Lay Buddhist Zhuang Chunjiang: A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha, Chapter 6: The Mainstream of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine

Chapter 6: The Mainstream of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine (12 December 2004, Rev.0)

6-1. Study Notes for Section 1: The Legendary Tathāgatagarbha Dharma Gate

1. Factors That Enabled the Tathāgatagarbha Teaching to Spread Widely: a) It is accessible and resonates with ordinary people’s sensibilities. The Tathāgatagarbha teaching carries a coloring of the ātman (permanent self) concept, and grew out of the ideal of the Buddha’s eternal abiding and pervasive devotional faith, making it easy for everyday practitioners to connect with. b) Respect for newly transmitted scriptures. Following the traditional guideline of the “Four Great Expanded Teachings,” one should not rashly dismiss or disparage scriptures that are entirely new, never heard before, and only recently circulated. Instead, they should be interpreted in a reasonable way that aligns with correct Dharma meaning. This is precisely how early Mahāyāna scriptures spread in the first place, so the newly emerging Tathāgatagarbha scriptures were naturally accepted as well!

2. It became the mainstream. From the 4th century onward, every treatise and scripture in the Mahāyāna Buddhist world had to address and harmonize with the Tathāgatagarbha teaching, making clear that the doctrine of the Buddha’s eternal abiding and the Tathāgatagarbha had become the prevailing mainstream thought of the era.

3. The teachings passed down by the Tibetan master Gongpa Rapsel, and the Southern School tenets of Chinese Chan, appear to align far more closely with early Tathāgatagarbha teachings than the interpretations of later scholastic masters and subsequent scriptures! a) Gongpa Rapsel teaches that the Tathāgatagarbha and the Buddha’s Dharmakāya (nature body) share the same perfect, adorned qualities. The Dharmakāya is the true Buddha-nature revealed through the transformation of the basis (āśraya-parāvṛtti); this means all beings are inherently this way, but remain obscured by afflictions and have not yet manifested it. b) Bodhidharma arrived in China from South India around 450 CE (during the Liu Song period of the Southern Dynasties), transmitting the Chan practice that was originally “Tathāgata (Tathāgatagarbha) Chan.”

4. The Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel of the Single Vehicle (Sanskrit: Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra; Tibetan: The Supreme Secret Treatise of the Mahāyāna) is widely regarded in China as the representative text of Tathāgatagarbha studies. While it remains relatively close to early Tathāgatagarbha teachings, it was influenced by the Yogācāra school, and may even have broken away from Yogācāra to form its own systematic framework. As a result, its interpretive method aligns closely with that of Yogācāra, and the “permanent self” (ātman) coloring characteristic of early Tathāgatagarbha teachings is greatly diluted here.

6-1. Reflection Questions

6-1-1. Try to distinguish the chronological order of emergence of the three major Mahāyāna systems Master Yinshun describes. 6-1-2. Why does Master Yinshun classify both the Tibetan Gongpa Rapsel school and Chinese Chan as schools of Tathāgatagarbha thought? 6-1-3. Why does Master Yinshun refer to the Tathāgatagarbha Dharma Gate as “legendary”?

6-2. Study Notes for Section 2: Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine Centered on the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel of the Single Vehicle

1. The core scriptures and treatises representing mainstream Tathāgatagarbha doctrine are the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel of the Single Vehicle, the Sūtra of the Supreme Reliance (a treatise presented in sūtra form), and the Treatise on the Non-Duality of the Dharma Realm of the Great Vehicle. These three works—one sūtra, two treatises—share similar content but emphasize different aspects, and are considered part of the same doctrinal category.

2. Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel of the Single Vehicle: a) Authorship: Tradition attributes the text to either Asaṅga or Vasubandhu, but attribution to Śrīgupta is far more plausible. Though its style and content align closely with the Yogācāra system, its view of the Tathāgatagarbha differs from Yogācāra at a fundamental level, which is why the Śrīgupta attribution holds more weight. b) Core themes: The main body of the treatise lays out the “four dharmas”: the Buddha’s object of reliance (Buddha-nature), attainment (Buddha awakening), qualities (Buddha Dharma), and activities for the benefit of sentient beings (Buddha activity). The explanatory commentary adds the opening homage to the Three Jewels, bringing the total to the “seven adamantine statements.”

