Product Code Database
In Buddhist philosophy and soteriology, Buddha-nature (Chinese language: 佛性, Japanese: 佛性, , Sanskrit: or तथागतगर्भ) is the innate potential for all sentient beings to become a Buddhahood or the fact that all sentient beings already have a pure Buddha-essence within themselves.Heng-Ching Shih, The Significance Of 'Tathagatagarbha' – A Positive Expression Of 'Sunyata' "Buddha-nature" is the common English translation for several related Mahayana Buddhism terms, most notably tathāgatagarbha ( तथागतगर्भ) and buddhadhātu, but also sugatagarbha, and buddhagarbha. Tathāgatagarbha can mean "the womb" or "embryo" ( garbha) of the "thus-gone one" ( Tathagata), and can also mean "containing a tathāgata" . Buddhadhātu can mean "buddha-element", "buddha-realm", or "buddha-substrate".
Buddha-nature has a wide range of (sometimes conflicting) meanings in Indian Buddhism and later in East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism literature. Broadly speaking, it refers to the belief that the luminous mind, "the natural and true state of the mind", which is pure ( visuddhi) mind undefiled by afflictions, is inherently present in every sentient being, and is eternal and unchanging.: "The final form of expression indicating that tathāgatagārbha or Buddha nature involves a substantialist monistic theory is found is those passages stating that the tathāgatagārbha, dharmakāya, nirvāṇa, or Buddha nature is beyond cause and conditions, is unborn, quiescent, or unchanging."Douglas Samuel Duckworth (2025). 9780791477984, State University of New York Press. ISBN 9780791477984 It will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, that is, when the nature of mind is Bodhi for what it is.
The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (2nd century CE), which was very influential in the Chinese Buddhism, linked the concept of tathāgatagārbha with the buddhadhātu. The term buddhadhātu originally referred to the relics of Gautama Buddha. In the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, it came to be used in place of the concept of tathāgatagārbha, reshaping the worship of physical relics of the historical Buddha into worship of the inner Buddha as a principle of Moksha.
The primordial or undefiled mind, the tathāgatagārbha, is also often equated with the Buddhist philosophical concept of emptiness ( śūnyatā, a Madhyamaka concept); with the storehouse-consciousness ( ālāyavijñāna, a Yogacara concept); and with the interpenetration of all dharmas (in East Asian traditions like Huayan). The belief in Buddha-nature is central to East Asian Buddhism, which relies on key Buddha-nature sources like the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. In Tibetan Buddhism, the concept of Buddha-nature is equally important and often studied through the key Indian treatise on Buddha-nature, the Ratnagotravibhāga (3rd–5th century CE).
The Tibetan scholar Go Lotsawa outlined four meanings of the term Tathāgatagarbha as used by Indian Buddhist scholars generally: (1) As an emptiness that is a nonimplicative negation, (2) the Luminous mind, (3) Alaya-vijnana (store-consciousness), (4) all and sentient beings.
The corresponding Sanskrit term is buddhadhātu. It has two meanings, namely the nature of the Buddha, equivalent to the term dharmakāya, and the cause of the Buddha. The link between the cause and the result is the nature ( dhātu, see also Svabhava, Mahābhūta, and Eighteen dhātus) which is common to both, namely the dharmadhātu.
Matsumoto Shirō also points out that "buddha-nature" translates the Sanskrit-term buddhadhātu, a "place to put something," a "foundation," a "locus." 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."
In the Vajrayana, the term for buddha-nature is sugatagarbha.
Karl Brunnhölzl writes that the first probable mention of the term tathāgatagarbha is in the Ekottarika Agama (though here it is used in a different way than in later texts). The passage states:
This tathāgatagarbha idea was the result of an interplay between various strands of Buddhist thought, on the nature of human consciousness and the means of awakening. Gregory sees this doctrine as implying that enlightenment is the natural state of the mind.
