Buddha-nature

The term tathāgatagarbha may mean "embryonic tathāgata",[18][19] "womb of the tathāgata",[18] or "containing a tathagata".[20] Various meanings may all be brought into mind when the term tathagatagarbha is being used.[20]

The Sanskrit term tathāgatagarbha is a compound of two terms, tathāgata and garbha:[18]

• tathāgata means "the one thus gone", referring to the Buddha. It is composed of "tathā" and "āgata", "thus come",[18] or "tathā" and "gata", "thus gone".[18][21] 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.[18]
• garbha, "womb",[18][22] "embryo",[18][22] "center",[22] "essence".[23][note 4]

The Chinese translated the term tathāgatagarbha as rúláizàng (如来藏),[18] or "Tathāgata's (rúlái) storehouse" (zàng).[25][26] According to Brown, "storehouse" may indicate both "that which enfolds or contains something",[26] or "that which is itself enfolded, hidden or contained by another."[26] The Tibetan translation is de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po, which cannot be translated as "womb" (mngal or lhums), but as "embryonic essence", "kernel" or "heart".[26] The term "heart" was also used by Mongolian translators.[26]

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 nature of the mind, (3) alaya-vijñana (store-consciousness), (4) all bodhisattvas and sentient beings.[9]

The term tathagatagarbha first appears in the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras,[27] which date to the 2nd and third centuries CE. It 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:[18]

1. "embryonic tathāgata", the incipient Buddha, the cause of the Tathāgata,
2. "womb of the tathāgata", the fruit of Tathāgata.

According to King, the Chinese rúláizàng was taken in its meaning as "womb" or "fruit".[18]

• Wayman & Hideko also point out that the Chinese regularly takes garbha as "womb",[24] but prefer to use the term "embryo".
• According to Brown, following Wayman & Hideko, "embryo" is the best fitting translation, since it preserves "the dynamic, self-transformative nature of the tathagatagarbha."[19]
• According to Zimmermann, garbha may also mean the interior or center of something,[28] and its essence or central part.[29] As a tatpuruṣa[note 5] it may refer to a person being a "womb" for or "container" of the tathagata.[30] As a bahuvrihi[note 6] it may refer to a person as having an embryonic tathagata inside.[30] In both cases, this embryonic tathagata still has to be developed.[30] Zimmermann concludes that tathagatagarbha is a bahuvrihi, meaning "containing a tathagata",[20][31][note 7] 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.[20]
• In addition to Zimmerman's statement that tathagatagarbha most natural means "containing a Tathagata," Paul Williams notes that garbha also means "womb/matrix" and "seed/embryo," and "the innermost part of something." The term tathagatagarbha can thus also imply "that sentient beings have a tathāgata within them in seed or embryo, that sentient beings are the wombs or matrices of the tathāgata, or that they have a tathāgata as their essence, core, or essential inner nature."[31] According to Williams, the term tathāgatagarbha "may also have been intended simply to answer the question how it is possible that all sentient beings can attain the state of a Buddha.[32]

The term "buddha-nature" (traditional Chinese: 佛性; ; pinyin: fóxìng, Japanese: busshō[18]) is closely related in meaning to the term tathāgatagarbha, but is not an exact translation of this term.[18][note 8] It refers to what is essential in the human being.[33]

The corresponding Sanskrit term is buddhadhātu.[18] It has two meanings, namely the nature of the Buddha, equivalent to the term dharmakāya, and the cause of the Buddha.[18] The link between the cause and the result is the nature (dhātu) which is common to both, namely the dharmadhātu.[33]

Matsumoto Shirō also points out that "buddha-nature" translates the Sanskrit-term buddhadhātu, a "place to put something," a "foundation," a "locus."[34] 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."[34]

In the Vajrayana, the term for buddha-nature is sugatagarbha.

