Ideas: Difference between revisions
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
|value=No{{!}}{{!}}Qualified No | |value=No{{!}}{{!}}Qualified No | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Provisional or Definitive == | == Provisional or Definitive == | ||
| Line 63: | Line 49: | ||
====== Provisional ====== | ====== Provisional ====== | ||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosBuNayDefProv | |||
|value=Provisional | |||
}} | |||
<div class="container"> | <div class="container"> | ||
Revision as of 17:28, 31 January 2019
Is buddha-nature already perfected and simply obscured by delusion, or is it a seed or potential that must be cultivated and perfects? Is buddha-nature a definitive or provisional teaching? Is it the mind's natural luminosity, or is it the same as emptiness? These are questions that cut to the heart of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, regarding the nature of enlightenment, reality, and the Path. On this page we introduce some of the key questions in buddha-nature theory, framed in terms of what we are calling binaries.
Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, ignorance and wisdom, and scores more—have been the stuff of debates since Śākyamuni Buddha first preached in Sarnath. He himself became the subject of a central binary: on his parinirvāṇa, did he dissipate into non-existence, or does he abide as a luminous universal principle? It's an age-old dialectic of presence and absence that cuts to the heart of Buddhist metaphysics and is particularly relevant for buddha-nature theory. Similarly, over the centuries teachers have explored multiple ways of explaining the relationship between us ordinary deluded beings and fully perfect buddhas; at the moment of our enlightenment will we be transformed or will our true nature be revealed? Is something that isn't here now somehow produced? Do we share a common nature with the buddhas, or are we fundamentally different from them? The Buddha may have proposed a middle way between binary dualism, but there's a lot of disagreement about where that middle falls.
Buddha-nature theory seems to have been initially offered as one such middle way, a previously missing link between extremes offered by the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna doctrine. On the one hand was a theory of emptiness that was so extreme that, many argued, certain meditative practices were undermined. On the other hand was a theory of mind that proposed a permanently existent consciousness, an idea that was accused of violating the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence and no-self. In its earliest appearances buddha-nature was vague, more poetry than theoretical principle, hinting at possible interpretations and promising salvation for all without necessarily explaining much. But as the doctrine grew in popularity, debate lines developed. It has been categorized as provisional and definitive, defined as emptiness as well as luminosity, labeled Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, or neither as it has been tugged one way and the other across the middle-ground.
To better understand what the debate lines are and where the great thinkers in Buddhist history have stood, we offer the following binaries that appear in buddha-nature theory. Each is briefly introduced, with suggestions for further reading. Great Buddhist thinkers who populate this website, as well as scriptures and classic works of doctrinal exegesis, are presented with a checklist of positions.
Universal or Limited[edit]
Not all scriptures agree that buddha-nature is universal. Texts such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra describe a class of beings (gotra) called the icchantika who are so degraded through their lust and ignorance that they can never become enlightened. Such is the case only in the earliest version of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, however; the later version teaches universality of buddha-nature, and all but one tradition has rejected the category. The exception was the Faxiang School (法相宗) of the great Chinese translator Xuanzang 玄奘 (born 602), which declined only a few generations after Xuanzang's death. Even without the icchantika on the scene, however, not all Buddhist schools accept the universality of buddha-nature. The Yogācāra theory of classes of beings divides beings into three basic categories determined by their potential liberation; only those belonging to the bodhisattva class will attain complete and perfect buddhahood, while those of the "disciple" (śrāvaka) and "solitary buddhas" (pratyekabuddha) will attain the lesser enlightenment of the arhat. These beings cannot be said, therefore, to possess buddha-nature the same as the bodhisattvas. In some Buddhist traditions the universality of buddha-nature is taken to include even inanimate objects such as grass and trees and even roof tiles. The logic here is that buddha-nature is identical to the dharmakāya, the truth-body of the buddha which is the true nature of all phenomena.
