Buddha-nature or Buddha Principle refers to several related terms, most notably tathāgatagarbha and buddhadhātu. Tathāgatagarbha means "the womb" or "embryo" (garbha) of the "thus-gone" (tathagata), or "containing a tathagata", while buddhadhātu literally means "Buddha-realm" or "Buddha-substrate". The terms refer to the notion that the luminous mind of the Buddhas is inherently present in every sentient being, and will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, c.q. when the nature of mind is recognised for what it is.
Etymology
Tathāgatagarbha
The term tathāgatagarbha may mean "embryonic tathāgata",[3][4] "womb of the tathāgata",[3] or "containing a tathagata".[5] Various meanings may all be brought into mind when the term tathagatagarbha is being used.[5]Compound
The Sanskrit term tathāgatagarbha is a compound of two terms, tathāgata and garbha:[3]- tathāgata means "the one thus gone", referring to the Buddha. It is composed of "tathā" and "āgata", "thus come",[3] or "tathā" and "gata", "thus gone".[3][6] The term refers to a Buddha, who has "thus gone" from samsara into nirvana, and "thus come" from nirvana into samsara to work for the salvation of all sentient beings.[3]
- garbha, "womb",[3][7] "embryo",[3][7] "center",[7] "essence".[8][note 5]
Asian translations
The Chinese translated the term tathāgatagarbha as (traditional Chinese: 如来藏; ; pinyin: rúláizàng,[3] or "Tathāgata's (rúlái) storehouse" (zàng).[10][11] According to Brown, "storehouse" may indicate both "that which enfolds or contains something",[11] or "that which is itself enfolded, hidden or contained by another."[11] The Tibetan translation is de bzhin gsegs pa'i snyin po, which cannot be translated as "womb" (mngal or lhums), but as "embryonic essence", "kernel" or "heart".[11] The term "heart" was also used by Mongolian translators.[11]Western translations
The term tathagatagarbha is translated and interpreted in various ways by western translators and scholars:- According to Sally King, the term tathāgatagarbha may be understood in two ways:[3]
- "embryonic tathāgata", the incipient Buddha, the cause of the Tathāgata,
- "womb of the tathāgata", the fruit of Tathāgata.
- According to King, the Chinese rúláizàng was taken in its meaning as "womb" or "fruit".[3]
- Wayman & Wayman also point out that the Chinese regularly takes garbha as "womb",[9] but prefer to use the term "embryo".
- According to Brown, following Wayman & Wayman, "embryo" is the best fitting translation, since it preserves "the dynamic, self-transformative nature of the tathagatagarbha."[4]
- According to Zimmerman, garbha may also mean the interior or center of something,[12] and its essence or central part.[13] As a tatpurusa[note 6] it may refer to a person being a "womb" for or "container" of the tathagata.[14] As a bahuvrihi[note 7] it may refer to a person as having an embryonic tathagata inside.[14] In both cases, this embryonic tathagata still has to be developed.[14] Zimmerman concludes that tathagatagarbha is a bahuvrihi, meaning "containing a tathagata",[note 8] but notes the variety of meanings of garbha, such as "containing", "born from", "embryo", "(embracing/concealing) womb", "calyx", "child", "member of a clan", "core", which may all be brought into mind when the term tathagatagarbha is being used.[5]
Buddha-nature
The term "Buddha-nature" (traditional Chinese: 佛性; ; pinyin: fóxìng, Japanese: busshō[3]) is closely related in meaning to the term tathāgatagarbha, but is not a translation of this term.[3][note 9] It refers to what is essential in the human being.[16]The corresponding Sanskrit term is buddhadhātu.[3] It has two meanings, namely the nature of the Buddha, equivalent to the term dharmakāya, and the cause of the Buddha.[3] The link between the cause and the result is the nature (dhātu) which is common to both, namely the dharmadhātu.[16]
Matsumoto Shirō also points out that "Buddha-nature" translates the Sanskrit-term buddhadhātu, a "place to put something," a "foundation," a "locus."[17] According to Shirō, it does not mean "original nature" or "essence," nor does it mean the "possibility of the attainment of Buddhahood," "the original nature of the Buddha," or "the essence of the Buddha."[17]
In the Vajrayana, the term for Buddha-nature is sugatagarbha.
