Tathagatagarbha?

[dyanaprajna2011]

The tathagatagarbha doctrine states that all things have an inherent Buddha-nature. However, there are some Buddhists who believe that the doctrine is not Buddhist at all. So, what is the consensus? Do you think tathagatagarbha is Buddhist or not, and why? Do you think it is mostly accepted by Buddhists, or mostly rejected?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Not a clue. I would wager it's mostly accepted though. Ultimately it sounds like a question to be added to the unanswered questions bin, because it really has no significant effect on attaining (or reattaining) nirvana.

 

[SageTree]

What do they think it is?

I mean... an inborn 'enlightening factor' isn't exactly original in the world of religion, but still....

I feel it to be inherent (pun intended) in Mahayana Buddhism, without a doubt.... andI agree with it's presentation.

From what I've read and been taught, I've not heard otherwise.

I can't say for that that there is or isn't something similar in nature (pun intended) in Therevada Buddhism.
Sometimes things are present, but semantically different, right?

I know for sure that in Thailand, the Dhammakaya Movement has Tathagata elements present in the teachings of Dhammakaya,
and they very must resemble the Tathagata teachings in Mahayana.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What do they think it is?

I mean... an inborn 'enlightening factor' isn't exactly original in the world of religion, but still....

I feel it to be inherent (pun intended) in Mahayana Buddhism, without a doubt.... andI agree with it's presentation.

From what I've read and been taught, I've not heard otherwise.

I can't say for that that there is or isn't something similar in nature (pun intended) in Therevada Buddhism.
Sometimes things are present, but semantically different, right?

I know for sure that in Thailand, the Dhammakaya Movement has Tathagata elements present in the teachings of Dhammakaya,
and they very must resemble the Tathagata teachings in Mahayana.

Theravada rejects it outright. There are some hardcore Madyamaka followers who also reject it, but I don;t think there's many. The Dhammakaya movement, from what I understand, is pretty controversial within Theravada, but I haven't seen anything about it that I don't like.

 

[SageTree]

Rejects it outright, yes. But is there anything that expounds on each person's inborn ability to achieve enlightenment?

I am not familiar with the 'hardcore' Madyamaka followers?
Could you elaborate there for me?
What is the fundamental view difference between them and everyone else in the school?

Re: Controversial Dhammakaya... this is what I've heard and read as well.

Re: Nothing I don't like.... 100% agreed.

 

[Vouthon]

Rejects it outright, yes. But is there anything that expounds on each person's inborn ability to achieve enlightenment?

Perhaps 'luminous mind'? It is mentioned in the scriptures in four places in book I of the Anguttara Nikaya. They read:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind."

A natural, inherent "luminosity" to the mind that is discovered once it is freed from defilements, could be described as a potential for enlightenment, no?

The mind is said to be "luminous" whether or not it is tainted by mental defilements, the person just becomes aware of it when the defilements are washed away.

From Wikipedia:

In the Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) the Buddha states:[7] "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."[8] The discourses indicate that the mind's natural radiance can be made manifest by meditation.[9]
Ajahn Mun, the leading figure behind the modern Thai Forest Tradition, comments on this verse:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds. Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.[10]
​

 

[LuisDantas]

My understanding is that a consensus on the matter is not really desirable.

Quite simply, the concept is very useful and productive for some people, but not for all. There are potential misuses to it, as there are to any other religious concepts that I can think of right now.

 

[Breathe]

Tathāgathagarbha doctrine is important to my mish-mash version of Buddhism; it fits in well with my view that has been shaped by my life experiences. So, I consider it Buddhist.

My experience has been that a fair number of folk accept it, but a few folk don't, usually from a Western (Theravādin or Zen), or South Indian (usually Ambedkarite) background.

 

[SageTree]

Perhaps 'luminous mind'? It is mentioned in the scriptures in four places in book I of the Anguttara Nikaya. They read:

A natural, inherent "luminosity" to the mind that is discovered once it is freed from defilements, could be described as a potential for enlightenment, no?

The mind is said to be "luminous" whether or not it is tainted by mental defilements, the person just becomes aware of it when the defilements are washed away.

