Living is emptiness, emptiness is living. Learning is emptiness, emptiness is learning. Discerning is emptiness, emptiness is discerning. Growing is emptiness, emptiness is growing. Opening is emptiness, emptiness is opening. Awakening is emptiness, emptiness is Awakening. Realizing is emptiness, emptiness is realizing. Liberating is emptiness, emptiness is liberating. Being is emptiness, emptiness is being. Knowing is emptiness, emptiness is knowing. Everything is emptiness, emptiness is everything. Nothing is emptiness, emptiness is nothing. Time is emptiness, emptiness is time. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Name is emptiness emptiness is name. Sound is emptiness. Emptiness is sound. Space is emptiness, emptiness is space. None is emptiness, emptiness is none. One is emptiness, emptiness is one. All is emptiness, emptiness is all." From page 148-9 of everything is here to help you.

Great lesson. Reminds me of HuangPo's : "The nature of the Void is unaffected by any opposing phenomena." Unfortunately, the Void sounds a bit like Emptiness.

About the character translated as "form" /"matter" that you knew as "color"; In Plato's Meno dialogue Socrates defines "shape" as "the only thing which always accompanies color". Does that Chinese ideogram mean "form" in the sense of "shape" i.e. that which we perceive as a unique phenomenon.

First day w/ this excellent channel. :-)

Speaking of Red Pine, his translation of the Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma is very interesting ...

As we are a process of becoming,there isn’t anything that we can definitively be said to be

An enlightening talk because you've put a lot of research and thought into this and are clear in your formulations. The "material/immaterial" translation is particularly useful (to me) because it is close to the mind/matter conundrum that we westerners are familiar with. I think, however, that the main culprit is, not terminology or culture, but the structure of language itself. Who can deal with the equivalence/equation ("is" or "=") of what, by definition, are opposites? Or what grammar could fully convey the workings of the universe, much less of the mind? Linguistic tools are approximations, make-do, inherently coarse-grain and prone to misunderstanding. How could the experience of life ever be reduced to the experience of language?

I'm currently studying the Heart Sutra using Red Pines translation with my teacher. Do you recommend studying more than one translation? And which one(s)?

I was reading this section of Don't Be A Jerk last night and I was a little confused with all the form talk. I see that it's not this now, but usually when I encounter 'form' in a philosophical work it is used in the Plato sense of Ideal Form. Is Form usually used in the way it's used in the Heart Sutra in Buddhist writing?

Would it be possible for you to do a Vlog about bowing, showing how to bow including full prostrations? There seem to be many different variations on bowing it would be interesting to hear your thoughts and to see your practice. Thanks.

The modern version could be E=mc^2 ... Matter (Form) is Energy (Unboundness)

Maybe what it refers to is to say form or objects have no inherent, separate, independent existence from their own side. Experientially for example if you look at say a bike , rather than subtly drawing a container around the bike as being full as a bike, see it naturally at a no-thingness equal point that notices all the depending parts . Another example if you feel your hand rather than feel imagining your hand as a fixed full object, feel the actual feelings between space as a set of no-thing in particularizing. What is of significance is what it refers to as a sensory experiencing rather than getting lost in philosophical abstracted reference ?

I recall asking you on Patreon if you could do a video or series answering the question “what is Zen?” But I realize that’s probably too General a question to be able to answer succinctly, or would require about a thousand videos, so here’s a request along the same vein: which sutras qualify as Zen literature or canon? In other words, which ones would you recommend a Zen practitioner or person interested in Zen study to further their understanding of Zen specifically, as opposed to Buddhism as a whole? I’d love to hear you discuss that!

3:05, Everything you know or don't know about Buddhism/Hinduism is born in India. Chinese/ Tibetan/ Korean/ Japanese translated all Buddhist/Hindu Sutras in their local languages. India was the only centre for Learning Science, Knowledge and Religion in Ancient time.

Intriguing that the character for form also is used for color. In Plato's Meno dialogue Socrates is trying to show Meno an example of how to define virtue by asking if Meno to define shape (figure, form). Roundness and straightness are both equally shapes but what is the essence of shape they both share. Meno asks Socrates to define shape and Socrates says "Let us say that shape is that which alone of existing things always follows color".

Form is emptiness = As above, so below?

+5 points for Jem.

I kinda feel aristotle breathing down my neck during that quote: So it's kinda hard to understand what is meant by form. Would it be more accurate to translate it as phenomena?

ok, Suppose I understand this sutra, How does this sutra help me or be useful to me in any way in my daily life? What is the point?