The Lotus Sutra, written between 100 BCE and 200 CE, also does not use the term tathāgatagarbha, but Japanese scholars suggest that a similar idea is nevertheless expressed or implied in the text.Hirakawa quoted in: Nakamura, Hajime (1999), Indian Buddhism: A Survey With Bibliographical Notes, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, p. 190 The tenth chapter emphasizes that all living beings can become a Buddha. The twelfth chapter of the Lotus Sutra details that the potential to become enlightened is universal among all people, even the historical Devadatta has the potential to become a buddha. East Asian commentaries saw these teachings as indicating that the Lotus sutra was also drawing on the concept of the universality of buddha-nature. (2025). 9780231142885, Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231142885 The sutra shares other themes and ideas with the later tathāgatagarbha sūtras and thus several scholars theorize that it was an influence on these texts.
The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra uses nine similes to illustrate the concept:Brunnhölzl, Karl, When the Clouds Part, The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra, Snow Lion, Boston & London, 2014, page 66.
Another important and early source for buddha-nature is the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (often just called the Nirvana Sutra), possibly dating to the 2nd century CE. Some scholars like Michael Radich argue that this is the earliest buddha-nature sutra.Radich, Michael (2015), The Mahāparinivāṇa-mahasūtra and the Emergence of Tathagatagarba Doctrine, pp. 101–102. (Hamburg Buddhist Studies Vol. 5), Hamburg University Press. This sutra was very influential in the development of East Asian Buddhism. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra linked the concept of tathāgatagarbha with the "buddhadhātu" ("buddha-nature" or "buddha-element") and it also equates these with the eternal and pure Buddha-body, the Dharmakaya, also called vajrakaya. The sutra also presents the buddha-nature or tathagatagarbha as a "Self" or a true self (ātman), though it also attempts to argue that this claim is not incompatible with the teaching of not-self (anatman). The Nirvana sutra further claims that buddha-nature (and the Buddha's body, his Dharmakaya) is characterized by four perfections (pāramitās) or qualities: permanence ( nitya), bliss ( sukha), self ( ātman), and purity ( śuddha).
In the Ratnagotravibhāga, the tathāgatagarbha is seen as having three specific characteristics: (1) dharmakaya, (2) suchness, and (3) disposition, as well as the general characteristic (4) non-conceptuality.
According to the Ratnagotravibhāga, all sentient beings have "the embryo of the Tathagata" in three senses:
The Ratnagotravibhāga equates enlightenment with the nirvāṇa-realm and the dharmakāya. It gives a variety of synonyms for garbha, the most frequently used being gotra and dhatu.
This text also explains the tathāgatagarbha in terms of luminous mind, stating that "the luminous nature of the mind Is unchanging, just like space."
According to Chandrakirti's Madhyamakāvatārabhāsya the storehouse consciousness "is nothing but emptiness that is taught through the term 'alaya-consciousness.'" Go Lotsawa states that this statement is referencing the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. Candrakirti's Madhyamakāvatārabhāsya also argues, basing itself on the Lankavatara sutra, that "the statement of the emptiness of sentient beings being a buddha adorned with all major and minor marks is of expedient meaning".
Kamalasila's (c. 740–795) Madhyamakaloka associates tathāgatagarbha with Luminous mind and luminosity with emptiness. According to Kamalasila the idea that all sentient beings have tathāgatagarbha means that all beings can attain full awakening and also refers to how "the term tathāgata expresses that the dharmadhātu, which is characterized by personal and phenomenal identitylessness, is natural luminosity."
Paul Williams puts forward the Madhyamaka interpretation of the buddha-nature as emptiness in the following terms:
Uniquely among Madhyamaka texts, some texts attributed to Nagarjuna, mainly poetic works like the Dharmadhatustava, Cittavajrastava, and Bodhicittavivarana, associate the term tathāgatagarbha with the Luminous mind.
