The well-known motto of Ch’an Buddhism is that “perceiving the true self, one becomes a Buddha.” The “true self” signifies the Buddha nature inherent in all sentient beings. The discovering of the “true self” has become the single most important pursuit of the Buddhist, especially in Sino-Japanese Buddhism. On the contrary, early Buddhism teaches that ultimately no substantial self (i.e., ‘anatman’) can be found, since the self is nothing but the union of the five aggregates. Modern Buddhologists as well as the Buddhists have been intrigued by the inconsistency that one single tradition teaches both that there is no self on the one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to discover the true self, on the other hand.

The big questions concerning these two contradictory doctrines include:

– How did they develop during the course of Buddhist history?
– How can they be reconciled?
– Are these two ideas actually as contradicting as they appear to be?
– Is the concept of the Buddha nature an outcome of the influence of other Indian religious thought upon Buddhism?

It is out of the scope of this short paper to answer all these questions. Therefore, this paper will deal with the antecedent and synonymous concept of the Buddha nature, that is, ‘tathagata- garbha’ (‘ju lai tsang’). Specifically, this paper will examine the meaning and significance of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ (Buddha nature) based on three ‘tathagatagarbha’ texts and argue that the ‘tathagatagarbha’/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (‘atman’); rather, it is a positive language and expression of ’sunyata’ (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In other words, the intention of the teaching of ‘tathagatagarbha’/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.

The term “‘tathagatagarbha’” is generally taken as to mean that the “garbha” of a ‘Tathagata’ exists in all sentient beings without exception, and though temporarily contaminated by adventitious defilement (‘agantukaklesa’), it is the cause which eventually leads sentient beings to enlightenment. The notion of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ can be traced to a luminous�A inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta) found in the ‘Anguttara-nikaya’ (1:5):

Pabhassarm ‘idam’ bhikkhave cittam ‘tan’ ca kho ‘agantukehi’ upakkilesehi ‘upakkilitthan’ ti pabhassaram idam bhikkhave ‘cittam tan’ ca kho ‘agantukehi’ upakkilesehi vippamuttan ti

Oh! ‘Bhiksus’. The mind is pure! It is defiled by the adventitious defilement. Oh! ‘Bhiksus’. The mind is pure! it obtains liberation through the adventitious defilement.

When the original pure mind came to be regarded as something capable of growing into Buddhahood, there was the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine. Although the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in the Nikaya Buddhism, many Buddhologists, such as Wayman (1), Paul (2), Yin-shun (3) think that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ thought was originated from the ‘Mahasamgika’, but was rejected by the ‘Theravada’. This theory is also held by Mizuno who points out that the pure mind (‘pabhassarcitta’) articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally identical with the original pure mind (‘prakrtivisuddhi-citta’) articulated in the ‘Tathagatagarbha’ doctrine, for Mizuno asserts that the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic in that it is capable of eradicating defilement.(4) At any rate, the relationship between pure mind and the adventitious defilement appears to have been wholly adopted by the ‘Mahasamghika’ and later by the ‘Mahayana’.

According to I-tsing’s Nan-hai-chi-kuei Nei-fa-chuan (The record of the Buddhist kingdoms in the Southern Archipelago), “the so-called ‘Mahayana’ (in India) is no more than the two: one ‘Madhyamika’, the other ‘Yogacara’.”(5) Although it is commonly held that the ‘Madhyamika’ and ‘Yogacara’ were the two major philosophical schools in Indian ‘Mahayana’ and although it might be true that ‘tathagatagarbha’ thought never formed an academic school in India, this does not mean that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine never played a significant role in the development of Indian Buddhist thought.(6) This is attested by the fact that there are many ‘tathagatagarbha’ scriptures composed in India approximately from the third to the sixth century, such as the ‘Tathagatagarbha-sutra’, ‘Maha-parinirvana-sutra’, ‘Anuatyapurn-atvanirdesa-sutra’, ‘Srimaladevisimhanada-sutra’, ‘Lankavatara-sutra’, Rotnagotravibhaga, Buddha-nature Treatise, etc.

Since the beginning of this century, many ‘Buddhologists’ have become interested in the ‘Tathagararbha’ doctrine and have shed new light on tathagatagarbha thought. However, their studies, especially on the Ratnagotravibhaga, lead to two different interpretations of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine, i.e., ‘tathagatagarbha as a monistic doctrine, and ‘tathagatagarbha’ as the embodiment of the principle of dependent co-arising (‘pratityasamutpada’) or ’sunyata’, following the traditional ‘Mahayana’ Buddhist lines.

