Escenario #3: Conexión a Internet, calidad de servicio y administración del

Therefore, SSriputra, in emptiness there is no fo rm , no feeling, no discrimination, no com positional factors, no consciousness, no eye, no ear. no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no fo rm , no sound, no odor, no taste, no object o f touch, no phenom enon. There is no eye constituent, no m ental constituent, up to and including no mental consciousness constituent. There is no ignorance, no extinction o f ignorance, up to and including no aging and death and no extinction o f aging and death. Similarly, there are no sufferings, no origins, no cessations, no paths, no wisdom, no attainm ent, and also no non- attainment.

Therefore. Sariputra. because Bodhisattvas have no attainm ent they depend on and abide in the perfection o f w isdom and their minds are without obstruction and without fear. Having completely passed beyond all error they go to the com pletion o f nirvdna. AU the Buddhas who abide in the three times have been fu lly awakened into unsurpassed, perfect, complete enlightenment through relying on the perfection

o f wisdom.

Here Avalokitesvara proclaims the negation of all phenomena in the face of emptiness. He does not, however, simply say that in emptiness there are no phenomena. Rather, he systematically negates the categories of phenom ena formulated by the Hinayana A bhidharm a masters, of whom Sariputra is supreme. Before considering the meaning of Ava- lokiteSvara's negation, it is useful to identify those categories.

The first of the classifications o f phenom ena is the five aggregates. The Bodhisattva then says, “no eye, no ear, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no odor, no taste, no object of touch, no phenom enon.” This is the negation of the twelve sources (ayatana) of

consciousness, comprising the six senses (indriya) and their six objects.

The five senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are forms of subtle matter, included in the form aggregate, that provide the physical bases for the generation of the sense consciousnesses. In order for consciousness to occur, there must be three conditions: the dominant condition

(adhipatipratyaya), which is the sense; the object of observ ation condition (alambanapratyaya), the object that the consciousness will apprehend;

and the immediately preceding condition (,samanantarapratyaya), any

former moment of consciousness, insuring the existence of the unbroken continuum of consciousness. The mental consciousness has no physical sense as its dom inant condition. Its dominant condition is the mental sense (mana indriya), which can be the prior moment of any of the

six consciousnesses. Hence, the dominant condition and the immediately preceding condition of a mental consciousness are the same.

The six objects of the six consciousnesses are the objects of the five sense consciousnesses and the object of the mental consciousness. The objects of the sense consciousness are forms (here referring to color and shape perceived by the eye consciousness, rather than the larger category of the form aggregate), sounds, odors, tastes, and objects of touch. The object of the mental consciousness can be any object of knowledge, permanent or impermanent, physical or mental. Hence its object is “phenom ena.” Technically speaking, this final category includes all objects of knowledge not comprised by the other eleven categories, namely, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, noil-revelatory forms, and all permanent phenomena. The six sense powers and the six objects are aligned as follow's:

Becausc the object of the mental consciousness can be any object of knowledge, the classification of the tw'elve sources includes all phenomena in the universe. To delineate clearly, however, the three­ fold division into senses, objects, and the consciousnesses they generate, the eighteen constituents (dhatu) are set forth. This classification

simply adds the six consciousnesses to the twelve sources. This is what the sutra refers to when it says, "no eye constituent, no mental co n ­ stituent, up to and including no mental consciousness constituent.” The eighteen constituents may be arranged as follows, with the names of the constituents specifically mentioned in the sutra capitalized:

Senses eye ear nose tongue body mental sense Objects forms sounds odors tastes tangible objects phenomena

Senses Objects Consciousnesses EYE CONSTITUENT f o r m c o n s t i t u e n t e y e c o n s c i o u s n e s s c o n s t i t u e n t e a r c o n s t i t u e n t s o u n d c o n s t i t u e n t e a r c o n s c i o u s n e s s c o n s t i t u e n t n o s e c o n s t i t u e n t o d o r c o n s t i t u e n t n o s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s c o n s t i t u e n t t o n g u e c o n s t i t u e n t t a s t e c o n s t i t u e n t t o n g u e c o n s c i o u s n e s s c o n s t i t u e n t b o d y c o n s t i t u e n t t a n g i b l e o b j e c t b o d y c o n s c i o u s n e s s c o n s t i t u e n t c o n s t i t u e n t

MENTAL p h e n o m e n a MF.NTAI. CONSCIOUSNESS CONSTITUENT c o n s t i t u e n t CONSTITUENT

A detailed presentation of the five aggregates, twelve sources, and sixteen constituents occurs in the first chapter o f Vasubandhu’s

Abhidharmakosa.

