buddha nature
DESCRIPTION
Buddha-natureTRANSCRIPT
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 1/14
Buddha-nature, Buddha-dhatu or Buddha Principle (Skt: Buddha-dhātu,Tathāgatagarbha; Jap: Bussho), is
taught differently in various Mahayana Buddhismtraditions. Broadly speaking Buddha-nature is concerned with
ascertaining what allowssentient beings to become Buddhas.[1] The term, Buddha nature, is a translation of the
Sanskrit coinage, 'Buddha-dhātu', which seems first to have appeared in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana
Sutra,[2] where it refers to 'a sacred nature that is the basis for [beings'] becoming buddhas.'[3]
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Development of the concept of Buddha-nature
2.1 Early Indian Buddhism
2.1.1 Nikayas - Luminous mind
2.1.2 Abhidhamma - The seed of awakening
2.2 Indian Mahayana
2.2.1 Avatamsaka Sutra
2.2.2 Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
2.2.2.1 Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra
2.2.2.2 Śrīmālādevī Sūtra
2.2.2.3 Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
2.2.2.4 Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra)
2.2.3 Lotus Sutra
2.2.4 Trikaya
2.2.5 Tathagatagarbha and Alayavijnana
2.2.5.1 Lankavatara-sutra
2.2.5.2 The Awakening of Faith
2.2.6 Tantra
2.2.6.1 Mahāvairocana Sūtra
2.3 Chinese Mahayana
3 Interpretation within Buddhist traditions
3.1 Indian Mahayana Buddhism
3.1.1 Prajna-paramita sutras
3.1.2 Madhyamaka
3.1.3 Yogacara
3.2 Tibetan Buddhism
3.2.1 Nyingma
3.2.2 Kagyu
3.2.3 Gelukpa
3.2.4 Jonangpa
3.2.5 Dzogchen
3.2.6 The Rimé movement
3.3 Chinese Buddhism
3.3.1 Tiantai
3.3.2 Chán
3.3.2.1 Lankavatara Sutra
3.3.2.2 Alayavijñāna
3.3.2.3 Vajrasamadhi-sutra (685 CE)
3.3.2.4 Contemporary Chán/Zen-understanding
3.4 Japanese Buddhism
3.4.1 Nichiren Buddhism
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 2/14
3.4.2 Zen Buddhism
4 Modern scholarship
4.1 Essential self
4.2 Sunyata
4.3 Critical Buddhism
4.4 Multiple meanings
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 Sources
9 Further reading
10 External links
Etymology [edit]
Buddha-nature (Classical Chinese: 佛性, modern pinyin fó xìng) literally corresponds to theSanskrit Buddha-dhātu -
"Buddha Element", "Buddha-Principle", but seems to have been used most frequently to translate the Sanskrit
"Tathāgatagarbha". The Sanskrit term "tathāgatagarbha" may be parsed into tathāgata ("the one thus gone", referring
to the Buddha) and garbha ("womb").[a] The latter has the meanings: "embryo", "essence";[4] whilst the former may
be parsed into "tathā" ("[s]he who has there"[clarification needed] and "āgata" (semantic field: "come", "arrived") and/or
"gata" ("gone").[5]
For the various equivalents of the Sanskrit term "tathāgatagarbha" in other languages (Chinese, Japanese,
Vietnamese), see Glossary of Buddhism, "tathagatagarbha"
The usual term for ‘buddha nature’ in the Mahayana teachings is tathagatagarbha, but in theVajrayana the term is
sugatagarbha.[6]
Development of the concept of Buddha-nature [edit]
The idea of Buddha-nature originated in India, and was further developed in China, due to the different culture
Buddhism had to adapt to. It was the result of an interplay between various strands of Buddhist thought, on the nature
of human consciousness and the means of awakening.
Early Indian Buddhism [edit]
Nikayas - Luminous mind [edit]
The idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is an innately pure luminous
mind[7] (prabhasvara citta[8]), "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)"[8] This
luminous mind is being mentioned in theAnguttara Nikaya:[9]:
Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements".[10][b]
The Mahāsāṃghika coupled this idea of the luminous mind with the idea of the mulavijnana, the substratum
consciousness that serves as the basis consciousness.[7]
Abhidhamma - The seed of awakening [edit]
The Buddha-nature doctrine may be traced back, in part, to the abhidharmic debates over metaphysics. Those arose
among the Nikāya schools as they attempted to reconcile various perceived problems.
One problem is how to integrate the doctrine of anatta with the idea of karma and rebirth. The anatta-doctrine
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 3/14
stipulates that there is no underlying self, while the idea of karma and rebirth seems to implicate an underlying
essence that's being reborn. A solution to this problem was the proposition of the existence of karmic seeds. The
karmic effects of the human deeds lay dormant, as seeds, until they germinate in this or a next life. Not an individual
self, but these karmic seeds are the base for the generation of a following life.