Obermiller, who maintains the ‘Tathagatagarbha’ as monistic, in the introduction to his translation of the Ratnagotravibhaga, says that in this text, “we see that Aryasanga has come to a fully monistic and pantheistic conception” and that “The central point of this most developed theory is the teaching that the fundamental element of Buddhahood, the essence of the Buddha in a living being represents an eternal, immutable (‘asamskrta’) element, which is identical with the monistic Absolute and is unique and undifferentiated in everything that lives.”(7)

Takasaki, an eminent scholar of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine, asserts that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ thought holds some monistic element. He says: – “When Buddhism developed itself into ‘Mahayana’ Buddhism, it could not but take the appearance of Monism as a result of Absolutization of the Buddha and approach the Upanishadic thinking in its philosophy … for explaining the possibility of anyone’s acquiring the Buddhahood, the Monistic philosophy was used as the background. In this last point lies the significance of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ theory of this text. This theory is in one sense an inevitable result of the development of Mahayanistic monism in its religious expression.”(8)

Although Takasaki notes that there is a difference between the nature of monism in the Ratnagotravibhaga and in the Upanishads, for the Absolute taught in the Ratnagotravibhaga is the manifestion of ’sunyata’ which is of a quite different character from the substantial Absolute of the Upanishads, still he believes “there was an influence from the Upanishadic thought for the ‘astivada’ of the Ratna to establish its monistic doctrine.”(9)

The reason for those scholars’ holding the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine as monistic is that they base their interpretation on passages in various ‘tathagatagarbha’ literature which assert the equivalence of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ to terms with all-pervading character, such as ‘tathata’, ‘dharmakaya’, ‘dharmadhatu’, etc., which describe the ‘tathagatagarbha’ as being eternal (nitya) and immutable (‘atman’), which assert the fundamental purity of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ (equating the ‘tathagatagarbha’ as ‘prakrtiparisuddhi-citta’, the original pure mind), and which assert that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ functions like a first cause from which the phenomenal reality emanates.

However, if we examine more carefully the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine, we will find that it can be interpreted as an expression of the concept of ‘pratityasamutpada’ and ’sunyata’. Yamaguchi (10) and Ogawa(11) follow this traditional line.

Interestingly, modern Buddhologists are not alone in their puzzle about the question of whether the ‘tathagatagarbha’ represents a kind of Upanishadic ‘atman’. Bodhisattva ‘Mahamati’ in the ‘Lankavatarasutra’ raised a question concerning this issue. He said to the Buddha:

– Now the Blessed one makes mention of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ in the sutras, and it is described by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value … it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious and unchangeable. Is not this ‘tathagatagarbha’ taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers (tirthikas)? (12).

In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the ‘tathagatagarbha’ with emptiness, markless, ‘tathata’, etc., meaning that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is without any substantial entity. Then the question arises: — if the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is empty by nature , why the Buddhas teach a ‘tathagatagarbha’ possessing all positive attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self (‘atman’), bliss (sukha) and pure (subha)? The Buddha goes on to answer this question:

– The reason why the ‘Tathagatas’ who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour … that the ‘Tathagatas’ preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ , sometimes by that of egolessness … Thus, ‘Mahamati’, the doctrine of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, ‘Mahamati’, the ‘Tathagatas’ disclose the doctrine of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher’s notion of an egosubstance. Therefore , ‘Mahamati’, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the ‘anatman-tathagatagarbha’.(13)

It is pointed out in this passage that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is empty in its nature yet real: it is ‘Nirvana’ itself, unborn, without predicates. It is where no false discrimination (nirvikalpa) takes place. There is nothing here for the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas to take hold of as an ‘atman’. They have gone beyond the sphere of false discrimination and word. It is due to their wisdom and skillful means (‘upaya’) that they set up all kinds of names and phrases in order to save sentient beings from mistaken view of reality. In other words, it is exactly to help sentient beings case away their fear of ‘anatman’ that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ with positive attributes (i.e., ‘asunya-tathagatagarbha’) is taught, and at the same time it is to get rid of the clinging of ‘atman’ that the ‘anatman-tathagatagarbha’ is taught. Thus it is clear that the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is not an Upanishadic ‘atman’. Now let’s turn to examine how Yamaguchi and Ogawa who hold this traditional line interpret this doctrine.

