Zhuang Chunjiang (Lay Buddhist Devotee): A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha, Chapter 5: Early Buddhist Canonical Scriptures on the Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine

Chapter 5: Early Canonical Texts of the Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine (Revised 0, 12 December 2004)

5-1. Study Notes for Section 1: Style of Early Canonical Texts and Their Early Transmitters

1. Seven Sutras of the Early Tathāgatagarbha Tradition: a) Tathāgatagarbha Sutra: Takes the "Flower Treasury" (Huázàng) as its point of departure, influenced by the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. It employs only analogies to explain that all sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha concealed by afflictions. Buddha-nature, Buddha-treasury, and Tathāgata-nature are all alternative names for the Tathāgatagarbha. b) Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (First Section): Takes the Tathāgata's entry into nirvāṇa as its narrative context, teaching that the Tathāgata is eternal, and therefore all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. This Buddha-nature is the "Tathāgatagarbha self": "self" refers to the meaning of Buddha; "eternal" refers to the meaning of dharmakāya; "bliss" refers to the meaning of nirvāṇa; "pure" refers to the meaning of dharma (the four excellences of the Mahāparinirvāṇa). c) Asaṃjñi Sūtra (alias Great Cloud Sūtra): Briefly states that "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature" and that one will "perceive the Tathāgata's eternal, blissful, self, and pure nature". d) Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra: Takes the narrative of Aṅgulimāla wielding a sword to attack the Buddha as its starting point, teaching that all sentient beings possess an eternal, unchanging Tathāgatagarbha, and that the Tathāgatagarbha is identical with the realm of sentient beings and the realm of self. e) Great Dharma Drum Sūtra: Takes King Prasenajit beating a drum to meet the Buddha as its starting point, teaching that the number of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, that those who have attained parinirvāṇa are all eternal, that all sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha and the One Vehicle, and that the realm of sentient beings is identical with the Tathāgata realm. It carries strong affinities with the Vatsīputrīya school's doctrine of the ineffable self, and can also be seen as the Tathāgatagarbha reinterpretation of the Lotus Sūtra. f) Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra: While expounding the One Vehicle, it teaches the Tathāgatagarbha, stating that "the intrinsically pure mind is defiled by adventitious stains", and establishing the "empty Tathāgatagarbha (adventitious defilements)" and the "non-empty Tathāgatagarbha (intrinsically pure nature)". g) Non-Increase Non-Decrease Sūtra: Based on the principle that the number of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, it teaches the profundity of the "single realm". The ultimate truth, the realm of sentient beings, the Tathāgatagarbha, and the dharmakāya are different in name but identical in essence. Based on the realm of sentient beings, it explains three meanings of the Tathāgatagarbha: the Tathāgatagarbha is the basis and support (equal and eternally real) for worldly saṃsāra (defiled afflictions discordant with the true nature) and the true Dharma of nirvāṇa (pure essence in accord with the true nature).

The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, and Non-Increase Non-Decrease Sūtra all teach that the mind is intrinsically pure. The latter two sutras have concise, well-structured doctrine, approaching the style of treatises, and are mature, relatively late-emerging core texts among the Tathāgatagarbha sutras.

2. The Earliest Transmitters of the Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine: According to the Great Cloud Sūtra, Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, and Great Dharma Drum Sūtra, the earliest transmitters of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine are linked to the monk Sarvadarśamati (All-Joyful-to-See) of the Andhra Dynasty in southern India, 2nd century CE. The legendary Sarvadarśamati is believed to be a historical figure, likely the "Dragon Cry" mentioned in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, a contemporary of Āryadeva.

3. Style of Early Transmitters of the Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine: a) According to the Asaṃjñi Sūtra, Great Dharma Drum Sūtra, and Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the monk Sarvadarśamati was a bhikṣu akin to Mahākāśyapa. The Great Cloud Sūtra and Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra describe him as scrupulous in upholding the vinaya, while the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Great Cloud Sūtra, Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, and Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra record that he protected the Dharma without regard for his own life. b) Likely due to their belief in "the Buddha's immeasurable lifespan", "eternal and unchanging nature", and "the fundamental unity of all sentient beings", the Tathāgatagarbha school strictly upheld the precept against killing, prohibiting meat consumption entirely. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, which appeared in China during the Tang Dynasty, also strictly forbids eating meat. This was a distinctive feature of the Indian Tathāgatagarbha school (Brahmin religious practitioners also strictly observed meat abstinence), and it exerted a profound influence on Chinese Buddhism.

5-1. Reflection Questions

5-1-1. Briefly describe the era, geographic location, and stylistic traits of the earliest transmitters of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.

5-1-2. Which sutras belong to the later development of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine?

5-2. Study Notes for Section 2: The Tathāgata and the Tathāgatagarbha

1. The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine rejects the view that the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa is total extinction: a) The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine traces its origins to the Mahāsaṅghika school's "view of the ideal Buddha", transmitted through Mahāyāna sutras such as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. It uses countless analogies to explain that the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa is not annihilation, but rather that "the Tathāgata is eternal, not subject to change", that it "exists", and that it is "not empty". Passages in texts such as the Āgamas that describe nirvāṇa as extinction are reinterpreted as referring to the imperishability of the true essence. b) The doctrine of the Tathāgata's eternity can be summarized by the four attributes of eternal, blissful, self, and pure. Among these, "eternal" and "self" differ from traditional teachings, so extensive doctrinal exposition is devoted to explaining them.

