No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
The doctrine of buddha-nature—the innate enlightened nature of mind—is found in all Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions, but explaining what that really means differs considerably across traditions.<ref>The doctrine of buddha-nature in its full form was not present in early Buddhism and is not accepted by most contemporary Asian Theravada Buddhist traditions. In mainstream Theravada, consciousness is one of the five aggregates, the conditioned aspects of existence which are left behind upon the attainment of nirvāṇa. The notion of a mind that exists apart from the aggregates, which is primordially pure and somehow innately enlightened, would be heretical to most Theravada Buddhists. As the contemporary Western Theravadin teacher [[Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu]] has written, "The Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind—good, bad, or Buddha." Not only are the buddha-nature teachings not true, he continues, but they hinder one's progress on the path: "If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent." [https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Head&HeartTogether/Section0016.html See "Freedom from Buddha Nature," para. 18–19, dhammatalks.org]. This is not a universal view; the Thai Forest tradition that began at the turn of the twentieth century espouses the view that the mind is "luminous" in the sense of being innately pure, nondual awareness, and that it continues to exist in nirvāṇa.</ref> All Mahāyāna traditions also teach that because all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena they are empty of any special nature. How to describe that emptiness and what it means for the Buddhist practitioner, however, is a matter of considerable disagreement and often defines key differences between living traditions. Whereas Indian Yogācāra masters use positive language to describe the mind and the true nature of reality, in the ancient Indian Madhyamaka philosophy of [[Nāgārjuna]] and his disciples, negative language is used to describe reality. "Because there are no phenomena that are not dependently arisen," Nāgārjuna wrote, "there are no phenomena that are not empty."<ref>''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' XXIV, 19</ref> Thus while buddha-nature is generally accepted in Yogācāra, in Madhyamaka it is considered either provisionally (that is, not literally) true or as a synonym for emptiness. | The doctrine of buddha-nature—the innate enlightened nature of mind—is found in all Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions, but explaining what that really means differs considerably across traditions.<ref>The doctrine of buddha-nature in its full form was not present in early Buddhism and is not accepted by most contemporary Asian Theravada Buddhist traditions. In mainstream Theravada, consciousness is one of the five aggregates, the conditioned aspects of existence which are left behind upon the attainment of nirvāṇa. The notion of a mind that exists apart from the aggregates, which is primordially pure and somehow innately enlightened, would be heretical to most Theravada Buddhists. As the contemporary Western Theravadin teacher [[Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu]] has written, "The Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind—good, bad, or Buddha." Not only are the buddha-nature teachings not true, he continues, but they hinder one's progress on the path: "If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent." [https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Head&HeartTogether/Section0016.html See "Freedom from Buddha Nature," para. 18–19, dhammatalks.org]. This is not a universal view; the Thai Forest tradition that began at the turn of the twentieth century espouses the view that the mind is "luminous" in the sense of being innately pure, nondual awareness, and that it continues to exist in nirvāṇa.</ref> All Mahāyāna traditions also teach that because all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena they are empty of any special nature. How to describe that emptiness and what it means for the Buddhist practitioner, however, is a matter of considerable disagreement and often defines key differences between living traditions. Whereas Indian Yogācāra masters use positive language to describe the mind and the true nature of reality, in the ancient Indian Madhyamaka philosophy of [[Nāgārjuna]] and his disciples, negative language is used to describe reality. "Because there are no phenomena that are not dependently arisen," Nāgārjuna wrote, "there are no phenomena that are not empty."<ref>''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' XXIV, 19</ref> Thus while buddha-nature is generally accepted in Yogācāra, in Madhyamaka it is considered either provisionally (that is, not literally) true or as a synonym for emptiness. | ||
Buddha-nature is a central doctrine in all East Asian Buddhism save for the Pure Land traditions. Almost all base their teachings on the '' | Buddha-nature is a central doctrine in all East Asian Buddhism save for the Pure Land traditions. Almost all base their teachings on the ''Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna'', a Chinese composition that introduced the concepts of original enlightenment and actualized enlightenment. The first is the fundamental nature of mind obscured by stains, and the second is that same innately enlightened mind freed of those obscurations. The Tiantai (Tendai in Japan), Huayan (Kegon in Japan), and Chan (Zen in Japan) and their offshoots all embraced buddha-nature, as did the tantric Shingon school in Japan, although there are differences in their approaches. [[Dōgen]], one of the founders of Japanese Zen, taught that meditation is practiced not to attain enlightenment but to express one's innate enlightenment. This is expressed in the famous Zen proverb "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." That is, if you think that the Buddha is someone or somewhere else, you're wasting your time; destroy that idea and realize your own innate enlightenment. In Pure Land there remains some disagreement, with some sects arguing that ordinary beings do not have buddha-nature but only acquire it upon being saved by the Buddha Amitābha and being born in the Pure Land. | ||
