Ideas

From Buddha-Nature
Philosophical Ideas
Is buddha-nature already perfected and simply obscured by delusion, or is it a seed or potential that must be cultivated and perfected? Is it the mind's natural luminosity, or is it the same as emptiness? Are buddha-nature teachings definitive or provisional? These are questions that cut to the heart of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine regarding the nature of enlightenment, reality, and the Path. This page introduces some of the key questions in buddha-nature theory, framed in terms of binaries.


Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, the relative and the ultimate, and scores more—have been the object of debates since Śākyamuni Buddha first preached in Sarnath. He himself became the subject of a central binary: on his parinirvāṇa, did he dissipate into nonexistence, or does he abide as a numinous universal principle? It's an age-old dialectic of presence and absence that cuts to the heart of Buddhist metaphysics and is particularly relevant for buddha-nature theory. Similarly, over the centuries, teachers have explored multiple ways of explaining the relationship between ordinary deluded beings and fully perfect buddhas; at the moment of our enlightenment, will we be transformed, or will our true nature be revealed? Is something that isn't here now somehow produced? Do we share a common nature with the buddhas, or are we fundamentally different from them? The Buddha may have proposed a middle way between the extremes, but there's a lot of disagreement about where that middle falls.

Buddha-nature theory seems to have been initially offered as one such middle way, a previously missing link between extremes offered by the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna doctrine. On the one hand was a theory of emptiness that was so extreme that, many argued, certain meditative practices were undermined. On the other hand was a theory of mind that proposed a permanently existent consciousness, an idea that was accused of violating the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence and no-self. In its earliest appearances buddha-nature was vague, more poetry than theoretical principle, hinting at possible interpretations and promising salvation for all without necessarily explaining much. But as the doctrine grew in popularity, debate lines developed. It has been categorized as provisional and definitive, defined as emptiness as well as luminosity, labeled Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, or neither, as it has been tugged one way and the other across the middle ground.

To better understand what the debate lines are and where the great thinkers in Buddhist history have stood, the following outlines the various binaries that appear in buddha-nature theory. Each is briefly introduced, with suggestions for further reading. Great Buddhist thinkers who populate this website, as well as scriptures and classic works of doctrinal exegesis, are presented with a checklist of positions.

Universal or Limited

Not all scriptures agree that buddha-nature is universal. Texts such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra describe a class of beings (gotra) called the icchantika, who are so degraded through their lust and ignorance that they can never become enlightened. Such is the case only in the earliest version of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, however; the later version teaches the universality of buddha-nature, and all but one tradition has rejected the category. The exception was the Faxiang school (法相宗) of the great Chinese translator Xuanzang 玄奘 (born 602), which declined only a few generations after Xuanzang's death. Even without the icchantika on the scene, however, not all Buddhist schools accept the universality of buddha-nature. The Yogācāra theory of classes of beings divides beings into three basic categories determined by their potential liberation; only those belonging to the bodhisattva class will attain complete and perfect buddhahood, while those of the "disciple" (śrāvaka) and "solitary buddha" (pratyekabuddha) classes will attain the lesser enlightenment of the arhat. These beings cannot be said, therefore, to possess buddha-nature the same as the bodhisattvas. In some Buddhist traditions the universality of buddha-nature is taken to include even inanimate objects such as grass and trees and even roof tiles. The logic here is that buddha-nature is identical to the dharmakāya, the truth-body of the buddha, which is the true nature of all phenomena. Tantric texts often present the five elements of earth, water, fire, air and space and the five aggregates as being naturally perfect Buddhas.