Some later Yogacara scholars spoke of the tathāgatagarbha in more positive terms, such as Jñanasrimitra who in his Sakarasiddhi equates it with the appearances of lucidity (prakāśa-rupa). Likewise, the Vikramashila scholar Ratnākaraśānti describes buddha-nature as the natural luminous mind, which is a non-dual self-awareness. Brunnhölzl also notes that for Ratnākaraśānti, this luminosity is equivalent to the Yogacara concept of the perfected nature, which he sees as an implicative negation. Ratnākaraśānti also describes this ultimate self-nature as radiance (prakāśa, ‘shining forth’), which is the capacity to appear (pratibhāsa).Kei Kataoka, Ratnakarasanti on Prakasa, インド学チベット学研究, 22, 224–239, 2019.07.
The Yogācāra concept of the alaya-vijñana (store consciousness) also came to be associated by some scholars with the tathāgatagarbha. This can be seen in sutras like the Lankavatara, the Srimaladevi and in the translations of Paramartha. The concept of the ālaya-vijñāna originally meant defiled consciousness: defiled by the workings of Ayatana. It was also seen as the mūla-vijñāna, the base-consciousness or "stream of consciousness" (Mindstream) from which awareness and perception spring.
Around 300 CE, the Yogācāra school systematized the prevalent ideas on the nature of the Buddha in the Trikaya (triple body) doctrine, in which the Buddha is held to have three bodies: Nirmanakaya (transformation body which people see on earth), Sambhogakāya (a subtle body which appears to bodhisattvas) and the Dharmakāya (ultimate reality). This doctrine was also later to be synthesized with buddha-nature teachings by various sources (with buddha-nature generally referring to the Dharmakaya as it does in some sutras).
The Yogācāra school also had a doctrine of "gotra" (lineage, family) which held that there were five categories of living beings each with their own inner nature. To make this teaching compatible with the notion of buddha-nature in all beings, Yogācāra 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 in the alaya.
The Awakening of Faith offers an ontological synthesis of buddha-nature and Yogacara thought from the perspective of "essence-function" philosophy.Lusthaus, Dan (1998). Buddhist philosophy, Chinese . In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. It describes the "One Mind" which "includes in itself all states of being of the phenomenal and the transcendental world." The Awakening of Faith tries to harmonize the ideas of the tathāgatagarbha and the storehouse consciousness (ālāyavijñāna) into a single theory which sees self, world, mind and ultimate realty as an integrated "one mind", which is the ultimate substratum of all things (including samsara and nirvana).Williams, Paul (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, p. 116. Routledge.
In the Awakening of Faith the "one mind" has two aspects, namely "the aspect of enlightenment," (which is tathata, suchness, the true nature of things), and "the aspect of nonenlightenment" ( samsara, the cycle of birth and death, defilement and ignorance). 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.
In a similar fashion to the Awakening of Faith, the Korean Vajrasamādhi Sūtra (685 CE) uses the doctrine of Essence-Function to explain the tathāgatagarbha (also called "the dharma of the one mind" and Hongaku) as having two elements: one essential, immutable, changeless and still (the "essence"); the other an active and salvational inspirational power (function).Buswell, Robert E. Jr. (2007). Cultivating Original Enlightenment. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press: p. 10.