Indian origins
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.[18][19][20]Awakened Mind
Luminous mind
According to Wayman, the idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is an innately pure luminous mind[21] (prabhasvara citta[22]), "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)"[22] This luminous mind is being mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya:[23] "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."[24][note 10]The Mahāsāṃghika coupled this idea of the luminous mind with the idea of the mulavijnana, the substratum consciousness that serves as the basis consciousness.[21]
Pure consciousness
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 this term is employed.[21]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."[22]
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."[2]
Dharma-dhātu - The realm of the Buddha
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.[25]Lotus Sutra
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.[26]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, śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, and non-human creatures.[26] 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.[27] The story of Devadatta is followed by another story about a dragon princess who is both a nāga and a female, whom the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī proclaims will reach enlightenment immediately, in her present form.
Avatamsaka Sutra and universal Buddhahood
According to Wayman, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (1st-3rd century CE) was the next step in the development of the Buddha-nature thought after the concept of the luminous mind:[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.[21]The Avataṃsaka Sūtra does not contain a "singular discussion of the concept",[4] but the idea of "a universal penetration of sentient beings by the wisdom of the Buddha (buddhajñāna)" was complementary to the concept of the Buddha-womb.[4] The basic idea of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra 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.[28][note 11]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".[29]
Trikaya
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:[30]- The Nirmana-kaya, or Transformation-body, the earthly manifestation of the Buddha;
- The Sambhogakāya, or Enjoyment-body, a subtle body, by which the Buddha appears to bodhisattvas to teach them;
- The Dharmakāya, or Dharma-body, the ultimate nature of the Buddha, and 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 bodhicitta hidden within beings, and the transformed 'storehouse-consciousness'.
Tathāgatagarbha Sutras - the essence or potentiality of Buddhahood
The tathāgatagarbha sūtras originated in India, but their ideas were more influential in the development of East Asian Buddhism.[18] The earliest tathāgatagarbha sūtra is the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra.[31] The most important of those sutras is Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra.[32][31] Another influential sutra, especially in Chinese thought, is the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.[33] The Uttaratantra gives a synthesis of tathāgatagarbha-thought,[4] and gives an overview of authoritative tathāgatagarbha sutras.[33]Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra
The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra (200-250 CE) is considered (...) "the earliest expression of this (the tathāgatagarbha doctrine) and the term tathāgatagarbha itself seems to have been coined in this very sutra."[34] It states that one is already or primordially awakened.[35][36][37]Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra
The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (3rd century CE[38]), also named The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, centers on the teaching of the tathagatagarbha as "ultimate soteriological principle".[39] Regarding the tathāgatagarbha, 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.[40]In the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra there are two possible states for the tathāgatagarbha:
[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 (actuality).[41]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.[42]
Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (written 2nd century CE) was very influential in the Chinese reception of the Buddhist teachings.[20] According to Shimoda Masahiro, the authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra were leaders and advocates of stupa worship. The term buddhadhātu originally referred to relics. In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, it came to be used in place of the concept of tathāgatagārbha. The authors used the teachings of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra to reshape the worship of the physical relics of the Buddha into worship of the inner Buddha as a principle of salvation.[15] Sasaki, in a review of Shimoda, conveys a key premise of Shimoda's work, namely, that the origins of Mahayana Buddhism and the Nirvana Sutra are entwined.[43]According to Sallie B. King, it does not represent a major innovation, and is rather unsystematic,[44] which made it "a fruitful one for later students and commentators, who were obliged to create their own order and bring it to the text".[44] According to King, its most important innovation is the linking of the term buddhadhatu with tathagatagarbha.[44] The sutra presents the Buddha-nature or tathagatagarbha as a "Self". The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra refers to a true self. "The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman). Its precise metaphysical and ontological status is, however, open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the Laṅkāvatāra, it can be identified with store consciousness, as the receptacle of the seeds of awakening.[45] Paul Williams states: "[...] it is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, and indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so."[46] but it speaks about Buddha-nature in so many different ways, that Chinese scholars created a list of types of Buddha-nature that could be found in the text.[44] Paul Williams also notes:
Nevertheless the sutra as it stands is quite clear that while [...] we can speak of [the tathagatagharba] as Self, actually it is not at all a Self, and those who have such Self-notions cannot perceive the tathagatagarbha and thus become enlightened (see Ruegg 1989a: 21-6).[46]
Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra
The Ratnagotravibhāga, also called Uttaratantraśāstra (5th century CE), is a śāstra (commentary) 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 tathāgatagārbha theory.[4]It gives an overview of authoritative tathāgatagarbha sutras, mentioning the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, the Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa and the Mahābherīharaka-sūtra.[33] It presents the tathāgatagarbha as "an ultimate, unconditional reality that is simultaneously the inherent, dynamic process towards its complete manifestation".[47] Mundane and enlightened reality are seen as complementary:
Thusness [tathata] defiled is the Tathagatagarbha, and Thusness undefiled is Enlightenment.[41]According to the Ratnagotravibhāga, all sentient have "the embryo of the Tathagata" in three senses:[48]
- the Tathāgata's dharmakāya permeates all sentient beings;
- the Tathāgata's tathatā is omnipresent (avyatibheda);
- the Tathāgata's species (gotra, a synonym for tathagatagarbha) occurs in them.
Connecting the concepts
Tathagatagarbha and Alayavijnana
According to Kalupahana, the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, but also the Yogacara of Vasubandhu are a later reaction to the "emergence of absolutist tendencies". Nagarjuna's work is founded on the prajnaparamita-sutras, which reach back to the anatman doctrine.[49][page needed], [50][page needed]Abhidhamma - The seed of awakening
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.[citation needed]One problem is how to integrate the doctrine of anatta with the idea of karma and rebirth. The anatta-doctrine 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 lie 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.[citation needed]
This concept of "seeds" was espoused by the Sautrāntika in debate with the Sarvāstivādins over 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.[51] 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.[49]
According to Yogacara, awakening is the result of a seed that comes from outside the human psyche, namely by hearing the teaching.[22]
Yogacara
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[note 12], but was interpreted in an idealist way by later followers.[49][50]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.[52]
Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra
The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (compiled 350-400 CE[50]) synthesized the tathagatagarba-doctrine and the ālāya-vijñāna doctrine. 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".[31] According to the Lankavatara Sutra tathāgatagarbha is identical to the ālaya-vijñāna, known prior to awakening as the storehouse-consciousness or 8th consciousness.[53] The ālāya-vijñāna is supposed to contain the pure seed, or tathagatagarbha, from which awakening arises.[22]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.According to Alex and Hideko Wayman, the equation of tathagatagarbha and ālāya-vijñāna in the Lankavatara fails:
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[54]
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 term ālāya-vijñāna in the subsequent Yogacara school.[55][note 13]
Tathāgatagarbha and Buddhadhātu
The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra linked the concept of tathāgatagarbha with the buddhadhātu.[44] Kosho Yamamoto points out that the Nirvana Sutra contains a series of equations: "Thus, there comes about the equation of: Buddha Body = Dharmakaya = eternal body = eternal Buddha = Eternity."[58]The Buddha is presented as (an) eternal being, transcending normal human limitations:
What is the Tathagata [Buddha]? [...] He is one who is eternal and unchanging. He is beyond the human notion of "is" or "is-not". He is Thusness [tathata], which is both phenomenon and noumenon, put together. Here, the carnal notion of man is sublimated and explained from the macrocosmic standpoint of existence of all and all. And this Dharmakaya is at once Wisdom and Emancipation [moksha]. In this ontological enlargement of the concept of existence of the Buddha Body [buddhakaya], this sutra and, consequently, Mahayana, differs from the Buddha of Primitive Buddhism.[58]The Buddha-nature is always present, in all times and in all beings. This does not mean that sentient beings are at present endowed with the qualities of a Buddha, but that they will have those qualities in the future.[59] It is obscured from worldly vision by the screening effect of tenacious negative mental afflictions within each being.[note 14] Once these negative mental states have been eliminated, however, the Buddha-dhatu is said to shine forth unimpededly and the Buddha-sphere (Buddha-dhatu/ visaya) can then be consciously "entered into", and therewith deathless Nirvana attained:[60]
