Traditions

Exegetical Traditions

The doctrine of buddha-nature is found in all Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions. The theory developed in India in the first centuries of the Common Era and spread soon after to China and eventually on to Japan and Korea, based largely on the wildly popular treatise Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna. Tibet received the teaching from India in the sixth and seventh centuries CE during the early propagation of Buddhism there, but the doctrine became widespread only with the translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga in the eleventh century. While it is not accepted by contemporary Asian Theravādin Buddhist communities, it can be said to be a part of most Western Vipassana teachings.

The Traditions of Buddha-Nature

Early Buddhism and Buddhism in India

Buddha-nature theory does not appear in the Pāli canon. These scriptures were, according to legend, assembled at the First Council soon after the death of the Buddha and preserved orally until they were written down sometime around the turn of the first millennium. They are the sacred literature of early Buddhism and its sole surviving order: the Theravāda traditions of South and Southeast Asia. Buddha-nature is not rejected in these early Buddhist scriptures; it simply is not present. The notion of an innate enlightenment or the idea that the mind is inherently pure would have been unorthodox to traditional Theravāda Buddhist teachers. Early Buddhism, and most of traditional Theravāda Buddhism, teaches that consciousness is one of the five aggregates of conditioned existence and therefore cannot be associated with nirvāṇa, which is unconditioned. In Theravāda Buddhism nirvāṇa is the utter absence of saṃsāra, a state of nonexistence attained only after mahāparinirvāṇa—that is, the death of a fully enlightened person.

Classical and modern scholars have attempted to find buddha-nature teachings in the Pāli canon, but the contemporary Western Theravādin teacher Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu has written that this is misguided. For example, buddha-nature proponents point to a passage from the Aṅguttaranikāya Sutta that reads, "Luminous, monks, is this mind, but sometimes it is defiled by adventitious defilements." Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu interprets the above passage as meaning simply that once the mind is stained, it can be purified; the text, he argues, makes no claim about the fundamental nature of the mind.

Freedom from Buddha Nature

Essay

We do not know how Buddhists in India engaged with buddha-nature theory; too little is known about the daily lives and practices of Indian Buddhists. The core buddha-nature scriptures such as the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Śrīmālādevīsūtra, and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra all circulated widely beginning as early as the second century of the Common Era, and scholars believe that the Ratnagotravibhāga, the influential commentary on buddha-nature whose author is unknown, was likely written during the fourth century. Thus the concept of buddha-nature was probably discussed and debated in most Indian Buddhist communities for a good thousand years before Buddhism disappeared in India in the thirteenth century.

Every Mahāyāna tradition teaches that because all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena they are empty of any self-nature. How to describe that emptiness is, however, a matter of considerable disagreement. The ideas of buddha-nature and the use of positive language to describe enlightenment and the true nature of reality were widely accepted in Indian Buddhist communities alongside the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nāgārjuna and his disciples. For Madhyamaka adherents, emptiness is the ultimate truth of reality, while conventional appearances—the "form" in the famous line from the Heart Sūtra that "form is emptiness, emptiness is no other than form"—are true only relative to the rest of the phenomenal world. "Because there are no phenomena that are not dependently arisen," Nāgārjuna wrote, "there are no phenomena that are not empty." All Mādhyamikas since have taken this to mean that not even buddha-nature can be said to exist. Language, because it is relativistic and dualistic, can describe only conventional appearances, not the ultimate, and so, for Madhyamaka, any description of the ultimate cannot be accurate or true. Emptiness can be described only in terms of what it is not: it is not conditioned, not permanent, and so forth. For strict Madhyamaka interpreters, buddha-nature must be considered a provisional teaching, useful but not literally true.

Although Nāgārjuna and his followers asserted that their unity of the two truths—the ultimate truth of emptiness and the relative truth of dependent phenomena—avoids the extremes of eternalism and nihilism (Madhyamaka means “middle way”), not everyone was convinced, and from the very start Madhyamaka was accused of nihilism. While accepting dependent origination and the doctrine of two truths, adherents of the Yogācāra school, for example, directed their focus to the psychological structures that make ignorance and enlightenment possible. In doing so they were willing to assert the fundamental existence of the mind and its qualities, particularly that of self-reflexive awareness. Buddha-nature theory, which holds that the mind is ultimately empty and at the same time luminous, in the sense of being self-reflexive, was naturally appealing to Yogācāra writers, even though in some ways it conflicted with core beliefs, such as that not all beings are destined for enlightenment.

