Buddha-nature in the Tathagatagarbha, and the idea of atman

[dyanaprajna2011]

A conversation in another thread prompted me to post this. Thanks to my friends punkdbass and Ablaze for bringing this up; it's something I need a little clarification on.

In Buddhism, we have the ideas of anatta and sunyata, which is basically that there is no underlying, eternal, ego-self, that is independent of other phenomenon. However, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and the Tathagatagarbha philosophical school, we read that the Buddha did teach, toward the end of his life, about an eternal, underlying self, called Buddha-nature. While most Mahayana schools understand Buddha-nature differently, I want to focus here on the Tathagatagarbha school's understanding, although a discussion between the similarities and differences with other schools would be fine as well.

So, how does the Tathagatagarbha school view the Buddha-nature? How close does it come to the idea of atman?

My own personal view about it is summed up in the Lion's Roar Sutra:

Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. The Tathagatagarbha is not the domain of beings who fall into the belief in a real personality, who adhere to wayward views, whose thoughts are distracted by voidness. Lord, this Tathagatagarbha is the embryo of the Illustrious Dharmadhatu, the embryo of the Dharmakaya, the embryo of the supramundane dharma, the embryo of the intrinsically pure dharma.

 

[Ekanta]

In Buddhism, we have the ideas of anatta and sunyata, which is basically that there is no underlying, eternal, ego-self, that is independent of other phenomenon.

You speak about "no underlying, eternal, ego-self"... and thus all agree.

However, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and the Tathagatagarbha philosophical school, we read that the Buddha did teach, toward the end of his life, about an eternal, underlying self, called Buddha-nature.

Now you speak about "an eternal, underlying self, called Buddha-nature".
Atman or self can indicate varioius things like:

1. body
2. mind
3. eternal individual soul
4. one underlying reality (Buddha-nature)

Often we need to clarify what we mean.

While most Mahayana schools understand Buddha-nature differently

If its the last one (nr 4) I beg to differ

I feel the above should be take into consideration to get a good discussion.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Atman is not ego. Anatman is not ego either.

The truth is without words, so which do you personally feel reality is?
Your true being, or Not personality or ego.
It seems like equal descriptions.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram dyanaprajna ji :namaste

In Buddhism, we have the ideas of anatta and sunyata, which is basically that there is no underlying, eternal, ego-self, that is independent of other phenomenon. However, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and the Tathagatagarbha philosophical school, we read that the Buddha did teach, toward the end of his life, about an eternal, underlying self, called Buddha-nature. While most Mahayana schools understand Buddha-nature differently, I want to focus here on the Tathagatagarbha school's understanding, although a discussion between the similarities and differences with other schools would be fine as well.

So, how does the Tathagatagarbha school view the Buddha-nature? How close does it come to the idea of atman?

atman is generaly taken to mean the individual soul , individual self ,

Buddha nature is the primordial self existing consciousness of the Dharmakaya which permiates all living entities . it is unadulterated truth in its fullness , it is blissfull and eternal .

Buddha nature is the true nature to be realised by trancending the false conception of an individual self .

so true there is no eternal atman in the sence of an individual self or soul .

which renders Shunyata empty only in the sence of not self , not atman .

but full in the sence of budddha nature .

My own personal view about it is summed up in the Lion's Roar Sutra:

likewise :namaste

 

[ratikala]

Atman is not ego. Anatman is not ego either.

The truth is without words, so which do you personally feel reality is?
Your true being, or Not personality or ego.
It seems like equal descriptions.

false identification with the sence of an individual self is ego , the conception of ' I am ' .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atman is not ego.

Atman has many meanings. From Cologne Digital Lexicon:

1 Atman %{A} m. (variously derived fr. %{an} , to breathe ; %{at} , to move ; %{vA} , to blow ; cf. %{tma4n}) the breath RV. ; the soul , principle of life and sensation RV. AV. &c. ; the individual soul , self , abstract individual [e.g. %{Atma4n}] (Ved. loc.) %{dhatte} , or %{karoti} , `" he places in himself "' , makes his own TS. v S3Br. ; %{AtmanA@akarot} , `" he did it himself "' Ka1d. ; %{AtmanA@vi-yuj} , `" to lose one's life "' Mn. vii , 46 ; %{Atman} in the sg. is used as reflexive pronoun for all three persons and all three genders e.g. %{AtmAnaM@sA@hanti} , `" she strikes herself "' ; %{putram@AtmanaH@spRSTvA@nipetatuH} , `" they two having touched their son fell down "' R. ii , 64 , 28 ; [see also below s.v. %{AtmanA}] ; essence , nature , character , peculiarity (often ifc. e.g. %{karmA7tman} , &c.) RV. x , 97 , 11 , &c. ; the person or whole body considered as one and opposed to the separate members of the body VS. S3Br. ; the body Ragh. i , 14 Ra1matUp. ; (ifc.) `" the understanding , intellect , mind "' see %{naSTA7tman} , %{mandA7-} ; the highest personal principle of life , Brahma (cf. %{paramA7tman}) AV. x , 8 , 44 VS. xxxii , 11 S3Br. xiv , &c. ; effort L. ; (= %{dhRti}) firmness L. ; the sun L. ; fire L. ; a son L. ; [Old Germ. {a1tum} ; Angl. Sax. {oedhm} ; Mod. Germ. {Athem} , {Odem} ; Gk. $ , $ (?).] &42279[135 ,1]

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Atman in advaita. Is everwhere is is all. Pure groundless energy.
It is everything. Etc.
Essentially advaita is a form of absolute monism that becomes nonduality in meditation. The monad is the self, the only thing that exists is the "Atman"
It is not the brain, or the personality.

Polarlity is samsara. Taking any one psition without viewing it from the opposite perspective.
Some say that the truth that is free of cenception is our true self.

But if Buddhism has taught me anything, its don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[Nicholas]

Related to the new book by K. Bhattacharya, here is Nancy Reigle on the question:

http://www.easterntradition.org/Atman_Anatman%20in%20Buddhism.pdf

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddha nature is the primordial self existing consciousness of the Dharmakaya which permiates all living entities . it is unadulterated truth in its fullness , it is blissfull and eternal .

So how is that different from Brahman?

 

[Nicholas]

Here, based on Thurman's version of the Sutralamkara is an important verse, with Vasubandhu's comment:

Chapter IX 23.
In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness,
and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self.

This shows the supreme self of the buddhas in the uncontaminated realm.
Why? Because this is the self of supreme selflessness. Supreme selflessness is completely
pure suchness, and that is a buddha's "self," in the sense of "intrinsic reality."
When this is completely pure, buddhas attain superior selflessness, a pure self.
Therefore, by attaining a pure self buddhas realize the spiritual greatness of self.
Thus it is with this intention that buddhas are declared to have a supreme self in
the uncontaminated realm.

Thurman's footnote for 'supreme self of the buddhas' says:

Buddhänäm paramätmä (LI, p. 39.1). Here we see in unmistakable terms the Upanisadic
formula applied to the buddha, preceding by centuries the Vedantic renaissance led by Sarikaräcärya
and his followers, whose philosophical and soteriological debt to the Buddhist experientialists
cannot be appreciated without a thorough knowledge of the Maitreyanätha
corpus and its attendant literature.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskarm mr Spiny Norman , ..

So how is that different from Brahman?

even amongst Hindus there are differnt conceptions of Brahman , to me Brahman is the impersonal formless efulgence of the supreme , ...to me Buddha nature has qualities , ...it has qualities of the Primordial Buddha therefore 'Param' supreme , ...yet as seed or nature it is also potentiality , ...I would prefer to equate Buddha nature with the indwelling Paramatma .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

even amongst Hindus there are differnt conceptions of Brahman , to me Brahman is the impersonal formless efulgence of the supreme , ...to me Buddha nature has qualities , ...it has qualities of the Primordial Buddha therefore 'Param' supreme , ...yet as seed or nature it is also potentiality , ...I would prefer to equate Buddha nature with the indwelling Paramatma .

Yes, there are different ways of looking at these concepts. I understand Buddha nature as the potential for enlightenment, rather than some supreme self or atman equivalent.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Here, based on Thurman's version of the Sutralamkara is an important verse, with Vasubandhu's comment:
Chapter IX 23.
In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness,
and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self.
This shows the supreme self of the buddhas in the uncontaminated realm.
Why? Because this is the self of supreme selflessness. Supreme selflessness is completely
pure suchness, and that is a buddha's "self," in the sense of "intrinsic reality."
When this is completely pure, buddhas attain superior selflessness, a pure self.
Therefore, by attaining a pure self buddhas realize the spiritual greatness of self.
Thus it is with this intention that buddhas are declared to have a supreme self in
the uncontaminated realm.