Similarly, Buswell observes that while the passive aspect of the tathāgatagarbha can be seen from the earliest stratum of tathāgatagarbha literature, texts such as the Vajrasamādhi Sūtra, an East Asian apocryphon, emphasize the tathāgatagarbha as an active agent which constantly exerts a beneficial influence on sentient beings. For example, the Vajrasamādhi Sūtra says, "The original enlightenment of each and every sentient being is constantly enlightening all sentient beings . . . prompting them all to regain their original enlightenment." In addition to the eight consciousnesses of Yogachara, this text teaches the existence of an immaculate ninth consciousness, the amalavijñāna. According to Wonhyo commentary, this is equated with original enlightenment and constitutes the force which makes awakening accessible to sentient beings. Buswell writes, "The amalavijñāna as original enlightenment is therefore constantly acting on sentient beings, exerting a beneficial influence that ultimately will prompt those beings to rediscover their inherent enlightenment. This treatment of amalavijñāna as the catalyst of enlightenment corresponds to the active interpretation of the tathāgatagarbha."Cultivating Original Enlightenment, Wŏnhyo's Exposition of the Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra, translated with an Introduction by Robert E. Buswell Jr., pages 5-6, 10-12, University of Hawai'i Press, 2007
In the sixth and seventh centuries, Yogachara theory became associated with a substantialist non-dual metaphysics which saw buddha nature as an eternal ground. This idea was promoted by figures like Ratnamati. Chinese Yogacara included numerous traditions with their own interpretations of buddha-nature. The Dilun, or Daśabhūmikā school, and the Shelun school were some of the earliest schools in this Chinese Yogacara. The Dilun school became split on the issue of the relationship between the storehouse consciousness and buddha-nature. The southern faction held that the storehouse consciousness was identical with the pure mind, while the northern school held that the storehouse consciousness was exclusively a deluded and defiled mind.Kantor, Hans-Rudolf. "Philosophical Aspects of Sixth-Century Chinese Buddhist Debates on “Mind and Consciousness”", pp. 337–395 in: Chen-kuo Lin / Michael Radich (eds.) A Distant Mirror Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism. Hamburg Buddhist Studies, 3 Hamburg: Hamburg University Press 2014. In addition to the standard eight consciousnesses of classical Yogācāra, some Chinese Yogācāra schools such as the Shelun maintained the existence of an immaculate ninth consciousness known as the amalavijñāna, which lay beyond the eighth ( ālayavijñāna, the storehouse consciousness), and served as the basis for all the other consciousnesses.Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr., The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, page 33, Princeton University Press, 2014
In contrast with the Chinese Yogacara view, the Chinese Madhyamaka scholar Jizang (549–623 CE) sought to remove all ontological connotations of the term as a metaphysical reality and saw buddha-nature as being synonymous with terms like "tathata," "dharmadhatu," "ekayana," "wisdom, '' "ultimate reality," "middle way" and also the wisdom that contemplates dependent origination. In formulating his view, Jizang was influenced by the earlier Chinese Madhyamaka thinker Sengzhao (384–414 CE) who was a key figure in outlining an understanding of emptiness which was based on the Indian sources and not on Daoist concepts which previous Chinese Buddhists had used. Jizang used the compound "Middle Way-buddha-nature" ( zhongdao foxing 中道佛性) to refer to his view.CHIH-MIEN ADRIAN TSENG, A COMPARISON OF THE CONCEPTS OF BUDDHA-NATURE AND DAO-NATURE OF MEDIEVAL CHINA. Jizang was also one of the first Chinese philosophers to famously argue that plants and insentient objects have buddha-nature, which he also termed true reality and universal principle ( dao).
Thus, for Zhiyi, buddha-nature has three aspects which he bases on passages from the Lotus Sutra and the Nirvana sutra. These three aspects are:
The later Tiantai scholar Zhanran would expand the Tiantai view of buddha-nature, which he saw as synonymous with suchness, to argue for the idea that insentient rocks and plants also have buddha-nature.Shuman Chen. Buddha-Nature of Insentient Beings. Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, 2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 208–212, 2014
/ref> This is a key idea in Huayan thought which is called "nature-origination" (xingqi ).Cua, Antonio S. (2003). Encyclopedia of Chinese philosophy, pp. 254–257. Routledge.Hamar, Imre. The Manifestation of the Absolute in the Phenomenal World: Nature Origination in Huayan Exegesis. In: Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 94, 2007. pp. 229–250; According to this doctrine defended by Huayan thinkers like Fazang, the entire universe is a manifestation of the one nature, and it is also fully interfused with its source. As such, the ultimate principle is non-dual with all relative phenomena. Because the ultimate source of all things is also interdependent and interconnected with them, it remains a ground which is empty of self-existence (svabhava) and thus it is not an independent essence. LIN Weiyu 林威宇 (UBC): Vairocana of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra'' as Interpreted by Fazang 法藏 (643–712): A Comparative Reflection on "Creator" and "Creation" 法藏（643–712）筆下《華嚴經》中的盧舍那：談佛教中的創世者和創世
The influential Chan patriarch Guifeng Zongmi (780–841), who was also a patriarch of Huayan, interpreted buddha-nature as "empty tranquil awareness" ( k'ung-chi chih), which he took from the Ho-tse school of Chan. Following the Srimala sutra, he interpreted the theory of emptiness as presented in the Prajnaparamita sutras as provisional and saw the awareness which is buddha-nature as the definitive teaching of Buddhism.
