[vTLWqa1l]

I like that video. the sound track is off, so it's like watching a Kung Fu movie.

So, he mentions compassion in relation to different degrees of letting go of self, says compassion itself does not exist inherently. It is dependent on understanding of suffering. But I did not hear at 6:45 in the video or anywhere him saying "there is no suffering". I listened to it a few times, in that general vicinity, but maybe I missed it.

I think there may be some confusion because on a relative level of course there is suffering, this suffering is a projection of the mind, or as you say, it is the mind which suffers. Ultimately, however, since as you say, there is no 'self', then there is nobody suffering, and if there is nobody suffering, ultimately there is no suffering going on, and if it isn't going on then it does not exist.

You are concerned that with the idea "there is no suffering", compassion and empathy may be lost. We may be behave in a manner that some may consider inappropriate & insensitive. If the phrase is not clearly understood for its intended meaning then of course this is possible. I may not understand what the Mona Lisa is about , but that doesn't make it a bad painting. If the context isn't clear, then you are right, it can be misunderstood.

The meaning of 'suffering does not exist' is that it has no inherent existence. Yes, of course it occurs! But it arises out of conditions. If it were otherwise, if suffering existed unconditionally as a self-arising phenomena, then there could be no cessation to suffering, no Third Noble Truth. So in this light, the statement "there is no suffering" becomes a very reassuring statement. It means it occurs but it has no substance. It isn't permanent.

Although "higher" teaching may be construed as implying "better than" (by many people) it actually means to take the argument to the next level. In Theravada teachings, there is the concept of anatta, of no self, pertaining to the one who is experiencing phenomena. What the heart Sutra says is that not only is there no self experiencing stuff, but the stuff has no self as well. The perceiver is a collection of khandas (Skt. skandhas) and conditions that arise and cease, and so are the things that are perceived. I don't know if this is an aspect of Pali literature, that phenomena, like 'self' has no true existence.

A side note: there are different versions of the Heart Sutra. A shorter one is commonly used for the purposes of recitation by Mahayana monks and nuns, which begins with Avalokiteshvara talking. But the fuller version actually begins with The Buddha in one of his gatherings, and while he is meditating, Sariputta, inspired by Buddha's meditative absorption asks Avalokiteshvara how one should train in the perfection of wisdom, to which Avalokiteshvara responds with the Heart Sutra. Whether any of this actually happened or not, who knows? But what is suggested is that Avalokiteshvara is not a celestial being here, not a deity, but is very accomplished follower of the Buddha.