Could you please make a video on Nishijima Roshi? Thank you for all your books and videos 🙏

0 Also, Jem is outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

Namo Buddhaye 🙏🏻

This makes me think of waves. It seems to me to point to the idea that fundamentally, everything is essentially vibration. There is a great deal of repetition within these vibrations, that's how we manage to make sense of the world (reality is that which repeats?), as you say science is noticing pattern in the vibration (and vibrations of vibrations, and vibrations of vibrations of vibrations ad infinitum), but it's all basically born of a movement, a change (we could also call this information). At a level we are tuned in to certain frequencies that enable us to draw energy from other vibrations (seeing, hearing, eating, breathing etc) and hence sustain our own. At another we are the vibration mirroring itself (like a self oscillating delay pedal, I think you will know what I mean here Brad), a feedback loop to infinity, what we call consciousness. But as waves can exist within waves, we can say it's all one vibration. The question is then, what's vibrating?

I like to think of emptiness as potential instead of the concept of nothing/emptiness. Coming from a taoist perspective, anyway, with the similar concept of nothingness and the void. Of course, potential has it's flaws as well but I guess either way you've either received the transmission already and grok it, or have yet to and have some consideration to do. Great video Mr. Warner!

I think the “best” interpretation for 空 is “the base principle”.

Sathya Sai Baba the Avatar, passed in 2011, was capable of materialising objects ,changing one form to another, like a leaf to a huge diamond then making it disappear ,teleporting objects from afar. He was accused of conjuring but there are some things hedid not possible by trickery he also did many large humanitarian projects for the poor. He did many amazing things, curing serious disease , bilocation ,he used to say "Its all God ,nothing exists except God" you could say Emptiness instead, its only words for the one truth, he worked on all levels not just the physical. He has said "out of emptiness everything appears" and "You as body mind soul are a dream, what you really are is Existence itself" But I am a simple person what do I know, I just thought I would throw the above into the mix.....Buddhists used to visit him at his Ashram as did hundreds of thousands of others . QUESTION ,Can you or have you talked about SATORIS ?

I find the diamant sutra important as the heart sutra too.

Personally, i get just a very similar meaning from 色は空を違うません。(Did i get that right? Grammar is not my strong point in the language).

Whoah, Brad! Emptiness = Form has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the mind/material dichotomy (Cartesian dualism, mind/body problem, etc). In buddhist cosmology, the so-called internal/subjective (thoughts) and external/objective (physical world) all make up "form". "Emptiness" refers to what is NOT THAT (not thought, not physical, not subjective, not objective, not internal, not external). But is in fact THAT ultimately.

Yeeey Buddhism! LOL I love that one I have a question Why is Samskara in a different position in the 12 links description and in the 5 aggregates position? In a way it even appears two times in the 12 links, right? And besides, how can you have Samskara before experience??

The sacred text 'Heart Sutra' records a conversation between Avalokiteshwara and Sariputra discussing emptiness, which took place while Buddha was in a state of meditation on Vulture Peak, in front of a few hundred students. 500 years after Buddha's passing, Arya Nagarjuna brought it back while he was returning from teaching the Asuras. I strongly disagree with the assertion that it was first written in Chinese

Emptiness means without instrinsic existence so form is emptyness,emptyness is form; means form is without instrinsic existence what is without instrinsic existence is form.

What are atoms made of...x. What is x made of...y. This can stop or go on indefinitely or to the point both. Both just like emptyness and form

Have you ever read the Thich Nhat Hanh commentaries on the heart sutra?

I kind of feel that Emptiness is the same thing as consciousness. A human being is like emptiness in a body. Though when you start to see the extent the mind is dominated by representative thought and come out of that then everything starts to feel like "emptiness" including the body.

Zen circle. Enso or ensho. Not sure how to pronounce that.

Form exists because such n such, Form dont exists because such n such. Both is true from each own understanding of reality, the lesson is dont get attached to each side. Our common reality appeared as it is because collectively we all gave value for it to exist. For e.g money is just paper, its only important when we gave it a value. Its all in the mind

11:19 No. That's not the meaning of 'Form is Emptiness'. The meaning is that: phenomena are interdependently arisen and non-inherently existent (from their own side). 13:27 Emptiness (of inherent existence).

I like it as form is not anything. It is zero or shunya

I have always viewed the line “Form is Emptiness. Emptiness is form” as being an example of what separates Buddhism from mere “spirituality.” I often cringe when I hear or read someone describe Buddhism as a “spiritual practice” because it strikes me as an incomplete understanding of Buddhadharma. To my understanding, “Form is emptiness” serves to reinforce the truth of conditioned arising; that all phenomena is interdependent, and therefore empty as it is impossible for them to exist independently. That is the “spiritual” or objective truth. “Emptiness is form,” however, asserts that the forms do indeed exist, and are therefore equally important. That is the “material” or subjective truth.