Yamaguchi points out that the statement in the Ratnagotravibhaga, “O Noble youth, such is the essential nature of the dharma (‘dharmanam dharmata’), whether the ‘Tathagatas’ appear in the world, or whether they do not, these living beings are always possessed of the matrix of the ‘Tathagata’” (15) is parallel to the statement found in the Sammyutta-nikaya “Whether the ‘Tathagatas’ were to appear in the world, the theory of ‘pratitysamutpada’ remains.”(16)

Here we see the ‘tathagatagarbha’ was considered as a valid principle as ‘pratitysamutpada’. Thus Yamaguchi holds that the most important point in expounding the ‘tathagatagarbha’ in the Ratnagotravibharga is that “the ‘pratitysamutpada’ is the ‘tathagatagarbha’.” (engi sunawachi nyoraizo)(17).

Ogawa, following the same position, interprets the ‘tathagatagarbha’ according to the commentary of the ‘Ratnagotravibhaga’ by the Tibetan master, Dhar-ma rin-chen. He argues that the ‘tathatagatagarbha’ is essentially the same as ’sunyata’, and also it has the ’sunyata’ nature which allows the mind to understand ’sunyata’. The crucial point of this interpretation centers on the passage “all sentient beings are possessed of the ‘tathagatagarbha’” in the Ratnagotravibhaga. It expounds three ’svabhavas’ of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ to justify the above passage. According to Dhar-ma rin-chen, the three ’svabhavas’ are ways of explaining the ‘tathagatagarbha’ form three perspectives: – from the perspective of the result level of the ‘Tathagata’, from the perspective of the nature of the ‘Tathagata’ and from the perspective of the cause of the ‘Tathagata.’(18)

1/- ‘Dharmakaya-svabhava’: – from the perspective of the result level of the ‘Tathagata’. The ‘Dharmakaya-svabhava’ means that the ‘Dharmakaya’ of the ‘Tathagata’ penetrates all sentient beings. According to Takasaki, this first ’svabhava’ is derived from the ‘ Tathagatotpattisambhavambhava-parivarta’ of the ‘Avatamsaka-sutra’ as cited in the Ratnagotravibhaga: — “There is no one among the groups of sentient beings in whose body the wisdom of the ‘Tathagata’ does not penetrate at all.”(19) It seems that when “the ‘dharmakaya’ of the ‘Tathagata’ pervades” is taken to mean that there is no part of the universe where the substantial entity is not present, it could fall into a monistic interpretation. However, according to Dhar-ma rin-chen, the ‘Dharmakaya’ is explained as having two aspects:

1) ‘Dharma-dhatu’, the perfectly pure realm of ultimate truth itself, in which “dharma” means “teaching” and “‘dhatu’” means “cause”. Therefore, the ‘Dharmadhatu’ refers to the supreme truth which is the cause of the teaching, and
2) arya-dharma which means the teaching in its form as conventional truth. This conventional teaching is the nature outflow (‘nisyanda’) of wisdom.

Thus we see whereas the former aspect of the ‘Dharmadhatu’ refers to the truth realized by the Buddha, the static aspect of the ‘Tathagata’s’ enlightenment, the later refers to the dynamic aspect of the ‘Tathagata’s’ enlightenment, i.e., teaching the Dharma. This is to say that the Buddhadharma, or the teaching, spontaniously flows out of the ‘Tathagata’s’ compassion for the benefit of sentient beings. Therefore, when the Ratnagotravibhaga states that “all beings possess the ‘tathagatagarbha’” (because the ‘Dharmakaya’ of the ‘Tathagata’ penetrates all sentient beings), it simply means that sentient beings are able to hear the pure dharmas and are everywhere and constantly permeated by them, as the nesessary outflow of the ‘Dharmadhatu’.(20) In other words, the universality of the ‘Tathatagatagarbha’ expressed here refers to the potential capacity within living beings to be effected by the teaching of the Buddha and hence does not have a notion of a substantial entity.