According to Alex Wayman, the idea of the tathāgatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is something called the luminous mind (prabhasvaracitta), "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantuka klesha)."[8][11] The luminous mind is mentioned in a passage from the Anguttara Nikaya (which has various parallels) which states that the mind is luminous but "is defiled by incoming defilements."[35][36] [note 9] The Mahāsāṃghika school coupled this idea with the idea of the "root consciousness" (mulavijñana) which serves as the basic layer of the mind and which is held to have a self-nature (cittasvabhāva) which is pure (visuddhi) and undefiled.[8][37] In some of the tathagatagarbha-sutras a consciousness which is naturally pure (prakṛti-pariśuddha) is regarded to be the seed from which Buddhahood grows. Wayman thus argues that the pure luminous mind doctrine formed the basis for the classic buddha-nature doctrine.[8]

Karl Brunnholzl 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:

If someone devotes himself to the Ekottarikagama, Then he has the tathagatagarbha. Even if his body cannot exhaust defilements in this life, In his next life he will attain supreme wisdom.[2]

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.[38][39][15] Gregory sees this doctrine as implying that enlightenment is the natural state of the mind.[11]

According to Wayman, the teachings of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (1st-3rd century CE), which say that the Buddha's knowledge is all pervasive and is present in all sentient beings were also an important step in the development of buddha-nature thought.[8] The Avataṃsaka Sūtra does not mention the term tathāgatagarbha, but the idea of "a universal penetration of sentient beings by the wisdom of the Buddha (buddhajñāna)," is seen by some scholars as complementary to the tathāgatagarbha concept.[19]

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.[40][41] The tenth chapter emphasizes that all living beings can become a Buddha.[42] 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.[43] East Asian commentaries saw these teachings as indicating that the Lotus sutra was also drawing on the concept of the universality of buddha-nature.[44] 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.[42][45][46]

The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra states that the tathāgatagarbha is like the grain of rice contained inside of the husk of the rice plant

The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra uses the image of a Buddha within a lotus flower as a metaphor for the tathāgatagarbha

According to Zimmerman, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra (200-250 CE) is the earliest buddha-nature text. Zimmerman argues that "the term tathāgatagarbha itself seems to have been coined in this very sutra."[47] The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra states that all beings already have perfect Buddha body (*tathāgatatva, *buddhatva, *tathāgatakāya) within themselves, but do not recognize it because it is covered over by afflictions.[48][49][50][51][52]

The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra uses nine similes to illustrate the concept:[53]

This [tathāgatagarbha] abides within the shroud of the afflictions, as should be understood through [the following nine] examples: Just like a buddha in a decaying lotus, honey amidst bees, a grain in its husk, gold in filth, a treasure underground, a shoot and so on sprouting from a little fruit, a statue of the Victorious One in a tattered rag, a ruler of humankind in a destitute woman's womb, and a precious image under clay, this [buddha] element abides within all sentient beings, obscured by the defilement of the adventitious poisons.

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.[54] This sutra was very influential in the development of East Asian Buddhism.[15] 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.[16][55][16] 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).[56][57][57] 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).[4]

Other important tathāgatagarbha sutras include:[58][59]

• The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, c. 3rd century CE) which discusses the tathāgatagarbha along with other key Mahayana doctrines like the one vehicle and the luminous mind and links them to buddha-nature thought.[60] This sutra also states that the mind's luminous nature, while being empty of adventitious defilements, is not empty of limitless buddha qualities.[61] Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī also says that the tathāgatagarbha is the basis of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and equates it with the dharmakāya (which is described as "permanent," "eternal," "everlasting," and "peaceful").[61]
• The Anūnatvāpurnatvanirdeśa (The Teaching of Neither Increase nor Decrease). This sutra states that there is no increase or decrease in the “realm (or domain, or element) of (sentient) beings” (sattvadhātu), which is really a single domain (*ekadhātu) that is equally samsara and buddhahood and is equated with the “originally pure mind” (*prakṛtipariśuddhacitta) and tathāgatagarbha.[62]
• The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra (2nd c. CE) - Features the mass murderer convert Aṅgulimāla as a central character (now reformed and turned into a bodhisattva). The text attributes various qualities to the universal tathāgatagarbha, such as non-arising, independence, invariability, and not being the perceptive mind.
• Mahābherīhārakaparivarta Sūtra, The Beater of the Great Drum Sutra) - Describes buddha nature as luminous and pure, as eternal, everlasting, peaceful and self (ātman).[63]
• Mahamegha Sūtra (Great Cloud Sutra). Like the Nirvana sutra this sutra also teaches the eternity of Buddhas (and their docetic nature) and the four perfections of permanence, bliss, self and purity as qualities of the Buddha. It also discusses the non-dual nature of all sentient beings with the Dharmadhatu along with four hundred types of samādhi.[64]
• The Dhāraṇīśvararāja sūtra is a key source for the Ratnagotravibhāga's seven main vajra topics.[65][66] It explicitly points out that the nature of the minds of sentient beings is fundamentally pure (cittaprakrtivisuddhi).[67]
• The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (compiled 350-400 CE) synthesized the tathāgatagarbha doctrine and teachings of the Yogācāra school, like the ālāya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) and the "three natures".[68] According to the Laṅkāvatāra, tathāgatagarbha is the same as the ālayavijñāna (though this is qualified in other passages which explain that there are two layers of the ālayavijñāna, a pure and an impure layer).[69] The storehouse consciousness is supposed to contain the pure tathāgatagarbha, from which awakening arises.[11] Wayman notes that this synthesis of tathāgatagarbha thought and Yogacara Buddhism is a key innovation of the Laṅkāvatāra.[70][note 10]
• The Ghanavyūha sūtra is another sutra which synthesizes Yogācāra doctrines like the three natures and the ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness) with the tathāgatagarbha teaching.[74]

