Lay Buddhist Zhuang Chunjiang: A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha

Chapter 8: Discerning the Tathāgatagarbha Buddha-Nature (12/12/2004 Rev.0)

8-1. Study Notes for Section 1: The Tathāgatagarbha Teachings of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

1. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra was compiled around the late 4th century CE—it is not cited in the treatises of Asaṅga or Vasubandhu, and Guṇabhadra’s first translation dates to roughly 440 CE.
2. The sūtra is widely seen as the Yogācāra school’s effort to bring the tathāgatagarbha doctrine into alignment with its own core tenets.
3. The Laṅkāvatāra explains that tathāgatagarbha is simply another name for suchness, ultimate reality, and dharma-nature—it’s the “tathāgatagarbha of no-self.” The sūtra teaches this doctrine to ease ordinary people’s fear of the no-self teaching, and to draw in non-Buddhist ascetics who cling to a permanent self.
4. The sūtra explains that the storehouse consciousness (ālāyavijñāna) arises when tathāgatagarbha is stained by beginningless defiled habits (clinging to idle speculation). It becomes the “seed of delusional construction,” which means the storehouse consciousness is none other than tathāgatagarbha itself: inherently pure, but veiled by afflictions. This unification of tathāgatagarbha and storehouse consciousness is one of the Laṅkāvatāra’s most distinctive features.
5. Tathāgatagarbha is not a permanent self (ātman), though it does carry faint echoes of the self idea. The Buddha’s teaching that “all dharmas are no-self” is hard for most people to accept. The common view holds that when cessation (nirodha, or nirvāṇa) occurs, everything is simply annihilated. If one moment ceases, the next would have “no cause” and could not arise—which means impermanent arising and ceasing cannot explain the cycle of birth and death. But Yogācāra teaches that the impermanent, ever-changing conditioned arising of phenomena can account for rebirth, and the experience of pleasure and pain as karmic fruit. For this reason, it takes the dependent nature and the storehouse consciousness as its foundation. The Laṅkāvatāra affirms the no-self teaching, but also accommodates the common view: it posits a changeless, unborn, undying tathāgatagarbha (or storehouse consciousness) as the ground of all existence, separate from the impermanent, conditioned dharmas of becoming. This tathāgatagarbha, which “avoids the fault of impermanence and steers clear of the error of positing a self” as the basis of all dharmas, is the most skillful of teachings.
6. Like the Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature), the Laṅkāvatāra states that tathāgatagarbha is the cause of both wholesome and unwholesome actions, and the ground of the cycle of birth and death. This doesn’t mean tathāgatagarbha (or suchness) itself generates good and evil, or drives the cycle of rebirth. Rather, good and evil, and the cycle of rebirth, only exist by relying on tathāgatagarbha, just as clouds and mist rely on the sky. Clouds and mist may depend on the sky, but the sky’s nature remains clear and unchanging. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra and the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, texts central to Chinese Buddhism, teach that “suchness perfumes ignorance” and “ignorance perfumes suchness”; this view does not appear to have existed in later Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism.
7. The Laṅkāvatāra adopts Yogācāra’s theory of habitual tendencies (vāsanās), but holds that undefiled habits are not momentary, impermanent conditioned dharmas. It criticizes Yogācāra’s view that even undefiled habits arise and cease moment to moment, and ultimately aligns with the tathāgatagarbha school (the teaching of the non-empty tathāgatagarbha). While the sūtra agrees with Yogācāra in teaching five types of innate disposition, it also states that icchantikas—those of the “no-disposition” type—may “by the power of the tathāgatas, at times generate wholesome roots.” This means all beings are ultimately capable of attaining buddhahood.

8-1. Reflection Questions

1. What does the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra say is the purpose of teaching tathāgatagarbha?
2. What is the key to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s re-designation of tathāgatagarbha as the storehouse consciousness?
3. What is the reasoning or purpose behind the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s unification of tathāgatagarbha and the storehouse consciousness?
4. Outline the similarities and differences between the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s thought, Yogācāra doctrine, and the wider tathāgatagarbha teachings, based on this section’s content.

