PRINCIPLE

Buddha-nature literally corresponds to the Sanskrit Buddha-dhātu - "Buddha Element", "Buddha-Principle", but seems to have been used most frequently to translate the Sanskrit "Tathāgatagarbha". The Sanskrit term "tathāgatagarbha" may be parsed into tathāgata ("the one thus gone", referring to the Buddha) and garbha ("root/embryo"). The latter has the meanings: "embryo", "essence"; whilst the former may be parsed into "tathā" ("[s]he who has there" and "āgata" (semantic field: "come", "arrived") and/or "gata" ("gone").

Luminous mind in the Nikāyas

There is a reference in the Anguttara Nikāya to a "luminous mind", present within all people, be they corrupt or pure, and whether or not it is itself stained or pure.

Buddha-nature in the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras 

The "Tathāgatagarbha Sutras" are a collection of Mahayana sutras which present a unique model of Buddha-nature as the uncreated and indestructible essence (svabhava) or 'true Self' of all beings (videMahaparinirvana Sutra). Even though this collection was generally ignored in India, East Asian Buddhism provides some significance to these texts.

Buddha-nature in Tibetan Buddhism

In Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Sakya school, tathāgatagarbha is the inseparability of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. In Nyingma, tathāgatagarbha also generally refers to inseparability of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. According to the Gelug school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they are empty (i.e. dependently originated). According to the Jonang school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind which expresses itself in terms of omniscience etc. when adventitious obscurations are removed.

Development of Buddha-nature

The Buddha-nature doctrine may be traced back, in part, to the abhidharmic debate over metaphysics, which arose among the Nikāya schools as they attempted to reconcile various perceived problems, including how to integrate the doctrine of anatta, which stipulates that there is no underlying self, with Buddhist psychology (i.e., what is the subject of karma, suffering, etc.?; how do these processes occur?) and soteriology (what is the subject of enlightenment?; (how) does enlightenment occur?). Debates between different Nikāya schools at this time provided a context for the later origination of the Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna concepts. The concept of "seeds" espoused by the Sautrāntika in debate with the Sarvāstivādins over the metaphysical status of phenomena (dharmas) is a precursor to the store-consciousness of the Yogācāra school and thetathāgatagarbha,^[7] the latter of which is closely related to Buddha-nature and the former of which is identified with it in Yogācāra.

The Lotus Sutra

The development of the doctrine can also be associated with the Lotus Sutra and its influence on later sutras. One of the unique themes in the Lotus Sutra, particularly in the tenth chapter titled "Teachers of the Dharma", is that everyone has the ability to become a buddha. In other words, this ability is not limited to monks, nuns, laypeople, shravakas, or bodhisattvas, but the chapter insists that other beings such as non-human creatures, dragon kings, centaurs, etc., also have this ability.^[9] It also insists that all living being not only have the ability to become a buddha, but can be a 'teacher of the Dharma' here and now.

A connotation to Buddha-nature is also found within the twelfth chapter of the Lotus Sutra titled "Devadatta". It gives no information about the historical Devadatta, but gives the encouragement to understand that just as Devadatta, known everywhere to be evil, has the potential to become a buddha, so too with everyone else.The story of Devadatta is followed by another story about a dragon princess who is both a nāga and a femalewhom the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī proclaims will reach enlightenment immediately, despite her being what she is. This goes contrary to common prejudices and informed opinion.

Varying interpretations of Buddha-nature

Schools and scholars of Buddhism have varying interpretations of what the Buddha-nature consists in. In Chinese Ch’an Buddhism the Buddha-nature tends to be seen as the essential nature of all beings. Writing from this tradition, Master Hsing Yun, forty-eighth patriarch of the Linji School of Ch’an Buddhism, equates the Buddha-nature with the Dharmakāya in line with pronouncements in key tathāgatagarbhasutras, defining these two as:

the inherent nature that exists in all beings. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, enlightenment is a process of uncovering this inherent nature … The Buddha nature [is] identical with transcendental reality. The unity of the Buddha with everything that exists.

The 19th/20th-century Tibetan Buddhist scholar, Shechen Gyaltsap Gyurme Pema Namgyal, sees the Buddha nature as ultimate truth,nirvana, which is constituted of profundity, primordial peace and radiance:

Buddha-nature is immaculate. It is profound, serene, unfabricated suchness, an uncompounded expanse of luminosity; nonarising, unceasing, primordial peace, spontaneously present nirvana.

In the Tibetan Kagyu tradition, Thrangu Rinpoche sees the Buddha nature as the indivisible oneness of wisdom and emptiness:

The union of wisdom and emptiness is the essence of Buddha-hood or what is called Buddha-nature (Skt. Tathagata-garbha) because it contains the very seed, the potential of Buddhahood. It resides in each and every being and because of this essential nature, this heart nature, there is the possibility of reaching Buddhahood.

The 14th Dalai Lama, representing the Gelukpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, and speaking from the Madhyamaka philosophical position, sees the Buddha-nature as the "original clear light of mind", but points out that it ultimately does not exist independently, because, like all other phenomena, it is of the nature of emptiness:

Once one pronounces the words "emptiness" and "absolute", one has the impression of speaking of the same thing, in fact of the absolute. If emptiness must be explained through the use of just one of these two terms, there will be confusion. I must say this; otherwise you might think that the innate original clear light as absolute truth really exists.