Universal
People with this position
Atiśa
982 ~ 1054
Bhāvaviveka
500 ~ 578
Chomden Rikpai Raldri
1227 ~ 1305
Drolungpa Lodrö Jungne
11th century
Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen
1292 ~ 1361
Gampopa
1079 ~ 1153
Gyaltsap Je Dharma Rinchen
1364 ~ 1432
Kamalaśīla
713/740 ~ 763/795
Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje
1284 ~ 1339
Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Taye
1813 ~ 1899
Longchen Rabjam Drime Özer
1308 ~ 1364
Minyak Lama Yeshe Dorje
14th Century
Tanak Rinchen Yeshe
13th Century ~ 1345/1346
Gyalse Tokme Zangpo
1295 ~ 1369
Tsen Khawoche
1021
Tāranātha
1575 ~ 1634
Texts with this position


Limited
People with this position
Butön Rinchen Drup
1290 ~ 1364
Dratsepa Rinchen Namgyal
1318 ~ 1388
Ratnākaraśānti
late-10th century ~ early-11th century
Rongtön Sheja Kunrik
1367 ~ 1449
Sakya Paṇḍita
1182 ~ 1251
Texts with this position

Provisional or Definitive

Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, or require considerable interpretation, but are nonetheless of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the Common Era.

Some commentators have argued that the buddha-nature teachings are not definitive as they do not discuss emptiness free from elaborations, which is deemed to be the ultimate truth. It was taught merely to encourage those who might be dissuaded from a path to awakening that was said to take near-infinite lifetimes to traverse. As such, the concept was plainly intended as a provisional teaching, an encouragement to those on and not yet on the path, but not actually true. For example, Candrakīrti, in his Entrance to the Middle Way, considered buddha-nature teachings to be provisional, and claimed only teachings taking up emptiness as the main topic to be definitive. Many Indian Mādhyamika scholars espoused this position while others leaning towards the teachings of Maitreya and tantric theories of the ultimate, took the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive.

Beginning in the eleventh century with the popularity of Ratnagotravibhāga, the famous commentary on the buddha-nature sutras, the debates over whether the buddha-nature teachings were to be taken as definitive or provisional intensified in Tibet. Early Kadam scholars such as Ngok Loden Sherab and Chapa Chökyi Senge, who were also staunch Mādhyamikas, took buddha-nature to be definitive by equating it directly with the emptiness taught as the ultimate in Madhyamaka philosophy. The view of tathāgatagarbha as definitive was also shared by certain Sakya and Geluk scholars that inherited Ngok's scholastic tradition.

Yet, many early Kadam, Kagyu and Nyingma scholars asserted the ultimate reality to be a union of emptiness and luminosity and thus maintained the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive as they described the ultimate reality. They took both the second and third turnings of the wheel to be definitive in nature. The scholars of Jonang tradition and some others in later centuries took this doctrine a step further as they expounded an absolutist theory of the other-emptiness (zhentong). According to this interpretation, buddha-nature exists as the eternal absolute truth while only being empty of other adventitious phenomena. They took the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive and considered scriptures teaching mere emptiness to be provisional.


Provisional
People with this position
Bhāvaviveka
500 ~ 578
Butön Rinchen Drup
1290 ~ 1364
Candrakīrti
c. 570 ~ c. 640
Dratsepa Rinchen Namgyal
1318 ~ 1388
Kamalaśīla
713/740 ~ 763/795
Khedrup Je Gelek Palzang
1385 ~ 1438
Sakya Paṇḍita
1182 ~ 1251
Texts with this position


Definitive
People with this position
Bötrul Dongak Tenpai Nyima
1898 ~ 1959
Chomden Rikpai Raldri
1227 ~ 1305
Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen
1292 ~ 1361
Gyaltsap Je Dharma Rinchen
1364 ~ 1432
Jñānaśrīmitra
975/980 ~ 1025/1030
Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje
1284 ~ 1339
Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Taye
1813 ~ 1899
Longchen Rabjam Drime Özer
1308 ~ 1364
Minyak Lama Yeshe Dorje
14th Century
Rongtön Sheja Kunrik
1367 ~ 1449
Sajjana
11th century
Tanak Rinchen Yeshe
13th Century ~ 1345/1346
Gyalse Tokme Zangpo
1295 ~ 1369
Tsen Khawoche
1021
Tāranātha
1575 ~ 1634
Texts with this position

