Discover: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:08, 2 April 2019

Your Buddha-Nature

Buddha-nature is the teaching that all people are fundamentally good. We have no "original sin" or any sort of imperfection that we need to rid ourselves of or transform. All our suffering and failings are actually the result of ignorance. They are caused by our ego, generated by mistaken perceptions of our experiences and the world around us. On examination one finds that all conceptual dualities—that of self and other chief among them—are without solid basis. Recognizing this reality not only frees us from our own petty concerns, it also opens us up to a compassion through which we are liberated.

What Then?

Everyone has the same buddha-nature, even the Buddha. The only difference is that the Buddha recognized his and the rest of us have not. The goal of Buddhist practice is to allow our true nature to shine forth. We may not yet be perfect buddhas, but we will be the moment we cease our commitment to our ego and our suffering. The Buddhist teachings and practices are all dedicated to revealing our true nature through retraining the mind and body, both by cultivating the proper outlook and behavior, and by ceasing the negative habits that cause dissatisfaction and suffering.

What is buddha-nature?

Buddha-nature is the spark of buddhahood in every sentient being. It is the teaching that all people are fundamentally good and that all of us have the potential to attain the complete realization of buddhahood. Two frequently-used metaphors to describe this universal nature are a golden statue encased in muck and the seed of a mango tree. The first suggests that our buddha-nature is already perfect, and only needs to be revealed in order to manifest our enlightenment. The second presents buddha-nature as a potential that must be cultivated in order to attain enlightenment. A third, less common interpretation is that we somehow produce buddhahood and thus acquire 'buddha-nature' at a certain stage of religious accomplishment. These three models, 'disclosure', 'transformation', and 'production', are used by different traditions to define buddha-nature and describe the methods to fully actualize enlightenment.

What buddha-nature actually is, and how it can be described accurately, is a major topic in Buddhist philosophy. In general Buddhists employ one of two main approaches to describe reality: positive language which asserts the qualities of enlightenment and buddha-nature, and negative language which attempts to avoid the traps of dualism. From these two approaches come two common definitions of buddha-nature: that it is none other than the natural luminosity of the mind or that it is the universal truth of emptiness. "Emptiness" refers to a theory of radical selflessness, in which all phenomena are understood to lack independent existence. It also refers to a specific way of using language to avoid implying such an existence, in which reality is consistently described by what it is not. The "natural luminosity of mind" is the idea that the fundamental nature of all sentient beings is nondual wisdom, a phenomenon also known as reflexive awareness--awareness that is aware of itself, free of the duality of subject and object that infects all forms of consciousness. Advocates of this view describe buddha-nature as fundamentally real, permanent, and unchanging, and this use of positive language puts it in conflict with emptiness theory, and so has led to centuries of sometimes contentious debates. You will find information about all these fascinating debates on the pages of this website.

Indian and Tibetan philosophers have also debated whether buddha-nature is a definitive teaching--one given by the Buddha to describe things as they are--or a provisional teaching--not true but valuable for encouraging a student to move in the right direction. A famous parable of this sort of teaching from the Lotus Sutra describes a group of children unaware that the building in which they play is burning; their father, unable to convince them to leave, tells them, falsely, that a marvelous chariot is outside the house, which they run to see, thereby surviving the fire. Like the father who tells his children an untruth in order to benefit them, the Buddha is said to have taught many doctrines that are not strictly accurate, but which benefit disciples by encouraging them to get on the path. For many philosophers, the doctrine of buddha-nature is like this--the idea that we possess this spark of enlightenment inspires us to practice, but such a thing cannot be actually said to exist because of the fundamental truth of emptiness. Others, however, take the position that the mind's natural luminosity is self-evident, and need not be explained as a rhetorical trick.

The methods of practice relating to buddha-nature naturally reflect the theory that is used to describe it. If buddha-nature is already complete and perfect, then one need not do anything to attain it. Mahāyāna meditation and virtuous deeds become something one does to display one's enlightenment, as in the case of Zen and Japanese Shingon rituals, or one need only rest in the natural purity of mind, as in Tibetan Dzogchen or Mahāmudrā. If buddha-nature is a potential that must be developed and perfected, then one has a lot of work to do and those same practices are described as necessary in order to accumulate merit and purify the obscurations, such as are described in both Tantra and Sūtra-based path structures embraced by the Geluk and other Tibetan traditions.

Buddha-nature is taught in a wide range of scriptures, both those said to be the word of the Buddha and commentaries by Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan masters. A group of early Indian sūtras introduced the theory around the third or fourth century of the common era. The diverse views presented in this literature were first systematized in a treatise known as the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, a title that roughly translates as “The Superior Continuum (uttaratantra) of the Mahāyāna, A Treatise (śāstra) Analyzing (vibhāga) the Source (gotra) of the Three Jewels (ratna).” In Tibet this text is divided into root verses and commentary which are separately attributed to the Bodhisattva Maitreya and the great Indian master Asaṅga, while in East Asia the entire text is believed to have been written by a north Indian named Sāramati. Popularly known in Tibet as the Gyulama (Uttaratantra in Sanskrit), the treatise has been widely taught and written about by all traditions of Buddhism there. The treatise was less influential in East Asia, where the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra was of much greater importance for the spread of buddha-nature theory.

The Questions

Are buddha-nature teachings controversial?

Not all Buddhists accept the teachings of buddha-nature, and some actually disparage it as "non-Buddhist." This is because of the similarities between buddha-nature and the "self," which the Buddha famously declared does not exist. The Buddha taught that all individuals are subject to "dependent arising," which simply means we exist because of causes and conditions. We are made up of parts in dependence on other things, and so there is no clear defining line between ourselves and the world. We exist, but we exist as pieces of a larger process that is constantly changing, and there is no underlying permanence to any of it; as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, the only constant is change. Because buddha-nature is described as our "essence" or "innate nature" some teachers and scholars have argued that it is no different than the self and is therefore in contradiction with basic Buddhism. Some buddha-nature scriptures even use the word "self" (ātman in Sanskrit) to describe buddha-nature, but they mean the term in a very different way, describing a basic fact of reality shared by all beings rather than an individual essence. Proponents of buddha-nature defend the teaching by either classifying buddha-nature as "provisional," meaning a teaching of practical value that is not literally true, or by explaining that buddha-nature is not something belonging to an individual, but is rather a basic characteristic of having a mind. That is, there are no separate "buddha-natures" belonging to each person. It is like the air in our lungs—it is in us as a integral factor of our being alive, but it is not our individual air.

Learn more about the controversies here: Questions and Controversies

Is buddha-nature like a soul? Is it the same as the Hindu ātman?

"Soul" is a Greek-inspired teaching of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. There are many ways that these traditions understand the concept, but at its most basic a soul is said to be a permanent individual entity that survives death. Indian religious traditions such as Hinduism or Buddhism do not have this idea. The Hindu ātman is individual, but more like the wave on an ocean than a truly separate entity—the individuality of the ātman is said to be illusory and is the cause of human suffering. The goal of Hindu practice is to abandon that illusion and experience the universal unity of existence, called Brahmā—for the wave to dissolve back into the ocean. Buddhism however does not accept the individual existence of anything, neither the wave nor the ocean. Both are dependent on causes and conditions to exist. Buddha-nature is neither an individual permanently-existing entity nor a universal presence manifesting as individual entities. Instead it is simply a basic characteristic of sentient existence: the innate capacity for wisdom.

What does buddha-nature have to do with enlightenment?

Buddha-nature is the fundamental capacity of the mind to understand the world as it is. The mind is said to be like a glass of dirty water all shaken up by desire and ignorance. When the water in the glass is allowed to still the dirt all settles, revealing the basic purity of the water. So too, when the mind is properly trained, the impurities vanish, and we perceive reality as it actually is, untainted by petty desires and impulses. In other words, buddha-nature theory teaches us that we are fundamentally pure, yet obscured with ignorance. Enlightenment will be achieved by freeing the mind of that ignorance and in so doing revealing our buddha-nature.

Learn More

The Questions

The Doctrine

The People

The Traditions

Evidence of our buddha-nature

The History of Buddha-nature (Level 1)

Dealing with Depression

Buddha Nature and Permission

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 				<div class="row">
 					<div class="col-lg-8 offset-lg-2">
-						<div class="discover-slide p-5 rounded depth-3 normal-scroll" style="font-size: 1.2em;">
+						<div class="discover-slide p-5 rounded depth-3 normal-scroll drop-cap" style="font-size: 1.2em;">
 							<div class="h2 mt-0 pt-0">'''The Questions'''</div>
 							<div class="bnw-question mb-4">Are buddha-nature teachings controversial?</div>
-							Not all Buddhists accept the teachings of buddha-nature, and some actually disparage it as "non-Buddhist." This is because of the similarities between buddha-nature and the "self," which the Buddha famously declared does not exist. The Buddha taught that all individuals are subject to "dependent arising," which simply means we exist because of causes and conditions. We are made up of parts in dependence on other things, and so there is no clear defining line between ourselves and the world. We exist, but we exist as pieces of a larger process that is constantly changing, and there is no underlying permanence to any of it; as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, the only constant is change. Because buddha-nature is described as our "essence" or "innate nature" some teachers and scholars have argued that it is no different than the self and is therefore in contradiction with basic Buddhism. Some buddha-nature scriptures even use the word "self" (ātman in Sanskrit) to describe buddha-nature, but they mean the term in a very different way, describing a basic fact of reality shared by all beings rather than an individual essence. Proponents of buddha-nature defend the teaching by either classifying buddha-nature as "provisional," meaning a teaching of practical value that is not literally true, or by explaining that buddha-nature is not something belonging to an individual, but is rather a basic characteristic of having a mind. That is, there are no separate "buddha-natures" belonging to each person. It is like the air in our lungs—it is in us as a integral factor of our being alive, but it is not our individual air.
+							<p class="m-0">Not all Buddhists accept the teachings of buddha-nature, and some actually disparage it as "non-Buddhist." This is because of the similarities between buddha-nature and the "self," which the Buddha famously declared does not exist. The Buddha taught that all individuals are subject to "dependent arising," which simply means we exist because of causes and conditions. We are made up of parts in dependence on other things, and so there is no clear defining line between ourselves and the world. We exist, but we exist as pieces of a larger process that is constantly changing, and there is no underlying permanence to any of it; as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, the only constant is change. Because buddha-nature is described as our "essence" or "innate nature" some teachers and scholars have argued that it is no different than the self and is therefore in contradiction with basic Buddhism. Some buddha-nature scriptures even use the word "self" (ātman in Sanskrit) to describe buddha-nature, but they mean the term in a very different way, describing a basic fact of reality shared by all beings rather than an individual essence. Proponents of buddha-nature defend the teaching by either classifying buddha-nature as "provisional," meaning a teaching of practical value that is not literally true, or by explaining that buddha-nature is not something belonging to an individual, but is rather a basic characteristic of having a mind. That is, there are no separate "buddha-natures" belonging to each person. It is like the air in our lungs—it is in us as a integral factor of our being alive, but it is not our individual air. </p>
 *Learn more about the controversies here: [[Ideas|Questions and Controversies]]
 **[[Ideas#Provisional_or_Definitive|Are buddha-nature and tathagatagarbha teachings to be taken as "definitive teachings" or "provisional"?]]