In a similar vein, the Buddhist scholar, Sallie B King, sees the Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) as merely a metaphor for the potential in all beings to attain Buddhahood, rather than as an ontological reality. She writes of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra in particular:

The tathagatagarbha [Buddha Nature] is here a metaphor for the ability of all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood, no more and no less.

Paul Williams puts forward the Madhyamaka interpretation of the Buddha-nature as emptiness in the following terms:

… if one is a Madhyamika then that which enables sentient beings to become buddhas must be the very factor that enables the minds of sentient beings to change into the minds of Buddhas. That which enables things to change is their simple absence of inherent existence, their emptiness. Thus the tathagatagarbha becomes emptiness itself, but specifically emptiness when applied to the mental continuum.

Speaking for the Tibetan Nyingma tradition, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche sees an identity between the Buddha-nature, Dharmadhātu (essence of all phenomena and the noumenon) and the three vajras, saying:

Dharmadhatu is adorned with dharmakaya, which is endowed with dharmadhatu wisdom. This is a brief but very profound statement, because "dharmadhatu" also refers to sugata-garbha or buddha nature. Buddha nature is all-encompassing ... This buddha nature is present just as the shining sun is present in the sky. It is indivisible from the three vajras [i.e. the Buddha's Body, Speech and Mind] of the awakened state, which do not perish or change.

The Nyingma meditation masters, Khenchen Palden Sherab and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal, emphasise that the essential nature of the mind (the Buddha-nature) is not a blankness, but is characterised by wonderful qualities and a perfection that is already present and complete:

The nature of the mind is not hollow or blank; it is profound and blissful and full of wonderful qualities... meditation practice reveals our true nature as being totally perfect and complete.

They add:

The true nature of mind is beyond conception, yet it is present in every object. The true nature is always there, but due to our temporary obscurations we do not recognize it ... The primordial nature is beyond conceptions; it cannot be explained ... cannot be encompassed by words. Although you can say it is clarity and vastness, you cannot see it or touch it; it is beyond expression.

Dzogchen view of Buddha-nature

The independent lay yogi lineage of Dzogchen held by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche identifies primordial non-dual awareness itself as the Buddha-nature, the only non-fabricated and pristine element of our existence.

Germano (1992: pp.viii - ix) relates Dzogchen, via Buddha-nature to Madhyamaka, Yogachara and Abhinavagupta:

...the Great Perfection represents the most sophisticated interpretation of the so-called "Buddha nature" tradition within the context of Indo-Tibetan thought, and as such, is of extreme importance for research into classical exoteric philosophic systems such as Madhyamaka and Yogacara, while also providing fertile grounds for future explorations of the interconnections between Indo-Tibetan and East Asian forms of Buddhism, as well as between Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and contemporary Indian developments such as the tenth century non-dual Shaivism of Abhinavagupta.

Buddha-nature vs. self (ātman)

The tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness(śūnyatā) and is the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.

Some scholars favor one interpretation of the Buddha-nature over others. However, other scholars take a more nuanced approach. Thus, in discussing the problems with and the inadequacy of much modern scholarship on Buddha-nature and the tathāgatagarbha, Sutton states, "one is impressed by the fact that these authors, as a rule, tend to opt for a single meaning disregarding all other possible meanings which are embraced in turn by other texts". He goes on to point out that the term tathāgatagarbha has up to six possible connotations. Of these, the three most important are:

1. an underlying ontological reality or essential nature (tathāgata-tathatā-'vyatireka) which is functionally equivalent to a self (ātman) in an Upanishadic sense,
2. the dharma-kāya which penetrates all beings (sarva-sattveṣu dharma-kāya-parispharaṇa), which is functionally equivalent to brahmanin an Upanishadic sense
3. the womb or matrix of Buddhahood existing in all beings (tathāgata-gotra-saṃbhava), which provides beings with the possibility of awakening.

Of these three, only the third connotation has any soteriological significance, while the other two posit Buddha-nature as an ontological reality and essential nature behind all phenomena. According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, essentialist conceptions of Buddha-nature are un-Buddhist, being at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination.

The Jonangpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, whose foremost historical figure was Dolpopa, sees the Buddha-nature as the very ground of the Buddha himself, as the "permanent indwelling of the Buddha in the basal state". Dolpopa comments that certain key tathāgatagarbhasutras indicate this truth, remarking:

These statements that the basis of purification itself, the matrix-of-one-gone-to-bliss [i.e. Buddha Nature], is Buddha, the ground of Buddha, and the pristine wisdom of a one-gone-thus [Tathagata] also clear away the assertion by certain [scholars] that the matrix-of-one-gone-to-bliss [Buddha Nature] is not Buddha.

Other sutras which mention the self in a very affirmative manner include the Lankavatara Sutra, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the Mahāvairocana Sūtra and the Sutra of Perfect Wisdom called The Questions of Suvikrantavikramin:

...one who wisely knows himself (atmanam) as nondual, he wisely knows both Buddha and Dharma. And why? He develops a personality which consists of all dharmas ... His nondual comprehension comprehends all dharmas, for all dharmas are fixed on the Self in their own-being. One who wisely knows the nondual dharma wisely knows also the Buddhadharmas. From the comprehension of the nondual dharma follows the comprehension of the Buddhadharmas and from the comprehension of the Self the comprehension of everything that belongs to the triple world. "The comprehension of Self", that is the beyond of all dharmas.