Chan masters from Huineng (7th-century China),Price, A.F. and Wong Mou-Lam, trans. (1969). The Diamond Sutra and the Sutra of Hui Neng. Berkeley, CA: Shambhala: Book Two, The Sutra of Hui Neng, Chapter 7, Temperament and Circumstances: p. 68. Chinul (12th century Korea),Buswell, Robert E. Jr. (1991). Tracing Back the Radiance: Chinul's Korean Way of Zen. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Hakuin Ekaku (18th-century Japan) to Hsu Yun (20th-century China),Yu, Lu K'uan (Charles Luk) (1970). Ch'an and Zen Teaching First Series. Berkeley, CA.: Shambala publications: Part I: Master Hsu Yun's Discourses and Dharma Words: pp. 63–64. have taught that the process of awakening begins with the light of the mind turning around to recognize its own true nature, so that the storehouse consciousness (also called the 8th consciousness in Yogacara Buddhism), which is also the tathāgatagarbha, is transformed into the "bright mirror wisdom". According to D.T. Suzuki, the Zen view of buddha-nature can be found in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which states that one must let go of all discriminating notions of any kind to attain the perfect knowledge of the tathāgatagarbha.Suzuki, D.T., trans. (1932) The Lankavatara Sutra. London: Routledge & Kegen Paul: p. 60 According to the Platform Sutra, the eight consciousnesses transform into the four wisdoms, and yet, only their names are transformed, the consciousnesses are not transformed in their essence.The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, translated by John McRae, page 61, Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai and Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000
A famous reference to buddha-nature in the Chan tradition is found in the influential koan called the mu-koan (from The Gateless Barrier, a 13th century koan collection) which asks "does a dog have Buddha nature?" The enigmatic response given by the master is "no" ("wú'', Chinese, ''mu'' in Japanese) which can interpreted in various ways.
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.
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 as "the inherent nature that exists in all beings....transcendental reality....the unity of the Buddha with everything that exists," and sees it as the goal of Mahayana Buddhism. 現代禪宗心性思想研究的幾點評論
Hongaku thought was also influential in the development of the new Kamakura Buddhist schools, such as Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, Zen, and Nichiren. Japanese Pure Land Buddhism relied on Tendai buddha-nature doctrine. The founder of the Jōdo Shinshū of Pure Land Buddhism, Shinran, equated buddha-nature with the central Shin concept of shinjin (true faith or the entrusting mind).The Collected Works of Shinran, 1997, Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha
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. According to Dōgen:
Buddha-nature was likewise influential for the other sects of Zen, like Rinzai school.
