A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha

Chapter 3: The Development of the Teaching That Mind-Nature Is Originally Pure (12/12/2004 Rev.0, 3/23/2006 Rev.2)

3-1. Study Notes on Section 1: The Teaching of Mental Purity in the Śrāvaka Sūtras and Śāstras

1. The teaching that "mind-nature is originally pure" and the teaching that sentient beings possess a pure Tathāgatagarbha within them were initially unrelated. But because their meanings overlap, they eventually merged into important elements of Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.

2. Parables and their underlying intent in the Āgama sūtras that may have inspired the "original purity of mind-nature" teaching:

a) SA 1246 / AN 3.100 uses the parable of a goldsmith refining gold ore to illustrate abandoning unwholesome conduct of body, speech, and mind; abandoning thoughts of sensual desire, ill will, and harmfulness; cultivating the first through fourth jhānas; and developing spiritual powers.

b) AN 5.23 uses the removal of five impurities from gold—iron, copper, tin, lead, and silver—to illustrate abandoning the five hindrances of sensual desire, ill will, drowsiness, restlessness, and doubt, and developing spiritual powers.

c) AN 5.193 uses the image of cloudy water in a bowl tinged murky red, yellow, blue, or brown to illustrate abandoning the five hindrances, grasping the meaning of the sūtras, and attaining eloquence.

d) MA 202 / AN 3.70 uses five similes—washing the head, washing the body, washing clothes, polishing a mirror, and refining gold—to illustrate the recollection of the Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha, precepts, and devas.

e) The underlying intent across all four passages is to encourage the abandonment of defilements—not to assert "original purity."

3. The theoretical basis of the "original purity of mind-nature" teaching:

a) The Śamayabhedoparacanacakra (Yìbù Zōnglún Lùn) states that the Mahāsāṃghika schools held that "mind-nature is originally pure, but is defiled by adventitious defilements." The Suññatālaṅkāravṛtti explains that the Mahāsāṃghikas posited only two natures—wholesome and unwholesome—and spoke of "original purity of mind-nature" because mind does not inherently correspond with wholesome or unwholesome roots.

b) The Mahāvibhāṣā and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya state that the Vibhajyavāda schools held that "mind's nature is originally pure, but is stained by adventitious defilements." The defilement is externally imposed "adventitious dust," while mind itself is "undifferentiated in substance" and "originally pure"—a single, unchanging mind. This aligns with what the Mahāvibhāṣā calls the "doctrine of a single continuous stream of consciousness."

4. Evaluating the "original purity of mind-nature" teaching:

a) The scriptures transmitted by the Sarvāstivāda school contain no such teaching. The Nyāyānusāra doesn't go so far as to call it "not found in the sūtras," but classifies it as an "incomplete teaching" (neyārtha).

b) The Tattvasiddhi (Chéngshí Lùn), whose thought is close to the Sautrāntika school, says the Buddha spoke of mind as "originally pure" out of concern that "sluggish beings" might think their nature can't be changed and therefore "never arouse the pure mind."

c) The Ratnagotravibhāga gives five reasons for teaching the Tathāgatagarbha to sentient beings, the first being "because there are those with timid hearts"—which agrees with the Tattvasiddhi's rationale of speaking "for the sake of the sluggish."

d) The "original purity of mind-nature" teaching and the gold-refining similes, in terms of how the scriptures are organized, all appear in the Aṅguttara Nikāya or in the Tathāgata-vyākaraṇa sections. Both belong to the category of "teachings tailored to specific individuals"—aimed at inspiring people toward goodness rather than expounding ultimate truth. They are therefore "incomplete teachings" (neyārtha).

e) The "original purity of mind-nature" teaching consistently relies on everyday analogies rather than philosophical inquiry or meditative experience. It's accessible and plain—but by no means profound! Analogies alone can't establish a sound argument.

5. The evolving meaning of "mind":

According to the Mahāvibhāṣā and the Abhidharmakośa, "mind" (citta) carries the sense of "growing, accumulating, and lineage"—it's a broad, general term that doesn't denote a singular nature (which is why investigating its "substance" is itself beside the point). Yet over the course of its development, a tendency toward unification emerged: ideas like "mind-king," "the far-traveling, solitary wanderer," and "pure in nature though defiled in appearance" arose. These accord with ordinary, conventional experience of mind—the sense that there must be something continuous from one life to the next, something continuous through both bondage by defilement and liberation through purity. This became the seed from which doctrines of "one mind" or of a conscious self (ātman) later grew.