2/- ‘Tathata-svabhava’: – from the perspective of the nature of the ‘Tathagata’. This ‘tathata-svabhava’ means that the ‘tathata’ of the ‘Tathagata’ is not different from the ‘tathata’ of the sentient beings. The underlying principle of this identity of the ‘tathata’ of the ‘Tathagata’ and that of sentient being is ’sunyata’. Since the ultimate nature of both the ‘Tathagata’ and sentient beings are ’sunyata’, they are seen to be undifferentiated. The only difference is that when the ‘tathata’ is associated with defilement, it is called the “‘tathagatagarbha’” or ’samala tathata’ (of sentient beings), and when the defilement is removed, it becomes ‘nirmala tathata’ (of the ‘Tathagata’). Yet they are essentially identical. Therefore, one says that all sentient beings possess the ‘tathagatgarbha’ when referring to the existence of the ’sunyata’ nature of living being’s mind which is essentially free of defilement. Again no notion of immutable substance should be asserted.

3/- ‘Gotra-svabhava’: – from the perspective of the cause of the ‘Tathagata’. This ‘gotra-svabhava’ means that the gotra (seed nature) of the ‘Tathagata’ exists in all sentient beings. The gotra in this context is explained accroding to the two-fold structure: – 1) the ‘prakrtistha-gotra’ (innate gotra), and 2) the ’samudanilagora’ (acquired gotra). According to Dhar-ma rin-chen: Based on the innate gotra, the first body, which is ‘Dharmakaya’, is obtained. Based on the acquired, perfected gotra, the later two form bodies (’sambohogakaya’ and ‘nirmanakaya’) are obtained.(21) The ‘prakrtistha’ gotra which obtains the ‘dharmakaya’, does so on the basis of the wisdom (‘prajna’) through which insight into the reality of all dharmas is attained. According to Dharma rin-chen, the ‘prakrtistha’ gotra is the primary meaning of the ‘tathagatagarbha’, because it is identified with ’sunyata’ and as such the primary “cause” of Buddhahood. The ’samudanita’ gotra which obtains ’sambhogakaya’ and ‘nirmanakaya’, does so on the basis of vigorous practices and the accumulation of innumberable merits and thus is the productive “cause” of Buddhahood. The ’samudanita’ is called the uttara, or ultimate, because it signifies the central theme of general ‘Mahayana’ practice, that is, “wisdom (‘Dharmakaya’) becomes compassion (‘rupakaya’)(22).

In other words, within the very meaning of gotra is experssed the movement from ‘prajna’ to ‘karuna’. This might be called hsia-huei-hsiang, a down-ward transformation or ‘tatha-agata’, i.e., returning from the realm of enlightenment to that of this world of sentient beings�wa process of enlightening others, after the socalled shan-huei-hsiang, an up-ward transformation or ‘tatha-gata’, i.e., striving for the realm of enlightenment from the realm of this world of sentient beings, a process of enlightening oneself. However, this “two-way traffic” process should not be seen as two distinctive and separated processes�F rather, they are non-dual, interrelated and inter-dependent.

Based on the commentary of Dhar-ma rin-chen, we can conclude that the real purpose of the passage “the gotra of the ‘Tathagata’ exists in all sentient beings” is to articulate bodhisattva practices based on wisdom. This is supported by the structure of the Ratnagotravibhaga, which is arranged by the following order:

1) Buddha,
2) Dharma,
3) Sangha,
4) ‘Dhatu’,
5) Bodhi,
6) ‘Guna’ (merits) and
7) Karma (act).

The seven ‘vajrapadas’ are expalined in terms of cause, condition and result. “‘Dhatu’” is the “cause”; bodhi, ‘guna’, and karma are the “conditions” through which the three jewels (of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) as “result” are manifested. As kiyota says that the wisdom, merits and practice of a Bodhisattva constitute the condition through which the “Buddha-is-caused”. The expression “Buddha-is-caused”, or “Buddha-caused” is derived from ‘Buddha-dhatu’. It is employed synonymously with the ‘tathagatagarbha’. As Kiyota rightly points out, the term “cause” here does not refer to a first cause (i.e., a substance or a physical entity), but symbolically as a potential (a principle) which is empirically revealed through a set of conditions�wwisdom, merits ,and practices.(23) In other words, the ‘tathagatagarbha’ as a potential inherent in the human consciousness can only be realized through Bodhisattva practices.

The above arguments are mainly based on the Rathagotravibhaga. At least two other ‘Tatnagatagarbha’ related ’sutras’ also support this viewpoint. One is the Buddha Nature Treatise (24) and the other, the ‘Mahaparinirvana sutra’(25).