There is reason to believe that buddha-nature theory had an influence on Indian tantra, which draws on doctrines from multiple Mahāyāna schools and integrates ascetic and antinomian practices into a Buddhist framework. Tantric practice relies on the cultivation of mental experiences of luminosity, which is a Buddhist metaphor for the innate purity of mind, and which came to be equated with buddha-nature and the dharmakāya. Tantra is also often described as a set of techniques to circumvent the lengthy process of purifying defilements and accumulating merit, with the promise of attaining enlightenment in a single lifetime. This is allegedly possible due to the potency of the practices, but it also presumes an already-existing correspondence between the body, speech, and mind of the practitioner and those of a buddha, to which one gains access through complex and often arcane mental and physical practices. Tantric theory does not entirely embrace buddha-nature, however. The often-used metaphor of the lotus arising from mud would suggest a transformation rather than an actualization; the mud and the lotus are not of the same nature.

East Asian Buddhism

Buddha-nature is a central doctrine in all East Asian Buddhist traditions, although it is of lesser importance in Pure Land teachings. The main Indian buddha-nature scriptures were translated into Chinese starting in the early decades of the fifth century, during a period of renewed interest in Indian scriptures. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra in particular provided a scriptural justification for the idea that all beings have the innate capacity for enlightenment. Within a hundred years of most of these translations, a native composition called the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (Dasheng qixin lun 大乗起信論) placed buddha-nature theory into a framework of original enlightenment (benjue 本覺) and actualized enlightenment (shijue 事覺), which holds that the mind is by nature enlightened and that one need only realize that truth to be liberated. Both terms ultimately refer to the same state; the enlightenment attained is fundamentally the same as the enlightenment that was earlier obscured by ignorance. The Awakening of Faith also accomplished a synthesis of buddha-nature with the Yogācāra doctrine of ālayavijñāna, which it used to explain the origin and perdurance of ignorance.

Following the rush of new translations in the fifth and sixth centuries, brilliant Chinese thinkers began to systematize the teachings they had received, their ideas and practices coalescing into formal Buddhist schools such as Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan (schools that, it should be remembered, had a great deal of intersection and cross-fertilization). The Tiantai school 天台宗 was established by Zhiyi (智顗 538–597) using the Lotus Sūtra as his scriptural foundation. As part of his teaching that every moment of thought contains the full span of existence, Zhiyi advocated for the coexistence of buddha-nature and the unenlightened state in all beings, be they buddhas or unfortunate residents of the hell realms. After a period of decline, Tiantai was revitalized by Zhanran (湛然 711–782), who advocated for the buddha-nature not only of sentient beings but also of inanimate objects, an idea that found popular appeal and has confounded philosophers ever since. In Japan the tradition, known there as Tendai, was established by Saichō (最澄 767–822), who popularized original enlightenment in Japan and incorporated tantric practices into the tradition.

In the Huayan school 華嚴宗, the Awakening of Faith, alongside the Avataṃsakasūtra, was central in the writings of the great patriarchs Fazang (法藏 643–712) and Zongmi (宗密 780–841). Fazang wrote the definitive commentary on the Awakening of Faith—it was the starting point of all subsequent commentaries—in which he divided all of Buddhism into four schools: Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna, Yogācāra, and Tathāgatagarbha. Although not officially a Yogācāra tradition, Huayan absorbed earlier Chinese Yogācāra traditions such as the Dilun school 地論宗, named after the Chinese title of Vasubandhu’s Daśabhūmivyākhyāna, a major Yogācāra treatise. Despite the continuing influence of the Huayan writings, the school declined soon after Zongmi’s time due to official persecution and waning interest in scholastic exegesis, and also from being replaced in popularity by the meditative traditions of Chan and the Pure Land practices of reciting the name of Buddha Amitābha.

In Chan and Zen 禪宗, buddha-nature and original-enlightenment teachings are used to explain the value of meditation in a tradition that teaches that there is nothing to be done. Like all Buddhist traditions, Chan and Zen are awash in rituals and ceremonies designed to achieve all sorts of goals, from making rain to attaining enlightenment. Such activities are vital to the functioning of religious communities and their preservation of the teachings; one Chan sect in medieval China took literally the notion that one need do nothing to attain enlightenment, decided to stop performing any rituals, and so vanished from history. Chan is at least rhetorically centered on meditation—the name of the school is the first character in the transliteration of the Sanskrit word dhyāna, or meditation (禪那).

A doctrinal issue particularly associated with Chan is that of sudden versus gradual enlightenment. The gradual path (jianwu 漸悟) is described as the eons-long accumulation of merit and purification of saṃsāric stains, while the sudden path (dunwu 頓悟) teaches that all one must do is cease delusion. Or, as a Chinese proverb puts it, "put down your butcher knife and become a buddha right now" (放下屠刀立地成佛), the butcher knife symbolizing the harm we do ourselves and others by believing in a fundamental distinction between self and other. The debate is most famously articulated in the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, in which dueling poems express first the gradual and then the sudden position:

The body is the bodhi tree;

The mind is like a bright mirror’s stand.