The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra specifically contrasts its doctrine of the self with that of the Astikas in order to remove the reifying notion that the self was a little person or homunculus, the size of a grain of rice or of one's thumb, sitting in the heart of the being, thus: "mundane [philosophers] mistakenly imagine it to be a person (puruṣa) the size of a thumb, the size of a pea or a grain of rice that dwells shining in the heart." This, the Buddha says, is a misconception of the nature of self, for "that opinion of theirs is a mistaken opinion, one that is transmitted onwards from person to person, but it is neither beneficial nor conducive to happiness." The self of which the Buddha speaks is said by him to be the "essential intrinsic being" (svabhava) or even "life-essence" (jīvaka) of each person, and this essential being is none other than the Buddha himself - "radiantly luminous" and "as indestructible as a diamond".

Moreover, the Buddhist tantric scripture entitled Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), as quoted by the great Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, repeatedly exalts not the non-self but the self and applies the following terms to this ultimate reality:

• "the pervasive Lord" (vibhu)
• "Buddha-Self"
• "the beginningless Self" (anādi-ātman)
• "the Self of Thusness" (tathatā-ātman)
• "the Self of primordial purity" (śuddha-ātman)
• "the Source of all"
• "the Self pervading all"
• "the Single Self" (eka-ātman)
• "the Diamond Self" (vajra-ātman)
• "the Solid Self" (ghana-ātman)
• "the Holy, Immovable Self"
• "the Supreme Self"

In the Ghanavyuha Sutra (as quoted by Longchenpa) this immutable, universal and salvific Buddha essence (the true self of the Buddha) is said to be the ground of all things, but it is viewed by fools as something changeful and impermanent, whereas in fact it is stated by the Buddha to be the very opposite of such impermanence:

... the ultimate universal ground also has always been with the Buddha-Essence (Tathagatagarbha), and this essence in terms of the universal ground has been taught by the Tathagata. The fools who do not know it, because of their habits, see even the universal ground as (having) various happiness and suffering and actions and emotional defilements. Its nature is pure and immaculate, its qualities are as wishing-jewels; there are neither changes nor cessations. Whoever realizes it attains Liberation ...

The Buddha in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra insists that the self of the Buddha (the Buddha-nature which is present in all beings) is everlasting, pure and blissful and is most definitely not transitory and impermanent:

The Buddha-Nature is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... The Buddha-Nature is not non-Eternal, not non-Bliss, not non-Self, and not non-Purity.

The Buddha-nature is, in fact, taught in such tathāgatagarbha sutras to be ultimate, conceptually inconceivable, immortal reality.

SUNYATA

Śūnyatā, शून्यता ("zero, nothing"), Suññatā is frequently translated into English as emptiness. Sunya comes from the root svi, meaning swollen, plus -ta -ness, therefore Conze glosses sunya as hollow ( - ness). A common alternative term is "voidness". In Buddhism emptiness is a characteristic of phenomena arising from the fact (as observed and taught by the Buddha) that nothing possesses essential, enduring identity  In the Buddha's spiritual teaching, insight into the emptiness of phenomena is an aspect of the cultivation of insight that leads to wisdom and inner peace. The importance of this insight is especially emphasised in Mahāyāna Buddhism, and receives its most "positive" explication in the tathāgatagarbha sutras. 

The theme of emptiness (śūnyatā) emerged from the Buddhist doctrines of the nonexistence of the self (anātman) and dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda). The Suñña Sutta, part of the Pāli canon, relates that the monk Ānanda, Buddha's attendant asked, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "In sofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty." He goes on to explain that what is meant by "the world" is the six sense media and their objects, and elsewhere says that to theorize about something beyond this realm of experience would put one to grief. Over time, many different philosophical schools or tenet-systems (siddhānta) have developed within Buddhism in an effort to explain the exact philosophical meaning of emptiness. After the Buddha, emptiness was further developed by Nāgārjuna and the Mādhyamaka school, an early Mahāyāna school. Emptiness ("positively" interpreted) is also an important element of the Buddha nature literature, which played a formative role in the evolution of subsequent Mahāyāna doctrine and practice.  In order to train students in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, detailed dialogs are preserved between the perspectives of various schools that once flourished in India: Vaibhaṣika, Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, and several schools within Mādhyamaka such as Svātantrika-Mādhyamaka and Prasaṅgika-Mādhyamaka.

It should be noted that the exact definition and extent of emptiness varies within the different Buddhist schools of philosophy and this can easily lead to confusion. These tenet-systems all explain in slightly different ways what phenomena are empty of, which phenomena exactly are empty and what emptiness means. For example, some members of the Cittamātra school have held that the mind itself ultimately exists (the most prominent members of the school did not), but other schools like the Mādhyamaka deny that either this statement or its negation has any validity.

In the Mahāyāna Buddha nature sutras, by contrast, only impermanent, changeful things and states are said to be empty in a negative sense, but not the Buddha or nirvana, which are stated to be real, eternal and filled with inconceivable, enduring virtues.

