Ideas

Is buddha-nature already perfected and simply obscured by delusion, or is it a seed or potential that must be cultivated and perfects? Is buddha-nature a definitive or provisional teaching? Is it the mind's natural luminosity, or is it the same as emptiness? These are questions that cut to the heart of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, regarding the nature of enlightenment, reality, and the Path. On this page we introduce some of the key questions in buddha-nature theory, framed in terms of we are calling binaries.

Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, ignorance and wisdom, and scores more—have been the stuff 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 non-existence, or does he abide as a luminous 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 us 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 binary dualism, 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, we offer the following 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 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 buddhas" (pratyekabuddha) 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.

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, but are 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. The concept was initially offered as a palliative for those who feared emptiness as taught by the Mahāyāna. It was also a guarantee for those who might be dissuaded from a path to salvation 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. Yet buddha-nature scriptures are remarkably vague, allowing for a wide range of definitions and interpretations. Beginning in the eleventh century, with the popularity of the Ratnagotravibhāga, theorists began to debate over whether the scriptures were to be taken as definitive or provisional. Candrakīrti, one of the greatest Madhyamaka philosophers, deemed tathāgatagarbha to be provisional for it did not conform to standard teachings on emptiness. His fellow Mādhyamika Kamalaśīla, however, categorized it as definitive based on the attractive (and anti-Yogacārā) promise that all beings will eventually attain buddhahood. Yogācāra philosophers also varied in their categorization depending on how they interpreted the doctrine's contradiction with the Three Vehicle theory.

Emptiness or Luminosity

The binary of luminosity and emptiness is 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. Emptiness theory posits that there is ultimately no permanent or independent nature to any phenomena, be it physical or mental. Yet scriptures also teach that the mind itself is naturally luminous, such as in the Perfection of Wisdom, where one reads that "in its essential original nature thought is transparently luminous." In luminosity theory the stains of saṃsāra do not defile the mind but only cloud its true 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 teachers such as Haribhadra and Sakya Paṇḍita have reconciled this binary by relegating luminosity to the provisional status—language which is used to teach and which is not completely accurate. But others such as Vasubhandu and Nāropa maintained that luminosity is the actual characteristic of mind, and is therefore not to be regarded as empty.

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, 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 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 in terms of whether buddha-nature can be defined as the natural luminosity of the mind or whether it is the same as emptiness, and therefore must not be said to exist as an independent phenomenon. If the former, then the obscurations that conceal that natural luminosity need only be revealed in order to attain liberation, for one's buddhahood is already present. If the later, then that buddhahood is not present and must be cultivated.

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 communities 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. The Tibetan custom of including the Ratnagotravibhāga as one of the "five books of Maitreya," a group of core Yogācāra scriptures, further lends to the common belief that buddha-nature is a teaching of that school.

Analytic or Meditative Tradition

"Other-Emptiness" or "Self-Emptiness"

• Which Wheel Turning
• Svātantrika (རང་རྒྱུད་) vs Prāsaṅgika (ཐལ་འགྱུར་པ་)
• Promotes how many vehicles?

• What is Buddha-nature?
  • Buddha-nature as the Emptiness That is a Nonimplicative Negation
  • Buddha-nature as Mind's Luminous Nature
  • Buddha-nature as the Alaya Consciousness
  • Buddha-nature as a Sentient Being
  • Buddha-nature as the Dharmakaya
  • Buddha-nature as Suchness
  • Buddha-nature as the Disposition
  • Buddha-nature as Nonconceptuality

Key Questions

• What is buddha-nature?
• Is buddha-nature emptiness or luminosity?
• How did buddha-nature thought develop in Tibet?
• How do I engage with buddha-nature in my practice?

Core Research Topics

• Title Debates
• Author Attributions
• etc

Interesting Areas of Debate

Zhentong

• See Cyrus Stearns' Survey of Shentong in Tibet

to top