Can we say simply that matter is immaterial and immaterial is matter, because the word ‘immaterial’ already implies the existence of matter and vice versa? Form is then no different from emptiness, because the two are inseparable and, therefore, constitute oneness.

haha... entered my comment before finishing the video

What are ur thoughts on Surangama sutra?...where Buddha talks about the unchanging observer?...and the TRUE SELF!..

You may visit ven/master sheng yen to understand the meaning of Form in Chinese. Though it means color but the real interpretation is matter in the rich history of the chinese characters.

One of the things I always wondered was this: Form (the external world) needs Mind, and Mind needs Form. As you say, we only know of things because of our mind. "the external world" (if it exists or not) only appears to us via our mind. So, to us, form depends on mind. But mind also depends on form - because without forms, the mind would have nothing to generate. (Both sensory forms, but also thought forms etc.) So, for me, i figured "Form is emptiness" means "form is empty of inherent existence", because it can only exist in relation to mind (and other forms) ? And vice versa - emptiness is form because emptiness without form, is meaningless.

Red Pine da bomb

My mind is not in my head, my head is in my mind ;-)

Actually the Heart Sutra starts out by saying that someone or other was coarsing in deep prajnaparamita, form is emptiness and emptiness is form cannot be explained by words.

I am not v v v clever, however I get insights now and again ....; we see From only in the Formlessness hence Formlessness can only arise in the MIND as Sunyata and knowing this the Form arises in the the mind as perception or imagination. SO where is the mind as formlessness It is inside the matter of the human form Thus it becomes Form is Formlessness and Formlessness is Form exactly in this sequence !! Vola ..... Now Meditate on this and everything unravels and disappears

Interesting. Self, no self baffles me yet, this kinda sorta makes sense. I'm too new to all this to know if that's usual or not.

Everything that exists or even doesn't is an idea in your mind. Some of these things we classify as real and some are just imaginary. By definition, you can not know anything, like an outside world when there is no mind. I know the Zen schools don't put a huge amount of attention into the Pali Canon, but I'm going to quote it anyway, "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." Your perception of the laptop, it's size, it's color, your love or hate of it are all mind states; they are ideas. Are these objective facts in the external world? What if you were blind, or an ant or lived a million miles from Earth, your perception of this "real" and "object" object and it's form or lack of would be totally different. It's all mind based - ideas you have. Where and why they arise is not always know. If you see the laptop, the idea arises. Maybe years from know, you'll think of it and for some reason that idea arises. Why often seemingly random or emotionally powerful ideas arise and how to control them is one of the most significant things a wise or enlightened person. Wise people can control these mind states. The people we see acting foolish or even violently, often can not. Anyway, this ability to have some mental control of my mind and therefore (my) the world is a path I feel I'm on. It would be nice to, when in a very stressful or horrible situation, to just decide consciously how I want to see this and to be able to say "No, it's OK. I'm not going to let the first idea that comes up tell me what to think. I'm going to take this situation and make it different, by thinking or interpreting differently. I have a friend who everyone hates and they think she's (objectively) horrible. I don't have to think that. I can accept her and see the good things. I've changed and controled the "external world" by thought alone. I have to see things this way otherwise I'm nothing but a biological machine mindlessly reacting to stimulus I have no control over.

= the relativity cannot be gauged… we therefore create an illusion, using it

Humans have the ability to separate themselves, creating a perception of subject and object. This is the mind of discrimination. There is no way to escape our own subjectivity. At best we objectify by negating our own unavoidable subjectively. It is like a coin. There can be no heads without tails and no tails without heads. Looking at one side we see its Form. The other side is always there too, but not being able to see it, it is just our imagination (void of form). Just because at the moment, I have no money, does not mean it does not exist. Money is potential. Its physical form is worthless.

Thank you so much for sharing. Since you mentioned, I wanted to point out that The Heart Sutra [The Maha Prajna Paramita Hrdaya Sutra] was originally written in Sanskrit then in translated in Chinese, not the other way around. I am studying The Diamond Sutra as well as The Heart Sutra which is basically a summary of the Diamond Sutra, and your video was very helpful. Keep it up!

Call me Chihiro brings me here 2023

My mind tastes/creates form, but reality exists beyond/within my mind. Mind is not mine, but infinite. ?