Further, the Lotus Sutra states that seeing all phenomena as empty (śūnya) is not the highest, final attainment: the bliss of total Buddha-wisdom supersedes even the vision of complete emptiness.

Emptiness in the Nikāyas of presectarian Buddhism

In S IV.295, it is explained that a bhikkhu can experience a deathlike contemplation in which perception and feeling cease. When he emerges from this state, he recounts three types of "contact" (phasso): "emptiness" (suññato), "signless" (animitto) and "undirected" (appaṇihito). The meaning of emptiness as contemplated here is explained at M I.297 and S IV.296-97 as the "emancipation of the mind by emptiness" being consequent upon the realization that "this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self". 

The term "emptiness" is also used in two suttas in the Majjhima Nikāya, in the context of a progression of mental states. The stance that nothing contingent has any inherent essence forms the basis of the more sweeping emptiness doctrine. In the Mahāyāna, this doctrine, without denying their value, denies any essence to even the Buddha's appearance and to the promulgation of the Dhamma itself. In the Paṭisambhidāmagga, many meanings are given of emptiness, including nirvana. Formations are said to be empty in, of and by their "own-nature", a similar expression to one used in Mahāyāna literature.

Emptiness is not taught as often by Theravāda teachers as it is by Mahāyānists. One reason for this is that emptiness is seen as a liberating insight in the Theravāda tradition, rather than a philosophical view one needs to understand intellectually; emptiness is often not taught until the teacher decides the student is ready. Another reason is that in some circumstance where a Mahāyānist would use the word "emptiness", a Theravādin would instead use the words "impermanence" or "selflessness" ("anattā") to mean the same thing. A third reason is that in the Theravāda tradition, understanding emptiness is subordinated to the ultimate goal of liberation.

Another view is that in advancing personal growth, it is not metaphysics but phenomenology that is required. Metaphysical views are often irrelevant, or even harmful if the intrinsic emptiness of the fruits of an unskillful act provide a rationale for performing that act. For more on the Buddha's use of the idea of emptiness in its original phenomenological context and its use in the modern Thai Forest Tradition, see Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Emptiness: The Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā Sūtra) states the following:

Those who see me in the body (rūpena) and think of me in sounds (ghoṣaiḥ), their way of thinking is false, they do not see me at all... The Buddha cannot be rightly understood (rjuboddhum) by any means (upāyena).

Note that "means" are not dispositive to a right understanding, but that if regarded as ends, even the most adequate means are a hindrance. What is true of ethics is also true of the supports of contemplation on emptiness: as in the well known Parable of the Raft (Alagaddupama Sutra), the means of crossing a river are of no more use when the goal of the other shore has been reached.

Emptiness is a key theme of the Heart Sutra, one of the Mahāyāna Perfection of Wisdom sutras, which is commonly chanted by Mahāyāna Buddhists worldwide. The Heart Sutra declares that the aggregates (skandhas) which constitute our mental and physical existence are empty in their nature or essence, i.e., empty of any such nature or essence. But it also declares that this emptiness is the same as form (which connotes fullness), i.e., that this is an emptiness which is at the same time not different from the kind of reality which we normally ascribe to events. It is not a nihilistic emptiness that undermines our world, but a positive emptiness which defines it:

• "The noble bodhisattva, Avalokiteśvara, engaged in the depths of the practice of the perfection of wisdom, looked down from above upon the five aggregates and saw that they were empty in their essential nature."
• "Hear, O Śāriputra, emptiness is form; form is emptiness. Apart from form, emptiness is not; apart from emptiness, form is not. Emptiness is that which is form, form is that which is emptiness. Just thus are perception, cognition, mental construction, and consciousness."
• "Hear, O Śāriputra, all phenomena of existence are marked by emptiness: not arisen, not destroyed, not unclean, not clean not deficient nor fulfilled."

For Nāgārjuna, who provided an important philosophical formulation of emptiness, emptiness as the mark of all phenomena is a natural consequence of dependent origination; he is reported to identify the two in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. In his analysis, any enduring essential nature (i.e., fullness) would prevent the process of dependent origination, would prevent any kind of origination at all, for things would simply always have been and always continue to be. This enables Nāgārjuna to put forth a bold argument regarding the relation of nirvana to samsara. If all phenomenal events (i.e., the events that constitute samsara) are empty, then they are empty of any compelling ability to cause suffering. For Nāgārjuna, nirvana is neither something added to samsara nor any process of taking away from it (i.e., removing the enlightened being from it). In other words, nirvana is simply samsara rightly experienced in light of a proper understanding of the emptiness of all things.

The class of Buddhist scriptures known as the "Buddha nature" (tathāgatagarbha) sutras presents a seemingly variant understanding of emptiness. To counteract a possible nihilist view of someone who is disconcerted by the predominantly negative language of Mādhyamaka, these sutras portray emptiness of certain phenomena in a positive way. According to some scholars, the Buddha nature these sutras discuss, which is the indwelling, immortal Buddha-element in each being, does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive expression of emptiness and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.According to others, the potential of salvation depends on the ontological reality of a salvific, abiding core reality — the Buddha-nature, empty of all mutability and error, fully present within all beings.