This concept of "seeds" was espoused by the Sautrāntika in debate with the Sarvāstivādinsover the metaphysical
status of phenomena (dharmas). It is a precursor to the ālaya-vijñāna, the store-consciousness of
the Yogācāra school which contains all these seeds.[11]Originally ālaya-vijñāna simply meant defiled consciousness:
defiled by the workings of the five senses and the mind. It was also seen as the mūla-vijñāna, the base-
consciousness or "stream of consciousness" from which awareness and perception spring.[12]
According to Yogacara, awakening is the result of a seed that comes from outside the human psyche, namely by
hearing the teaching.[8]
Indian Mahayana [edit]
Avatamsaka Sutra [edit]
The Avatamsaka Sutra (1st-3rd century CE) was the next step in the development of the Buddha-nature thought,[7]
[W]here it is taught that the Buddha's divine knowledge pervades sentient beings, and that its
representation in an individual being is the substratum consciousness.[7]
The Avatamsaka Sutra does not contain a "singular discussion of the concept"[13], but the idea of "a universal
penetration of sentient beings by the wisdom of the Buddha (buddhajnana)" was complementary to the concept of the
Buddha-womb.[13]
The basic idea of the Avatamsaka Sutra is the unity of the absolute and the relative:
All in One, One in All. The All melts into a single whole. There are no divisions in the totality of reality
[...] [I]t views the cosmos as holy, as "one bright pearl," the universal reality of the Buddha.
The universal Buddhahood of all reality is the religious message of the Avatamsaka-sutra.[14]
Each part of the world reflects the totality of the cosmos:
In each dust-mote of these worlds
Are countless worlds and Buddhas...
From the tip of each hair of Buddha's body
Are revealed the indescribable Pure Lands...
The indescribable infinite Lands
All ensemble in a hair's tip [of Buddha].[15]
All levels of reality are related and interpenetrated. This is depicted in the image of Indra's net. This "unity in totality
allows every individual entity of the phenomenal world its uniqueness without attributing an inherent nature to
anything".[15]
Tathāgatagarbha Sutras [edit]
Main article: Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
From the idea of the luminous mind emerged the idea that the awakened mind is the pure, undefiled mind. In the
tathagatagarbha-sutras it is this pure consciousness that is regarded to be the seed from which Buddhahood grows:
When this intrinsically pure consciousness came to be regarded as an element capable of growing
into Buddhahood, there was the "embryo (garbha) of the Tathagata (=Buddha)" doctrine, whether or not
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 4/14
this term is employed.[7]
Gregory comments on this origin of the Tathagatagarba-doctrine:
The implication of this doctrine [...] is that enlightenment is the natural and true state of the mind.[8]
The early Buddha-nature concept as expressed in the seminal 'tathagatagarbha sutra' named the Nirvana Sutra is,
according to Kevin Trainor, as follows:
'Sentient beings are said to possess a sacred nature that is the basis for them becoming buddhas ... this buddha-
nature is in fact our true nature ... universal and completely unsullied by whatever psychological and karmic state an
individual may be in.'[3]
The tathagatagarbha-sutras originated in India, but their ideas were more influential in the development of East Asian
Buddhism.[16]
The earliest tathagata-garbha sutra is the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra.[17] The most important of those sutras is The Lion's
Roar of Queen Srimala.[18][17] Another influential sutra, especially in Chinese thought, is the Mahāparinirvāṇa
Sūtra[19].
The Uttaratantra gives a synthesis of tathagatagarbha-thought[13], and gives an overview of authoritative
tathagatagarbha sutras.[19]
Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra [edit]
The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra (200-250 CE) is considered...
... the earliest expression of this [the tathāgatagarbha doctrine) and the termtathāgatagarbha itself
seems to have been coined in this very sutra."[20]
It states that one is already or primordially awakened.[21][22][23]
Śrīmālādevī Sūtra [edit]
The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra (3rd century CE[24]), also named The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, centers on the teaching of
the tathagatagarbha as "ultimate soteriological principle".[25]Regarding the tathagata-garbha it states:
Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. The
Tathagatagarbha is not the domain of beings who fall into the belief in a real personality, who adhere to
wayward views, whose thoughts are distracted by voidness. Lord, this Tathagatagarbha is the embryo
of the Illustrious Dharmadhatu, the embryo of the Dharmakaya, the embryo of the
supramundane dharma, the embryo of the intrinsically pure dharma.[26]
In the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, there are two possible states fot the Tathagatagarbha:
[E]ither covered by defilements, when it is called only "embryo of the Tathagata"; or free from
defilements, when the "embryo of the Tathagata" is no more the "embryo" (potentiality) but the
Tathagata (=the Dharmakaya)(actuality).[27]
The sutra itself states it this way:
This Dharmakaya of the Tathagata when not free from the store of defilement is referred to as the
Tathagatagarbha.[28]
Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra [edit]
The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (written 2nd century CE) was very influential in the Chinese reception of the Buddhist
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 5/14
teachings. This sutra was understood to postulate an underlying essence, 'the true Self', as it sometimes terms the
Buddha-nature of all beings, though this sutra is ambivalent.