Emptiness or Luminosity

The binary of luminosity and emptiness represents a fundamental Buddhist debate over using cataphatic or apophatic language—that is, whether one can use positive language to describe reality or whether one must always use the language of negation. Can the ultimate reality be pointed out in positive terms or is it merely the absence of what is negated? Emptiness theory posits that there is ultimately no permanent or independent nature to any phenomena, be it physical or mental. Yet scriptures, even the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras which highlight the topic of emptiness, teach that the mind itself is "luminous by nature." In luminosity theory, the stains of saṃsāra do not defile the mind but only cloud its nature, and enlightenment is simply a revealing of what is already there. Luminosity is a key factor in tantra, where a direct experience of the mind's luminosity is a goal.

In rejecting such affirmative descriptions of mind, most analytical teachers such as Haribhadra and Sakya Paṇḍita have reconciled this binary by relegating luminosity to conventional status and regarding scriptures which teach luminosity as provisional teachings which are not completely accurate. But others such as Vasubandhu and Dolpopa maintained that luminosity is the actual characteristic of mind and is therefore not to be regarded as empty.

What Is Buddha-Nature?

Since the notion of tathāgatagarbha wasn't drawn from a single scriptural source nor predicated on the views of a single philosophical school or movement, there is no universally accepted definition of what buddha-nature actually is or is not. Rather, there developed many different approaches to this topic based on how buddha-nature was interpreted from a variety of philosophical perspectives. Below are some of the major positions taken on buddha-nature and the individuals who supported them. Thinkers generally subscribe to more than one position. For example, Gyaltsap Je accepts buddha-nature is both a nonimplicative emptiness and a casual potential and Mipam asserts that it is non implicative negation, unity of emptiness and luminosity and latent state of buddhahood. Sometimes, a thinker espouses different positions in different writings according to the doxographical context.


Emptiness That Is a Nonimplicative Negation (without enlightened qualities)
This position refers to the sheer emptiness that most classical Mādhyamikas subscribe to. From the standpoint of analysis to establish the ultimate reality, all points of apprehension such as inherent existence are negated and nothing is implied. According to this interpretation, buddha-nature is another term for emptiness in which all qualities of the Buddha, like all phenomena, are negated and nothing is affirmed. This position is held mostly by those who assert the rangtong view. Proponents of this view typically hold the second turning of the Dharma wheel to be definitive.
People with this position
Abhayākaragupta
11th century ~ circa 1125
Drolungpa Lodrö Jungne
11th century
Gyaltsap Je Dharma Rinchen
1364 ~ 1432
Kamalaśīla
713/740 ~ 763/795
Sakya Paṇḍita
1182 ~ 1251
Tsongkhapa
1357 ~ 1419
Texts with this position


Emptiness That Is an Implicative Negation (with enlightened qualities)
This position refers to an emptiness in which the object of negation such as inherent existence is negated but the presence of another such as emptiness itself is implied. In the case of buddha-nature, it is seen to be empty of adventitious defilements and impure phenomena but not empty of enlightened qualities. This interpretation corresponds to what became known as the zhentong view or the emptiness of the other. Proponents of this view typically hold the third turning of the Dharma wheel to be the most definitive.
People with this position
Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen
1292 ~ 1361
Tanak Rinchen Yeshe
13th Century ~ 1345/1346
Tāranātha
1575 ~ 1634
Texts with this position


Mind's Luminous Nature
This position refers to the assertion that buddha-nature is the luminous nature of the mind itself.
People with this position
Chomden Rikpai Raldri
1227 ~ 1305
Jñānaśrīmitra
975/980 ~ 1025/1030
Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje
1284 ~ 1339
Ratnākaraśānti
late-10th century ~ early-11th century
Sajjana
11th century
Tsen Khawoche
1021
Texts with this position