According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, this is an un-Buddhist idea.Their "Critical Buddhism" approach rejects what it calls "dhatu-vada" (substantialist Buddha nature doctrines). Dr. Jamie Hubbard writes:

According to Matsumoto, Buddhism is based on the principles of no-self and causation, which deny any substance underlying the phenomenal world. The idea of tathagata-garbha, on the contrary, posits a substance  as the basis of the phenomenal world. He asserts that dhatu-vada is the object that the Buddha criticized in founding Buddhism, and that Buddhism is nothing but unceasing critical activity against any form of dhatu-vada.

The critical Buddhism approach has, in turn, recently been characterised as operating with a restricted definition of Buddhism. Professor Paul Williams comments:

It seems to me that where someone wishes to argue (as in the case of the Critical Buddhism movement) that a development within Buddhism (in terms of its own self-understanding) is not really Buddhist at all, that person or group is working with an intentionally and rhetorically restricted definition of "Buddhism" ... One issue is how legislative the teachings of not-Self and dependent origination, or the Madhyamika idea of emptiness, are for Buddhist identity. Clearly, from the point of view of a description of Buddhist doctrinal history, as Buddhism has existed in history, these doctrines cannot be. At least some ways of understanding the tathagatagarbha contravene the teachings of not-Self, or the Madhyamika idea of emptiness. And these ways of understanding the tathagatagarbha were and are widespread in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Yet by their own self-definition they are Buddhist.

The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra contains a passage in which the Buddha is portrayed as castigating those who view the Buddha nature as empty. The sutra states how the Buddha declares that they are effectively committing a form of painful spiritual suicide through their wrongheaded stance:

By having cultivated non-self in connection with the Buddha nature and having continually cultivated emptiness, suffering will not be eradicated but one will become like a moth in the flame of a lamp.^[18]

The attainment of nirvanic liberation (mokṣa), by contrast, is said to open up a realm of "utter bliss, joy, permanence, stability, [and] eternity", in which the Buddha is "fully peaceful" (according Dharmakṣema's "Southern" version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra) and "immovable" (acala) like a mountain (according to the Sanskrit version).

In the period of the Buddha nature genre, Mahāyāna metaphysics had been dominated by teachings on emptiness in the form ofMādhyamaka philosophy. The language used by the Mādhyamaka approach is primarily negative, and the Buddha nature genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism. In these sutras the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of the path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.

Professor C.D. Sebastian writes that the author of the Uttaratantra, a Buddha nature text, claims that the emptiness teachings of theprajñāpāramitā scriptures are true yet incomplete, and that emptiness needs the elucidation of Buddha nature doctrine, which is claimed by the author of the Uttaratantra to be a superior teaching: The Uttaratantra is a Mahāyāna text with emphasis on Buddhist metaphysics and mysticism. And: 

Tathagata-garbha thought is complementary to sunyata thought of the Madhyamika and the Yogacara, as it is seen in theUttaratantra. The Uttaratantra first quotes the Srimala-devi-sutra to the effect that tathagata-garbha is not accessible to those outside of sunya realization and then proceeds to claim that sunyata realization is a necessary precondition to the realization oftathagata-garbha. There is something positive to be realized when one’s vision has been cleared by sunyata. The sunyatateachings of the prajna-paramita are true but incomplete. They require further elucidation, which is found in the Uttaratantra. And: The Uttaratantra speaks of Buddhahood or Buddha-nature. Thus it signifies something special and different when we take into consideration the term tantra in the Uttaratantra. Further, as stated earlier, the sunyata teachings in the Prajnaparamita are true, but incomplete. They require still further elucidation, which the Uttaratantra provides. Thus it assumes the Prajna-paramitateachings as the purva or prior teachings, and the tathagata-garbha teachings as the uttara, in the sense of both subsequent and superior.

Professor Sebastian also indicates that the Śrīmālā Sūtra can be seen as critical of negatively understood emptiness and that both theŚrīmālā Sūtra and the Uttaratantra enunciate the idea that the Buddha nature is possessed of four transcendental qualities and is ultimately identifiable as the supramundane nature of the Buddha (dharmakāya). These elevated qualities make of the Buddha one to whom devotion and adoration could be given:

This text is, in a way, highly critical of the negative understanding of sunyata. This text is one of the earliest Buddhist scriptures to be dedicated specifically to an exposition of the concept of the tathagata-garbha. The garbha possesses four guna-paramitas[qualities of perfection] of permanence, bliss, self, and purity, which can be seen in the Uttaratantra too. In the text, the garbhais ultimately identified with the dharmakaya of the tathagata. Here there is an elevation and adoration of Buddha and his attributes, which could be a significant basis for Mahayana devotionalism.

