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.