Every time our Sangha meets, we chant the Heart Sutra. A line in it that has caused (and probably will continue to cause) many people to have much confusion and misunderstanding Is, “…that which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form…” As with many of the teachings, the translation of the Sutra may lead to the problem and the problem may go back to when the Sutra was written down; such is the nature of language and its limitations. We can just as easily use the term “openness” for “emptiness” and so long as neither has any negative connotations or nihilistic implications, then it’s all good.
In order to reduce the suffering that misunderstanding causes, we use the antidote of understanding. When we think of words, our own sense of self and our projection of self-ness onto others, results in our perception of separation and distinctness to the words. We think of form as a thing, and we think of emptiness as a separate thing, like apples and oranges. Then Avalokitesvara comes along and tells us that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. So, noun A = Noun B, Noun B is Noun A, and therefore one can use an apple for an orange and it’s all good. But this interchangeability still considers A & B to be separate things, even in their equality!
“Form” as a term is empty. “Emptiness” as a term is like wise empty. But what are they empty of? First of all, it’s their selfiness. As DT Suzuki put it, all phenomena subject to causes and conditions is characterized by Shunyata (emptiness). That means that everything we encounter physically has no self nature. In the world of interdependence, nothing we encounter is not the result of causes and conditions. Things do not magically spring into existence totally independent of other things.
That table you sit for your morning juice and coffee—comprised of top surface and legs, maybe made from wood, or metal, or plastic—is it still a table when one of the legs is removed? As a place to put a coffee cup and not have it end up on the floor, its function as a table is gone. But we may still give it the name “table” (albeit a broken table, but a table nonetheless) even if it no longer can do what a table does. If we look at the table leg, we might still call it that, but if you’d never seen a table or knew that it once was an element that held up a table, you might likewise call it a stick, or firewood, or ash waiting to happen when it comes in contact with a flame. So all of these entities may have different names, and their existence relative to their function will likewise be different—even though at one time we thought of them as a thing that is part of that other thing. Much like the Skandhas (individual elements—form, feeling, perception, impulses, and consciousness) we think of as composing our selves that Avalokiteshvara found to be empty of any self-nature, these parts of the “table” too have no defined self-nature. Once he found that, he was relieved of “all suffering and distress.”
There is no “other” to what we call “form,” and no distinctness to what we call “emptiness.” They’re just inseparable characterizations. It’s formemptinessemptinessform. You can pull apart an orange and up to a certain point, it functions as an orange. But that state changes—you probably wouldn’t try to make juice out of the seeds. Some grated orange peel might make for a tasty cake, but just throwing an entire orange into the batter and getting the same cake is unlikely. If you left the grated orange peel in a closet and expected the same outcome as using freshly grated peel in your mix, you would probably be disappointed, if not ill. The nature of the orange and its constituent parts are all subject to causes and conditions, have no self-nature, and are impermanent. Consequently, they are defined as BEING emptiness.
When the essence and function of ourselves, an action, and something acted upon are inseparable, then we’re at least in the state of no-mind or mu-shin or before-thought that characterizes our direct experience of reality without concepts (including “emptiness” as a thing) we experience emptiness. It doesn’t make anything less “emptiness,” but at least we see that which Avalokiteshvara perceived, and hopefully that will lessen our suffering and distress.