3-1. Questions for Reflection

3-1-1. How are the Tathāgatagarbha teaching and the "original purity of mind-nature" teaching related?

3-1-2. What do the early schools teach about "original purity of mind-nature"? What characterizes the textual bases they cite?

3-1-3. How should one evaluate the "original purity of mind-nature" teaching?

3-1-4. Try giving examples to explain the meaning(s) of "mind."

3-2. Study Notes on Section 2: The Original Purity of Mind-Nature in Early Mahāyāna

1. The teaching of mind-nature's original purity in early Mahāyāna sūtras (represented by the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras):

a) The Primitive Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras (ca. 50 BCE) interpret "mind-nature is originally pure" through the phrase "this mind [the bodhisattva's mind] is no-mind," declaring that the nature of mind is quiescent and extinct—the very opposition of existence and non-existence is unattainable. From the standpoint of ultimate realization, the notion of a truly existent pure mind is thereby negated. This position was consistently upheld by the later Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra schools alike.

b) In the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, "purity" describes the ultimate realization of the profound character of all dharmas—it's not limited to the original purity of mind (it's synonymous with terms like non-arising, emptiness, and the true suchness of reality). This is the egalitarian Dharma-gate of Prajñā contemplation: practical and ascending. The Tathāgatagarbha's self-natural purity, by contrast, serves as the pure cause of buddhahood and the ground of both purity and defilement. It's mind-centered (or self-centered), explanatory, and descends from above downward (sometimes called the "gate of descent"). So although the Prajñāpāramitā's teaching on the original purity of mind-nature may have helped give rise to the Tathāgatagarbha teaching, it isn't itself a Tathāgatagarbha teaching.

c) The "purity" spoken of in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras is identical with "emptiness." The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra explains: "Because people fear emptiness, one speaks of purity instead." Nāgārjuna's explanation here offers a reasonable account of how the emptiness teachings of early Mahāyāna evolved into the "affirmative" teachings of later Mahāyāna—a case of adapting the Dharma to the capacities of the audience.

d) Looking across early Mahāyāna sūtras—the Prajñāpāramitā, the Viṣeṣacintabrahmaparipṛcchā, the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā, the Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodanā, the Viśuddhaprabhāsamādhi, and others—"original purity of mind-nature" is simply another name for mind being "empty" and "unattainable." It absolutely doesn't mean that mind possesses pure, adornment-like qualities.

2. The evolution of "the bodhi-mind is originally pure":

a) As Mahāyāna Buddhism developed, the earlier scriptures spoke of the "bodhisattva's mind," and only somewhat later did the term "bodhi-mind" (bodhicitta) come into established use.

b) As Mahāyāna unfolded, the bodhi-mind received increasing emphasis across the Buddhist world, and the bodhisattva's mind was accordingly recast as the bodhi-mind.

c) In this way, what was originally [the bodhisattva] contemplating [their own] contemplative [bodhisattva] mind as originally pure evolved into the original purity of the bodhi-mind itself.

3. From "all dharmas are empty in nature" to "mind-nature is originally pure" to "the self-naturally pure mind": Early Mahāyāna sūtras frequently speak of all dharmas being pure in nature, all dharmas being empty in nature—expressing the meaning of the Dharma-realm and true suchness. The purity of mind-nature is simply one instance within the purity of dharmas' nature. Later Mahāyāna sūtras, leaning toward mind-only doctrine, treat mind as the ground of all dharmas and speak more often of mind-nature's original purity. The purity of the Dharma-realm and the original purity of mind-nature came to share the same meaning, and Tathāgatagarbha scriptures likewise speak more frequently of the self-naturally pure mind (p. 195/4).

3-2. Questions for Reflection

3-2-1. How does the "original purity of mind-nature" idea in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras differ from the Tathāgatagarbha teaching?

3-2-2. How do we know that "the bodhi-mind is originally pure" is actually a development of "the bodhisattva's mind is originally pure"?