Unity of Emptiness and Luminosity
This position refers to the assertion that buddha-nature is the inseparable unity of appearance and emptiness. Proponents of this view typically hold the second turning and third turning of the Dharma wheel to be equally definitive.
People with this position
Bötrul Dongak Tenpai Nyima
1898 ~ 1959
Gorampa Sönam Senge
1429 ~ 1489
Longchen Rabjam Drime Özer
1308 ~ 1364
Texts with this position


Causal Potential or Disposition
This position refers to the understanding that buddha-nature is the basic or primary cause for beings to attain enlightenment but it is not endowed with latent qualities of the Buddha. Sentient beings have the capacity or potential to become enlightened should they choose to embark on the path. In this case, buddha-nature is often equated with a disposition or spiritual gene, gotra, that guarantees the possibility of enlightenment.
People with this position
Atiśa
982 ~ 1054
Gampopa
1079 ~ 1153
Texts with this position


Resultant State of Buddhahood
This position is held by some scholars who argue genuine buddha-nature only exists in those who have already achieved enlightenment. Typically this means equating buddha-nature with the dharmakāya of a fully enlightened buddha.
People with this position
Butön Rinchen Drup
1290 ~ 1364
Dratsepa Rinchen Namgyal
1318 ~ 1388
Pakmodrupa Dorje Gyalpo
1110 ~ 1170
Texts with this position


Latent State of Buddhahood
This position claims that buddha-nature is a latent form of enlightenment that is fully present in sentient beings but is obscured, and therefore inactive, at this stage of their development. In this sense, it is called buddha-nature when it has yet to manifest, and it is called enlightenment or buddhahood when it has been actualized.
People with this position
Minyak Lama Yeshe Dorje
14th Century
Rongtön Sheja Kunrik
1367 ~ 1449
Gyalse Tokme Zangpo
1295 ~ 1369
Texts with this position


Different Types of Tathāgatagarbha
This position refers to those that assert multiple versions of buddha-nature that correspond to various stages of its manifestation. In other words, rather than asserting a single buddha-nature that applies to everyone, they divide it into different types that apply to specific circumstances.



Buddha-Nature as a Device to Encourage Sentient Beings to Enter the Path
This position asserts the teachings on buddha-nature are merely provisional tool utilised to encourage students in the right direction rather than being an exact representation of the way things truly are. In this case, those who subscribe to this view tend to suggest that buddha-nature was taught in order to alleviate fears of emptiness or of the tremendously time-consuming path to enlightenment.
People with this position
Bhāvaviveka
500 ~ 578
Candrakīrti
c. 570 ~ c. 640

Potential or Already-perfected

The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, one of the earliest scriptures on tathāgatagarbha, or buddha-nature, has the Buddha state that "all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of kleśas—the adventitious stains—have a tathāgatagarbha that is eternally unsullied and that is replete with virtues no different from my own." The sūtra gives nine similes to describe that buddha-nature. These are:

  • A buddha encased in a decaying lotus blossom
  • Pure honey surrounded by a swarm of bees
  • A kernel of wheat not yet removed from its husk
  • A piece of pure gold fallen into a pit of waste
  • Treasure hidden beneath an impoverished household
  • The pit of a mango that can grow into a mighty tree
  • A statue of pure gold concealed in rags
  • A vile woman who carries in her womb the embryo of a great man
  • A statue cast in gold still encased by its earthen mold

Of these, seven describe a perfect object that is obscured by something else. The object is unaffected by its obscuration, yet it is made either unknown to people, such as the treasure under the house, or rendered difficult to obtain, as in the case of the honey surrounded by bees. The message is that buddha-nature is already present, already perfected, yet obscured by the stains of ignorance, desire, and hatred. The similes of the mango pit and the noble child in the base woman's womb have a different message, however: both indicate a potential to transform into something that is not currently present. The noble being in the womb is only an embryo, and the pit merely carries the genetic material to grow into the tree. Whether buddha-nature is properly understood as an already-present perfection or a potential to attain that perfection is debated. If the former, then the obscurations that conceal that natural luminosity need only be removed in order to attain liberation, for one's buddhahood is already present. If the latter, then that buddhahood is not present and must be cultivated. Among those who take the position that buddha-nature is a potential, there are multiple avenues of explaining how the potential is actualized, with various terms to label buddha-nature in its various stages.