[T]he tathagatagarbha is none but Thusness or the Buddha Nature, and is the originally untainted pure mind which lies overspread by, and exists in, the mind of greed and anger of all beings. This bespeaks a Buddha Body that exists in a state of bondage.[61]
Popularisation in Chinese Buddhism
The tathagatagarbha-sutras originated in India, but their ideas were more influential in the development of East Asian Buddhism.[18]Early Chinese Buddhism
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 Taoism, gave a frame of reference for the understanding of reincarnation and sunyata.[62]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.[62]
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 two epistemological 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.[62]
The Awakening of Faith
The Awakening of Faith was very influential in the development of Chinese Buddhism.[20] While the text is attributed by the faithful to [[Aśvaghoṣa]], no Sanskrit version of the text is extant. The earliest known versions are written in Chinese, and contemporary scholars believe that the text is a Chinese composition.[63][64]The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana offers a synthesis of Chinese buddhist thinking.[65] It sees the Buddha-nature doctrine as a cosmological theory, in contrast to the Indo-Tibetan tradition, where the soteriological aspect is emphasized.[66] It described the "One Mind" which "includes in itself all states of being of the phenomenal and transcendental world".[66] It tried to harmonize the ideas of the tathāgatagarbha and ālāya-vijñāna:
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?"[20]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.[65] This text was in line with an essay by Emperor Wu of the Liang 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 tathāgatagarba and the idea of the defilement of the luminous mind.[65] 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 the Platform Sutra of Huineng.[65]
The joining together of these different ideas supported the notion of the ekayāna, 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.[67]
Chan Buddhism
In Chan Buddhism, the Buddha-nature tends to be seen as the (non-substantial) essential nature of all beings. But the Zen tradition also emphasizes that Buddha-nature is śūnyatā, the absence of an independent and substantial "self".[20]Chan masters from Huineng in 7th-century China[68] to Hakuin Ekaku in 18th-century Japan[69] to Hsu Yun in 20th-century China,[70] have all taught that the process of awakening begins with the light of the mind turning around within the 8th consciousness, so that the ālayavijñāna, also known as the tathāgatagarbha, is transformed into the "bright mirror wisdom". The Laṅkāvatāra 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.[71]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".
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.[72]
Hsing Yun, forty-eighth patriarch of the Linji school, equates the Buddha-nature with the dharmakāya in line with pronouncements in key tathāgatagarbha sūtras. 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.[73][74]
Korean Buddhism
In the Korean Vajrasamādhi Sūtra (685 CE), the 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).[75]
Japanese Buddhism
Nichiren Buddhism
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 Namu 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.[76] Based on the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren maintained that "all living being possess the Buddha nature",[77] 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."[78]
The emphasis in Nichiren Buddhism is on "revealing the Buddha nature" - or attaining Buddhahood – in this lifetime [79] through chanting the name of the Dharma of the Lotus Sutra: "[T]the Buddha nature within us is summoned forth and manifested by our chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo."[80]
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,[81] 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" [82] 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.[83]
Zen Buddhism
The founder of the Sōtō school of Zen Buddhism, Dōgen Zenji, held that Buddha-nature (busshō 佛性) 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.[84]The founder of Sanbō Kyōdan lineage of Zen Buddhism, Yasutani Haku'un Roshi, 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.A famous reference to Buddha-nature in the Zen-tradition is the Mu-koan:
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, devoid of mass, unfixed, beyond individuality or personality--the matrix of all phenomena.[85]
A monk asked Zhaozhou Congshen, a Chinese Zen master (known as Jōshū in Japanese), "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?" Zhaozhou answered, "It does not." (wú Chinese, mu in Japanese)[86]
Shin Buddhism
The founder of the Jōdo Shinshū of Pure Land Buddhism, Shinran, equated Buddha-Nature with shinjin.[87]Tibetan Buddhism
The dominant Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism favours the rangtong Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka philosophy over Yogacara and Buddha-nature thought.[88] Other schools, especially the Jonang,[89] and the Rimé movement have tended to accept the shentong, "other-empty", Madhyamaka philosophy, which discerns an Absolute which "is empty of adventious defilements which are intrinsically other than it, but is not empty of its own inherent existence".[90] This understanding and interpretation of the tathagatagarbha-teachings has been a matter of intensive debates in Tibet.[91]According to the Nyingma and Sakya schools, tathāgatagarbha is the inseparability of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. 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.