The dominant Tibetan and Himalayan tantric traditions of Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Geluk are better understood as loose categories of affiliation than as closed systems, and leaders often move between monasteries to pursue their education. There is therefore no buddha-nature position that can be said to belong to any one particular tradition. Rather, buddha-nature teachings in Tibet are debated in terms of provisional versus definitive and whether buddha-nature is simply another word for emptiness or has qualities of its own. That is, the issue is whether buddha-nature is empty of all qualities (a position known as "self-emptiness") or is empty of all but its own qualities ("other-emptiness"). These conversations began in India but took on new life in Tibet, where buddha-nature theory is largely built around the fifth-century treatise the ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'', popularly known in Tibet as the ''Uttaratantra'' or ''Gyü Lama''. These two poles of self-empty and other-empty are traditionally defined in Tibet as the analytic and meditative traditions of ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'' exegesis. The [[Key_Terms/Ngok_Tradition|analytic tradition]] largely relies on strict Madhyamaka presentations of emptiness and rejects any attempt to describe ultimate reality with positive characteristics. The [[Key_Terms/Tsen_Tradition|meditative tradition]] encompasses a wide body of buddha-nature theory found primarily in the Jonang, Kagyu, and Nyingma traditions, usually, although not always, in some form of a unity of emptiness and luminosity. Great detail can be found on these positions and their counterparts throughout this website. | The dominant Tibetan and Himalayan tantric traditions of Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Geluk are better understood as loose categories of affiliation than as closed systems, and leaders often move between monasteries to pursue their education. There is therefore no buddha-nature position that can be said to belong to any one particular tradition. Rather, buddha-nature teachings in Tibet are debated in terms of provisional versus definitive and whether buddha-nature is simply another word for emptiness or has qualities of its own. That is, the issue is whether buddha-nature is empty of all qualities (a position known as "self-emptiness") or is empty of all but its own qualities ("other-emptiness"). These conversations began in India but took on new life in Tibet, where buddha-nature theory is largely built around the fifth-century treatise the ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'', popularly known in Tibet as the ''Uttaratantra'' or ''Gyü Lama''. These two poles of self-empty and other-empty are traditionally defined in Tibet as the analytic and meditative traditions of ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'' exegesis. The [[Key_Terms/Ngok_Tradition|analytic tradition]] largely relies on strict Madhyamaka presentations of emptiness and rejects any attempt to describe ultimate reality with positive characteristics. The [[Key_Terms/Tsen_Tradition|meditative tradition]] encompasses a wide body of buddha-nature theory found primarily in the Jonang, Kagyu, and Nyingma traditions, usually, although not always, in some form of a unity of emptiness and luminosity. Great detail can be found on these positions and their counterparts throughout this website. | ||
| Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Buddha-nature in East Asian Buddhism is largely based on the '' | Buddha-nature in East Asian Buddhism is largely based on the ''Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna'', another treatise whose author is not easily identified. The second-century Indian poet [[Aśvaghoṣa]] is considered by Chinese tradition to have been the author, but most scholars think that unlikely. The sixth-century Indian monk [[Paramārtha]] is credited with its translation, and he may well have composed it as well, in China, along with a team of Chinese scribes. The first commentary appeared in 580, written by the monk Tanyan (516–88), and was followed over the centuries by more than 170 others written in China, Japan, and Korea by some of the great religious leaders of East Asian Buddhism. These included Jingying Huiyuan of the Chinese Southern Dilun school, the Chinese Chan patriarch Shenxiu, the great Korean monk [[Wǒnhyo]], the Chinese Huayan founder Fazang, and the Japanese founder of the Shingon school, Kukai. | ||
The Japanese scholar D. T. Suzuki first translated the '' | The Japanese scholar D. T. Suzuki first translated the ''Awakening of Faith'' into English in 1900. Some of the most influential early-twentieth-century American converts used it in their promotion of Buddhism, most notably Paul Carus, the author of ''The Gospel of the Buddha'', and Dwight Goddard, the author of ''The Buddhist Bible''. Columbia University professor [[Yoshito S. Hakeda]] published a reliable translation in 1967. The Russian Buddhologist [[Eugène Obermiller]] first translated the ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'' into English in 1931. Japanese scholar [[Takasaki Jikidō]] published a second English translation in 1966. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
The purpose of the buddha-nature website is to provide a resource hub for trustworthy information for learning about and teaching the concept of buddha-nature, its associated texts, teachings, lineages, and relevant Buddhist ideas. Unique content will be shared here, but the site will primarily act as a broker for other projects and authors that have already created quality materials, which we will curate for a wide range of audiences.