A ritual vajra, a symbol of indestructibility, which is used in the Ratnagotravibhāga as an image of the adamantine-like permanence of buddha nature.

The Ratnagotravibhāga (Investigating the Jewel Disposition), also called Uttaratantraśāstra (Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum), is a 5th century CE Indian treatise (śāstra) which synthesised major elements and themes of the tathāgatagārbha theory.[19] It gives an overview of key themes found in many tathāgatagarbha sutras, and it cites the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, the Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa and the Mahābherīharaka-sūtra.[75] The Ratnagotravibhāga presents the tathāgatagarbha as "an ultimate, unconditional reality that is simultaneously the inherent, dynamic process towards its complete manifestation".[76] Mundane and enlightened reality are seen as complementary:

Thusness [tathata] defiled is the Tathagatagarbha, and Thusness undefiled is Enlightenment.[3]

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.[9]

According to the Ratnagotravibhāga, all sentient beings have "the embryo of the Tathagata" in three senses:[77]

1. the Tathāgata's dharmakāya permeates all sentient beings;
2. the Tathāgata's tathatā is omnipresent (avyatibheda);
3. the Tathāgata's species (gotra, a synonym for tathagatagarbha) occurs in them.

The Ratnagotravibhāga equates enlightenment with the nirvāṇa-realm and the dharmakāya.[3] It gives a variety of synonyms for garbha, the most frequently used being gotra and dhatu.[76]

This text also explains the tathāgatagarbha in terms of luminous mind, stating that "the luminous nature of the mind Is unchanging, just like space."[78]

Takasaki Jikido notes various buddha nature treatises which exist only in Chinese and which are similar in some ways to the Ratnagotra. These works are unknown in other textual traditions and scholars disagree on whether they are translations, original compositions or a mixture of the two. These works are:[79]

• Dharmadhātvaviśeṣaśāstra (Dasheng fajie wuchabie lun 大乘法界無差別論), said to have been translated by Paramartha and attributed to Saramati (the same author which the Chinese tradition states wrote the Ratnagotra).
• Buddhagotraśāstra (佛性論, Fó xìng lùn, Buddha-nature treatise, Taishō 1610), said to have been translated by Paramartha and is attributed by Chinese tradition to Vasubandhu
• Anuttarâśrayasūtra, which according to Takasaki "is clearly a composition based upon the Ratna."