3. Sūtra of the Supreme Reliance (a treatise formatted as a sūtra): a) Content: The sūtra is divided into seven chapters. Chapters 2 through 5 align with the “four dharmas” of the main body of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel. Chapter 1 (the Chapter on Weighing Merits) is a variant translation of the Sūtra of the Extremely Rare (which extols the inconceivable merits of building a stūpa enshrining the Buddha’s relics [the Tathāgatagarbha realm]). Chapters 6 (the Chapter of Praise) and 7 (the Chapter of Entrusting) form the text’s concluding propagation sections. b) This sūtra draws on the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel and the Yogācāra Grounds (for instance, it uses the transformation of the basis to explain the nature of awakening), but it is not a mere compilation. It is an independent, systematically organized sūtra in treatise form. c) This sūtra was incorporated into the Sūtra of the Excellent King’s Prajñāpāramitā, and is also cited in the Treatise on Buddha-Nature. Within Tathāgatagarbha studies, it is regarded as an important treatise-form sūtra.

4. Treatise on the Non-Duality of the Dharma Realm of the Great Vehicle: a) Authorship: Composed by Śrīgupta, and translated into Chinese during the Tang dynasty by the Indian master Dharmaprajñā. b) Content: It explains twelve dimensions of bodhicitta: as a result, as a cause, as its true nature, as an alternate name, as non-dual, as a stage, as uncontaminated, as eternal, as congruent, as not yet producing benefit, and as producing benefit. Its content aligns very closely with the main body of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel.

6-2. Reflection Questions

6-2-1. What are the one sūtra and two treatises that represent mainstream Tathāgatagarbha doctrine? What are their core topics of discussion?

6-3. Study Notes for Section 3: Scriptures and Treatises that the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel Draws Upon

1. While the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel is related to Yogācāra studies, it does not belong to the Yogācāra school: a) The treatise shares partial textual similarities, consistent argumentative methods, and identical doctrinal meanings with the Yogācāra text The Ornament of Mahāyāna Sūtras. b) The Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel does not adopt the Yogācāra doctrine of seeds, so it also does not posit the icchantika (those of the incorrigible nature who cannot attain nirvāṇa). It was composed during the period when Yogācāra thought was flourishing, and was influenced by Yogācāra studies. But in its interpretation of the Tathāgatagarbha, it does not adopt the northern Mahāyāna Sautrāntika theory of seeds, and instead preserves the southern Vibhajyavāda position that takes emptiness (the nature of reality) as Buddha-nature. For this reason, the text cannot have been composed by Maitreya or Asaṅga.

2. Sources the main body of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel draws upon: a) The three themes of “Buddha awakening,” “Buddha Dharma,” and “Buddha activity” correspond to the Buddha’s essence, characteristics, and function—or his true nature, qualities, and actions. These are drawn from Mahāyāna sūtras including the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra. b) The theme of the “Tathāgatagarbha realm” is drawn from the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra (including its nine parables). Of the ten meanings of the “Tathāgatagarbha realm,” the meaning of “cause” appears in the Ornament of Mahāyāna Sūtras; the meaning of “result” comes from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra; the meaning of “activity” comes from the Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā; and the meaning of “non-duality” comes from the Sūtra of Non-Increase and Non-Decrease. The “four causes of supreme attainment” (faith, prajñā, meditative concentration, and great compassion) from the Ornament of Mahāyāna Sūtras are also incorporated into the discussion of the “Tathāgatagarbha realm.” c) The sixty-four qualities of the Buddha’s virtues are drawn from the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, Chapter of the Jewel Maiden. d) The nine parables illustrating Buddha activity come from the Sūtra of the Buddha’s Ornament of Wisdom and Light Entering the Realms of All Buddhas. e) The eight meanings of “Buddha awakening” (essence, cause, result, activity, congruence, practice, eternity, and inconceivability) match those outlined in the Ornament of Mahāyāna Sūtras, Chapter on Awakening.

