What is Buddha-Nature?
All Buddhist traditions claim that the nature of our mind is luminous—that is to say, the natural state of our mind is free, open, and pure awareness. Buddha-nature refers to this pure, natural, and luminous state of our consciousness which is free from any duality or defilement. All beings are said to possess buddha-nature, which is what makes enlightenment possible. The myriad Buddhist practices, from quiet sitting meditation to visualization of deities, chanting, and yogic endeavors, are diverse methods to shake off the temporary cloud-like obscurations veiling the sun of one's own nature.
Beyond the sun always shining behind the clouds, two other metaphors are traditionally used to describe buddha-nature: 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 acquire buddha-nature at a certain stage of spiritual accomplishment, like a fruiting tree. These three models—disclosure, transformation, and obtainment—are used by different traditions to define buddha-nature and describe the methods to fully actualize enlightenment.
Not all Buddhist traditions are comfortable with language that describes buddha-nature as the mind's fundamental state, suspecting that such descriptions promote the idea that buddha-nature is some kind of abiding individual self. The Buddha, of course, famously taught that such an idea of a self is wrong, a delusion we create but which causes us suffering. However, buddha-nature is not taught as an individual self but more like the natural characteristic of mind, akin to wet being the natural characteristic of water. Some Buddhist philosophers have rejected such a description of buddha-nature. They maintain that ultimate reality cannot be described by language because language is limited by dualism (self and other, good and bad, and so forth), whereas the ultimate is nondual. Such philosophers will only say what the ultimate is not—not permanent, not individualistic, not ignorant, and so forth. The limitations of such a position for teaching about experience are obvious; how can one describe anything without language? Still others have argued that buddha-nature is misguided because it undermines the drive to improve ourselves, as though we must think of ourselves as bereft of good qualities in order to become better people. On these pages and the other materials linked here, you will find details about fascinating debates from these different perspectives.
In Indian and Tibetan traditions, philosophers have also debated whether buddha-nature is a teaching that one should take literally or if it was meant to promote and encourage the student to move in the right direction. Some scriptures support the interpretation that buddha-nature is a provisional teaching given to those discouraged by the daunting project of attaining enlightenment. Other sources, however, present buddha-nature as a definitive teaching and take the position that the mind's natural luminosity is self-evident and need not be explained as a rhetorical trick. They maintain that if the mind were not already enlightened by nature, then enlightenment would have to be produced. This would contradict the definition of ultimate reality—that is, nirvāṇa—as unproduced and unconditioned.