Indian Madhyamaka philosophers interpreted the theory as a description of emptiness and as a non implicative negation. Bhaviveka's Tarkajvala states:

[The expression] "possessing the tathagata heart" is [used] because emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, and so on, exist in the mind streams of all sentient beings. However, it is not something like a permanent and all-pervasive person that is the inner agent. For we find [passages] such as "All phenomena have the nature of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. What is emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness is the Tathagata."[80]

According to Candrakirti's Madhyamakāvatārabhāsya the storehouse consciousness "is nothing but emptiness that is taught through the term 'alaya-consciousness.'"[80] Go Lotsawa states that this statement is referencing the tathāgatagarbha doctrine.[80] 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".[80]

Kamalasila's (c. 740-795) Madhyamakaloka associates tathāgatagarbha with luminosity 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."[81]

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.[82]

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 nature of the mind.[78]

According to Brunnholzl, "all early Indian Yogācāra masters (such as Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, and Asvabhava), if they refer to the term tathāgatagarbha at all, always explain it as nothing but suchness in the sense of twofold identitylessness".[81]

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. Brunnholzl also notes that for Ratnākaraśānti, this luminosity is equivalent to the Yogacara concept of the perfected nature, which he sees as an implicative negation.[83] Ratnākaraśānti also describes this ultimate self-nature as radiance (prakāśa, ‘shining forth’), which is the capacity to appear (pratibhāsa).[84]

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.[85] The concept of the ālaya-vijñāna originally 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" (Mindstream) from which awareness and perception spring.[86]

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).[87] 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" (linage, 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.[88]

A page of a commentary on the Awakening of Faith, one of the most influential buddha-nature works in East Asian Buddhism.

The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (Dàshéng Qǐxìn Lùn) was very influential in the development of Chinese Buddhism [15] While the text is traditionally attributed to the Indian 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.[93][94]

The Awakening of Faith offers an ontological synthesis of buddha-nature and Yogacara thought from the perspective of "essence-function" philosophy.[95][96][97][98] It describes the "One Mind" which "includes in itself all states of being of the phenomenal and transcendental world.[96] 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 the "one mind", which is the ultimate substratum of all things (including samsara and nirvana).[15][99]

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).[95][99] 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.[95]

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 original enlightenment) as having two elements: one essential, immutable, changeless and still (the "essence"); the other an active and salvational inspirational power (function).[100]

By the 6th century CE buddha nature had been well established in Chinese Buddhism and a wide variety of theories developed to explain it.[89] One influential figure who wrote about buddha nature was Ching-ying Hui-yuan (523-592 CE), a Chinese Yogacarin who argued for a kind of idealism which held that "all dharmas without exception originate and are formed from the true[-mind], and other than the true[-mind], there exists absolutely nothing which can give rise to false thoughts."[89] Ching-ying Hui-yuan equated this "true mind" with the storehouse consciousness and with buddha-nature and held that it was an essence, a true consciousness and a metaphysical principle that ensured that all sentient beings will reach enlightenment.[89]

In the sixth and seventh centuries, the Yogacara 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.[90] The Chinese Yogacara tradition 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 storehouse consciousness was identical with the pure mind, while the northern school held that the storehouse consciousness was exclusively a deluded and defiled mind.[101]

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.[89] 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.[90] Jizang used the compound "Middle Way-buddha-nature" (zhongdao foxing 中道佛 性) to refer to his view.[102] 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).[102]

The Tiantai school is one of the first native Chinese doctrinal schools, and the primary figure of this tradition is the scholar Zhiyi. According to Paul L. Swanson, none of Zhiyi's works discuss buddha-nature explicitly at length however. Yet it is still an important concept in his philosophy, which is seen as synonymous with the ekayana principle outlined in the Lotus Sutra.[103] Swanson argues that for Zhiyi, buddha-nature is:

an active threefold process which involves the way reality is, the wisdom to see reality as it is, and the practice required to attain this wisdom. Buddha Nature is threefold: the three aspects of reality, wisdom, and practice are interdependent--one aspect does not make any sense without the others.[103]

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:[103]

1. The direct cause of attaining Buddhahood, the innate potential in all sentient beings to become Buddhas, which is the aspect of 'true nature', the way things are.
2. The complete cause of attaining Buddhahood, which is the aspect of wisdom that illuminates the true nature and the goal of practice.
3. The conditional causes of attaining Buddhahood, which is the aspect of the practices and activities that lead to Buddhahood.