Avalokitesvara then says, “There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death .” He refers to the twelvefold dependent arising

{pratityasamutpada) of sarpsara and its twelvefold extinction. The

chain of dependent arising is an ancient doctrine of Buddhism; in some accounts its realization constitutes the Buddha’s enlightenment at BodhgayS. It describes the m anner in which ignorance gives rise even­ tually to birth and death. The original significance of the specific chain of cause and effect remains somewhat uncertain. Later scholastics, however, provided a variety of explanations whereby the sequence of the twelve links occurs over the course of two or three lifetimes.1 The twelvefold order is as follows:

ignorance (avidyd)

action (samskarakarma)

consciousness {vijfiana)

name and form (namarupa)

sources (ayatana) contact (sparia) feeling (vedana) attachment (tr?na) grasping (upadana) existence (bhava) birth (jati)

The sutra mentions the first and last, indicating the process by which the cycle of rebirth functions, and mentions the extinction of the first and last, indicating the process by which the cycle of rebirth is destroyed. By putting an end to ignorance, action ceases. When action ceases, consciousness ends, and so on. The twelve links of the chain of dependent arising are often depicted as a circle, the beginning of which, ignorance, can only be discerned by a Buddha.2

The sutra next lists the four truths: “Similarly, there are no sufferings, no origins, no cessations, no paths.” The Buddha is said to have taught the four truths in his first sermon at S am ath . The varieties of experience that are qualified by suffering are to be identified; the origins of those sufferings, such as desire, hatred, and ignorance, are to be abandoned; the cessation of suffering, nirvana, is to be actualized; and the paths to nirvSna are to be cultivated.3 According to Vasubandhu, the order of the four truths follows the medical model of disease, diagnosis, prognosis, and cure.4

Finally, Avalokitesvara turns to the consciousness that understands these categories and the results of that understanding, saying, “ no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainm ent.”

Responding to the apparent contradiction of the sutra saying that emptiness is form and then saying that in emptiness there is no form, a Tibetan com m entator takes this section of the siitra to refer to medita­ tion on emptiness on the fourth of the five Mahayana paths, the path of meditation (bhavanamarga). Mere, the Bodhisattva enters repeatedly

into equipoise on emptiness in which the only thing that appears is emptiness, the utter vacuity of inherent existence. No conventional phenomena appear at that time, such that there is “no form, no feeling, no discrimination.”5 This interpretation is implicitly supported by Vimalamitra, who says, “Seeing emptiness thoroughly is to be under­ stood as thoroughly not seeing form; not to see any phenomenon is to see emptiness.6 With such an interpretation, it is not necessary to say that the statement, “in emptiness, there is no fo rm ” means, “in emptiness there is no inherently existent form ” because in meditative

equipoise on the mode of being of form, form would have to appear if it inherently existed in that its inherent existence would be the final mode of being of form. To say that “in emptiness there is no form ” implies that form does not inherently exist without suggesting that form is non-existent.7 Other interpretations, however, are possible. Consider those of Jfianamitra and Pra£&strasena.

Jnanam itra appears to read the statement sunyatdyatp na rupam.

“in emptiness there is no fo rm ” or “when there is emptiness, there is no form ” as “emptiness is not form". He says:

Regarding “emptiness is not form", form has the characteristic of disintegration whereas emptiness is without characteristic. Therefore, emptiness is not form. It is not feeling in the same way [because] feeling has the characteristic of experience. It is not discrimination [because] discrimination has the characteristic of apprehension. It is not com­ positional factors [because] compositional factors have the character­ istic of composition. It is not consciousness [bccause] consciousness has the characteristic of apprehending individual particularities whereas emptiness is unobservable. Therefore, it is not consciousness. It is not those [aggregates] because the five aggregates have the characteristic of contamination (sSsrava); emptiness is not the aggregates.