Nice... that is exactly what I was searching for.

 

[VajraYosid]

Rather, it is of the utmost importance in applying the path needed to realize nirvana.

Tathagatagarbha states nothing which is not stated in the previous cycle, the Prajnaparamita which decries the self-existence or inherent nature of any process, structure or being. To discuss emptiness, to discuss signlessness, to discuss wishlessness, is to speak only of Buddha Nature.

Why are these practicals? Because yogacara and madhyamaka both, upon which the doctrines & practices of all Mahayana branches rest, themselves rest on Tathagatagarbha & Prajnaparamita.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thats a tough one.

While sunyata is not expressed, there still seems to be consistency regarding an innate nature that turns "itself" of which appears unchanging and seemingly permanent.

I regard the sutra provisionally as Buddhist yet such a "luminous" nature remains wordless and
" untouchable " that a written sutra cannot express in it's writing.

 

[crossfire]

If tathagatagarbha is used as a means to argue predestination, then I'd reject it. (Or at least be freed from the incoming defilement of predestination doctrine.)

As regards the possibility of Buddha-nature being in everything, I turn to the Acintita Sutta:

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.​

When dealing with the untraceable, it is prolly best to drop biases and expectations that would obscure what actually is at any unique moment.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

But is there anything that expounds on each person's inborn ability to achieve enlightenment?

As Vouthon pointed out, the Pali Suttas mention the 'luminous mind', which some take to be similar to tathagatagarbha. However, from my understanding, Theravada teaches that only those who practice monasticism can actually attain enlightenment in their lifetime, and laypeople can hope for, at most, rebirth in a heavenly realm. But, this doesn't reject the notion outright, rather, it's, as crossfire pointed out, something that's generally not conjectured about in the Theravada.

I am not familiar with the 'hardcore' Madyamaka followers?
Could you elaborate there for me?

In most of Mahayana Buddhism, the various schools all accept the teachings of Madyamaka, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha simultaneously. If you're not familiar with these schools, I'll briefly describe their main point:

-Madyamaka: teaches the 'middle way', rejects all notions of dualism, and highly emphasizes the doctrine of shunyata; some use it as a form of skepticism
-Yogacara: 'mind only' school, believing that all things are just products of the mind; emphasizes meditation to 'reboot' the mind
-Tathagatagarbha: believes that all sentient beings inherently posses the Buddha-nature, although for most it's unrealized

Zen and Tibetan, especially, accept all three as true, utilizing their doctrines in various ways. "Hardcore" Madyamaka followers reject both the mind-only and Buddha-nature schools, instead opting for the 'extreme' skepticism of Madyamaka, making no truth claims, but simply negating all dualistic notions.

What is the fundamental view difference between them and everyone else in the school?

Most who follow Madyamaka believes that shunyata is the mind, and is the Buddha-nature. To them, shunyata represents the conditional world, the world of samsara, where everything is empty of self nature, and nothing is permanent. However, in the realm of nirvana, the unconditioned, Buddha-nature is real, permanent, and is true nature, this being represented as the mind.

 

[VajraYosid]

Not exactly; shunyata cannot just be a non-description of the fields of relativity; precisely the same is considered of any supposed 'higher,' unconditioned level of reality.

The Buddhist Self, Atman, Bhagavan, is the universal void of the supreme clear light, that same luminosity called prabhassara chitta in the nikayas.

 

[Nicholas]

The tathagatagarbha doctrine states that all things have an inherent Buddha-nature. However, there are some Buddhists who believe that the doctrine is not Buddhist at all. So, what is the consensus? Do you think tathagatagarbha is Buddhist or not, and why? Do you think it is mostly accepted by Buddhists, or mostly rejected?

Only Mahayana, Vajrayana & Dzogchen accept buddha-nature. What is meant by buddha-nature differs amongst those who do accept it. See the Srimala Sutra, Mahayana-sutra-lamkara, Uttaratantra, Tathagatagarbha Sutra and other of the Asanga-Maitreya shastras.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The tathagatagarbha doctrine states that all things have an inherent Buddha-nature. However, there are some Buddhists who believe that the doctrine is not Buddhist at all. So, what is the consensus? Do you think tathagatagarbha is Buddhist or not, and why? Do you think it is mostly accepted by Buddhists, or mostly rejected?