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.[104]

The other major native Chinese doctrinal school is the Huayan school. The Huayan tradition heavily relied on buddha nature sources like the Awakening of Faith and on the doctrine of principle (理, li, or the ultimate pattern) and phenomena (shi).[105][106] In the Huayan tradition, the ultimate principle is associated with buddha-nature, and with the One Mind of the Awakening of Faith. This ultimate nature is seen as the ontological source and ground of all phenomena.[107] This is a key idea in Huayan thought which is called "nature-origination" (xingqi).[108][109] 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.[109] As such, the ultimate principle is non-dual with all relative phenomena.[107] 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.[107] [108][110]

Part of a series on
Zen Buddhism
Main articles Zen Chinese Chan Japanese Zen Korean Seon Vietnamese Thiền Zen in the United States
Teachings Emptiness Bodhisattva ideal Consciousness-only Buddha-nature Buddhahood One Vehicle Zen and Sutras Doctrinal background of Zen Kenshō Satori Sudden Enlightenment Ten Ox-Herding Pictures Five ranks of Tozan
Practices Zazen Six Perfections Bodhisattva vow Bodhisattva Precepts Shikantaza Sesshin Dhāraṇī Walking meditation Nianfo Chan Koan Hua Tou Samu (Zen) Ōryōki Prostration (Buddhism) Buddhist chant Dharma combat Kyōgai Zen poetry Zen calligraphy
Zen scripture Indian Mahayana texts Prajñaparamita sutras Lankavatara Sutra Śrīmālādevī Sūtra Lotus Sutra Vimalakirti Sutra Avatamsaka Sutra Mahaparinirvana Sutra Chinese texts Two Entrances and Four Practices Śūraṅgama Sūtra The Awakening of Faith Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment Platform Sutra Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall Transmission of the Lamp
Traditions East Mountain Teaching Sanjiejiao Oxhead school Heze school Hongzhou school Five Houses of Chán Tibetan Chan Trúc Lâm Plum Village Tradition Order of Interbeing Jogye Order Kwan Um School of Zen Taego Order Rinzai school Sōtō school Ōbaku school Sanbo Kyodan White Plum Asanga Ordinary Mind Zen School Zen Peacemakers
Persons Chán in China Classical Bodhidharma Hongren Shenxiu Huineng (Enō) Shenhui Mazu Daoyi (Baso) Shitou Xiqian (Kisen) Huangbo Dongshan Liangjie (Tozan) Xuefeng Yicun (Seppo) Linji Yixuan (Rinzai) Zongmi Yunmen Wenyan (Ummon Bun'en) Yongming Yanshou Dahui Zonggao (Tahui) Post-classical Zhongfeng Mingben Hanshan Deqing Contemporary Taixu Xu Yun Sheng-yen Zen in Japan Eisai Bassui Ikkyū Bankei Hakuin Ekaku Dōgen Seon in Korea Taego Bou Jinul Daewon Seongcheol Thiền in Vietnam Trần Thái Tông Trần Nhân Tông Thích Thanh Từ Thích Nhất Hạnh Thích Thiên-Ân Western Zen D. T. Suzuki Hakuun Yasutani Taizan Maezumi Shunryū Suzuki Hsuan Hua Seungsahn Sokei-an Category: Zen Buddhists
Institution Dharma transmission Zen lineage charts Zen ranks and hierarchy Zen organisation and institutions Zen Narratives
Related schools Sānlùn Wéishí Huayan Tiantai Shingon Tendai Pure Land Buddhism

In Chan Buddhism, buddha-nature tends to be seen as the essential nature of all beings, while also emphasizing that buddha-nature is emptiness, the absence of an independent and substantial "self".[15] The term buddha-nature is interpreted in various ways throughout the voluminous Chan literature. In the East Mountain Teaching of early Chan, buddha-nature was equated with the nature of mind, while later sects sometimes rejected any identification of the term with the mind.[10] This rejection of any reification of the term is reflected in the recorded sayings of Chan master Mazu Daoyi (709–788) of the influential Hongzhou school, who sometimes would teach on the "ordinary mind" or say "Mind is Buddha," but at other times would say "Neither mind nor Buddha."[note 11]

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.[112] Following the Srimala sutra, he interpreted the theory of emptiness as presented in the Prajñaparamita sutras as provisional and saw the awareness which is buddha-nature as the definitive teaching of Buddhism.[90]

Chan masters from Huineng (7th-century China),[113] Chinul (12th century Korea),[114] Hakuin Ekaku (18th-century Japan)[115] to Hsu Yun (20th-century China),[116] 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.[117] When this transformation is complete, the other seven consciousnesses are also transformed into wisdom.