3. Sūtras cited in the explanatory commentary of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel include the Sūtra of Non-Increase and Non-Decrease, Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā, Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (including the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, or Diamond Sūtra), Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Chapter on the Buddha’s Emergence), Sūtra of Entering the Inconceivable Realm of the Buddha’s Wisdom and Virtues, Sūtra of the Buddha’s Ornament of Wisdom and Light Entering the Realms of All Buddhas, Lotus Sūtra, Bodhiratnakūṭa Sūtra (Assembly of the Universally Luminous Bodhisattva), Sūtra of the Sixfold Collection of the Sense Faculties, Abhidharma Mahāyāna Sūtra, and Mahāvaipulya Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra (Chapters: Dhāraṇī King of Freedom, Ornament, Ocean of Wisdom Bodhisattva, Jewel Maiden, Space Treasury, and Jeweled Crown), for a total of 13 sūtras.

4. The sūtras cited make clear that the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel is not a narrow, Tathāgatagarbha-only doctrine. Not only does it center on Tathāgatagarbha teachings, but it also draws broadly from Mahāyāna sūtras to connect its ideas with other later Mahāyāna scriptural traditions. The commentators of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel cite the Dhāraṇī King of Freedom Sūtra to establish the meanings of the seven adamantine statements, and also reference other chapters of the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, indicating they held this text in particularly high regard.

6-3. Reflection Questions

6-3-1. What are the similarities and differences between the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel, Yogācāra studies, and Tathāgatagarbha doctrine?

6-4. Study Notes for Section 4: Distinctions in the Meaning of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel

1. Reasons why all sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha: a) The Dharmakāya pervades all sentient beings. Mahāyāna sūtras that teach the Buddha’s body pervades all phenomena are led by the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Chapter on the Buddha’s Emergence); the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Immeasurable Life also contains this teaching. This view is tied to meditative contemplation practice: practitioners first visualize the Buddha entering their own body and mind from outside, then gradually shift to visualizing a Buddha residing within their own body, and ultimately recognizing their own body as Buddha. The treatise uses three parables to illustrate this: a Buddha image hidden inside a withered flower, bees swarming around a hive full of honey, and polished grain hidden within unhusked rice. b) True suchness is undifferentiated. The pure, true suchness that constitutes a Tathāgata is entirely undifferentiated, and identical to the true suchness of sentient beings. The only difference is that sentient beings’ “suchness” is obscured by afflictions. The treatise illustrates this with a single parable: pure gold lying in a foul place (whose nature remains unchanged). c) Sentient beings inherently possess Buddha-nature (Buddha-seed). “Seed nature” here refers to lineage or inherent capacity. The treatise uses five parables to illustrate this: a treasure buried in the earth, a sprout growing on a fruit tree, a golden statue wrapped in tattered cloth, a poor woman carrying the future universal wheel-turning king in her womb, and a precious image cast inside a clay mold.

   These three dimensions of the Tathāgatagarbha—“the Buddha’s Dharmakāya,” “undifferentiated true suchness,” and the “definitive, fixed Buddha-seed nature”—are simply different ways of describing the same fundamental reality: spoken of from the Buddha’s perspective, it is the all-pervading nature of the Dharmakāya; spoken of from the perspective of sentient beings, it is the Buddha-seed nature they inherently possess; spoken of in terms of the equality between sentient beings and Buddhas, it is undifferentiated true suchness.

2. The intrinsically pure mind: This term combines three elements: “mind” (referring to the mind of the six consciousnesses; early Tathāgatagarbha teachings had not yet framed it as an eighth pure consciousness or ninth consciousness, but rather referred to the inherent nature of ordinary six consciousnesses. It is only habitual convention to call the deluded mind the “six consciousnesses”; positing a separate “true mind” outside the deluded mind is likely not the true intent of Tathāgatagarbha studies), “intrinsic nature” (also translated as “inherent nature,” meaning the fundamental source of all things), and “purity” (luminous, untainted purity). The concept emerged from merging the eternal, unchanging Tathāgatagarbha teaching with the “innately pure nature of mind” doctrine of the Mahāsāṃghika and Vibhajyavāda schools, as recorded in the Ekottara Āgama. In the treatise, the intrinsically pure mind serves as an alternate name for the Tathāgatagarbha when discussing the Tathāgatagarbha realm, and refers to the Buddha’s own true nature when discussing Tathāgata awakening. The intrinsically pure mind never mixes with afflictions (in line with the Mahāsāṃghika view: if mind and afflictions arose and ceased simultaneously, mind could never become either defiled or purified). It does not diminish in the state of sentient beings, nor does it increase upon attaining Buddhahood.