What Buddhists think that the doctrine of Buddha-Nature is not Buddhist at all? On what basis do they make that claim? I have yet to see any argument to that effect, and I'm not sure there is one. And yes, a strong majority of Buddhists accept this doctrine, if only because it's universal to Mahayana Buddhism, which represents a strong majority. Theravadins may not have the doctrine as such, but it's not actually contradictory to Buddhadharma, so there's no reason for them to come out and reject it.

All the doctrine says is that all beings have the capacity for Buddhahood. If you reify the Tathagatagarbha and think of it as a literal thing that people have inside them, that's a misunderstanding. In fact it's the emptiness of essential selfhood that makes Awakening possible in the first place. Buddha-Nature is not anything in particular; it's a lack of stasis; it's the fact that superficial Samsaric phenomena are not our essential nature and cannot prevent us from manifesting the pure, undefiled clarity of the Buddha Mind.

And really, if all people don't share in the capacity for Awakening and Buddhahood, what is the practice of Buddhadharma supposed to be for? Are we supposed to imagine some sort of Calvinist Buddhism in which only the elect are capable of liberation?

 

[crossfire]

What Buddhists think that the doctrine of Buddha-Nature is not Buddhist at all? On what basis do they make that claim? I have yet to see any argument to that effect, and I'm not sure there is one. And yes, a strong majority of Buddhists accept this doctrine, if only because it's universal to Mahayana Buddhism, which represents a strong majority. Theravadins may not have the doctrine as such, but it's not actually contradictory to Buddhadharma, so there's no reason for them to come out and reject it.

All the doctrine says is that all beings have the capacity for Buddhahood. If you reify the Tathagatagarbha and think of it as a literal thing that people have inside them, that's a misunderstanding. In fact it's the emptiness of essential selfhood that makes Awakening possible in the first place. Buddha-Nature is not anything in particular; it's a lack of stasis; it's the fact that superficial Samsaric phenomena are not our essential nature and cannot prevent us from manifesting the pure, undefiled clarity of the Buddha Mind.

And really, if all people don't share in the capacity for Awakening and Buddhahood, what is the practice of Buddhadharma supposed to be for? Are we supposed to imagine some sort of Calvinist Buddhism in which only the elect are capable of liberation?

I don't agree with the claim that it is universal to Mahayana, but that point is not really worth arguing over, imo.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Most who follow Madyamaka believes that shunyata is the mind, and is the Buddha-nature. To them, shunyata represents the conditional world, the world of samsara, where everything is empty of self nature, and nothing is permanent. However, in the realm of nirvana, the unconditioned, Buddha-nature is real, permanent, and is true nature, this being represented as the mind.

So with this view there is a "true self" beyond the aggregates?

 

[Nicholas]

From the Srimala Sutra, Wayman translation:

"Lord, the cessation of suffering is not the destruction of Dharma. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya of the Tathágata is named 'cessation of suffering,' and it is beginning-less, un-create, unborn, undying, free from death; permanent, steadfast, calm, eternal; intrinsically pure, free from all the defilement-store; and accompanied by Buddha natures more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, which are non-discrete, knowing as liberated, and inconceivable. This Dharmakaya of the Tathágata when not free from the store of defilement is referred to as the Tathágata-garbha.

"Lord, the knowledge of the Tathágata-garbha is the void-ness knowledge of the Tathágatas. The Tathágata-garbha is something not seen before or understood before by any Disciple or Self-Enlightened one. It has been seen directly and understood by the Lord. The void-ness knowledge of the Tathágata-garbha is of two kinds. These two are as follows:

"Lord, the Tathágata-garbha is void of all the defilement-stores, which are discrete and knowing as not liberated.

"Lord, the Tathágata-garbha is not void of the Buddha dharmas which are non-discrete, inconceivable, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, and knowing as liberated."