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.[118]

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.[5] 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.[119][120]

A Japanese Kamakura period reliquary topped with a cintamani (a "wish fulfilling jewel"). Buddha nature texts often use the metaphor of a hidden jewel (buddha-nature) which all beings have, but are unaware of.

The major Japanese Buddhist traditions all take the idea of buddha-nature (Japanese: busshō, 仏性) as a central teaching, from Tendai and Shingon, to the new Kamakura schools. One of the most important developments of buddha-nature thought in Japanese Buddhism was hongaku theory (本覚, innate or original enlightenment) which developed within the Tendai school from the cloistered rule era (1086–1185) through the Edo period (1688–1735) and is derived from the Awakening of Faith (which uses the term pen-chileh, “original enlightenment”).[121] Jacqueline Stone writes that Tendai doctrine held that enlightenment was "inherent from the outset and as accessible in the present, rather than as the fruit of a long process of cultivation."[122] It was often held that hongaku was a feature of all phenomena, including plants and inanimate objects.[122]

Hongaku thought was also influential on the development of New Kamakura Buddhist schools, like Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, Zen and Nichiren.[121] 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).[123]

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:

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.[124]

Buddha-nature was likewise influential for the other sects of Zen, like Rinzai.

Nichiren Buddhism, founded by Nichiren (1222–1282), views the buddha-nature present in all beings as "the inner potential for attaining Buddhahood".[125][126] 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 Kyō[127][128] 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.[129]

Morten Ostensen writes that the buddha-nature teaching (also known as "sugatagarbha", Wylie: bde gshegs snying po, in Tibetan tantric sources), first entered Tibetan Buddhism through the translation of the Nyingma school's Guhyagarbha Tantra in the eighth century.[136] 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 Yeshe De (mid 8th - early 9th century).[137] One of these works is Kamalashila"s Madhyamakāloka.[138][136]

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).[136]

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) Lamp for the Eye of Contemplation 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 myes], is to be experienced directly by self-awareness [rang rig pas]", "sphere of the great circle [thig le chen po'i klong] of the self-awareness."[139][140]

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).[141] 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).[142] 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).[lower-alpha 1][143][144][lower-alpha 2][145][146][lower-alpha 3] The Nyingma commentary of Ju Mipham upon the Ratnagotravibhaga from a Dzogchen viewpoint has been rendered into English by Duckworth (2008).[147]

The modern Nyingma scholars Khenchen 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.[148]

Sakya Pandita (1182–1251), the central figure of the Sakya school, sees the buddha-nature as the dharmadhatu free from all reference points, and states that the teaching that buddha-nature exists in all beings is of expedient meaning (not ultimate) and that its basis is emptiness, citing Candrakirti's Madhyamakāvatārabhāsya.[149] The Sakya scholar Rongtön (1367–1449) meanwhile, argued that buddha-nature is suchness, with stains, or emptiness of the mind with stains.[150]

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".[151]

According to Brunnholzl, in the works of the influential Sakya scholar Gorampa Sonam Senge (1429–1489), buddha-nature is

nondual unity of minds lucidity and emptiness or awareness and emptiness free from all reference points. It is not mere emptiness because sheer emptiness cannot be the basis of both samsára and nirvána. However, it is not mere lucidity either because this lucidity is a conditioned entity and the tathágata heart is unconditioned.[150]

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."[152]

The Jonang school, whose foremost historical figure was the Tibetan scholar-monk Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361), sees the buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the basal state".[153] According to Brunnholzl, Dolpopa, basing himself on certain tathāgatagarbha sutras, argued that the buddha-nature is "ultimately really established, everlasting, eternal, permanent, immutable (therzug), and being beyond dependent origination."[151] This is the foundation of what is called the Shentong view.