Nichiren Buddhism, founded by Nichiren (1222–1282), views the buddha-nature present in all beings as "the inner potential for attaining Buddhahood". The emphasis in Nichiren Buddhism is on attaining Buddhahood in this lifetime, described as manifesting or summoning forth buddha-nature by chanting the name of the Lotus Sutra: Namu Myōhō Renge KyōThe Gosho Translation Committee: The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Volume I , Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2006. ; pp.3 – 5 (On Attaining Buddhahood in This Lifetime) When we rever Myoho-renge-kyo inherent Like the classic Tendai hongaku doctrine, Nichiren held that all life and even all insentient matter (such mandalas, images, statues) also possesses buddha nature, because they serve as objects of worship. Enlightenment of plants
An early Tibetan translator, Ngok Lotsawa (1050–1109) argues in his commentary to the Uttaratantra that buddha-nature is a non-implicative negation, which is to say that it is emptiness, as a total negation of inherent existence ( svabhava) that does not imply that anything is left un-negated (in terms of its svabhava). Another early figure, Chaba Chokyi Senge (1109–1169) also argued that buddha-nature was a non-implicative negation. The Kadampa tradition generally followed Ngok Lotsawa by holding that Buddha- nature was a nonimplicative negation. The Gelug school, which sees itself as a continuation of the Kadampas, also hold this view, while also holding, as Chaba did, that buddha-nature teachings are of expedient meaning.
This interpretation is sometimes called the rangtong interpretation of Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka. This view interprets the buddha-nature teaching as an expedient way to talk about the emptiness of inherent existence and should not be taken literally. Other schools, especially the Jonang, and some within the Kagyu tradition have tended to accept the shentong ("other-empty") philosophy, which discerns an ultimate reality which "is empty of adventitious defilements which are intrinsically other than it, but is not empty of its own inherent existence". Shentong influenced interpretations tend to rely heavily on the buddha-nature sutras to balance the negative dialectics of Madhyamaka.
These interpretations of the tathagatagarbha-teachings have been a matter of intensive debates in Tibetan Buddhism down to this day.
(accessed: Saturday September 23, 2023) During the early translation period, other works which synthesized and reconciled buddha-nature thought with Yogacara and Madhyamaka philosophy were also translated by Tibetan scholars like
(accessed: Saturday September 23, 2023). One of these works is Kamalashila Madhyamakāloka.Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981). The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 95n308.
Yeshe De describes the sugatagarbha as twofold. It is the impure mind of sentient beings, the ālayavijñāna, and it is also the pure "natural spiritual disposition" (rigs) that is present within all beings which is also called the dharmakāya, and which he also calls the root ( rtsa) and the ground ( gzhi).
The teaching of buddha-nature is also a key source for Tibetan Dzogchen texts, which presents the sugatagarbha as equivalent to the ultimate ground or basis of all reality. This teaching can be found in early Dzogchen sources like Nubchen Sangye Yeshe's (9th century) Samten Migdron equates buddha-nature with this ultimate basis, which it also calls by various names like "the spontaneous essence", "the innermost treasury of all vehicles", "the great universal grandfather spyi, is to be experienced directly by self-awareness rang", "sphere of the great circle thig of the self-awareness."Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen (2007). The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Second Edition. Volume II. Boston: Brill's Tibetan Studies Library. , pp.107–108theg pa'i mchog rnal 'byor gyi phul yang tog/ rgyal ba ril gyi yum a ti yo ga'i don btsan pa ni/ mtshan rdzogs pa (p.291) chen po zhes bya ste/ ci'i phyir zhe na/ bsam gyis mi khyab pa'i chos thams cad ma brtsal lhun rdzogs pa'i don/ gcer grol go bar bya ba'i phyir zhib tu bstan te/ de lta bu'i theg pa thams cad kyi yang mdzod spyi mes chen po 'di'i ngo bo lhun gyis grub pa'i ngang nyid kyi don/ rang rig pas mngon sum khong du chud nas blor bzhag par byar yang med pa'i don chen po rang gi rig pa la gsal bar bya ba yang/ ji ltar shes par bya zhe na/ shin tu rnal 'byor gyi theg pa 'di la/ rgyud lung man ngag gi gzhung ltar/ dang po gzhal bya'i chos gcig la/ rang gi so sor rtogs pa'i shes rab kyis gzhal bar byar yang med pa ste/ de ci'i phyir zhe na/ chos so cog tu grags pa thams cad/ ye gdod ma nyid nas spu ma brjes mdog ma bsgur bar rang byung gi ye shes thig le chen po'i klong du sangs rgyas pa'i rang bzhin la/ dngos po gzhal byar su yis mthong/ gtan tshigs su (p.292) yis bstan/ grub pa'i mtha' ci zhig chol/ 'jal byed gang gis byas te/ de dag gi ngo bo so so ba med pa'i phyir ma dmigs so/
The Nyingma school view of buddha-nature is generally marked by the tendency to align the idea with Dzogchen views and with Prasangika Madhyamaka. This trend begins with the work of Rongzom (1042–1136) and continues into the work of Longchenpa (1308–1364) and Mipham (1846–1912).