Be always diligent in rubbing it—

Do not let it attract any dust.

Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;

The bright mirror is also not a stand.

Fundamentally there is not a single thing—

Where could any dust be attracted?

Building on the theory of two truths, the great Japanese Zen teacher Dōgen (道元 1200–1253) taught that all meditation practice is performed not to attain enlightenment but to express one's innate enlightenment. The famous Zen proverb "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" expresses this: 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. The Japanese Shingon school (真言宗), founded by the monk Kūkai (空海 774–835), combines the buddha-nature teachings of the mainstream Chinese Mahāyāna with tantric traditions centered around Buddha Vairocana. Shingon's esoteric practice is a ritual engagement with the body of Vairocana, which is equated with the dharmakāya and thereby with buddha-nature.

Tibet / Mongolia / Bhutan

Like the Buddhist traditions of East Asia, those of Tibet have always been in close contact, cross-fertilizing each other with innovations and shared practices. The dominant 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, at issue is whether buddha-nature is empty of all qualities (a position known as rangtong, or "self-emptiness" in Tibetan) or is empty of all but its own qualities (shentong, or "other-emptiness"). These conversations began in India but took on new life in Tibet.

Buddha-nature theory in Tibet is largely based on the fifth-century treatise the Ratnagotravibhāga, popularly known in Tibet as the Uttaratantra, or Gyü Lama (Rgyud bla ma), which was translated into Tibetan in the eleventh century. The two poles of dialogue are traditionally defined in Tibet as the analytic and meditative traditions of Ratnagotravibhāga exegesis. The analytic tradition generally relies on strict Madhyamaka presentations of emptiness and rejects any attempt to describe ultimate reality with positive characteristics. The definitive commentary on this text is that of Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab (Rngog lo tsA ba blo ldan shes rab, 1059–1109), which is still studied today in scholastic institutions, primarily those belonging to the Geluk and Sakya traditions. Among the great thinkers who contributed their voices to this side of the discussion are Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen (Sa kya paN Di ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, 1182–1251), who established doctrinal orthodoxy for the Sakya tradition in the thirteenth century, and Gyaltsap Je Darma Rinchen (Rgyal tshab rje dar ma rin chen, 1364–1432), one of several close disciples of Tsongkhapa Lobzang Drakpa (Tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, 1357–1419), who together initiated the Geluk tradition in the fourteenth century.

The meditative tradition encompasses a wide span of buddha-nature theory found primarily in the Jonang, Kagyu, and Nyingma traditions. Ngok's Indian master Sajjana had another disciple, Tsen Khawoche (Btsan kha bo che, born 1021), whose commentary is lost but who set the stage for the definition of buddha-nature as "luminosity," here a metaphor for reflexive self-awareness. Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361), a fourteenth-century monk from the Tibetan-Nepali border region who became abbot of the monastery Jonang, is credited in Tibet with the origin of other-emptiness. Few subsequent proponents of the other-emptiness position fully agreed with Dölpopa; most, such as the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje (Karma pa 03 Rang ’byung rdo rje, 1284–1339), and the Sakya commentator Śākya Chokden (ShAkya mchog ldan, 1428–1507), sought out a middle ground that would teach a unity of emptiness and luminosity, a view that became standard in Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen. The Dzogchen teachings of the Nyingma tradition can also be placed within the meditative tradition, although Nyingma exegetes before the nineteenth-century philosopher Mipam Gyatso (Mi pham rgya mtsho, 1846–1912) seldom wrote much about buddha-nature. The Buddhisms of Mongolia and Bhutan and other Central Asian and Himalayan regions are, at least doctrinally, faithful to the traditions developed in Tibet.

Western Buddhism

Western Buddhism is a broad catchall for Buddhist traditions outside of Asia. It encompasses teachings and practices that were brought to Russia, Europe, Australia, and the Americas by both Asian-born teachers and Western-born men and women who studied in Asian Buddhist communities. A list of major figures would include D. T. Suzuki (1870–-1966), translator of the Awakening of Faith; his patron Paul Carus (1852–1919), the author of Gospel of the Buddha; and Dwight Goddard (1861–1939), compiler of A Buddhist Bible. The list would also include Shunryū Suzuki (1904–1971), author of the beloved Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind and founder (in 1967) of Tassajara Zen Mountain Center, the first Buddhist monastery outside of Asia; the charismatic Tibetan teacher Chögyam Trungpa (1939–1987), who founded Naropa University in Boulder, Colorado, in 1974 as well as the worldwide Shambhala organization; and the Burmese Theravādin meditation master Mahāsi Sayādaw (1904–1982), who popularized the modern Vipassana (in Pāli, insight) method in Asia and trained the first generation of Western Vipassana teachers. The Vietnamese Zen monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh (born 1926), the founder of the Plum Village tradition, is perhaps the last living member of the first generations of Asian Buddhist teachers that came to the West.