In the Buddha Nature Treatise, the author gives five reasons to the question why the Buddha spoke of Buddha nature. They are:

1) to cause sentient beings to depart from inferior mind,
2) to leave behind arrogance,
3) to get rid of delusion,
4) to keep away from slandering the truth and
5) to sever the attachment to self (26).

By overcoming these five shortcomings, one gives rise to five virtues, namely , diligent mind, reverence, widom (‘prajna’) knowledge (‘jnana’) and compassion (‘karuna’). Clearly, right from the beginning, the author does not try to establish that the Buddha nature stands for something substantial. Rather, he points out the soteriological function of the teaching of the Buddha nature.

Delusion refers to the two erronous views of the substential existence of both person (‘atman’) and things (dharma). Ignorant actions arise from these two attachments to the self and external things which prevent human beings from perceiving the truth. To the author of the Buddha Nature Treatise, the truth is nothing but the Buddha nature, for “Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the twin emptiness of person and things.”(27) Thus it is said that “if one does not speak of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness and consequently will cling to reality and slander Thusness.”(28) Since the Buddha nature is the implementation of emptiness, it can be any thing but an entity.

Furthermore, in the chapter of expounding the nature of Buddha nature, the author identified Buddha nature with the ‘Dharmakaya’, which is characterized with four virtues (‘guna’). One of them is “self” (‘atman’). This “self” is immediately identified with the perfection of non-self (‘anatman-paramita’). How can the self be at the same time the perfection of non-self? The author explains:

– All the heterodox, in their various ways, conceive and grasp a self in those things which lack self, namely, the five skandhas�wform, etc. Yet these things such as form, etc. differ from what one grasps as the mark of self�F therefore, they are eternally lacking in self [However] with the wisdom of Thusness (chen ju chih). all Buddhas and bodhisattvas realize the perfection of non-self (‘anatman-paramita’) of all things Since this perfection of non-self and that which is seen as the mark of not-self are not different, the ‘Tathagata’ says that this mark of the eternal not-self is the true, essential nature (chen t’i hsing) of all things, therefore. it is said that the perfection of not-self is self. As the ’sutra’ verse says,

Already the twin emptiness [of person and thing] is pure. [In this] is realized the not-self, the supreme self, Since the Buddha realizes the pure nature (hsing). Not-self turns on itself (chuan) and becomes self.(29)

It is evident from this explanation that the teaching of Buddha nature is the instrument employed along with ‘prajna’ to realize the true, essential nature of all dharmas, namely, the non-self. Soteriologically speaking, ‘tathagatagarbha/Buddha’ nature also functions as an active skillful means, for it is reiterated in several ‘tathagatagarbha’ texts that ‘tathagatagarbha’ is the basis of ’samsara’ and ‘nirvana’. That is to say without ‘tathagatagarbha/Buddha’ nature, sentient beings would neither arouse aversion to ’samsara’ nor desire for ‘nirvana’. Therefore, ‘tathagatagarbha’ is active, not static. In other words, it represents actions of practice, rather than an monastic substance.

This interpretation can be further attested by the three causes of the Buddha nature explained in the Buddha Nature Treatise. The Buddha nature consists of three causes:

1) “deserved” cause,
2) the cause of intensified effort, and
3) the casue of fulfillment.(30)

The three-cause schema signifies that depending on the “Thusness manifested by the twin emptiness (i.e., Buddha nature)”; and through the intensified effort of Buddhist practices, one “should obtain” or “deserves” the fulfillment of Buddhahood. Apparently , the pivot of the triple cause is the cause of intensified practice, for it plays the role of activating the potentiality to realize the Buddha nature.

As we know, the ‘Mahaparnirvana-sutra’ is one of the most important ’sutras’ which articulate the concept of Buddha nature. Just as the Ratnagotravibhaga claims that all sentient beings possess the ‘tathagatagarbha’, so the ‘Mahaparinirvana Sutra’ teaches that sentient beings have the Buddha nature. In explaining what it means by sentient beings’ having the Buddha nature, the ‘Mahaparinirvana Sutra’ distinguishes three different ways of understanding the term “to have”:

– Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

Since the above passage identifies sentient beings’ ways of having Buddha nature with the third way of having, i.e., having in the future, it is again a proof that 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.