Some important concepts of Buddhism, which – if you choose – you can meditate on and make a part of your life, are Emptiness, Signlessness and Aimlessness. I have not done any contemplation on Emptiness. This is however a concept and a way of looking at ourselves and at the world that is revolutionary and is basic to Buddhism. Basically almost all of us regard ourselves as individual beings separate from the rest of existence. This view in universal to the human race and is the cause of many of our problems and shortcomings.
The concept of Emptiness - as explained in Buddhism - questions our belief that we have a separate self and helps us see ourselves in terms of relationships that connect us with the rest of the Universe. When we say that something is empty, the obvious question then is – empty of what? If we say that a cup is empty what we may really mean is that the cup is empty of water. The cup however is full of air. Therefore to be precise in our meaning we must specify that the cup is empty of water. Similarly what does the concept of Emptiness as applied to ourselves really mean? It means that we are empty of a separate self.
When we look at a flower and think a little we can perceive that the flower could not have had its existence without the Earth, the Sun, the rain, and the gardener who tends the plant, the fertilizer and the clouds. In a way of speaking the entire Universe has come together to bring forth the flower. The flower could not exist without each and every element of the Universe that has helped bring it into existence. It is in this sense that we say that the flower is empty of a separate self. It is in no way separate from the clouds, the sunshine, the rain and all the other elements in the Universe that have caused it to have its being. As I said earlier this is the concept of Emptiness and it is basic to Buddhism.
But when you or I or anybody else who is not a poet or a thinker or a philosopher looks at a flower we generally do not perceive all these relationships. Our habits of thinking and conceptualizing cut the Universe into pieces in order to name it and classify it and thus make sense out of it. This however is just the way of our looking at the world. Our conscious attention has this characteristic that it can focus on only one very small aspect of the world at a time and it has to ignore everything else. This is however the way we think; this is not the way the Universe really is.
The concept of Emptiness of Buddhism religion forces us to look at the flower in relation to the rest of existence. It forces us to perceive the relationships between the flower and the rest of the Universe. We see that the flower arises out of these relationships; that the flower has no self and no being apart from its relationship to the Earth, the Sun, the rain and so on. And thus we are able to gain a very significant insight. We begin to see the world in terms of relationships that are interdependent. One cannot exist without all the others.
This way of regarding ourselves – as empty of a separate self and as composed of interdependent relationships with the rest of existence – could transform our ways of dealing with the world. For example the environment. We would not be as ready as we are now to pollute the air, the seas, or the rivers and to destroy the forests. This is Buddhism with social relevance as well as being a path to Nirvana.
This outlook would transform our inter-personal relationships also. We would perceive that we need our friends, our relatives, our parents, our enemies and in fact the whole of humanity for our existence and being. We would not have the sense of separation from them or from life. We would realize that we could not exist without these people and we would be more willing to respect their rights, needs and right to live and to be.
As stated earlier, we would feel connected with the whole Universe. And so the feeling of loneliness, which plagues so many people, would vanish. But for this we need to make this teaching of Buddhism a way of life for ourselves - not just any other intellectual concept.
This outlook would transform each and every aspect of our lives. Both our private lives – as individual citizens – and the public lives of politicians, social workers, nations etc would be transformed. Again as I said earlier - Buddhism with social relevance. The problem is that these insights are not immediately obvious. We have to do a certain amount of meditation and contemplation to have them become real for us. As stated earlier, our way of thinking, of making sense of the world, our way of forming concepts is that we focus on only one aspect of our environment and ignore everything else and we try to understand it in isolation.
However – as any scientist will tell you – blood in a test-tube behaves differently from blood in our bodies. And to understand an object, or a situation or anything at all we must consider its relationship with its environment and with the Universe. The concepts of Emptiness and Inter-being of Buddhism force us to think in terms of these relationships and we can gain insights and form a more true understanding of ourselves and of the world as compared to our habitual ways of thinking.
To learn more about this please read The Heart of Understanding by Thich Nhat Hanh and do the practices recommended in the book. It is excellent.
I hope you enjoyed this article and that it will be useful to you.
Stay tuned for more in this continuing series.