The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states that Buddha-nature is everlasting, pure and blissful, and is 'the Self of
living beings'.[29]
The self of which the Buddha speaks is said by him to be the "essential intrinsic being" (svabhava) or even "life-
essence" (jīvaka) of each person, and this essential being is none other than the Buddha himself - "radiantly
luminous" and "as indestructible as a diamond".[30] The Buddha-nature is taught to be an ultimate, conceptually
inconceivable, immortal reality.[29]
But the Mahaparinirvana-sutra also contrasts its doctrine of the True Self with that of theAstikas. The Astikas were
the orthodox teachings of India, embracing the idea of Atman. The sutra rejects the idea of the self as an indwelling
miniature man, a homunculus:
Mundane [philosophers] mistakenly imagine it to be a person (puruṣa) the size of a thumb, the size of a
pea or a grain of rice that dwells shining in the heart.[30]
This, the Buddha says, is a misconception of the nature of self, for:
That opinion of theirs is a mistaken opinion, one that is transmitted onwards from person to person, but
it is neither beneficial nor conducive to happiness.... Worldly beings do not comprehend the reality of
the Self (ātma-tattva); they fall under the sway of unwholesome friends, and do not understand the
[Tathāgata’s] utterances with implicit meaning, they meditatively cultivate the notion that they lack the
Self, even though there is the Self.[30]
Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra) [edit]
The Uttaratantra (5th century CE) is a sastra in which
[T]he various insights and developments of the above texts (all of which served as its sources) were to
be comprehensively synthesised into the most authoritatively complete analysis of
the Tathagatagarbha theory.[13]
It gives an overview of authoritative tathagatagarbha sutras, mentioning the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Śrīmālādevī
Sūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Angulimaliya Sutra, the Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa and the Mahābherīharaka-
sūtra.[19]
According to the Ratnagotravibhāga,
Thusness [tathata] defiled is the Tathagatagarbha, and Thusness undefiled is Enlightenment.[27]
The Ratnagotravibhāga equates enlightenment with the Nirvana-realm and theDharmakaya.[27]
Lotus Sutra [edit]
The Lotus Sutra (written between 100 BCE and 200 CE) further developed and popularized the doctrine of the
Buddha-nature. It influenced subsequent later sutras.[31]
The tenth chapter emphasizes, in accordance with the Bodhisattva-ideal of the Mahayana-teachings, that everyone
can be liberated. All living beings can become a buddha, not only monks and nuns, but also
laypeople, shravakas, bodhisattvas, non-human creatures, dragon kings and centaurs.[31] It also details that all living
beings can be a 'teacher of the Dharma'.
The twelfth chapter of the Lotus Sutra details that Buddha nature is universal among all people. Even the
historical Devadatta has the potential to become a buddha.[32] The story of Devadatta is followed by another story
about a dragon princess who is both a nāga and afemale, whom the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī proclaims will reach
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 6/14
enlightenment immediately, in her present form.
Trikaya [edit]
Mahayana Buddhism developed new ideas on the appearance of the Buddha. These ideas first appeared in the Lotus
Sutra, which distinguishes between the heavenly Buddha and earthly Buddhas.[33]
Around 300 CE, the Yogacara school systematized the prevalent ideas on the nature of the Buddha in
the Trikaya or three-body doctrine. According to this doctrine, Buddhahood has three aspects:[34]
1. The Nirmana-kaya, or Transformation-body,
2. The Sambhogakāya, or Enjoyment-body,
3. The Dharmakāya, or Dharma-body.
The Transformation-body is the earthly manifestation of the Buddha.
The Enjoyment-body is a subtle body, by which the Buddha appears to bodhisattvas to teach them.
The Dharma-body refers to both the ultimate nature of the Buddha, and to the ultimate nature of reality[citation needed]:
The first is the 'Knowledge-body' (Jnana-kaya), the inner nature shared by all Buddhas, their Buddha-
ness (buddhata)
[...] The second aspect of the Dharma-body is the 'Self-existent-body' (Svabhavika-kaya). This is the
ultimate nature of reality, thusness, emptiness: the non-nature which is the very nature of dharmas,
their dharma-ness (dharmata). It is the Tathagata-garbha and bodhi-citta hidden within beings, and the
transformed 'storehouse-consciousness'.