3. Non-emptiness and seed nature: Drawing on the Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā, the treatise states that the “emptiness” taught in Prajñāpāramitā sūtras such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra is correct, but not the ultimate, definitive meaning. What is empty is merely the absence of adventitious defilements (the empty Tathāgatagarbha), while the Tathāgatagarbha itself and the essence of the intrinsically pure mind are not empty (the non-empty Tathāgatagarbha). Their meritorious functions (the activity of moving toward luminous joy and freedom) are very real. In this way, the root of all mundane, supramundane, and supreme supramundane wholesome dharma is the inconceivable meritorious activity of the Tathāgatagarbha, which is the seed nature for attaining Buddhahood. This is why it is called the “Tathāgatagarbha realm”: “realm” here carries the meaning of “cause.”

   Knowing that emptiness is itself empty, one avoids the extreme of reification (the extreme of existence); knowing that non-emptiness is not empty, one avoids the extreme of nihilism (the extreme of non-existence). Both emptiness and non-emptiness are termed “wisdom of emptiness.” If one mistakes emptiness for nothingness, and calls the Tathāgatagarbha’s inherent purity revealed through emptiness “emptiness nature,” this aligns with the description of Yogācāra masters. Relying on non-conceptual wisdom to realize the ultimate emptiness nature (drawing on the meaning of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra), the fundamental wisdom that realizes this ultimate emptiness nature is called “wisdom of emptiness nature,” which reconciles with the emptiness teachings of early Mahāyāna sūtras. Interpreting this through the lens of “dependent origination as existence” and “emptiness of inherent nature,” or “wonderful existence” and “ultimate emptiness,” clearly strays from the original intent of the sūtras and treatises.

4. Transformation of the basis: The treatise states that saṃsāra relies on the Tathāgatagarbha to exist, but the pure mind of the Tathāgatagarbha has no basis for reliance, like empty space. It is untouched by the delusion of saṃsāra, unborn and undying, eternally abiding and unchanging, and inherently pure. If one abandons deluded conceptualization and emerges from the treasury of afflictions, it is like empty space returning to its original clear brightness: this is awakening and nirvāṇa, this is the transformation of the basis. The pure essence (intrinsic nature) of the transformation of the basis is the Tathāgatagarbha freed from defilement. This freedom from defilement is simply a return to its original inherent purity. The transformation of the basis, awakening, and all wholesome qualities described in the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel are inherently present, a view that clearly differs from that of Yogācāra masters.

5. Diluting the “self” dimension of the Tathāgatagarbha: Drawing on the Sūtra of Queen Śrīmālā, the treatise speaks of the Buddha fruit’s eternal bliss, self, and purity, but no longer refers to the (Tathāgatagarbha) “self” in the state of sentient beings. While the concept of “self” still holds validity in the state of sentient beings, the text greatly dilutes the “Tathāgatagarbha self” coloring found in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra on its surface. This is a shared tendency between the author of the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel and Yogācāra masters.

6-4. Reflection Questions

6-4-1. What is the doctrinal basis for the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel’s claim that all sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha? What are the ideological origins of each of these bases? 6-4-2. What is the reasoning behind the “intrinsic purity of mind”? What is its connection to the doctrine of the “innately pure nature of mind”? 6-4-3. What is the “wisdom of emptiness” in Tathāgatagarbha teachings? What are its similarities and differences with the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras? 6-4-4. What is “transformation of the basis”? How does the Treatise on the Ultimate Jewel describe “transformation of the basis”? What are its similarities and differences with Yogācāra studies?