In their discussion about emptiness, Manjushri and Vimalakirti exemplify the debate over emptiness that was going on within MahayanaBuddhist literature about Hinayana Buddhists. Vimalakirti, representing Mahayana perspectives, repeatedly breaks down Manjushri's questions and shows them to be in contradiction to the very concept of emptiness. After discussing the sickness of a bodhisattva, Manjushri asks, "Householder, why is your house empty? Why have you no servants?" His question is founded upon worldly concerns-ordinarily a sick person would want, if not require, someone to care for him until he is well. As Vimalakirti is not focused on the world, however, he replies, "Manjushri, all Buddha-fields are also empty." Vimalakirti is attempting to do a couple of things. First, he is telling Manjushri that his awareness must be expanded to include all of existence. Since Mahayanists believe that Nirvana and Samsara are merely different perceptions of the same thing, their aim must be to attain true perception-to encompass everything within their thoughts. Such perception is beyond Manjushri's immediate and limited concerns. Further, Vimalakirti diverts the entire conversation from worldliness (his sickness, servants, etc.) to a metaphysical one about the nature of Buddha-files and their inherent emptiness. Vimalakirti dismisses the question of servants because it is inconsequential. The only relevant issue in the question is the implied emptiness. Manjushri brings up the emptiness of Vimalakirti's household, but he doesn't quite realize how Vimalakirti is going to interpret his question. Vimalakirti's answer is a pointed statement about the equivalent nature of all places. That all Buddha-fields are empty explains the emptiness of his own home, the irrelevancy of that emptiness and it equalizes the Buddha Shakyamuni's field with all other Buddha-fields. If all Buddha-fields are empty, then no Buddha-field may be considered better or more meaningful than Shakyamuni's. Though this commentary is only a side issue (and plays no further role in this discussion, which centers around the nature emptiness itself), it was of significant concern to ancient Buddhists to establish that their own historical Buddha was equally enlightened as the  mythological/cosmological Buddhas of story. Manjushri then asks Vimalakirti, "What makes them empty?" With this question, the conversation turns completely to the metaphysical, but Vimalakirti once again questions the assumptions behind Manjushri's question by answering, "They are empty because of emptiness." Vimalakirti says that the very nature of emptiness, that everything is empty, makes it necessary that Buddha-fields be empty. For Manjushri to ask why Buddha-fields are empty implies that, not only must there be a reason for it, but that there are things, which are not empty. Since these are not so, Vimalakirti's answer states that the existence of emptiness itself dictates that the fields must be empty. To as why is to be asking a futile and unimportant question. Either Manjushhri doesn't really understand the answer or he is trying to make Vimalakirti give a more complete answer for others. As such, he asks, "What is 'empty' about emptiness?" In response, Vimalakirti says, "Constructions are empty, because of emptiness." Vimalakirti describes both Manjushri's question and the nature of any positable answer with the term 'construction.' As the nature of emptiness necessitates the emptiness of Buddha-fields, it also necessitates the emptiness of all constructions. The verbal use of emptiness is a construct. All language is a construct; therefore, emptiness must be a construct. Since emptiness is a construct, it must be empty. Even beyond language, thoughts are constructs and they are, therefore, empty. Vimalakirti is largely implying that an answer to Manjushri's question cannot be given in the same terms as the question, itself. Its emptiness is beyond the mere description of 'empty,' however. That is why Manjushri then asks, "Can emptiness be conceptually constructed?" Since the term emptiness is, itself, a construct, Manjushri looks for another way to develop the concept. But Vimalakirti tells him that his way of thinking continues to be skewed. Vimalakirti responds to Manjushri by saying, "Even that concept is itself empty, and emptiness cannot construct emptiness." Emptiness is emptiness and its nature is such that all things must be empty. The concept of emptiness being constructed is empty-it has no realty. Vimalakirti is saying that one cannot take an illusion and from it build reality. In everything that he says to Manjushri, Vimalakirti describes the emptiness of the world. For every question Manjushri asks, Vimalakirti replies by discrediting the question and the answer. Manjusrhi's questions resemble those of the Hinayana Buddhists-the are largely an attempt to reduce their own beliefs, which are largely irrational, to rational understandable constructs. Vimalakirti, however, repeatedly shows that the questions themselves make no sense within the context of emptiness. Once one accepts the concept of emptiness, one must then proceed to accept that the world around is illusion. Vimalakirti first shows that the immediate worldly concerns of Manjushri are empty and then he transfers that same emptiness to the religious doctrines of Buddhism. To Vimalakirti and the Mahayanists, emptiness is absolute. Even though it cannot be discussed absolutely, it exists as such. Vimalakirti uses enigmatic phrases to show, not only that the words of Manjushri are empty, but that his own are, as well. Everything Vimalakirti says is empty and he knows this to be true; therefore, he avoids saying things, which might be misconstrued as being absolute. In what he describes, the only absolute is the emptiness, which cannot be described. The descriptions, themselves, are empty and thus emptiness is indescribable. Emptiness as a human condition is a sense of generalised boredom, social alienation and apathy. Feelings of emptiness often accompany dysthymia, depression, loneliness, despair, or other mental/emotional disorders such asborderline personality disorder. A sense of emptiness is also part of a natural process of grief, as resulting of separation,death of a loved one, or other significant changes. However, the particular meanings of “emptiness” vary with the particular context and the religious or cultural tradition in which it is used". While Christianity and Western sociologists and psychologists view a state of emptiness as a negative, unwanted condition, in some Eastern philosophies such asBuddhist philosophy and Taoism, emptiness (Śūnyatā) is a realized achievement. Outside of Eastern philosophy, some writers have also suggested that people may use a transitory state of emptiness as a means of liberating themselves for personal growth. Sociology, philosophy, and psychology In the West, feeling "empty" is often viewed as a negative condition. Psychologist Clive Hazell, for example, attributes feelings of emptiness to problematic family backgrounds with abusive relationships and mistreatment. He claims that some people who are facing a sense of emptiness try to resolve their painful feelings by becoming addicted to a drug or obsessive activity (be it compulsive sex, gambling or work) or engaging in "frenzied action" or violence. In sociology, a sense of emptiness is associated with social alienation of the individual. This sense of alienation may