Universal[edit]
The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.འོད་གསལ་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་སྟེ། །སྟོང་གསལ་རིག་པ་དབྱེར་མེད་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ།། The luminous buddha-nature is indivisible reality Which is spontaneous, empty, and clear awareness.
His presentation on buddha-nature theory and associated practices in his writings became the most authoritative references which determine the interpretation of buddha-nature theory and practice in the Nyingma tradition to this day.- Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (RKTSK 119)
- Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (RKTSK 120)
- Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (RKTSK 121)
The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is one of the main scriptural sources for buddha-nature in China and Tibet. Set around the time of Buddha's passing or Mahāparinirvāṇa, the sūtra contains teachings on buddha-nature equating it with the dharmakāya—that is, the complete enlightenment of a buddha. It also asserts that all sentient beings possess this nature as the buddhadhātu, or buddha-element, which thus acts as a cause, seed, or potential for all beings to attain enlightenment. Furthermore, the sūtra includes some salient features related to this concept, such as the single vehicle and the notion that the dharmakāya is endowed with the four pāramitās of permanence, bliss, purity, and a self.
According to the Kālacakra tradition, the extant version of the Kālacakratantra is an abridged version of the larger original tantra, called the Paramādibuddha, that was taught by the Buddha Śākyamuni to Sucandra, the king of Śambhala and an emanation of Vajrapāṇi, in the Dhānyakaṭaka stūpa, a notable center of Mahāyāna in the vicinity of the present-day village of Amarāvatī in Andhra Pradesh. Upon receiving instruction on the Paramādibuddhatantra and returning to Śambhala, King Sucandra wrote it down and propagated it throughout his kingdom. His six successors continued to maintain the inherited tradition, and the eighth king of Śambhala, Mañjuśrī Yaśas, composed the abridged version of the Parāmadibuddhatantra, which is handed down to us as the Sovereign Abridged Kālacakratantra (Laghukālacakratantrarāja). It is traditionally taught that it is composed of 1,030 verses written in the sradgharā meter. However, various Sanskrit manuscripts and editions of the Laghukālacakratantra contain a somewhat larger number of verses, ranging from 1,037 to 1,047 verses. The term an “abridged tantra” (laghu-tantra) has a specific meaning in Indian Buddhist tantric tradition. Its traditional interpretation is given in Naḍapādas (Nāropā) Sekoddeśaṭīkā, which states that in every yoga, yoginī, and other types of tantras, the concise, general explanations (uddeśa) and specific explanations (nirdeśa) make up a tantric discourse (tantra-saṃgīti), and that discourse, which is an exposition (uddeśana) there, is an entire abridged tantra.
The tradition tells us that Mañjuśrī Yaśas's successor Puṇḍarīka, who was an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, composed a large commentary on the Kālacakratantra, called the Stainless Light (Vimalaprabhā), which became the most authoritative commentary on the Kālacakratantra and served as the basis for all subsequent commentarial literature of that literary corpus. The place of the Vimalaprabhā in the Kālacakra literary corpus is of great importance, for in many instances, without the Vimalaprabhā, it would be practically impossible to understand not only the broader implications of the Kālacakratantra' cryptic verses and often grammatically corrupt sentences but their basic meanings. It has been said that the Kālacakratantra is explicit with regard to the tantric teachings that are often only implied in the other anuttara-yoga-tantras, but this explicitness is actually far more characteristic of the Vimalaprabhā than of the Kālacakratantra itself. (Source: Wallace, Vesna A. The Inner Kālacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 2-3.)
Written as a supplement to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Candrakīrti’s text integrates the central insight of Nagarjuna’s thought—the rejection of any metaphysical notion of intrinsic existence—with the well-known Mahayana framework of the ten levels of the bodhisattva, and it became the most studied presentation of Madhyamaka thought in Tibet.
Completed the year before the author’s death, Tsongkhapa’s exposition of Candrakīrti's text is recognized by the Tibetan tradition as the final standpoint of Tsongkhapa on many philosophical questions, particularly the clear distinctions it draws between the standpoints of the Madhyamaka and Cittamatra schools.
Written in exemplary Tibetan, Tsongkhapa’s work presents a wonderful marriage of rigorous Madhyamaka philosophical analysis with a detailed and subtle account of the progressively advancing mental states and spiritual maturity realized by sincere Madhyamaka practitioners. (Source: Thupten Jinpa, Illuminating the Intent, 2021)Limited[edit]
He begins with a cogent presentation of Mahāmudrā covering its sources, the objective Mahāmudrā, the subjective Mahāmudrā, its synonyms, the actual Mahāmudra experience among sublime beings, the analogous Mahāmudrā understanding among ordinary practitioners, and the Mahāmudrā concept according to the philosophical and tantric schools. Following this, he delves into how some later followers of Sakya and Kagyu tradition do not fathom the understanding of their respective teachings. He also points out how the followers of Kadampa tradition have missed the important original teachings of Atīśa and founding fathers.
In summary, Śākya Chokden underscores the point that there are two ways in which misconceptions are overcome: through an extrovert rational analysis and an introvert yogic contemplation. The Mahāmudrā tradition of Gampopa belongs to the latter category while the former includes the postulations of self-emptiness and other-emptiness.1. The emptiness posited through Mādhyamika reasoning. 2. The union of emptiness and bliss which fills the network of channels after tantric practice of consecration. 3. Experience of bare consciousness free from all mentation. 4. Non-apprehension of the mind either inside or outside, having colour and shape, etc. 5. The ground consciousness which is the cause of all experience.
Śākya Choden states that none of these capture the profound, precise, effective Mahāmudrā technique of Gampopa, which is compared to the Single White Remedy, and explains how they are not the same as Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā. Śākya Chokden also distinguishes the Chinese Chan practice from Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā and goes on to explain their differences. He elaborates on the practice of Mahāmudrā through the four points of single-pointedness (རྩེ་གཅིག་), non-elaboration (སྤྲོས་བྲལ་), one taste (རོ་གཅིག་), and non-meditation (སྒོམ་མེད་).Provisional or Definitive[edit]
Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, but are of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the common era. The concept was initially offered as a palliative for those who feared emptiness as taught by the Mahāyāna. It was also a guarantee for those who might be dissuaded from a path to salvation that was said to take near-infinite lifetimes to traverse. As such, the concept was plainly intended as a provisional teaching, an encouragement to those on and not yet on the path, but not actually true. Yet buddha-nature scriptures are remarkably vague, allowing for a wide range of definitions and interpretations. Beginning in the eleventh century, with the popularity of the Ratnagotravibhāga, theorists began to debate over whether the scriptures were to be taken as definitive or provisional. Candrakīrti, one of the greatest Madhyamaka philosophers, deemed tathāgatagarbha to be provisional for it did not conform to standard teachings on emptiness. His fellow Mādhyamika Kamalaśīla, however, categorized it as definitive based on the attractive (and anti-Yogacārā) promise that all beings will eventually attain buddhahood. Yogācāra philosophers also varied in their categorization depending on how they interpreted the doctrine's contradiction with the Three Vehicle theory.
Provisional[edit]
Definitive[edit]
Emptiness or Luminosity[edit]
The binary of luminosity and emptiness is a fundamental Buddhist debate over using cataphatic or apophatic language—that is, whether one can use positive language to describe reality or whether one must always use the language of negation. Emptiness theory posits that there is ultimately no permanent or independent nature to any phenomena, be it physical or mental. Yet scriptures also teach that the mind itself is naturally luminous, such as in the Perfection of Wisdom, where one reads that "in its essential original nature thought is transparently luminous." In luminosity theory the stains of saṃsāra do not defile the mind but only cloud its true nature, and enlightenment is simply a revealing of what is already there. Luminosity is a key factor in Tantra, where a direct experience of the mind's luminosity is a goal. In rejecting such affirmative descriptions of mind teachers such as Haribhadra and Sakya Paṇḍita have reconciled this binary by relegating luminosity to the provisional status—language which is used to teach and which is not completely accurate. But others such as Vasubhandu and Nāropa maintained that luminosity is the actual characteristic of mind, and is therefore not to be regarded as empty.
Emptiness[edit]
Luminosity[edit]
Potential or Already-perfected[edit]
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, one of the earliest scriptures on tathāgatagarbha, or buddha-nature, has the Buddha state that "all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of kleśas, have a tathāgatagarbha that is eternally unsullied, and that is replete with virtues no different from my own." The sūtra gives nine similes to describe that buddha-nature. These are:
- A buddha encased in a decaying lotus blossom
- Pure honey surrounded by a swarm of bees
- A kernel of wheat not yet removed from its husk
- A piece of pure gold fallen into a pit of waste
- Treasure hidden beneath an impoverished household
- The pit of a mango that can grow into a mighty tree
- A statue of pure gold concealed in rags
- A vile woman who carries in her womb the embryo of a great man
- A statue cast in gold still encased by its earthen mold
Of these seven describe a perfect object that is obscured by something else. The object is unaffected by its obscuration, yet is made either unknown to people, such as the treasure under the house, or rendered difficult to obtain, as in the case of the honey surrounded by bees. The message is that buddha-nature is already present, already perfected, yet obscured by the stains of ignorance, desire, and hatred. The similes of the mango pit and the noble child in the base woman's womb have a different message, however: both indicate a potential to transform into something that is not currently present. The noble being in the womb is only an embryo, and the pit merely carries the genetic material to grow into the tree. Whether buddha-nature is properly understood as an already-present perfection or a potential to attain that perfection is debated in terms of whether buddha-nature can be defined as the natural luminosity of the mind or whether it is the same as emptiness, and therefore must not be said to exist as an independent phenomenon. If the former, then the obscurations that conceal that natural luminosity need only be revealed in order to attain liberation, for one's buddhahood is already present. If the later, then that buddhahood is not present and must be cultivated.
Madhyamaka or Yogācāra[edit]
Buddha-nature does not easily align with either Madhyamaka or Yogācāra doctrine, though it has been appropriated by members of both schools. The theory seems to have developed outside of either communities in response to their assertions on the nature of reality and human nature, such that some scholars have posited the existence of a "Tathāgatagarbha School" of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. The assertion of the existence of a buddha-nature that possesses characteristics conflicts with Madhyamaka teachings of the fundamental absence of all independent phenomena; that is to say, buddha-nature would appear to contradict emptiness theory. At the same time the assertion of the universality of buddha-nature conflicts with Yogācāra theories that classify beings according to their potential for liberation. Nevertheless both Madhyamaka and Yogācāra authors have employed various interpretive strategies to make it conform to their school's orthodoxy. Both were aided by the relatively late Laṅkāvatārasūtra which in separate sections equated buddha-nature with both emptiness and the ālayavijñāna. The Tibetan custom of including the Ratnagotravibhāga as one of the "five books of Maitreya," a group of core Yogācāra scriptures, further lends to the common belief that buddha-nature is a teaching of that school.
Analytic or Meditative Tradition[edit]
"Other-Emptiness" or "Self-Emptiness"[edit]
- Which Wheel Turning
- Svātantrika (རང་རྒྱུད་) vs Prāsaṅgika (ཐལ་འགྱུར་པ་)
- Promotes how many vehicles?
- What is Buddha-nature?
- Buddha-nature as the Emptiness That is a Nonimplicative Negation
- Buddha-nature as Mind's Luminous Nature
- Buddha-nature as the Alaya Consciousness
- Buddha-nature as a Sentient Being
- Buddha-nature as the Dharmakaya
- Buddha-nature as Suchness
- Buddha-nature as the Disposition
- Buddha-nature as Nonconceptuality
Key Questions[edit]
- What is buddha-nature?
- Is buddha-nature emptiness or luminosity?
- How did buddha-nature thought develop in Tibet?
- How do I engage with buddha-nature in my practice?
Core Research Topics[edit]
- Title Debates
- Author Attributions
- etc