We Are Avalokiteshvara

Below is an approximate transcript of a talk offered to Jikoji Zen Center on September 6, 2026. An audio recording is available, too, as well as a video recording complete with captions. The latter you can findhere. As always, I recommend listening or watching the talk—both include spontaneous moments that deviate from my prepared remarks, along with a discussion period—but the choice remains with you. Enjoy. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming to Jikoji this morning. Thank you for your presence and practice, as I often say. This morning, I want to talk about four things (at least): theHeart Sutra; theHeart Sutra's speaker, Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva; Compassion (orkarunain Sanskrit); and Wisdom (orprajnain Sanskrit). And I want to do this in about thirty minutes. We'll see how this goes. We chanted theHeart Sutrathis morning during the service, theGreat Wisdom Beyond Wisdom Heart Sutra. Sometimes people say that theHeart Sutraexpresses a central insight of the Buddha's teachings. So, the sutra is called the 'Heart Sutra' because (from one point of view) its subject is the heart of the matter, a fundamental point. The 'place' or 'setting' for the sutra is the heart-mind of the Buddha. The Buddha was sitting in meditation and there arose a conversation between Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva and Shariputra. The Sanskrit wordBodhimeans 'awake' or 'awakened' andsattvameans 'being.' So, a 'Bodhisattva' is an 'awakened being.' There are hundreds if not thousands of Bodhisattvas mentioned throughout Buddhist writings. Each one has its own 'domain' or 'specialty' or 'area of focus.' For example, Manjushri Bodhisattva (whose name was said during the service) is the Bodhisattva of Wisdom; Samantabhadra Bodhisattva (whose name appears in the meal chant, among other places) is the Bodhisattva of Practice and Meditation; and Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, whose name begins theHeartSutra, theGreat Wisdom Beyond Wisdom Heart Sutra, is the Bodhisattva of Compassion. You may have seen the representation of Avalokiteshvara where they have a hundred or a thousand arms. On one side, each hand has an instrument or tool in it; on the other, in each hand there is an eye. In some depictions, Avalokiteshvara has several heads and many ears. As the Bodhisattva of Compassion, Avalokiteshvara hears, sees, and responds to, the cries—the suffering—of the world. When I put these two things together—the focus of theHeart Sutraand who or what Avalokiteshvara is, what they are 'all about'—I feel compelled to ask: Why is Avalokiteshvara in conversation with Shariputra? (Shariputra, by the way, is considered the wisest of the Buddha's disciples.) Why is the Bodhisattva of Compassion delivering a teaching on the 'great wisdom beyond wisdom'? Happily, I am not alone in asking this question. Kobun Chino Otogawa, who helped found Jikoji Zen Center during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and to whom there is a memorial space behind me and down past this building and across a bridge, also had this same question—or near enough, anyway. From the lecture titled 'The First Lines,' part of a series of lectures by Kobun Chino on theHeart Sutra, we read: [Avalokiteshvara] can be seen as the personality or nature of a person, a representative characteristic of each person. It is the basic nature of a living thing, both man and woman, wisdom and compassion, because when compassion and wisdom take form they appear as one being. Avalokiteshvara's nature is wisdom and his form is compassion. [She] is made of wisdom, but how [she] exists in the world, [her] action as seen by people, is as a compassionate figure. Everyone has the nature of Avalokiteshvara, and it appears by action, by expression and by form. These are deep words. For Kobun's suggestion is that Avalokiteshvara, in addition to being the Bodhisattva of Compassion, the Awakened Being of Compassion, is also a stand-in for you and me, for us. 'Everyone has the nature of Avalokiteshvara,' Kobun says. Her 'basic nature,' fundamentally how she is and how we are, is wise and compassionate. While we separate wisdom and compassion in thought—maybe we say that we lack both or one of these attributes; in times since past I have said that I am not a compassionate person; interestingly, I always say that I am wise—in actuality, these attributes are inseparable. 'When compassion and wisdom take form,' Kobun continues, 'they appear as one being. Avalokiteshvara's nature is wisdom and his form is compassion. [She] is made of wisdom'—a poetic way of speaking, perhaps—'but how [she] exists in the world, [her] action as seen by people'—how Avalokiteshvara expresses their wisdom through and with their body-heart-mind—'is as a compassionate figure.' And so do you, too, from this point of view. Sometimes, we enact wisdom in this way well. Other times, we stumble in our endeavor to act compassionately. But always, whichever is the case, this fundamental way of being with the world is here. We are Avalokiteshvara. That feels an excellent place to end the talk—but I am going to continue talking, unfortunately. I want to spend the rest of our time together this morning exploring the connection that Kobun says there is between wisdom and compassion. 'When compassion and wisdom take form,' he says, 'they appear as one being.' A moment ago, I said that in the past I thought of myself as a non-compassionate or not a compassionate person. Sometimes I feel that way even now (though I am not feeling that way in this moment). There are two ways of meeting such an experience—at leasttwo ways. The first way starts from an assumption that my self-assessment is correct:I am in fact not a compassionate person. It proceeds to ask, 'Now what?' Then, 'Should I buy some self-help literature to support cultivating compassion?' Or, 'Should I enroll in a seminar by some famed spiritual teacher?' Or, 'Should I quit my job, leave my career, and move into a Zen Center?' These responses (and others, there are many possibilities) assume, in addition to the correctness of my self-assessment, that the lack of compassion is a deficit or flaw that needs correction. I need to 'fix myself.' The second way starts with curiosity (perhaps skepticism or suspicion) of my self-assesment. 