Tathagatagarbha and Alayavijnana [edit]
The Lankavatara Sutra "assimilates Tathagata-garbha thought to the Yogacara-viewpoint, and this assimilation is
further developed in [...] The Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana".[17]
Lankavatara-sutra [edit]
The Lankavatara Sutra (compiled 350-400 CE[35]) synthesized the tathagatagarba-doctrine and the alija-vijnana
doctrine. The alija-vijnana is supposed to contain the pure seed, or tathagatagarbha, from which awakening arises.[8]
The Lankavatara-sutra contains tathagata-garba thought, but also warns against reification of the idea of Buddha-
nature, and presents it as an aid to attaining awakening:
Is not this Tathagata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the
philosophers? The ego as taught by the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent,
and imperishable.
The Blessed One replied: [...] it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and
devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas [...] teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-
garba is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and
to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness[36]
According to Wayman & Wayman, the equation of tathagatagarbha and alijavijnana in the Lankavatara fails:
It is plain that when the Lankavatara-sutra identifies the two terms, this scripture necessarily diverges
in the meaning of one or both of the terms from the usage of the term Tathagatagarbha in the earlier Sri-
Mala or of the termalayavijnana in the subsequent Yogacara school.[37]
The Awakening of Faith [edit]
The Awakening of Faith (translated into Chinese 6th century CE[38]) was very influential in the development of
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 7/14
Chinese Buddhism.[39] It tried to harmonize the ideas of the tathāgatagarbha and ālayavijñāna:
In the words of the Awakening of Faith — which summarizes the essentials of Mahayana — self and
world, mind and suchness, are integrally one. Everything is a carrier of that a priori enlightenment; all
incipient enlightenment is predicated on it. The mystery of existence is, then, not, “How may we
overcome alienation?” The challenge is, rather, “Why do we think we are lost in the first place?”[39]
Tantra [edit]
Mahāvairocana Sūtra [edit]
The Mahāvairocana Sūtra (7th century) mentions the self in a very affirmative manner:
Those who have been initiated into the Mahayana Mandala Arising from Great Compassion, who are
honest and pliant, and who always have great compassion [...] They know their hearts to be the Great
Self.[40]
Chinese Mahayana [edit]
When Buddhism was introduced to China, in the 1st century CE, Buddhism was understood through comparisons of
its teachings to Chinese terms and ways of thinking. Immortality and emptiness, central notions in Taoïsm, gave a
frame of reference for the understanding of reincarnation and sunyata.
In the Chinese thinking of that time reincarnation was only possible if there was a soul or essence to reincarnate.
Early Chinese Buddhism therefore assumed that this was also the teaching of the Buddha. In the 6th century CE it
dawned that anatman and sunyata are central Buddhist teachings, which make the postulation of an eternal self
problematic.Template:Lai
Another point of confusion was the Two truths doctrine of Madhyamaka, the relative truth and the absolute truth.
Chinese thinking took this to refer to two ontological truths: reality exists of two levels, a relative level and an absolute
level. But in Madhyamaka these are twoepistemological truths: two different ways to look at reality. Based on their
understanding of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Chinese supposed that the teaching of the Buddha-nature
was, as stated by that sutra, the final Buddhist teaching, and that there is an essential truth above sunyata and the
two truths.[41]
Halfway through the 6th century CE the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana took shape, in which a synthesis was
offered of Chinese buddhist thinking. In the Awakening of Faith the 'one mind' has two aspects, namely tathata,
suchness, the things as they are, and samsara, the cycle of birth and death.[42] This sutra was in line with an essay
by emperor Wu of theLiang Dynasty (reign 502-549 CE), in which he postulated a pure essence, the enlightened
mind, trapped in darkness, which is ignorance. By this ignorance the pure mind is trapped in samsara. This
resembles the tathagata-garba and the idea of the defilement of the luminous mind.[39] In a commentary on this
essay Shen Yue stated that insight into this true essence is awakened by stopping the thoughts - a point of view
which is also being found in thePlatform Sutra of Hui-neng.[42]
The joining together of these different ideas supported the notion of the Lotus ekayana, the one vehicle: absolute
oneness, all-pervading Buddha-wisdom and original enlightenment as a holistic whole. This synthesis was a reflection
of the unity which was attained in China with the united Song Dynasty.[43]
Interpretation within Buddhist traditions [edit]
Indian Mahayana Buddhism [edit]
Prajna-paramita sutras [edit]
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 8/14
The prajna-paramita sutras, which emerged from the 1st century BCE on, reject the idea of an eternal self or
underlying essence. They emphasize the notion of emptiness. According to Kalupahana they are an early reaction to
the "emergence of absolutist tendencies".[12]
The Sutra of Perfect Wisdom, also called The Questions of Suvik rantavik ramin, states it's view on the self in this
way:
[O]ne who wisely knows himself (atmanam) as nondual, he wisely knows both Buddha and Dharma.