Madhyamaka or Yogācāra

Buddha-nature does not easily align with either Madhyamaka or Yogācāra doctrine, though it has been appropriated by members of both schools. The theory seems to have developed outside of either community in response to their assertions on the nature of reality and human nature, such that some scholars have posited the existence of a "Tathāgatagarbha school" of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. The assertion of the existence of a buddha-nature that possesses characteristics conflicts with Madhyamaka teachings of the fundamental absence of all independent phenomena; that is to say, buddha-nature would appear to contradict emptiness theory. At the same time, the assertion of the universality of buddha-nature conflicts with Yogācāra theories that classify beings according to their potential for liberation. Nevertheless, both Madhyamaka and Yogācāra authors have employed various interpretive strategies to make it conform to their school's orthodoxy. Both were aided by the relatively late Laṅkāvatārasūtra, which in separate sections equated buddha-nature with both emptiness and the ālayavijñāna. However, Yogācara never really gained a foothold in Tibet other than as part of some relatively short-lived attempts to establish a synthetic Yogācāra-Madhyamaka philosophy. Hence, buddha-nature teachings in Tibet were generally associated with Madhyamaka rather than with Yogācara, which, characterized by the Mind-Only view (sems tsam), was generally considered inferior to Madhyamaka.

Scholastic or Meditative Tradition

The Tibetan traditions generally divide the primary modes of exegesis on the Ratnagotravibhāga into two lines of transmission known as the exegetical tradition of Maitreya's teachings (byams chos bshad lugs) and the meditative tradition of Maitreya's tradition (byams chos sgom lugs). These two traditions originated with the Tibetan disciples of the Kashmiri master Sajjana—namely Ngok Lotsāwa and Tsen Khawoche, respectively. Therefore, these two are also commonly referred to as the Ngok tradition (rngog lugs), representing the scholarly or analytic approach, and the Tsen tradition (btsan lugs), representing the more practice-oriented, meditative approach. It is likely the diverging motivations of these two figures that would set the respective trajectories of these traditions, with Ngok as the aspiring scholar, translator, and heir apparent to Sangpu Neutok, one of the first major Tibetan scholastic institutions, on the one hand, and the elder Tsen looking to devote the rest of his life to practice and hoping to apply the teachings of the Ratnagotravibhāga in preparation for his own death, on the other. In terms of the official stances of these traditions, they are typically associated with the above debates over emptiness or luminosity, which sometimes pits philosophical reasoning against yogic experience. Thus we see the exegetical tradition branch out from Ngok's base of Sangpu Neutok, an institution that evolved in association from the Kadam to the Sakya and finally the Geluk school, all stalwarts of the classical Madhyamaka philosophy that would come to be associated with the rangtong position. Likewise, the meditative tradition would become a vehicle for the practical instructions on the treatise that would feed into and bolster the experiential approaches of the Mahāmudrā teachings, as well as the more positivistic position of zhentong Madhyamaka that would take root in the Kagyu and Jonang schools.


Analytic Tradition
People with this position
Butön Rinchen Drup
1290 ~ 1364
Minyak Lama Yeshe Dorje
14th Century
Rongtön Sheja Kunrik
1367 ~ 1449
Sakya Paṇḍita
1182 ~ 1251
Texts with this position


Meditative Tradition
People with this position
Chomden Rikpai Raldri
1227 ~ 1305
Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje
1284 ~ 1339
Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Taye
1813 ~ 1899
Tsen Khawoche
1021
Tāranātha
1575 ~ 1634
Texts with this position

Explore more

On this site