Elsewhere in the ‘Mahaparinirana Sutra’, Buddha nature is defined as the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Way. It says:

– Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness ,which is ‘prajna’ itself. [False] emptiness means not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness. The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness, permanence and impermanence, suffering and happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is ’samsara’ and what is not empty is great ‘nirvana’ … Perceiving the non-self but not the self is not the Middle Way. The Middle Way is Buddha nature.(32)

The essential point of this passage is that true emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends any dictomony�wbeing and non-being, self and non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary people and the heterodox see only the existence of self, while ‘Sravakas’ and Pratyekabuddhas perceive only the non-self, but not the existence of a self. Clinging to one extreme or the other, they cannot realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and consequently cannot realize the Middle Way. Without the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend Buddha nature. Trying to lessen the monistic flavour of the Buddha nature, the ‘Mahaparinirvana Sutra’ interprets Buddha nature as both emcompassing and transcending the notions of self and non-self. It makes the doctrine of the Buddha nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature should not be treated as equivalent to the monistic absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of a substantive self, it is actually a positive expression of emptiness.

In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the ‘tathagatagarbha’, we should keep several points in mind:

1) The ‘tathagatagarbha’ symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a principle) rather than a material “essence” of ultimate truth,

2) the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is based on the framework of the ‘Mahayana’ doctrine of ’sunyata-pratitys-amutpada’.

3) The development of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine signifies the ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the masses aiming at a given time.

That is to say the ‘tathagatagarbha’ thought was formed as an positive soterio-logical approach to counteract the “’sunyam sarvam’” (all is empty) view. The ‘tathagatagarbha’ which strongly articulates a devotional and experiential approach to salvation provides much to the hope and aspiration of the people at large. It is this positive aspect that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism.

4) The ‘tathagatagarbha’ doctrine is employed as a skill-in-means (‘upaya’). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the ‘tathagatagarbha’ is neyartha, a teaching requiring further qualifications — rather, it is a skill-in-means in that it is taught to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and circumstances. This is why it is said in the ’sutra’ that in order to teach the emptiness of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the ‘tathagatagarbha’, and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is better to take the ‘tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature’ as representing “profound existence” derived from “true emptiness” rather than as a monistic self./.

NOTES:

(1). A. Wayman, “The ‘Mahasamghika’ and the ‘Tathagatagarbha’,’ Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 35-80.

(2). Diana Paul, A Prolegomena to the ‘Srimaladevi-sutra’ and the ‘Tathagatagarbha’ Theory, dissertation, Wisconsin, 1974, pp.73-80.

(3). Yun-shun, Indian Buddhism, Chen-wen Press, Taipei, 1976, p.167.

(4). Mizuno Hiromoto, The Meaning of the Original Pure Mind, Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 8-16.

(5). T. 54, p. 205c.

(6). There is no evidence that the ‘Tathagatagarbha’ formed a school in India. For one thing there never existed a patriarchal figure in the ‘tathagatagarbha’ as ‘Nagarjuna’ in ‘Madhyamika’ and ‘Asanga’ in ‘Yogacara’. However, Fa-tsang identified a “ju-lai-tsang yuan-chi tsang”, i.e”. “a school of ‘Tathagatagarbha-pratityasamut-pada’”. Furthermore , Takasaki identifies ‘Tathagatagarbha-vada’ in the ‘Lankavatara-sutra’ and claims it is used as an independent school in contrast to ‘Atmavada’. For further discussion on this issue, see M. Kiyota, “‘Tathagatagarbha’ Thought — A Basis of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3, pp. 207-229.

(7). Leningrad Obermiller, “The Sublime School of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism,” Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX, p. 104.

(8). Jikido Takasaki, A Study of the Ratnagotravibhaga , Rome, 1966, p. 28.

(9). Ibid. p.61.

(10). Yamaguchi Susumu, Hanyo Shisoni, Tokyo, 1956.

(11). Ichijo Ogawa, Nyoraizo-Bussho no Kenkyu, Kyoto, 1969.

(12). Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The ‘Lankavatara Sutra’, Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, pp.68-69.

(13). Ibid. p.69.

(14). Ibid. p.69.

(15). Takasaki, pp.294-295.

(16). T. 2, p.84b.

(17). Yamaguchi, p.86.