It is not the eye [bccause] the eye has the characteristic of sight, but because emptiness is without characteristic, it is not the eye. It is not the ear similarly [because] the ear has the characteristic of hearing. It is not the nose [because] the nose has the characteristic of smelting. It is not the tongue [because] the tongue has the character of experiencing tastes. It is not the body [because] the body has the character of touching. It is not the mind because the mind has the nature of distinguishing particularities, and because emptiness is without characteristic, it is not the mind. Thus, the six senses have the characteristic of apprehend­ ing, but because emptiness is without characteristic, it is not the six senses.

It is not form. Form has the characteristic of color and shape, but becausc emptiness is without characteristic, it is not form. It is not sound similarly [because] sound has the characteristic of the pleasant or unpleasant. It is not odor bccause odor has the characteristic of scent. It is not taste because taste has the characteristic of flavor. It is not tangible objects because tangible objects have the characteristic of being rough or smooth to the touch. It is not phenomena because phenomena have the characteristic of particular aspects, but emptiness is without characteristic; therefore, it is not phenomena. Thus, objects have the characteristic of conditions that cause observation, but emptiness is without characteristic. Therefore, it is not the objects.

It is not the eye constituent, the mental constituent, up to and including the mental consciousness constituent. The eighteen constituents have the characteristic of viciousncss, but emptiness is without characteristic. Therefore, it is not the eighteen constituents.

It is not ignorance, it is not aging and death, it is not the extinction of ignorance, up to and including, it is not the extinction of aging and death. The twelvefold dependent arising from ignorance to aging and death has the characteristic of upholding samsdra, but because emptiness

is without characteristic, it is not ignorance up to an d including aging and death. The extinction of ignorance up to and including the extinction of aging an d death have the characteristic of purification, but because emptiness is without characteristic, it is not the extinction o f ignorance up to and including the extinction of aging and death.

It is not suffering, origin, cessation, o r path. Suffering has the character­ istic o f affliction. Origin has the characteristic of appropriation (iupadana), cessation has the characteristic o f peace, an d path has the characteristic o f knowledge, but emptiness is without characteristic. Therefore, emptiness is not the four truths.

It is not wisdom. Wisdom has the characteristic o f directly perceiving all p h en o m en a, but bccausc emptiness is w ithout characteristic, it is not wisdom. It is not attainm ent, it is not non-attainm ent. Attainment is the unsurpassed, perfect, complete enlightenment. Non-attainment is the n on-attainm ent o f the unsurpassed by sentient beings. “ Is n o t ” [means] that the characteristic o f emptiness is without unsurpassed enlightenment as well as [without] sentient beings. Therefore, it is not attainm ent and it is not non-attainment. Ill esc enum erations tcach the emptiness o f inherent existence with regard to all p henom ena, saying that "emptiness is like t h a t .” This [section sets forth] the characteristic o f emptiness.11

Jnanam itra sees this section as delineating the distinctivencss of emptiness: how it is not any of the various categories of conventional phenomena because it lacks their defining characteristics. Emptiness is thus seen as beyond definition and expression. He does not relate his interpretation here that emptiness is without characteristic to the statement early in the sutra that all phenomena are without characteristic because they are empty.

Prasastrasena provides a somewhat more interesting reading of the section. He writes:

It was taught above that the individual divisions of the five aggregates are empty. Consequently, if the five aggregates, which are [mistakenly] thought to have signs, are empty, it is unsuitable to designate them with names such as “fo rm ,” because they are indivisible from emptiness. Thus, in order to dispel signs which are [m is c o n c e p tio n s a b o u t the names, it says “when [there is] emptiness, form is not, feeling is n o t”, etc. The five aggregates are em pty of entityness, that is, they have the characteristic of indivisibility [from emptiness] beyond names and designations. Therefore, becausc the signs imputed to form and so forth d o not exist, there are the words, “form is not, feeling is n o t”; that is, “no form, no feeling.” Fu rtherm ore , in emptiness, “fo rm ” is not

expressed as a nam e and "feeling” is not expressed.9

Here, Prasastrasena considers some of the implications of the aggregates being empty of inherent existence. If form, as well as the other four aggregates, are emptiness, it is inappropriate to designate them with names that imply the existence of signs that distinguish them in some ultimate manner. Emptiness is indivisible and beyond expression and so must be the aggregates. The signs by which the aggregates are differen­ tiated do not inherently exist. Therefore, the sutra says, “ In emptiness, there is no form, no feeling,” and so forth. Also, although form is emptiness, form is not a name for emptiness. Hence, “when emptiness, no form ,” can be taken to mean that the name "fo rm ” cannot be used to express emptiness. Emptiness is beyond names and designations and because form is emptiness, it is equally inexpressible. Prasastrasena continues:

“ Not eye, not ear, not nose, not tongue, not body, not m in d.” This is the six senses. The six senses depend on the five aggregates. Therefore, if the five aggregates do not exist so d o not the six senses because they arc not other th an the five aggregates. “ Not form, not sou n d, not odor, not taste, not touch, not p h e n o m e n a .” This is the six objects. They are the fructifications of predispositions (vasana) due to the power of ignorance. A polluted mind holds that that which is established as [these] conditioned effects exists. Because ultimately they are em p ty of entityness, [they] “do not exist.” “ Not the eye constituent to not the mental constituent.” This is the eighteen constituents. If the six internal senses do not exist, the bases o f the six consciousnesses d o not exist. Therefore, because six external objects d o not exist, the abodes of the six consciousnesses d o not exist. Because nothing arises, the six consciousnesses also d o not exist. Therefore, the eighteen constituents d o not exist.10

Here, Prasastrasena emphasizes the interdependence of the six senses, the six objects, and the six constituents. The five physical senses are included in the form aggregate and the mental sense is included in the consciousness aggregate. Hence, the demonstration of the emptiness of the five aggregates entails the emptiness of the six senses. He adopts some­ thing of a Yogacara perspective toward the six objects, calling them the fructification of predispositions, implying that the six objects d o not exist as external objects but are merely appearances that are falsely perceived as real due to the power of ignorance; the six objects d o not inherently exist. If the senses, which serve as the physical bases—the dom inant conditions—of the six consciousnesses, d o not exist and the

six objects that serve as the objects—the observed object conditions—of the six consciousnesses do not exist, then consciousness also does not exist; its causes arc lacking. Because all phenomena are dependent in this or some other manner, nothing exists objectively, autonomously, inherently. As NSgarjuna says in his Mulamatlhyamakakdrikd

(X X IV .19):

Because there are no phenom ena That are not dependent arisings. There are no phenom ena

T hat are not e m p iy .11

It is significant that Prasastrasena says that the six objects “ultimately are empty of entityness." This indicates that he recognizes that the negations of this section, “form does not exist,” and so forth, are not negations of the existence of the five aggregates, the twelve sources, and the eighteen constituents, but rather are negations of their existing by way of their own entity ultimately. It has already been pointed out by Jnanam itra that utter non-existence is an extreme to be avoided. According to dGc-lugs-pa presentations of M adhyamika theories of scriptural interpretation, the statement in the Heart Sutra, “ no form"

requires interpretation (neyartha) according to the Sv&tantrikas because

the qualification “ultimately existent” (that is, “no ultimately existent fo rm ”) is not explicit. According to the Prasangikas, however, the statement is definitive (nitartha) because the qualification “inherently

existent” occurs earlier in the sutra (when Avalokitesvara sees that the five aggregates are empty of inherent existence) and thus is implied in this context. Furthermore, in the Satasahasrikaprajndpdramita,

the Buddha says that when he says that things do not exist, "this is for the conventions of the world, not ultimately.” 12

Prasastrasena goes on to consider the twelvefold dependent arising

"Ignorance is not, the extinction of ignorance is not, aging and death arc not, the extinction o f aging and death are not." This is the sphere of those who have entered the vehicle o f p ratyekabuddhas. Saying “ignorance" is the brief statement of the leaching [of the other eleven branches] up to an d including aging an d death; from action conditioned by ignorance are seen consciousncss, name and form, the six sourccs, contact, feeling, attach m en t, grasping, existence, birth, an d aging and death. Ignorance arises from the view o f self. T he conception of self arises from that which does not exist. Therefore, ignorance also docs not exist. For example, by lighting a lamp in a house that has long been d ark, [the darkness] becomes non-existent in an instant and its n on ­

existence does not a p p ea r as som ething real. In that way, investigation with the lam p of wisdom makes non-existent in a n instant the thick darkness o f ignorance [that has obscured] sentient beings beginning- lessly. Its non-existence does not a p p e a r as som ething real. W hat is called "k no w le dg e” is just the designation for the opposite of ignorance; because ignorance does not exist, not even the nam e o f knowledge is established. therefore, “ignorance is not and the extinction of ignorance is n o t .” Because the entity o f ignorance does not exist,