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.[154]

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."[155]

According to Brunnholzl, "virtually all Kagyu masters hold the teaching on buddha nature to be of definitive meaning and deny that the tathagata heart is just sheer emptiness or a nonimplicative negation."[151] This means that most Kagyu scholars do not think that the strictly negative Madhyamaka explanation of buddha-nature is suffient on its own (without drawing on the buddha-nature sutras) to explain buddha-nature.[151] Some Kagyu views can be similar to Jonang shentong and sometimes use shentong language, but they are generally less absolutist than Jonang views (the exception is Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye, who largely follows Taranatha and Dolpopa but at times blends their positions with the Third Karmapa's view).[151]

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."[156] 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.[157]

Kedrub Jé Geleg Balsang (1385–1438), one of the main disciples of Tsongkhapa, defined the tathāgatagarbha thus:

It is the emptiness of mind's being empty of being really established that is called "the naturally pure true nature of the mind." The naturally pure true nature of the mind in its phase of not being free from adventitious stains is called "sugata heart" or "naturally abiding disposition."[131]

Brunnholzl states that the view of Gyaltsab Darma Rinchen (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."[131]

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:

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.[158]

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,[159] the Rimé movement supports shen tong (gzhan tong), "other-empty", an essential nature which is "pure radiant non-dual consciousness".[133]

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."[160]

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 writes that the Buddha, Nirvana and Buddha-wisdom can be referred to as the "True Self" (as it is done in some buddha-nature sutras). According to Hookham, in the shentong interpretation, buddha-nature is what truly exists, while not-self is what it is not.[161]

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."[162]

According to Heng-Ching Shih, buddha-nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman). Rather, it is a positive expression of emptiness (śūnyatā), which emphasizes the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of buddha-nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.[5]

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.[90] 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.[90] Later after taking up the Buddhist path, they would be introduced to the truth of emptiness.[90]

Several contemporary Japanese Buddhist scholars, headed under the label Critical Buddhism (hihan bukkyō, 批判仏教), have been critical of buddha-nature thought. According to Matsumoto Shirõ and Hakamaya Noriaki of Komazawa University, essentialist conceptions of buddha-nature are at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination and non-self (anātman).[163][164] The Buddha nature doctrines which they label as dhātuvāda ("substantialism", sometimes rendered "locus theory" or "topicalism" and "generative monism") is not Buddhist at all.[165] As defined by Matsumoto, this "locus" theory or dhātuvāda which he rejects as un-buddhist is: "It is the theory that the single (eka, sama) existent "locus" (dhatu) or basis is the cause that produces the manifold phenomena or "super-loci" (dharmah)."[166] Matsumoto further argues that: "Tathagatagarbha thought was a Buddhist version of Hindu monism, formed by the influence of Hinduism gradually introduced into Buddhism, especially after the rise of Mahayana Buddhism."[166] Other Japanese scholars responded to this view leading to a lively debate in Japan. Takasaki Jikido, a well known authority on tathagathagarbha thought, accepted that Buddha nature theories are similar to Upanishadic theories and that dhātuvāda is an accurate expression of the structure of these doctrines, but argues that the Buddha nature texts are aware of this and that Buddha nature is not necessarily un-Buddhist or anti-Buddhist.[6][166] Likewise, Hirakawa Akira, sees buddha-nature as the potential to attain Buddhahood which is not static but ever changing and argues that "dhātu" does not necessarily mean substratum (he points to some Agamas which identify dhatu with pratitya-samutpada).[6]

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.[167] 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."[165] He also notes how the Nirvāṇa-sūtra "tacitly concedes the non-Buddhist roots of the tathāgatagarbha idea."[165] 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.[165]

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 Tsung-mi, 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)...".[168] According to Dan Lusthaus, certain Chinese Buddhist 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 Fa-tsang 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).[169]

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".[170]

Sutton agrees with Williams' critique on the narrowness of any single 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".[171] He goes on to point out that the term tathāgatagarbha has up to six possible connotations. Of these, he says the three most important are:

1. an underlying ontological reality or essential nature (tathāgata-tathatā-'vyatireka) which is functionally equivalent to a self (ātman) in an Upanishadic sense,
2. the dharmakāya which penetrates all beings (sarva-sattveṣu dharma-kāya-parispharaṇa), which is functionally equivalent to brahman in an Upanishadic sense
3. the womb or matrix of Buddhahood existing in all beings (tathāgata-gotra-saṃbhava), which provides beings with the possibility of awakening.[172][173]

Of these three, Sutton claims that only the third connotation has any soteriological significance, while the other two posit buddha-nature as an ontological reality and essential nature behind all phenomena.[174]