Mipham Rinpoche, the most authoritative figure in modern Nyingma, adopted a view of buddha-nature as the unity of appearance and emptiness, relating it to the descriptions of the ground in Dzogchen as outlined by Longchenpa. This ground is said to be primordially pure (ka dag) and spontaneously present (Ihun grub). In Dzogchen, buddha nature, which is equated with the basis (gzhi) of all phenomena, is often explained as the unity of "primordial purity" (Wylie: ka dag) and "natural perfection" or "spontaneous presence" ( lhun grub).Takasaki (1966)Duckworth, 2008Petit, John Whitney (1999). Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzochen, the Great Perfection. Boston: Wisdom Publications (1999). . Source: [13] (accessed: Saturday May 9, 2009), p.78-79Scheidegger, Daniel (2007: p.27). 'Different Sets of Light-Channels in the Instruction Series of Rdzogs chen'. Revue d'Études Tibétaines. The Nyingma commentary of Ju Mipham upon the Ratnagotravibhaga from a Dzogchen viewpoint has been rendered into English by Duckworth (2008).
According to Mipham, buddha-nature was neither 1 truly established, 2 a mere emptiness, nor 3 an impermanent and conditioned entity. In this way, he distinguished his unique position on buddha-nature from those of the Jonang, Gelug, and Sakya; which correspond respectively to the first, second, and third positions.Douglas Duckworth. Mipam on Buddha-Buddha-Nature, the Ground of the Nyingma Tradition, pages 94-99, State University of New York Press, 2008 Moreover, as Mipham's commentator Bötrül points out, for Mipham, buddha-nature was neither established from the point of view of ultimate valid cognition, nor was it posited merely from the point of view of the mistaken perception of ordinary beings. Mipham instead held that buddha-nature was established by a conventional valid cognition of pure vision.Douglas Duckworth. Mipam on Buddha-Buddha-Nature, the Ground of the Nyingma Tradition, page 184, State University of New York Press, 2008
The modern Nyingma scholars Palden Sherab (1938–2010) and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal (born 1950), emphasise that the essential nature of the mind (the buddha-nature) is not a blankness, but is characterized by wonderful qualities and a non-conceptual perfection that is already present and complete, it's just obscured and we fail to recognize it.Sherab, Khenchen Palden and Dongyal, Khenpo Tsewang (2006). Opening to Our Primordial Nature. New York: Snow Lion: pp. 3, 9, 22–23
Sakya scholar Buton Rinchen Drub (1290–1364) likewise held that the buddha-nature teachings were not an ultimate or final teaching (like emptiness), seeing them as teachings of expedient meaning that merely points to emptiness. His view was that the basis for these teachings is the alaya-vijñana and also that buddha-nature is the dharmakaya of a buddha but "never exists in the great mass of sentient beings".
According to Brunnhölzl, in the works of the influential Sakya scholar Gorampa (1429–1489), buddha-nature is
Sakya Chokden (1428–1507) meanwhile argues that the ultimate buddha-nature is an implicative negation, which means that its philosophical negation leaves something positive that is not negated by analysis. This is "mind's natural luminosity free from all extremes of reference points, which is the sphere of personally experienced wisdom."
The Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (), 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.cf. Hopkins, Jeffrey, trans. (2006). Mountain Doctrine: Tibet's Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha-Matrix. NY: Snow Lion: pp. 279–280
Cyrus Stearns writes that Dolpopa's attitude to the third turning of the wheel (i.e. the buddha-nature teachings) is that they "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."Cyrus Stearns, The Buddha from Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1999, p. 87
In Kagyu, the view of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje is generally seen as the most authoritative. His is the view that buddha-nature is "mind's luminous ultimate nature or nondual wisdom, which is the basis of everything in samsara and nirvana." Thrangu Rinpoche sees the Buddha-nature as the indivisible oneness of wisdom and emptiness:
Brunnhölzl states that the view of Gyaltsab Je (1364–1432) is that buddha-nature (the tathagata heart) is "the state of a being in whom mind's emptiness is obscured, while buddhas by definition do not possess this tathagata heart."
The 14th Dalai Lama 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:
According to Rime scholar Jamgon Kongtrul rangtong and shentong are not ultimately different as both can reach the ultimate state in practice. However, they do differ in how they describe ultimate reality (Dharmata), since shentong describes the buddha-mind as ultimately real, while rangtong rejects this (fearing it will be confused as an atman). Kongtrul "finds the Rangtong way of presentation the best to dissolve concepts and the Shentong way the best to describe the experience."
Buddhist scholar and chronicler, Merv Fowler, writes that "the main message of the tathagatagarbha literature" is that buddha-nature really is present as "a hidden essence" within each being. According to Fowler, this view is "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."Fowler, Merv (1999). Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices. Sussex Academic Press: pp. 100–101
The influential 20th century Chinese scholar Yin Shun (印順, 1906 – 2005) drew on Chinese Madhyamaka to argue against any Yogacara influenced view that buddha-nature was an underlying permanent ground of reality and instead supported the view that buddha-nature teachings are just an expedient means. Yin Shun, drawing on his study of Indian Madhyamaka promoted the emptiness of all things as the ultimate Buddhist truth, and argued that the buddha-nature teaching was a provisional teaching taught in order to ease the fear of some Buddhists regarding emptiness as well as to attract those people who have an affinity to the idea of a Self or Brahman. Later after taking up the Buddhist path, they would be introduced to the truth of emptiness.
Western scholars have reacted in different ways to this idea. 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. Robert H. Sharf notes that the worries of the Critical Buddhists is nothing new, for "the early tathāgatagarbha scriptures betray a similar anxiety, as they tacitly acknowledge that the doctrine is close to, if not identical with, the heretical ātmavāda teachings of the non- Buddhists." He also notes how the Nirvāṇa-sūtra "tacitly concedes the non-Buddhist roots of the tathāgatagarbha idea." Sharf also has pointed out how certain Southern Chan masters were concerned with other interpretations of Buddha nature, showing how the tendency to critique certain views of Buddha nature is not new in East Asian Buddhism.
Peter N. Gregory has also argued that at least some East Asian interpretations of Buddha nature are equivalent to what Critical Buddhists call dhātuvāda, especially the work of Guifeng Zongmi, who "emphasizes the underlying ontological ground on which all phenomenal appearances ( hsiang) are based, which he variously refers to as the nature ( hsing), the one mind ( i-hsin)...". According to Dan Lusthaus, certain Chinese Buddhism ideologies which became dominant in the 8th century promoted the idea of an "underlying metaphysical substratum" or "underlying, invariant, universal metaphysical 'source'" and thus do seem to be a kind of dhātuvāda. According to Lusthaus "in early T'ang China (7th–8th century) there was a deliberate attempt to divorce Chinese Buddhism from developments in India." Lusthaus notes that the Huayen thinker Fazang was influential in this theological trend who promoted the idea that true Buddhism was about comprehending the "One Mind that alone is the ground of reality" ( wei- hsin).Lusthaus, Dan, Critical Buddhism and Returning to the Sources.
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".Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, Routledge, London, 2nd Edition, 2009, p. 128
|
|
