[dicemets]

The Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, teaches that form is emptiness and vice-versa.

This understanding certainly conforms with original Buddhism. 'Form' is 'empty of self' and 'empty of self' is form

This understanding does not negate form but properly negates 'self' in form, form as 'self', etc,...

The Vimalakirty Sutra is dedicated to exposing the necessity of using words to point to meaning that is not inherent in those words. I'm sure there are others but coming from a Zen perspective, I haven't studied them.

This explanation of the Vimalakirty Sutra is not related to original Buddhism. It is a different and alien philosophy, similar to Taoism.

The Buddha himself, as reported in the Pali, did not concern himself with 'meaning inherent or uninherent' in words.

The Buddha himself, was concerned with understanding that leads to dispossession & thus liberation.

Both words & no words are not related to the goal of Buddhism.

In genuine Buddhism, attachment to no words (silence) is not the goal and blameworthy (unlike non-attachment to words).

Non-attachment to words is a greater freedom than attachment to no words.

Buddha taught non-attachment towards both words & no words.

It is important to distinguish between Buddhism and Taosim (or Hindu Advaita-Samadhi).

All the best



Buddha said:

One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound (Nibbana) right within. One discerns there is nothing further for this world.

MN 140 Lao Tzu said:

The Tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the
eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of
heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten
thousand things.

Tao Te Ching