And why? He develops a personality which consists of all dharmas [...] His nondual comprehension
comprehends all dharmas, for all dharmas are fixed on the Self in their own-being. One who wisely
knows the nondual dharma wisely knows also the Buddhadharmas. From the comprehension of the
nondual dharma follows the comprehension of the Buddhadharmas and from the comprehension of the
Self the comprehension of everything that belongs to the triple world. "The comprehension of Self", that
is the beyond of all dharmas.[44]
Madhyamaka [edit]
It is possible to do a Madhyamaka interpretation of tathāgatagarbha literature.[45]
According to Kalupahana, the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, but also the Yogacara ofVasubandhu are a later reaction to
the "emergence of absolutist tendencies". Nagarjuna's work is founded on the prajnaparamita-sutras, which reach
back to the anatmandoctrine.[12][35]
Yogacara [edit]
Vasubandhu gives an analysis of the workings of the human mind and consciousness, based on the analysis of the
working of the five skandhas. Vasubandhu's original analysis leaves ample room for the proposition of a transcendent
essence[c], but was interpreted in an idealist way by later followers.[12][35]
To account for the notion of Buddha-nature in all beings, with the Yogacara belief in the Five Categories of Beings,
Yogacara scholars in China such as Tz'u-en (慈恩, 632-682) the first patriarch in China, advocated two types of
nature: the latent nature found in all beings (理佛性) and the Buddha-nature in practice (行佛性). The latter nature was
determined by the innate seeds listed above.[46]
Tibetan Buddhism [edit]
According to the Nyingma and Sakya schools, tathāgatagarbha is the inseparability of the clarity and emptiness of
one's mind. According to the Gelug school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they
are empty (i.e. dependently originated). According to the Jonang school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind
which expresses itself in terms of omniscience etc. when adventitious obscurations are removed.
Nyingma [edit]
Speaking for the Tibetan Nyingma tradition, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche sees an identity between the Buddha-
nature, Dharmadhātu (essence of all phenomena and the noumenon) and thethree vajras, saying:
Dharmadhatu is adorned with dharmakaya, which is endowed with dharmadhatu wisdom. This is a brief
but very profound statement, because "dharmadhatu" also refers to sugata-garbha or buddha nature.
Buddha nature is all-encompassing ... This buddha nature is present just as the shining sun is present
in the sky. It is indivisible from the three vajras [i.e. the Buddha's Body, Speech and Mind] of the
awakened state, which do not perish or change.[47]
The Nyingma meditation masters, Khenchen Palden Sherab and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal, emphasise that the
essential nature of the mind (the Buddha-nature) is not a blankness, but is characterised by wonderful qualities and a
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 9/14
perfection that is already present and complete:
The nature of the mind is not hollow or blank; it is profound and blissful and full of wonderful qualities...
meditation practice reveals our true nature as being totally perfect and complete.[48]
They add:
The true nature of mind is beyond conception, yet it is present in every object. The true nature is
always there, but due to our temporary obscurations we do not recognize it ... The primordial nature is
beyond conceptions; it cannot be explained ... cannot be encompassed by words. Although you can
say it is clarity and vastness, you cannot see it or touch it; it is beyond expression.[49]
Kagyu [edit]
In the Tibetan Kagyu tradition, Thrangu Rinpoche sees the Buddha nature as the indivisible oneness of wisdom and
emptiness:
The union of wisdom and emptiness is the essence of Buddha-hood or what is called Buddha-nature
(Skt. Tathagata-garbha) because it contains the very seed, the potential of Buddhahood. It resides in
each and every being and because of this essential nature, this heart nature, there is the possibility of
reaching Buddhahood.[50]
Gelukpa [edit]
The 14th Dalai Lama, representing the Gelukpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, and speaking from
the Madhyamaka philosophical position, sees the Buddha-nature as the "original clear light of mind", but points out
that it ultimately does not exist independently, because, like all other phenomena, it is of the nature of emptiness:
Once one pronounces the words "emptiness" and "absolute", one has the impression of speaking of
the same thing, in fact of the absolute. If emptiness must be explained through the use of just one of
these two terms, there will be confusion. I must say this; otherwise you might think that the innate
original clear light as absolute truth really exists.[51]
Jonangpa [edit]
The Jonangpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, whose foremost historical figure was the Tibetan scholar-monk Dolpopa,
sees the Buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the
basal state".[52] Dolpopa comments that certain key tathāgatagarbha sutras indicate this truth.
Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), repeatedly
exalts, as portrayed by Dolpopa, not the non-Self but the Self, and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality :
'The Buddha-Self, the beginningless Self, the solid Self, the diamond Self'. These terms are applied in a manner
which reflects the cataphatic approach to Buddhism, typical of much of Dolpopa's writings.[53]
Dolpopa further expressed the viewpoint that the Buddha-nature transcends the chain of dependent origination. It is
not empty of its own ultimately real essence, but only of extraneous, transitory and relative phenomena.
Dr. Cyrus Stearns writes on Dolpopa's attitude to the 'third turning of the wheel' doctrines (i.e. the Buddha-nature
teachings):
The Third Turning of the Dharma Wheel presented the teachings on the Buddha nature, which are the
final definitive statements on the nature of ultimate reality, the primordial ground or substratum beyond
the chain of dependent origination, and which is only empty of other, relative phenomena.'[54]
In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this Buddha essence is said to be the ground of all things:
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 10/14
... the ultimate universal ground also has always been with the Buddha-Essence (Tathagatagarbha),
and this essence in terms of the universal ground has been taught by the Tathagata. The fools who do
not know it, because of their habits, see even the universal ground as (having) various happiness and
suffering and actions and emotional defilements. Its nature is pure and immaculate, its qualities are as
wishing-jewels; there are neither changes nor cessations. Whoever realizes it attains Liberation ...[55]
Dzogchen [edit]
Germano relates Dzogchen, via Buddha-nature to Madhyamaka, Yogachara andAbhinavagupta:
...the Great Perfection represents the most sophisticated interpretation of the so-called "Buddha
nature" tradition within the context of Indo-Tibetan thought, and as such, is of extreme importance for
research into classical esoteric philosophic systems such as Madhyamaka and Yogacara, while also
providing fertile grounds for future explorations of the interconnections between Indo-Tibetan and East
Asian forms of Buddhism, as well as between Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and contemporary Indian
developments such as the tenth century non-dual Shaivism of Abhinavagupta.[56]
The 19th/20th-century Tibetan Buddhist scholar, Shechen Gyaltsap Gyurme Pema Namgyal, sees the Buddha nature
as ultimate truth,[57] nirvana, which is constituted of profundity, primordial peace and radiance:
Buddha-nature is immaculate. It is profound, serene, unfabricated suchness, an uncompounded
expanse of luminosity; nonarising, unceasing, primordial peace, spontaneously present nirvana.[58]
The Rimé movement [edit]
Ringu Tulku says,
There has been a great deal of heated debate in Tibet between the exponents of Rangtong,
(Wylie: Rang-stong) and Shentong, (Wylie: gZhan-stong) philosophies. The historic facts of these two
philosophies are well known to the Tibetologists.[citation needed]
Jamgon Kongtrul says about the two systems:
Madhyamika philosophies have no differences in realising as 'Shunyata', all phenomena that we
experience on a relative level. They have no differences also, in reaching the meditative state where all
extremes (ideas) completely dissolve. Their difference lies in the words they use to describe
the Dharmata. Shentong describes the Dharmata, the mind of Buddha, as 'ultimately real'; while
Rangtong philosophers fear that if it is described that way, people might understand it as the concept of
'soul' or 'Atma'. The Shentong philosopher believes that there is a more serious possibility of
misunderstanding in describing the Enlightened State as 'unreal' and 'void'. Kongtrul finds the Rangtong
way of presentation the best to dissolve concepts and the Shentong way the best to describe the
experience.[59]
In 2006, Khentrul Rinpoche Jamphal Lodro founded "The Tibetan Buddhist Rimé Institute" in Melbourne, Australia. It
aims to propagate the Rimé view of harmony within all Buddhist traditions and to introduce the
rare Jonang Kalachakra Tantra lineage teachings in the western world.[60]
Chinese Buddhism [edit]
Tiantai [edit]
Based on the metaphors of the Lotus Sutra, Tiantai developed the teaching of revealing the Buddha nature in one's
current form.[61]
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 11/14
Chán [edit]
In Chinese Ch’an Buddhism the Buddha-nature tends to be seen as the essential nature of all beings. But the Zen
tradition also emphasizes that Buddha-nature is Sunyata, the absence of an independent and substantial "self".[39].
Lankavatara Sutra [edit]
The understanding of the tathāgatagarbha in Zen is connected to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. TheLaṅkāvatāra
Sūtra presents the Chan/Zen Buddhist view of the tathāgatagarbha:
[The Buddha said,] Now, Mahāmati, what is perfect knowledge? It is realised when one casts aside the
discriminating notions of form, name, reality, and character; it is the inner realisation by noble wisdom.