'Is it correct?' I ask. And it might not be correct because my understanding of compassion might be incomplete.Something(or manysomethings) is missing. Consequently, my view of the field populated by compassionate actions, particular expressions of wisdom through and with this body-heart-mind, has cloudy areas and dark places. If my beginning is there, with curiosity about this 'belief-feeling'—for the experience does not fit into either category well—an opportunity for investigation arises. And that investigationcouldchange the condition and my perception of the field. Consider a case: suppose there is a wealthy person who believes that it is a good thing to be wealthy and a bad thing to be impoverished. This wealthy person becomes aware of people in their community who are impoverished and, judging them to be worse off, believing that there is something better for them, decides to act on an opportunity. The wealthy person gives away (some of) their wealth to save others from their present impoverished condition. The wealthy person decides to act charitably, giving generously to those in need. Now, a question: Does the wealthy person also act compassionately? In preparing for this talk, I was surprised to read that a possible response is No. The wealthy person's action might look compassionate; they are helping impoverished people. But an action and its likely consequences are only one part of the picture. What about the spirit with which the act is done, the intention motivating the action? When I review the situation with the wealthy person, I notice several comparisons: first, the wealthy person judges that it is good to be like them (wealthy) and bad to not be like them (impoverished); second, the wealthy person judges that they are better off than the impoverished people, who are worse off; third, the wealthy person judges that the impoverished people need to be saved and that they (the wealthy person) can save them. Implicitly, there is another comparison, namely, that the wealthy person has something that the impoverished people do not—wealth. All these comparative judgments move the wealthy person to give generously but not in a compassionate way. For compassion does not (from one point of view) follow upon comparative or discriminatory thinking. But if not that, then what does compassion follow upon? We read in theHeart Sutra: These lines mention the principal causes of suffering (ignorance, old age, death), the Four Noble Truths, the thorny matter of attainment or goal-reaching, and more. And for each 'thing' we are told 'no' about it, meaning there is no difference between any one of them (or them together) and 'emptiness'—intimate and through-and-through interconnection—in the same way that there is no difference when it comes to our sense organs, the objects of the sense organs, and anything else—including emptiness! All things are 'empty' in the sense of being without a single, autonomously existing and unchanging self on which depends their identity. Rather, their being however and whatever they are is determined by the ungraspably many relations that obtain in their respective locations at a given time. Such relations are liable to (and undoubtedly do) change and change constantly. And that renders comparative judgments tenuous at best. How can I determine whether a person is ignorant or wise when how and what they are changes as relations change from moment to moment? Can I confidently say that a person is wealthy or poor—and what is the standard by which the determination is made—or can that be said but provisionally or tentatively only, and never until we are face-to-face—and maybe not even then? [All quotations in the following paragraph are from Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's talk, 'The Path.'] The intended effect of these questions is creating space for another way of relating to the myriad things that constitute this life, what are poetically called the 'one hundred blades of grass' or the 'ten-thousand things.' This 'other way' can be described as a 'willing[ness] to relate with what is there without your expectations [comparisons, judgments]' or a 'basic warmth [born from] the absence of duality, absence of comparison, clear and [noncontrived] space.' In this case, compassion 'is being basically open, willing to relate with [what is] happening in this given situation as it is.' From this point of view, 'being willing to take a chance as things develop their own basic nature' is the what-it-is to be a compassionate person. For a time, I missed this. A basic openness and willingness to meet the inevitable unfurling of this life, moment after moment, was not a part of how I understood compassion—much less was it central to my understanding. Seeing this aspect of compassion requires some insight into the nonfixedness of how and what things are, their 'empty way of being,' which is a way of highlighting the importance of seeing with 'eyes of wisdom.' Such eyes see straight to the heart of the matter, pierce the fundamental point. Hence, theHeart Sutrabegins with these lines: With wisdom eyes open—bright, clear, and gentle—Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva transforms confinement into liberation, distress and suffering into ease and joy. Then, she proceeds to share what she *sees* with Shariputra, the nonrigidity and flowing fluidity of all that populates the world. In turn, she supports the development of his basic nature, which is the same as hers: wisdom and compassion. And so, I return to Kobun's words: [Avalokiteshvara] can be seen as the personality or nature of a person, a representative characteristic of each person. It is the basic nature of a living thing, both man and woman, wisdom and compassion, because when compassion and wisdom take form they appear as one being. Avalokiteshvara's nature is wisdom and his form is compassion. [She] is made of wisdom, but how [she] exists in the world, [her] action as seen by people, is as a compassionate figure. Everyone has the nature of Avalokiteshvara, and it appears by action, by expression and by form. Avalokiteshvara is 'made of wisdom,' meaning that they are not a single, fixed, and independently existing being, but continually changing, riding (perhaps surfing) impermanent causes and conditions. How and what she is is a living embodiment of the teaching of theHeart Sutra—and so are you, all of you. Her basic nature enables direct and open encounters with everything that appears. Who better to deliver this teaching on the perfection of wisdom than the awakened being who 'exists in the world, [whose] action[s] as seen by people, is as a compassionate figure'? I remember something else Kobun that said: that 'wisdom is the process of returning to compassion.' Opening the wisdom eyes (re)establishes foundational openness and willingness. Open and willing I am to meet everything just as it is when I see the emptiness of all things. Compassion is the expression of wisdom in action. My study and writing about the Dharma is offered freely. If you benefit from what I offer here, please consider sharing and subscribing—even becoming a paid subscriber. You may also offerdānathroughPaypal. I am grateful for your generosity. If you enjoyed this post, you might consider the following offerings: