|
||||||||||
|
Buddha-nature, Buddha-dhatu or Buddha Principle (Skt: Tathāgatagarbha; Jap: Bussho), is taught differently in various Mahayana Buddhism traditions. Broadly speaking Buddha-nature is concerned with ascertaining what allows sentient beings to become Buddhas. [1] It can be perceived as the 'true self'.
Contents |
Buddha-nature (Classical Chinese: 佛性, modern pinyin fó xìng) literally corresponds to the Sanskrit 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 ("root/embryo").[2] The latter has the meanings: "embryo", "essence";[3] whilst the former may be parsed into "tathā" ("[s]he who has there" and "āgata" (semantic field: "come", "arrived") and/or "gata" ("gone").[4]
For the various equivalents of the Sanskrit term "tathāgatagarbha" in other languages (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese), see Glossary of Buddhism, "tathagatagarbha"
There is a reference in the Anguttara Nikāya to a "luminous mind", present within all people, be they corrupt or pure, and whether or not it is itself stained or pure.[5]
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, which stipulates that there is no underlying self, with the idea of karma: who is suffering? Another problem is soteriology: what is the subject of awakening, is there an essence to awakening?
Debates between different Nikāya schools at this time provided a context for the later origination of the Mahāyāna concepts. The concept of "seeds", espoused by the Sautrāntika in debate with the Sarvāstivādins over the metaphysical status of phenomena (dharmas), is a precursor to the store-consciousness of the Yogācāra school and the tathāgatagarbha[6]. The latter is closely related to the concept of Buddha-nature [7]
The "Tathāgatagarbha Sutras" are a collection of Mahayana sutras which present the concept of Buddha-nature as the uncreated and indestructible essence (svabhava) or 'true Self' of all beings (vide Mahaparinirvana Sutra). Even though this collection was generally ignored in India[8], East Asian Buddhism provides some significance to these texts.
Some sutras mention the self in a very affirmative manner, including the Lankavatara Sutra,[9] the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the Mahāvairocana Sūtra[10] and the Sutra of Perfect Wisdom called The Questions of Suvikrantavikramin:
...one 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.[11]
The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra specifically contrasts its doctrine of the self with that of the Astikas in order to remove the reifying notion that the self was a little person or homunculus, the size of a grain of rice or of one's thumb, sitting in the heart of the being, thus: "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." 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." 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".[12]
The Buddha in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra insists that the self of the Buddha (the Buddha-nature which is present in all beings) is everlasting, pure and blissful and is most definitely not transitory and impermanent:
The Buddha-Nature is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... The Buddha-Nature is not non-Eternal, not non-Bliss, not non-Self, and not non-Purity.[13]
The Buddha-nature is, in fact, taught in such tathāgatagarbha sutras to be ultimate, conceptually inconceivable, immortal reality.
The development of the doctrine can also be associated with the Lotus Sutra and its influence on later sutras.[14] One of the unique themes in the Lotus Sutra, particularly in the tenth chapter titled "Teachers of the Dharma", is that everyone has the ability to become a buddha. In other words, this ability is not limited to monks, nuns, laypeople, shravakas, or bodhisattvas, but the chapter insists that other beings such as non-human creatures, dragon kings, centaurs, etc., also have this ability.[14] It also insists that all living beings not only have the ability to become a buddha, but can be a 'teacher of the Dharma' here and now.
A connotation to Buddha-nature is also found within the twelfth chapter of the Lotus Sutra titled "Devadatta". It gives no information about the historical Devadatta, but gives the encouragement to understand that just as Devadatta, known everywhere to be evil, has the potential to become a buddha, so too with everyone else.[15] 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, despite her being what she is. This goes contrary to common prejudices and informed opinion.[16]
Schools and scholars of Buddhism have varying interpretations of what the Buddha-nature consists in. Essentiality the disagreement is whether the buddha-nature is an essence underlying the flux or phenomena, or whether this idea is an aberration of the buddhist insight of anatta[17]. Some see the buddha-nature as the innate potential to become awakened, without reifying this potential as a 'thing'. Some scholars favor one interpretation of the Buddha-nature over others.
In Chinese Ch’an Buddhism the Buddha-nature tends to be seen as the essential nature of all beings. Writing from this tradition, 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 tathāgatagarbha sutras, defining 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.[18]
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.
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 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.[19]
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.[20]
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.[21]
Germano (1992: pp.viii - ix) relates Dzogchen, via Buddha-nature to Madhyamaka, Yogachara 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 exoteric 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.[22]
The 19th/20th-century Tibetan Buddhist scholar, Shechen Gyaltsap Gyurme Pema Namgyal, sees the Buddha nature as ultimate truth,[23] 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.[24]
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.[25]
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.[26]
The Jonangpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, whose foremost historical figure was Dolpopa, sees the Buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the basal state".[27] Dolpopa comments that certain key tathāgatagarbha sutras indicate this truth, remarking:
These statements that the basis of purification itself, the matrix-of-one-gone-to-bliss [i.e. Buddha Nature], is Buddha, the ground of Buddha, and the pristine wisdom of a one-gone-thus [Tathagata] also clear away the assertion by certain [scholars] that the matrix-of-one-gone-to-bliss [Buddha Nature] is not Buddha.[28]
Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), as quoted by the great Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, repeatedly exalts not the non-self but the self and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality:[29]
In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this immutable, universal and salvific Buddha essence (the true self of the Buddha) is said to be the ground of all things, but it is viewed by fools as something changeful and impermanent, whereas in fact it is stated by the Buddha to be the very opposite of such impermanence:
... 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 ...[30]
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."
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.[31]
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.[32]
According to some modern scholars, the tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness (śūnyatā) and is the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.[33]
The Buddhist scholar, Sallie B King, sees the Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) as merely a metaphor for the potential in all beings to attain Buddhahood, rather than as an ontological reality. She writes of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra in particular:
The tathagatagarbha [Buddha Nature] is here a metaphor for the ability of all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood, no more and no less.[34]
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.[35]
However, other scholars take a more nuanced approach. Thus, in discussing the problems with and the inadequacy of much modern scholarship on Buddha-nature and the tathāgatagarbha, 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".[36] He goes on to point out that the term tathāgatagarbha has up to six possible connotations. Of these, the three most important are:
Of these three, 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.[39]
According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, essentialist conceptions of Buddha-nature are un-Buddhist, being at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination.[34]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||