8-2. Study Notes for Section 2: The Buddha-Nature Teachings in the Later Translated Portions of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

1. Dharmakṣema’s first translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is a ten-fascicle version, identical in source to Faxian’s translation of the same text. The thirty fascicles that follow were translated by Dharmakṣema after he traveled to the Western Regions to retrieve additional manuscripts. These later fascicles offer unique interpretations that downplay (and purify) the tathāgatagarbha teachings, which carry overtones of a permanent self in the initial ten fascicles, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, and the Dundubhi Sūtra: a. In the later thirty fascicles of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the term tathāgatagarbha disappears entirely, replaced by “buddha-nature.” Presenting buddha-nature as “self” when it is in fact no-self is merely a skillful means to accommodate Indian theistic traditions, and draw in non-Buddhist ascetics who cling to a permanent self—an interpretation that aligns with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra’s view. b. The claim that “all beings possess buddha-nature” does not mean beings currently hold the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor excellences of a tathāgata within their bodies; it means they have the potential to realize these qualities.
2. The later thirty fascicles of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra can be divided into four sections: a. The first section spans five fascicles, from the “Practice of Illness Chapter” to the “Chapter on the Bodhisattva Brightly Illuminating All, of Noble and Exalted Virtue.” It clarifies the “five practices” and “ten virtues,” drawing on Mahāyāna emptiness doctrine to explain that all phenomena—defiled conditioned existence, prajñā, the tathāgata, and great nirvāṇa—are empty. Buddha-nature is nothing other than emptiness, suchness, and the unconditioned, and the four qualities of great nirvāṇa (permanence, bliss, self, purity) are also explained in terms of this true reality. While stating that emptiness is buddha-nature naturally leads to the claim that “all beings possess buddha-nature,” this is not like saying there is an object inside a jar, or a tree inside a sprout. One can even say “there is no buddha-nature in beings,” a view deeply shaped by the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras. b. The second section is the “Chapter on the Bodhisattva Lion’s Roar,” which discusses buddha-nature through the lens of the twelve links of dependent origination, ultimate emptiness, emptiness and non-emptiness, and the middle way. This teaching originates in the Āgama sūtras and evolved through Nāgārjuna’s Middle Treatise (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā): i. Ultimate Emptiness as Buddha-Nature: The Saṃyuktāgama Sūtra (no. 335) teaches ultimate emptiness as the ultimate emptiness of the twelve links of dependent origination. The twelve links are the basis of buddha-nature, so referring to them as buddha-nature is speaking of the “result” within the context of the “cause.” The eight negations of the twelve links (no arising, no ceasing; not permanent, not impermanent; not one, not many; no coming, no going, the middle way of ultimate emptiness) are “neither cause nor result” (they remain unchanged whether a buddha appears in the world or not), eternal and unchanging. This is the true meaning of buddha-nature. Jiāxiáng’s Commentary on the Middle Treatise states: “The master Rāhula (Bhāradvāja) was a contemporary of Nāgārjuna, and explained the eight negations using the four qualities of permanence, bliss, self, and purity.” This view is very close to the thought of the “Lion’s Roar Chapter,” and reflects the general trend of Nāgārjuna’s middle way teaching of universal emptiness entering later Mahāyāna thought. ii. The Middle Way as Buddha-Nature: The wisdom that realizes emptiness has two formulations in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras: “seeing nothing at all in all dharmas,” and “seeing nothing, yet seeing everything.” This sūtra takes the passage “the wise see both emptiness and non-emptiness” as the latter formulation: one sees the empty, impermanent, suffering, no-self nature of the conditioned side of arising and death, and also sees the non-empty, permanent, blissful, self nature of the side of cessation and nirvāṇa. This is called the middle way of dependent origination perceived by wisdom, and is also called buddha-nature. If one sees only emptiness, impermanence, suffering, and no-self, and ignores non-emptiness, permanence, bliss, and self, one sees only one side and fails to follow the middle way, and thus cannot realize buddha-nature. iii. The Wisdom of Contemplating the Twelve Links as Buddha-Nature: The sūtra states, “The wisdom that contemplates the twelve links of dependent origination is the seed of unexcelled, complete enlightenment (anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi).” This seed is close in meaning to the buddha-seed disposition: it refers to the potential to attain buddhahood through this wisdom, rather than the seed theory of Yogācāra scholars. The wisdom of contemplating the twelve links is the “illuminating cause” that reveals the eight negations of dependent origination, and is called buddha-nature, but is actually the “cause of the cause” of buddha-nature. iv. The Fruit and Fruit-of-the-Fruit of Buddha-Nature: The “fruit” refers to unexcelled enlightenment. Through the realization of unexcelled enlightenment, one attains nirvāṇa, free from all obstructions. Thus nirvāṇa is the “fruit of the fruit” of buddha-nature. v. Definite Possession and Future Possession: Buddha-nature has two dimensions: its “causal nature” (such as the wisdom of contemplating the twelve links) and its “essential nature” (unexcelled enlightenment). Under this definition of buddha-nature, not only the buddha’s fruit virtue (the buddha’s essential nature), but also the causal nature of the buddha—such as the bodhisattva’s practices and bodhisattva grounds—are included. In terms of the twelve links (which are eternal), buddha-nature is something beings “definitely possess.” In terms of the bodhisattva’s practices and buddha virtues, buddha-nature is something beings “will come to possess.” vi. Universal Possession and Universal Non-Possession: In terms of ultimate emptiness, buddha-nature is “universally possessed,” shared equally by all beings. But buddha-nature is like space: it is neither one nor many, neither internal nor external, eternal, and not bound by the three times (past, present, future). For this reason, it can be said to exist, or not to exist, or to be neither existent nor non-existent. The eternal, unchanging nature of the ultimate emptiness of dependent origination does not, on its own, draw beings to the buddha path. Beings still need to practice the holy path to become buddhas; otherwise, if all beings share buddha-nature, and the nature of dharmas is eternal whether a buddha appears in the world or not, all beings would have become buddhas long ago! This view differs from the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra’s claim that tathāgatagarbha leads beings to grow weary of suffering and seek nirvāṇa. It is a critical correction of the common claim that beings inherently possess tathāgatagarbha, a self, and buddha-nature, offered from the standpoint of ultimate emptiness (which is also “no inherent nature”). vii. The Proper Cause and Generative Cause of Buddha-Nature; the Illuminating Cause and Conditional Cause: Generative cause and proper cause refer to the causal seed that brings something into being; illuminating cause and conditional cause refer to the supporting conditions that aid its arising. The causal nature of buddha-nature has a proper cause and an illuminating cause: the proper cause of buddha-nature is what bodhisattvas at the tenth ground and buddhas can realize; it is eternal, and is brought to light by the “illuminating cause” (the eternal noble eightfold path). Since it is revealed through conditions, “the conditional cause is identical to the illuminating cause.” Buddha-nature and the noble eightfold path are both eternal, so for unexcelled, complete enlightenment, they function as an illuminating cause, not a generative cause. The practice of the six pāramitās and the śūraṅgama samādhi are generative causes for unexcelled, complete enlightenment. Thus unexcelled, complete enlightenment is both illuminated by the illuminating cause and generated by the generative cause. The proper cause of buddha-nature is eternal, and is not generated by a generative cause, so practicing the six pāramitās (including the wisdom of contemplation) to reveal buddha-nature can only be called an illuminating cause. The sūtra’s account of this is not as perfectly subtle as the version taught by Tiantai scholars! c. The third section is the “Chapter on the Bodhisattva Kāśyapa,” which explains that the tathāgata teaches responsively, adapting to different capacities. It focuses on causal conditions to offer varied interpretations of “buddha-nature,” downplaying the theory that beings inherently possess tathāgatagarbha from the start, to the point that it almost disappears entirely: i. Buddha-nature in the state of buddhahood (the buddha-nature of buddhas) is permanent, unchanging, and not bound by the three times. ii. Buddha-nature in the state of sentient beings (the buddha-nature of sentient beings) can be said to exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor non-existent. The sūtra does not endorse the claim that all beings possess tathāgatagarbha, or that they are fully endowed with the wisdom and adornments of a buddha. iii. The teaching that “all beings possess buddha-nature” does not mean beings have some inherent substance within their bodies, such as undefiled seeds, or meritorious qualities that accord with the nature of reality. Rather, it refers to the unbroken, unceasing continuity of causal conditions since beginningless time. iv. Before attaining unexcelled, complete enlightenment, all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral actions are called buddha-nature. Not only wholesome dharmas count as buddha-nature, but afflictions and the like do too, because all are grounded in and sustained by buddha-nature. The river of saṃsāra spoken of in ordinary terms is none other than “the water of buddha-nature.” d. The fourth section is the “Chapter on Kauṇḍinya,” which refutes the various wrong views of non-Buddhist ascetics, teaches the tathāgata’s four qualities of permanence, bliss, self (in the later translated sections, “self” refers roughly to the eight kinds of self-mastery), and purity, and leads non-Buddhist ascetics to convert and place their faith in the Buddha. The entire fascicle does not discuss the meaning of buddha-nature. (Added per A History of Indian Buddhist Thought, p. 292)

8-2. Reflection Questions

1. What are the representative sūtras each of the Emptiness School and Yogācāra School use to interpret the tathāgatagarbha teachings?
2. What is the greatest difference between the later thirty fascicles of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra translated by Dharmakṣema and the initial ten fascicles?
3. How does the later thirty fascicles of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explain the teaching that “all beings possess buddha-nature”?
4. Please share your reflections on participating in this seminar and engaging with this text.