The Significance of 'Tathagatagarbha': A Positive Expression of 'Sunyata'

{{Article
|ArticleLayout=Academic Layout
|ArticleTitle=The Significance of 'Tathagatagarbha': A Positive Expression of 'Sunyata'
|AuthorPage=Shih, Heng-Ching
|ArticleSource=[https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha191.htm BuddhaSasana] Online
|ArticleContent=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.<br><br>
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):

<blockquote>''Pabhassarm 'idam' bhikkhave cittam 'tan' ca kho 'agantukehi' upakkilesehi 'upakkilitthan' ti pabhassaram idam bhikkhave 'cittam tan' ca kho 'agantukehi' upakkilesehi vippamuttan ti''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''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.''</blockquote>

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<ref>A. Wayman, "The 'Mahasamghika' and the 'Tathagatagarbha',' Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 35-80.</ref>, Paul<ref>Diana Paul, A Prolegomena to the 'Srimaladevi-sutra' and the 'Tathagatagarbha' Theory, dissertation, Wisconsin, 1974, pp.73-80.</ref>, Yin-shun <ref>Yun-shun, Indian Buddhism, Chen-wen Press, Taipei, 1976, p.167.</ref> 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.<ref>Mizuno Hiromoto, The Meaning of the Original Pure Mind, Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 8-16.</ref> 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'."<ref>T. 54, p. 205c.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> 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."<ref>Leningrad Obermiller, "The Sublime School of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism," Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX, p. 104.</ref>

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."<ref>Jikido Takasaki, A Study of the Ratnagotravibhaga , Rome, 1966, p. 28.</ref>

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."<ref>Ibid. p.61</ref>

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 <ref>Yamaguchi Susumu, Hanyo Shisoni, Tokyo, 1956.</ref> and Ogawa<ref>Ichijo Ogawa, Nyoraizo-Bussho no Kenkyu, Kyoto, 1969.</ref> 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:

<blockquote>- 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)? <ref>Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The 'Lankavatara Sutra', Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, pp.68-69.</ref>.</blockquote>

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:

<blockquote>- 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'.<ref>Ibid. p.69.</ref></blockquote>

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.<ref>[The placement of note #14 is unclear.] Ibid. p.69.</ref>

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'"<ref>Takasaki, pp.294-295</ref> is parallel to the statement found in the Sammyutta-nikaya "Whether the 'Tathagatas' were to appear in the world, the theory of 'pratitysamutpada' remains."<ref>T. 2, p.84b</ref>

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)<ref>Yamaguchi, p.86.</ref>.

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.'<ref>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.</ref>

<blockquote>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."<ref>Takasaki, p.35 and p.189.</ref> 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:</blockquote>

<blockquote>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<br> 
2) arya-dharma which means the teaching in its form as conventional truth. This conventional teaching is the nature outflow ('nisyanda') of wisdom.</blockquote>

<blockquote>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'.<ref>Ogawa, pp. 75-77.</ref> 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.</blockquote>

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

<blockquote>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.<ref>Ogawa, p. 85.</ref> 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')<ref>Ibid.</ref>.</blockquote>

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.</bockquote>

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.<ref>Minoru Kiyota, "'Tathagatagarbha' Thought -- Basis of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia," Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3, p.214.</ref> 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 <ref>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.</ref> and the other, the 'Mahaparinirvana sutra'.<ref>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.</ref>

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.<ref>T. 31, p. 787a.</ref>

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."<ref>T. 31, p. 787b.</ref> 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."<ref>Ibid.</ref> 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:

<blockquote>- 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,</blockquote>

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.<ref>T. 31, p. 798c. Adapted from the translation in Sallie King's "The Buddha Nature-- True Self As Action," Religious Studies, 1982, pp. 259.</ref>

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.<ref>T. 31, p. 794a.</ref>

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":

<blockquote>- 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.<ref>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.</ref></blockquote>

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:

<blockquote>- 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.<ref>T. 12, p. 523b.</ref></blockquote>

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./.
|DisableDropcap=Yes
|AuthorName=Heng-Ching Shih
}}