(18). John Makransky, “Rgyal Tshab Rje’s Interpretation of the Three Meanings of ‘Tathagatagarbha’ with Reference to the ‘Tathagatagarbhasutra’, the Ratnagotravibhaga and some Philosophical and Historical Developments,” unpub. paper.

(19). Takasaki, p.35 and p.189.

(20). Ogawa, pp. 75-77.

(21). Ogawa, p. 85.

(22). Ibid.

(23). Minoru Kiyota, “‘Tathagatagarbha’ Thought — Basis of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3, p.214.

(24). Traditionally, Fo Hsing Lun (The Buddha Nature Treatise) is attributed to Vasubandha and translated into Chinese by ‘Paramartha’. Some Buddhologists, for example, Takasaki, suspect that it was actually written by ‘Paramartha’. However, this is still an unresolved issue. At any rate, this text represents the Yogacarin view concerning the Buddha nature.

(25). This is the ‘Mahayana’ version of the Buddha’s ‘Parinirvana’. Its content concentrates mainly on the ‘Mahayana’ doctrines such as the eternal nature of Buddhahood rather than on the description of the last days of the Buddha.

(26). T. 31, p. 787a.

(27). T. 31, p. 787b.

(28). Ibid.

(29). T. 31, p. 798c. Adapted from the translation in Sallie King’s “The Buddha Nature– True Self As Action,” Religious Studies, 1982, pp. 259.

(30). T. 31, p. 794a.

(31). T. 12, p. 524b. Adapted from the translation in Miug-wood Liu’s “The Doctrine of the Buddha Nature in the ‘Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra,’” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1983, p. 70.

(32). T. 12, p. 523b.

-ooOoo-

Atman is Brahman Itself, the very Self which descends down into the elements of nature through self-projection and participates Itself in the game of self-induced illusion and
pure Delight. But bound by the senses and limited by the sensory knowledge and sensory perceptions, we, the jivas, do not perceive the truth.

We go out, get involved and in the process forget who we
are. It is like a man who travels out into distant lands and
forgets his roots or his homeland. “The self-existent Lord
pierced the senses to make them turn outward. Thus we look to the external world and see not the
Self with in us.”

The Self is the silent partner in all our deeds and
experiences, the observer and the indweller of all embodied
beings. Its nature cannot be explained or described in human
language adequately, as it is beyond the senses and the mind.
“There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we
know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the
known and beyond the unknown.”

It can only be experienced when all the sensory activity
ceases to impact the mind, when the mind itself is freed from
the movement of thoughts and sense objects, and the torment of desires, which are the prime cause of all human activity and
suffering, subside into quietude. The experience comes ” When
the mind and the five senses are stilled and when the intellect
is stilled ….They say that Yoga is complete stillness in
which one enters that state of Oneness.”

Although it is described as a flame, of the size of thumb,
which is said to exist between the eye brows physically , or in
the heart of all emotionally , its exact location is uncertain.
It has no physical or mental dimensions as such, other than as
a mere reflection or an idea in the mind. But unquestionably He
exists and He alone is real. All else is false and withers
away, crushed by the weight of sins and pressures of time.

We are told, “The adorable one is seated in the heart and
rules the breath of life. All the senses pay homage to him.
When He breaks out of the body in freedom from the bonds of
flesh, what else remains? This Self is Supreme.” We are also
told, “Above the senses is the mind, above the mind the
intellect, above that is the ego and above the ego is the
unmanifest cause. And beyond is Brahman, omnipresent and
without attributes.”

The ego is Atman’s poor cousin, the false center, which assumes the position of control and ownership, where as in actual reality
it is a mere reflection, a product of illusion and a mental
projection, born out of sensory experiences and the
accumulation of memories and thoughts. While the basis of Atman is reality, permanence and Bliss, the nature of egois illusion, impermanence and suffering.

The ego of a living being is permanently situated in ignorance and gloom and needs to be rescued from eternal doom and damnation by the indwelling Atman. The ego is a false reflection of it.

The Katha Upanishad explains the relative status of the two
selves in this manner, “There are two selves, the separate ego
and the indivisible Atman. When one raises above I, me and
mine, the Atman reveals Itself as the real Self.”

The Mundaka Upanishad is more explicit and poetic, “Like
two birds perched on the same tree, intimate friends, the ego
and the self, dwell in the same body. The former eats the sweet
and sour fruits of life, while the later looks on with
detachment.”.