So here "pure self" is supreme selflessness, or the realisation of sunyata?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram SN ji

Yes, there are different ways of looking at these concepts. I understand Buddha nature as the potential for enlightenment, rather than some supreme self or atman equivalent.

one can say Buddha Narure , ....meaning an inate truth that needs to be actualised , therefore it can be seen as potential , but to me it is more than this , it is our true nature , this true nature lay dormant as does the the potential in a seed everything is there within the seed therefore it is more than potential it is inherent .

 

[Nicholas]

So here "pure self" is supreme selflessness, or the realisation of sunyata?

Not only realize emptiness but the 'spiritual greatness of the self'. I was hasty, so I edited the Thurman quote above to make clear the root text in bold and Vasubandhu's comment.

Chapter IX 23.
In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness,
and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self.

Here is another translation from the Dharmchakra version, which is in Chapter X:23

Within pure emptiness,
The buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness.
Thus they achieve the pure self,
And are hence the self of great beings. [X.23]

Khenpo Shenga glosses this verse as:

Within pure emptiness, the buddhas achieve the suchness that is the supreme self of selflessness. Thus they achieve the supremely pure self, and hence they are the self that is the realization of great beings.

Paul J. Griffiths translates from the Sanskrit:

In pure emptiness,
By obtaining the supreme self which is
without self,
Buddhas arrive at the great-selfed self
As a result of obtaining the pure self. (23)

 

[Vishvavajra]

In Buddhism, we have the ideas of anatta and sunyata, which is basically that there is no underlying, eternal, ego-self, that is independent of other phenomenon. However, in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, and the Tathagatagarbha philosophical school, we read that the Buddha did teach, toward the end of his life, about an eternal, underlying self, called Buddha-nature.

Buddha-Nature is not an eternal, underlying self. If anything, it's a function of our lack of an eternal, underlying self. It's couched in terms of a thing that beings possess, but one must be careful not to take that language too literally. Even the scripture you quote is trying to emphasize this point: Tathagatagarbha is not a replacement for the concept of selfhood, but rather an acknowledgement that all beings that are capable of realizing selflessness are thereby capable of manifesting the mind of a Buddha. It's also key to remember that, like all Buddhist teachings, believe in Buddha-Nature is a method, not an assertion of absolute reality. It is useful insofar as it reminds people that Buddhahood is possible for everyone and that the Bodhisattva Vow isn't just a bunch of hot air. If people start to reify it, it ceases to be useful.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If our underlining self is not called our Buddha nature, what is it called? The closest I can say is that we are all Buddhas we just nedd to realize it.

Buddha-Nature is not an eternal, underlying self. If anything, it's a function of our lack of an eternal, underlying self. It's couched in terms of a thing that beings possess, but one must be careful not to take that language too literally. Even the scripture you quote is trying to emphasize this point: Tathagatagarbha is not a replacement for the concept of selfhood, but rather an acknowledgement that all beings that are capable of realizing selflessness are thereby capable of manifesting the mind of a Buddha. It's also key to remember that, like all Buddhist teachings, believe in Buddha-Nature is a method, not an assertion of absolute reality. It is useful insofar as it reminds people that Buddhahood is possible for everyone and that the Bodhisattva Vow isn't just a bunch of hot air. If people start to reify it, it ceases to be useful.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Paul J. Griffiths translates from the Sanskrit:
In pure emptiness,
By obtaining the supreme self which is
without self,
Buddhas arrive at the great-selfed self
As a result of obtaining the pure self. (23)

So how does this compare with the opening line of the Heart Sutra?

"Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita, perceives that all five skandhas are empty and is saved from all suffering and distress."

 

[von bek]

Buddha-Nature is not an eternal, underlying self. If anything, it's a function of our lack of an eternal, underlying self. It's couched in terms of a thing that beings possess, but one must be careful not to take that language too literally. Even the scripture you quote is trying to emphasize this point: Tathagatagarbha is not a replacement for the concept of selfhood, but rather an acknowledgement that all beings that are capable of realizing selflessness are thereby capable of manifesting the mind of a Buddha. It's also key to remember that, like all Buddhist teachings, believe in Buddha-Nature is a method, not an assertion of absolute reality. It is useful insofar as it reminds people that Buddhahood is possible for everyone and that the Bodhisattva Vow isn't just a bunch of hot air. If people start to reify it, it ceases to be useful.

Yes. The Zen Master Dogen often speaks of the True Self in the Shobogenzo. It is clear in the context of Dogen's thought that "True Self" was equivalent to "Not-Self."

 

[von bek]

The main focus of the Buddha and great Buddhist masters of every tradition is not on ontology, it's on the experience of phenomena and how identity is constructed from it.