The teaching that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature (
tathāgatagarbha) was first proclaimed in the
Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. Developed in a series of Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the
Śrīmālādevīsūtra and
Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśasūtra, it was then systematized in the
Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr.
RGV), alias
Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. The core idea of the
RGV’s teaching is that everyone possesses Buddha-nature. The latter does not change throughout the progression from the level of ordinary beings to that of a Buddha, it is merely purified through the separation from adventitious defilements. Once this purification is complete, awakening is accomplished.
Both Indian and Tibetan traditions struggled with the question of the ontological status of Buddha-nature. One finds indeed in some sūtras descriptions of Buddha-nature as permanent and pervading every sentient being, which are also characteristics ascribed by non-Buddhists to the Self (
ātman). But if Buddha-nature were to be understood as a permanent entity akin to a Self, how could this teaching be compatible with the standard Buddhist doctrine that everything is impermanent and selfless?
Some Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the
Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, would offer support for the assimilation of Buddha-nature with a Self. The
Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is quite explicit in associating the two notions, characterizing in particular the
dharmakāya in terms of “perfection of Self” (
ātmapāramitā), but warns about the confusion of the “correct”
ātman, which is Buddha-nature, with
ātman taken in its ordinary sense.
[1] RGV I.37 and
RGVV also speak of the “perfection of Self” as an epithet of the
dharmakāya, interpreting however this notion of “Self” (
ātman) in the sense of selflessness (
nairātmya) or quiescence of conceptual proliferations (
prapañca), thus distinguishing Buddha-nature from the notion of a personal, permanent Self (
ātman).
[2] Nevertheless, the
RGV does not promote the doctrine of emptiness in the sense that everything is ultimately empty of intrinsic nature. Quite on the contrary, the
RGV stresses the real existence of Buddha-nature, and proclaims the superiority of the Buddha-nature doctrine to the emptiness doctrine of the
Prajñāpāramitāsūtras.
[3]
The
RGV thus on the one hand distinguishes Buddha-nature from the disapproved view of a Self, while on the other hand it admits Buddha-nature as ultimately existent
[4]—an ambiguous viewpoint, and a challenging one for its interpreters. . . .
The present paper deals with a selection of rṄog’s most significant views on the doctrine of Buddha-nature and considers some reactions to his interpretations in the works of his followers. Since the
RGV commentaries attributed to two of rṄog’s "four main [spiritual] sons" (
sras kyi thu bo bźi), Źaṅ Tshes spoṅ ba Chos kyi bla ma and Gro luṅ pa Blo gros byuṅ gnas,
[5] as yet remain to be found
[6] we will concentrate on the next-earliest available work, a commentary by Phywa pa Chos kyi seṅ ge (1109–1169)
[7] (Kano, introduction, 249–55)