This perfect knowledge, Mahāmati, is the essence of the Tathāgata-garbha.[62]
Alayavijñāna [edit]
So as described in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra,[63] in Chan/Zen the tathāgatagarbha is identical to the ālayavijñāna, known
prior to awakening as the storehouse-consciousness or 8th consciousness.
Chan/Zen masters from Huineng in 7th-century China[64] to Hakuin in 18th-century Japan[65]to Hsu Yun in 20th-
century China,[66] have all taught that the process of awakening begins with the light of the mind turning around within
the 8th consciousness, so that theālayavijñāna, also known as the tathāgatagarbha, is transformed into the "bright
mirror wisdom". When this active transformation is complete the other seven consciousnesses are also transformed.
The 7th consciousness of delusive discrimination becomes transformed into the "equality wisdom". The 6th
consciousness of thinking sense becomes transformed into the "profound observing wisdom", and the 1st to 5th
consciousnesses of the five sensory senses become transformed into the "all-performing wisdom".
Vajrasamadhi-sutra (685 CE) [edit]
In the Korean Vajrasamādhi Sūtra tathāgatagarbha is presented as being possessed of two elements, one essential,
immutable, changeless and still, the other active and salvational:
This 'dharma of the one mind', which is the 'original tathagatagarbha', is said to be 'calm and
motionless' ... The Vajrasamadhi's analysis of tathagatagarbha also recalls a distinction the Awakening
of Faith makes between the calm, unchanging essence of the mind and its active, adaptable function
[...] The tathagatagarbha is equated with the 'original edge of reality' (bhutakoti) that is beyond all
distinctions - the equivalent of original enlightenment, or the essence. But tathagatagarbha is also the
active functioning of that original enlightenment - 'the inspirational power of that fundamental faculty' ....
The tathagatagarbha is thus both the 'original edge of reality' that is beyond cultivation (= essence) as
well as the specific types of wisdom and mystical talents that are the byproducts of enlightenment (=
function).[67]
Contemporary Chán/Zen-understanding [edit]
According to Heng-Ching Shih, the teaching of the universal Buddha-nature does not intend to assert the existence of
substantial, entity-like self endowed with excellent features of a Buddha. Rather, Buddha-nature simply represents
the potentiality to be realized in the future.[68]
Master Hsing Yun, forty-eighth patriarch of the Linji School of Ch’an Buddhism, equates the Buddha-nature with
the Dharmakāya in line with pronouncements in key tathāgatagarbhasutras. He defines these two as:
the inherent nature that exists in all beings. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, enlightenment is a process of
uncovering this inherent nature … The Buddha nature [is] identical with transcendental reality. The unity
of the Buddha with everything that exists.[69]
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 12/14
[70]
Japanese Buddhism [edit]
Nichiren Buddhism [edit]
Nichiren (1222–1282) was a Buddhist monk who taught devotion to the Lotus Sutra as the exclusive means to attain
enlightenment, and the chanting of Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō as the essential practice of the teaching. Nichiren
Buddhism includes various schools with diverging interpretations of Nichiren's teachings.
Nichiren Buddhism views the Buddha nature as "The inner potential for attaining Buddhahood", common to all
people. [71] Based on the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren maintained that "all living being possess the Buddha
nature".,[72] being the inherent potential to attain Buddhahood :
The Buddha nature refers to the potential for attaining Buddhahood, a state of awakening filled with
compassion and wisdom.[73]
The emphasis in Nichiren Buddhism is on "revealing the Buddha nature" - or attainingBuddhahood – in this life
time [74] through chanting the name of the Dharma of the Lotus Surra:
[T]the Buddha nature within us is summoned forth and manifested by our chanting of Nam-myoho-
renge-kyo.[75]
The potential for Buddhahood exists in the whole spectrum of the Ten Worlds of life, and this means that all people,
including evil doers, have Buddha nature,[76] which remains as a dormant possibility or a theoretical potential in the
field of emptiness or non-substantiality until it is materialized in reality through Buddhist practice.
In his letter "Opening the Eyes of Wooden and painted Images" [77] Nichiren explains that insentient matter (such as
trees, mandalas, images, statues) also possess the Buddha nature, because they serve as objects of worship. This
view regards the Buddha nature as the original nature of all manifestations of life – sentient and insentient – through
their interconnectedness:
This concept of the enlightenment of plants in turn derives from the doctrine of three thousand realms in
a single moment of life, which teaches that all life—insentient and sentient—possesses the Buddha
nature.[78]
Zen Buddhism [edit]
The founder of the Sōtō school of Zen Buddhism, Dōgen Zenji, held that Buddha-nature was simply the true nature of
reality and Being. This true nature was just impermanence, becoming and 'vast emptiness'. Because he saw the
whole universe as an expression of Buddha-nature, he held that even grass and trees are Buddha nature.
Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very
impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains
and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete
enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.[79]
The Sōtō Zen teacher, Hakuun Yasutani also defined Buddha-nature in terms of the emptiness and impermanence of
all dharmas:
Everything by its very nature is subject to the process of infinite transformation - this is its Buddha- or
Dharma-nature. What is the substance of this Buddha- or Dharma-nature? In Buddhism it is
called ku (shunyata). Now, ku is not mere emptiness. It is that which is living, dynamic, devoic of
mass, unfixed, beyond individuality or personality--the matrix of all phenomena.[80]
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 13/14
Modern scholarship [edit]
Modern scholarship points to the various possible interpretations of Buddha Nature as either an essential self,
as Sunyata, or as the inherent possibility of awakening.
Essential self [edit]
Shenpen Hookham, Oxford Buddhist scholar and Tibetan lama of the Shentong tradition writes of the Buddha-nature
or "true self" as something real and permanent, and already present within the being as uncompounded
enlightenment. She calls it "the Buddha within", and comments:
In scriptural terms, there can be no real objection to referring to Buddha, Buddhajnana [Buddha
Awareness/ Buddha Knowledge], Nirvana and so forth as the True Self, unless the concept of Buddha
and so forth being propounded can be shown to be impermanent, suffering, compounded, or imperfect
in some way ... in Shentong terms, the non-self is about what is not the case, and the Self of the Third
Dharmachakra [i.e. the Buddha-nature doctrine] is about what truly IS.[81]
Buddhist scholar and chronicler, Merv Fowler, writes that the Buddha-nature really is present as an essence within
each being. Fowler comments:
The teaching that Buddha-nature is the hidden essence within all sentient beings is the main message
of the tathagatagarbha literature, the earliest of which is the Tathagatagarbha Sutra. This short sutra
says that all living beings are in essence identical to the Buddha regardless of their defilements or their
continuing transmigration from life to life... As in the earlier traditions, there is present the idea that
enlightenment, or nirvana, is not something which has to be achieved, it is something which is already
there... In a way, it means that everyone is really a Buddha now.[82]
Sunyata [edit]
According to Heng-Ching Shih, the tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman).
Rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness (śūnyatā), which emphasizes the potentiality to realize
Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. The intention of the teaching of tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature
is soteriological rather than theoretical.[83]
Paul Williams puts forward the Madhyamaka interpretation of the Buddha-nature as emptiness in the following terms:
… if one is a Madhyamika then that which enables sentient beings to become buddhas must be the
very factor that enables the minds of sentient beings to change into the minds of Buddhas. That which
enables things to change is their simple absence of inherent existence, their emptiness. Thus the
tathagatagarbha becomes emptiness itself, but specifically emptiness when applied to the mental
continuum.[84]
Critical Buddhism [edit]
According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, essentialist conceptions of Buddha-nature are at odds with
the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination.[85][86]Sallie B King objects to their view. She sees the
Buddha-nature as a metaphor for the potential in all beings to attain Buddhahood, rather than as an ontological
reality.[87]
This view of the Buddha-nature as non-Buddhist is termed Critical Buddhism. Paul Williamshas criticised this view,
saying that Critical Buddhism is too narrow in its definition of what constitutes Buddhism. According to Williams,
10/17/13 Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha 14/14
We should abandon any simplistic identification of Buddhism with a straightforward not-Self
definition".[88]
Multiple meanings [edit]
Sutton agrees with this critique on the narrowness of interpretation. In discussing the inadequacy of modern
scholarship on Buddha-nature, Sutton states,
One is impressed by the fact that these authors, as a rule, tend to opt for a single meaning
disregarding all other possible meanings which are embraced in turn by other texts".[89]
He goes on to point out that the term tathāgatagarbha has up to six possible connotations. Of these, he says the
three most important are:
1. an underlying ontological reality or essential nature (tathāgata-tathatā-'vyatireka) which is functionally
equivalent to a self (ātman) in an Upanishadic sense,
2. the dharma-kāya which penetrates all beings (sarva-sattveṣu dharma-kāya-parispharaṇa), which is functionally
equivalent to brahman in an Upanishadic sense
3. the womb or matrix of Buddhahood existing in all beings (tathāgata-gotra-saṃbhava), which provides beings
with the possibility of awakening.[90][91]
Of these three, Sutton claims that only the third connotation has any soteriological significance, while the other two
posit Buddha-nature as an ontological reality and essential nature behind all phenomena.[9