Gelug
The 14th Dalai Lama, an important Gelug figure, 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.[92]Jeffrey Hopkins conveys the same understanding:
The basis of purification is the Buddha nature, which is viewed in two ways. One is the clear light nature of the mind, a positive phenomenon, and the other is the emptiness of inherent existence of the mind, a negative phenomenon, a mere absence of inherent establishment of the mind.[93]
Nyingma
Speaking for the Nyingma school, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche sees an identity between the Buddha-nature, dharmadhātu (essence of all phenomena and the noumenon) and the Three 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.[94]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 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.[95]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.[96]Speaking in the context of Nyingma, Dzogchen Ponlop expresses the view that there exists within vajrayana Buddhism the doctrine that we are already buddha: ‘... in the vajrayana, we are buddha right now, in this very moment’[97] and that it is legitimate to have ‘vajra pride’ in our buddha mind and the already present qualities of enlightenment with which it is replete:
Vajra pride refers to our pride and confidence in the absolute nature of our mind as buddha: primordially, originally pure, awake and full of the qualities of enlightenment.[98]
Dzogchen
Germano relates Dzogchen, via Buddha-nature to Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and Abhinavagupta:...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.[99]The 19th/20th-century Tibetan Buddhist scholar, Shechen Gyaltsap Gyurme Pema Namgyal, sees the Buddha nature as ultimate truth,[100] 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.[101]
Kagyu
In the 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.[102]
Jonang
The Jonang school, whose foremost historical figure was the Tibetan scholar-monk Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, sees the Buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the basal state".[103] 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.[104]
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.'[105]In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this Buddha essence is said to be the ground of all things:
... 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 ...[106]
The Rimé movement
The Rimé movement is an ecumenical movement in Tibet which started as an attempt to reconcile the various Tibetan schools in the 19th century. In contrast to the Gelugpa, which adheres to the rang stong, "self-empty", or Prasaṅgika point of view,[107] the Rimé movement supports shen tong (gzhan tong), "other-empty", an essential nature which is "pure radiant non-dual consciousness".[89] 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.[108]
Modern scholarship
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
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.[109]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.[110]
Sunyata
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.[72]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.[111]
Critical Buddhism
Several contemporary Japanese scholars, headed under the label Critical Buddhism, have been critical of Buddha-nature thought. According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, essentialist conceptions of Buddha-nature are at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination.[112][113]Sallie B. King objects to their view, seeing the Buddha-nature as a metaphor for the potential in all beings to attain Buddhahood, rather than as an ontological reality.[114] Paul Williams too has criticised this view, saying that Critical Buddhism is too narrow in its definition of what constitutes Buddhism. According to Williams, "We should abandon any simplistic identification of Buddhism with a straightforward not-Self definition".[115]
Multiple meanings
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".[116]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:
- an underlying ontological reality or essential nature (tathāgata-tathatā-'vyatireka) which is functionally equivalent to a self (ātman) in an Upanishadic sense,
- the dharma-kāya which penetrates all beings (sarva-sattveṣu dharma-kāya-parispharaṇa), which is functionally equivalent to brahman in an Upanishadic sense
- the womb or matrix of Buddhahood existing in all beings (tathāgata-gotra-saṃbhava), which provides beings with the possibility of awakening.[117][118]