be suppressed while working, due to the routine of work tasks, but during leisure hours or during the weekend, people may feel a sense of "existential vacuum" and emptiness. In political philosophy, emptiness is associated with nihilism. Literary critic Georg Lukács (born in 1885) argued against the "spiritual emptiness and moral inadequacy of capitalism", and argued in favour of communism as an "entirely new type of civilization, one that promised a fresh start and an opportunity to lead a meaningful and purposeful life." The concept of "emptiness" was important to a "certain type of existentialist philosophy and some forms of the Death of God movement". Existentialism, the "philosophic movement that gives voice to the sense of alienation and despair", which comes from "man’s recognition of his fundamental aloneness in an indifferent universe". People whose response to the sense of emptiness and aloneness is to give excuses live in bad faith; "people who face the emptiness and accept responsibility aim to live “authentic” lives". Existentialists argue that "man lives in alienation from God, from nature, from other men, from his own true self." Crowded into cities, working in mindless jobs, and entertained by light mass media, we "live on the surface of life", so that even "people who seemingly have “everything” feel empty, uneasy, discontented." In cultures where a sense of emptiness is seen as a negative psychological condition, it is often associated with depression. As such, many of the same treatments are proposed: psychotherapy, group therapy, or other types of counselling. As well, people who feel empty may be advised to keep busy and maintain a regular schedule of work and social activities. Other solutions which have been proposed to reduce a sense of emptiness are getting a pet or trying Animal-Assisted Therapy; getting involved in spirituality such as meditation orreligious rituals and service; volunteering to fill time and bring social contact; doing social interactions, such as community activities, clubs, or outings; or finding a hobby or recreational activity to regain their interest in life. Fiction, film and design A number of novelists and filmmakers have depicted emptiness. The concept of "emptiness" was important to a "good deal of 19th–20th century Western imaginative literature". Novelist Franz Kafka depicted a meaningless bizarre world in The Trial and the existentialist French authors sketched a world cut off from purpose or reason in Jean-Paul Sartre's La Nausée and Albert Camus' L'étranger. Existentialism influenced 20th century poet T. S. Eliot, whose poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” describles an "anti-hero or alienated soul, running away from or confronting the emptiness of his or her existence". Professor Gordon Bigelow argues that the existentialist theme of "spiritual barrenness is commonplace in literature of the 20th century", which in addition to Eliot includes Ernest Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck and Anderson. While the film adaptations of a number of existentialist novels capture the bleak sense of emptiness espoused by Sartre and Camus, the theme of emptiness has also been used in modern screenplays. Mark Romanek's 1985 film Static tells the surreal story of a struggling inventor and crucifix factory worker named Ernie who feels spiritually empty because he is saddened by his parents' death in an accident. Screenwriter Michael Tolkin's 1994 film The New Age examines "cultural hipness and spiritual emptiness", creating a "dark, ambitious, unsettling" film that depicts a fashionable LA couple who "are miserable in the midst of their sterile plenty", and whose souls are stunted by their lives of empty sex, consumption, and distractions. The 1999 film American Beauty examines the spiritual emptiness of life in the US suburbs. In Wes Anderson's 2007 film The Darjeeling Limited, three brothers who "... suffer from spiritual emptiness" and then "self-medicate themselves through sex, social withdrawal" and drugs. Contemporary architecture critic Herbert Muschamp argues that "horror vacui" (which is Latin for "fear of emptiness") is a key principle of design. He claims that it has become an obsessive quality that is the "driving force in contemporary American taste". Muschamp states that "along with the commercial interests that exploit this interest, it is the major factor now shaping attitudes toward public spaces, urban spaces, and even suburban sprawl." Films that depict nothingness, shadows and vagueness, either in a visual sense or a moral sense are appreciated in genres such as film noir. As well, travellers and artists are often intrigued by and attracted to vast empty spaces, such as open deserts, barren wastelands or salt flats, and the open sea. The Buddhist term emptiness (śūnyatā) refers specifically to emptiness of inherent existence. It is not nihilism because it maintains the Buddha's purpose, nor is it meditating on nothingness. In Buddhism, the realization of emptiness of inherent existence is a "state of pure consciousness” in which the practitioner realizes all particular objects and images to be appearances of the subjective mind. Buddhism, which posits that the ultimate state is a nirvāṇa of peaceful emptiness has one of the most developed philosophical descriptions of emptiness. In an interview, the Dalai Lamastated that tantric meditiation can be used for "heightening your own realization of emptiness or mind of enlightenment". In Buddhist philosophy, attaining a realization of emptiness of inherent existence is key to the permanent cessation of suffering, i.e. liberation. “ Even while an ordinary being, if upon hearing of emptiness great joy arises within again and again, the eyes moisten with tears of great joy, and the hairs of the body stand on end, such a person has the seed of the mind of a complete Buddha; He is a vessel for teachings on thatness, and ultimate truth should be taught to him. After that, good qualities will grow in him. ” —Chandrakirti, Guide to the Middle Way, vv. 6:4-5 The Dalai Lama argues that tantric yoga trainees needs to realize the emptiness of inherent existence before they can go on to the "highest yoga tantra initiation"; realizing the emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is the "fundamental innate mind of clear light, which is the subtlest level of the mind", where all "energy and mental processes are withdrawn or dissolved", so that all that appears to the mind is "pure emptiness". As well, emptiness is "linked to the creative Void, meaning that it is a state of complete receptivity and perfect enlightenment", the merging of the "ego with its own essence", which Buddhists call the "clear light". In Ven. Thubten Chodron’s 2005 interview with Lama Zopa Rinpoche, the lama noted that we "...ordinary beings who haven’t realized emptiness don’t see things as similar to illusions", and we do not "realize that things are merely labeled by mind and exist by mere name". He argues that "when we meditate on emptiness, we drop an atom bomb on this [sense of a] truly existent I" and we realize that "what appears true... isn’t true". By this, the lama is claiming that what we think is real — our thoughts and feelings about people and things — "exists by being merely labeled". He argues that meditators who attain knowledge of a state of emptiness are able to realize that their thoughts are merely illusions from labelling by the mind.