See the Gospel of Thomas.....and think about Jesus as a Paramukti or a Jivanmukti in a state of Turiya

Form is emptiness. = What is is not able to be understood

not only form, khandas 5 also

Agree with all you say, However Zen is a sub division of the Mahayana Buddhism , all teach the same even the Heart Sutra , but it came to Japan and China from India, so I would disagree with your statement on the point that the very ones who wrote the sutra then copied it because the Chinese version was more clear or better. This is why , and the very reasons sutras list who wrote them, when and in what context and to whom it was written or spoken. But it still remains we have the sutra and this is what counts

9:00 "Inside Emptiness there is no form"? Lol!

attached_ N unattached _

What about the line, “Given emptiness, there is no form....”

I love Brad's book "Sit down..." which passes on real insight but this explanation here is not up to that level. I recommend Suzuki Roshi's lectures for the best explanations I've encountered (go to cuke.com). What is emptiness vs form is like the question what is Buddha nature vs the usual ways we perceive daily life. To me, emptiness is like a magical "special sauce": if is clear and tasteless, but if you put it on anything, it makes it taste completely different. In terms of form it is equal to nihilism or atheism and hence completely worthless, and yet in reality is the exact opposite. Without zazen you can't understand it at all, because it is the sort of understanding which is completely nonconceptual and yet underlies everything. SR's lectures only really make sense if you are sitting while listening, and your grasp of it will shift every day, as SR says, "back and forth", understanding and experience and understanding and experience and....and then he says, to understand Buddha nature we really only need to see how silly we are....to paraphrase Brad, "Sit down and Shut Up and Shut Up and Sit Down and ...."

Form is it self empty

Rupa is body.

Reality is condensed nothingness. Particles are empty of existence and reside in a quantum field of probability. ^^

Everything is in a constant state of flux. Therefore since there is nothing that is static in the universe there can be no permanent self that is independent. Just as a table is comprised of it's different parts made of wood assembled into the shape we refer to as table but has no permanent tableness of itself. It is the same for us what we refer to as self is the amalgamation of everything that came before it, a combination of genetics and environmental conditioning and thoughts and feelings that is produced by the mind/brain based on it's conditioning and the mind overlays the I thought onto everything and that is the illusion in and if itself. We are empty of an intrinsic self but we are not nothing either for we are truly one with all that is and there is no differences. It is all the flow of life and consciousness. There is nothing that can be lost or gained. All we have to do is simply to rest in that realization.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Could mean many things. Could mean that there is no Self in matter, and no matter as part of Self. Ie, all matter is empty in the sense that there is no part of us in matter, and what we are is all that matters. Fullness/Self is zero dimensional, but not empty, in a sense, because it is all that we are. You know, it's not difficult to know your true Self. Consider: awareness/presence + conscience/non brain instantaneous knowing + power of intent = sense of 'am here' = life = Self = spirit. It's zero dimensional, it cannot be located in the body, nor can removing any part of the body decrease these things. The spirit never ages, never sleeps, never decays. During the day, it interacts with sensory consciousness, and at night, the dream faculty consciousness. Sensual desire is what binds a spirit to consciousnes, which I define as a field of the nervous system wherein sensory input is radiated. We read consciousness with awareness, process with conscience, and optionally write back via the power of intent. And the same process continues in a dream. Unbinding is the complete eradication of sensual desire. Cessation is when it is done temporarily. Full enlightenment is when it is done with permanent effects. Thus, concentration is developed to break thru the barriers of sensual attachments, and development of virtue for the aim of having a selfless conscience (one that does not reference our own sensual desires). The big problem that nobody wants to admit is that sensual desire runs deep, and nobody can attain the stages of enlightenment because they want to have their cake and eat it too. You can't enjoy the material life and attain stages of enlightenment. Asceticism is not optional. Without asceticism, you are trying to make fire with wet wood.

This explanation is not consistent with the idea of emptiness in buddhism (without inherent nature). Saying that form is emptiness would be the same as to say having no inherent self is having inherent self, which is just a pure contradiction, nothing more. I guess, emptiness here must mean something else then the emptiness that the buddhist usually refer to, otherwise it does not make sense to me. Your explanation that the physical form of your face etc. stands for the form and the physical sensations are symbolising emptiness sounds invalid. Please could you comment on this. Thanks!

If emptiness is form, then: Do stones have souls? Does magic exist?

hi，humans.huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

You got it! Close your eyes, you see emptiness. Open your eyes you see form. Meditate with you eyes half open, half closed and you see what the Buddha see. Thank you.

Pointless argument and conjecture. The sutra is the revelation of the experience of an enlightened being to an un-enlightened being. Understanding will only come with the experience of enlightenment.