The Western students of these and other Asian masters have become some of the most influential Western Buddhist teachers, such as Sharon Salzberg, Joseph Goldstein, and Jack Kornfield in the Vipassana community, Robert Aitken (1917–2010) and Joan Halifax in the American Zen community, and Pema Chödron in the Tibetan community (unlike the majority of Western Zen and Vipassana communities, Western Tibetan practitioners continue to rely primarily on Tibetan teachers living in exile). Few of these teachers seem overly concerned with maintaining a separation between their received tradition and the Buddhisms of other regions, and together they have contributed to a new form of Buddhism marked by eclectic assortments of teachings and practices, all of which embrace buddha-nature as a core tenet, explicitly or otherwise. This is true even in the Vipassana community, despite the objection of traditionalists such as the American monk Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, mentioned at the beginning of this essay. For example, Sharon Salzberg illustrates the value of buddha-nature by telling of a meeting in 1990 with the Fourteenth Dalai Lama during which she asked about self-loathing. The Dalai Lama responded with incredulity that any person would hate themselves: "But you have Buddha nature," he said. "How could you think of yourself that way?" Jack Kornfield has a teaching series called "Awakening to Your Buddha Nature" and leads retreats on the topic.

Perhaps more than any other contemporary Western Buddhist, Joseph Goldstein models the modern Western synthesis of disparate Asian Buddhist traditions. His book One Dharma represents the first Western drumta (Tib. grub mtha’), or panjiao 叛教—that is, classification of tenet systems, a genre of religious writing that both Tibetans and Chinese engaged in extensively to organize all the received Buddhist teachings. Goldstein's tenet system unites the Theravāda Vipassana tradition of the Burmese, Thai, and Bengali teachers who provided the major part of his training; the Tibetan tradition of Dzogchen, which he received well after becoming a highly regarded Buddhist teacher himself; and Zen, in which he is evidently well read but in which he does not appear to have received formal training.

Goldstein acknowledges that buddha-nature teachings are not present in Theravāda Buddhism, save for in the Thai Forest tradition, which developed in the late nineteenth century and which holds that the mind preexists the five aggregates and survives the attainment of nirvāṇa. With support from the Thai masters, Goldstein is able to put forward buddha-nature (or its synonyms) as the definition of wisdom in his One Dharma synthesis:

In Buddhism there are many names for ultimate freedom: Buddha-Nature, the Unconditioned, Dharmakaya, the Unborn, the Pure Heart, Mind Essence, Nature of Mind, Ultimate Bodhicitta, Nirvana. 

Goldstein acknowledges the fundamental philosophical divide between Pāli Buddhism and the Mahāyāna traditions, between consciousness understood as a conditioned aggregate that is left behind at liberation and mind as the ground of enlightenment. In the face of this, and as a strategy of permitting an otherwise untenable synthesis, he states that he can only recommend humility; he can’t square them, but he knows that both are correct. One might suspect that he does not want to insult his beloved teachers by relegating the early Buddhist teachings to the categories of skillful means and provisional truth. But the suggestion is there, both in his introduction, where he offers the two truths as one of four basic principles of One Dharma ("what is called in Buddhism 'the two truths'—the relative and the ultimate perspectives of reality—together provide a framework for holding divergent points of view") and later in the first pages of chapter 8, on compassion, where he calls them "a matrix of seeing all of the varied teachings as part of the One Dharma of freedom." The book, our first Western systematization of the tenets, might not be entirely successful at reconciling contradictions among the teachings, but it is nonetheless the clearest expression of contemporary Western Buddhism's intention of integrating everything all the same—with buddha-nature ever unspoken at the peripheries, if not smack in the middle.

The Mind: Intrinsically Empty, Naturally Radiant

Video

The Example of the Buddha

Essay

The Nirvana Debate: Extract from One Dharma

Essay

The Dharma of Liberation

Essay

Buddha Nature

Essay

Reclaiming Faith

Essay

Explore more

The History

Subject

The Questions

Subject

The Topics

Subject

The Ideas

Subject

The People

Subject

The Doctrine

Subject

On this site

Explore

Read and watch academic presentations, interviews, books, and articles.

Go deeper

The Library

Browse

The Ratnagotravibhāga

Study

The 2019 Vienna Symposium

Watch

Interviews

Watch & Listen