This symbolism is further expanded in this verse of the Katha Upanishad, “Know the Self as the Lord of Chariot, the body as the chariot itself, the buddhi as the charioteer and the mind as reins. The senses are said to be the horses and selfish
desires as the roads they (the senses) travel. When the Self is
confused with the body, mind and senses, they say that he appears to enjoy pleasures and suffer sorrow.”

Although Atman is located in all of us, we cannot know It or
understand It adequately with our ordinary awareness. “There no
eye can penetrate, no voice, no mind. Nor do we know how to
understand it or preach it.” In the Kena Upanishad the teacher explain the difficulty to the students in the following words, “If you think that you know the Self you know not.” And the student admits,” I do not think I know the Self, nor can I say I know Him not.”

And in the  Katha Upanishad, Yama, the Lord of Death explains to Nachiketa,” The Self cannot be known through the study of
scriptures, nor thorough intellect nor through hearing learned
discourses. It can be attained only by those whom the Self
chooses.” He reemphasizes the same point again else where.

The problem is further explained and the way to reach Atman
is also suggested to the students in the Kena Upanishad, ” The ignorant thinks that the Self can be known by the intellect, but the enlightened one knows that He is beyond the duality of the knower and the known.”

The idea is that Atman cannot be realized by the ordinary
consciousness, where the senses are active and where there is the interference of the mind in the process of awareness. There cannot be an experience of Atman where there is this gulf of “knowing” between the knower and the known. He who knows It, knows It not really.

It is the mind and the senses which stand between the two poles of reality, the knower and the known, and prevent the ordinary consciousness from realizing the true nature of Atman .
The mind is thus an imperfect instrument with an inherent
inability to understand and realize Atman. “The truth of Self
cannot come from him who has not realized that he is the Self.
The intellect cannot reveal the Self beyond its duality of
subject and object.”

But how does one realize the Atman? What is the process?
“The self cannot be known by he who does not desist himself
from unrighteous ways, does not control his senses, nor stills
his mind and does not practice meditation,” explains Yama to
Nachiketa and also adds, “This awakening you have known comes not through logic and scholarship, but from close association with a realized teacher.”

But mere association with a teacher may not again be
helpful, unless there is an inner and deep commitment to know
the truth. “The Self cannot be known through the study of the
scriptures, nor through intellect, nor through learned
discourses. The self can be attained by only those whom the
Self chooses. Verily to them does the Self reveals Itself.”

The connection between the outer and the inner worlds is not
direct and straight. There are many intermittent stages to pass
through and conditions to achieve and obstacles to over come
before reaching the final goal. In
Mandukya Upanishad, we are told that the self is four fold
:

1. The wakeful Vaishwanara, the Universal Male (the ego),
2. The dreaming Taijasa, the enjoyer of subtle objects and
   the Lord of the luminous mind, (the astral),
3. The mysterious Pragna, the deep Sleeper and the Lord of
   Wisdom and
4. Atman the eternal, the Incommunicable, the end of
   phenomena, Brahman Itself.

Perhaps this may not be the entire truth for so mysterious
is the inward journey and so inadequately is equipped the human
mind to record the experiences of the spirit, that there may be
deeper and other planes of consciousness between the wakeful
state and the Atman, about whom we have yet to gain knowledge.

But what about the ultimate experience? what happens when
one reaches there? No one seems to explain that experience
accurately and to our complete satisfaction. It is beyond human
language, for our words do not carry the intensity and
luminosity of that transcendent experience.

At the same time the delight of the experience cannot be
contained in the secret caves of the heart, as it gushes forth
with the thundering sounds of pure joy into open. Thus for the
benefit of the posterity and the ordinary, the experiences show
themselves in some feeble analogies and vague symbolism.

In the Isa Upanishad we come across
one such instance. The seeker first prays to
Brahman, ” The face of truth is hidden behind your golden
lid, O Sun. May you remove the lid so that I may see the golden
Truth !” And when the request is granted and the splendor
manifests Itself in him he, submerged in pure bliss, lets out
these words, “In truth I am Him.”

Perhaps that is the ultimate Truth a person can discover in
his or her spiritual journey, the Truth that remains hidden
behind the golden lid eager to show its resplendent golden face
while we struggle and strive in the mortal world with vague
yearnings and uncertain future.

Taken from: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/atman.asp