2. Rationale for the Tathāgata's eternity (eternal and unchanging nature): a) Although early Mahāyāna sutras such as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and Lotus Sūtra frame Śākyamuni as having attained Buddhahood long before, then manifested in the human world to teach, there must still be a beginning to his attainment of Buddhahood. b) If there were a beginning to his Buddhahood, that would be a conditioned, impermanent phenomenon, which cannot be eternal. To uphold the view that the Tathāgata is eternal and unchanging, it must be held that all sentient beings are inherently Buddhas. They have always been eternal and unchanging; this applies not only to Śākyamuni Buddha, but to all Buddhas and all sentient beings.

3. Development of the doctrine of the Tathāgata's eternity: a) Extending from the Tathāgata's eternal, unchanging nature to the state of sentient beings on the path, this means that sentient beings' bodies possess the Tathāgatagarbha. Since the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa (or dharmakāya) possesses form, the Tathāgatagarbha naturally also has physical form, adorned with infinite auspicious marks and characteristics. This is a distinctive feature of early Tathāgatagarbha doctrine! b) In the teachings of the Buddha, all teachings except those of the eternal, unchanging Tathāgata and Tathāgata-nature (Buddha-nature) are expedient means. The Tathāgatagarbha Dharma Gate carries this principle to its conclusion, moving from the "concurrent teaching of the Three Vehicles" (acknowledging that the nirvāṇa of the Two Vehicles [śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas] is authentic) to the "unification into the One Vehicle". c) Since all sentient beings possess the Tathāgatagarbha, practice does not require seeking externally; rather, one engages in practice by relying on one's own intrinsic Tathāgata-nature to realize it. The "Tathāgata Zen" of Chinese Chan Buddhism precisely inherited this approach.

5-2. Reflection Questions

5-2-1. What is the ideological shift between the Āgamas' teaching of impermanence and the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine's assertion of "the Tathāgata's eternity"?

5-2-2. What are your views on "the unification into the One Vehicle"?

5-3. Study Notes for Section 3: The Tathāgatagarbha Self

1. The Unprecedented Tathāgatagarbha Self: a) In the Nikāya Buddhist schools, the purpose of the Vatsīputrīya school and others in positing a "self" was to explain the cycle of birth and death, and to clarify the connection between bondage and liberation. They did not treat the "self" as ultimate truth, or as the content of awakening. b) Although the early Mahāyāna Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra states that the "sacred nature" is eternal, blissful, and pure, it still teaches the doctrine of no-self. c) According to the Non-Increase Non-Decrease Sūtra, Great Dharma Drum Sūtra, Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, and Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, "self", "realm of self", "sentient beings", "realm of sentient beings", "Tathāgata realm (nature)", "Buddha treasury", and "Buddha-nature" are all alternative names for the Tathāgatagarbha. This is the fundamental thesis of the Tathāgatagarbha Dharma Gate: it is the subject of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, the basis for delusion (which gives rise to saṃsāra) and awakening (which gives rise to Buddhahood), and the content of realization. This doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha self was entirely unseen in earlier Mahāyāna Buddhism, marking the gradual entry of Buddhism into an era of "assimilation between Buddhist and Brahmanical thought".

2. The Tathāgatagarbha is a doctrine of "the mundane is false, the ultimate is real", so it does not teach that defilement and purity are identical, but rather that the realm of sentient nature and the realm of Tathāgata nature are non-dual and without distinction.

3. Rationale for the Tathāgatagarbha as Self: a) The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra uses the analogies of "applying poison to milk" and "hearing a knife but not seeing the knife" to explain that the self taught by non-Buddhist adepts and the self taught in Buddhism have the same origin (taught by ancient Buddhas); non-Buddhists only rely on hearsay, misunderstand it, and lack true knowledge of it. b) The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states: "To open the way and guide non-Buddhists who believe in a self, the Tathāgatagarbha is taught."

4. Evaluation of the Tathāgatagarbha Self: a) The teaching of ancient Buddhas cannot be proven through historical evidence, and can only be accepted on faith. Conversely, in the historical Indian context, non-Buddhist religious traditions first posited the existence of a self, which the Buddha rejected when establishing his teaching of no-self. It was not until the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE that Buddhism began to teach the Tathāgatagarbha self, which is a matter of historical fact. Therefore, the analogies and explanations in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra can only be regarded as matters of faith. b) The Upaniṣads describe the self as eternal, blissful, and conscious, and also as all-pervading and pure, rather than being limited to the descriptions in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra of "as large as a thumb" or "as small as a mote of dust". In fact, this Upaniṣadic self is very similar to the Tathāgatagarbha self described as "real, true, eternal, sovereign, and supportive". The claim that non-Buddhists merely misunderstand the self and lack true knowledge is therefore not historically accurate. c) Buddhism taught the Tathāgatagarbha self as an expedient means to attract and convert non-Buddhists who believed in a self, guiding them gradually into the Buddhist path. This may align more closely with the historical reality of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine's use of skillful means to adapt to its audience!

5-3. Reflection Questions

5-3-1. Why is the Tathāgatagarbha described as the fundamental subject of sentient beings?

5-3-2. Explain the difference between the doctrine of "the mundane is false, the ultimate is real" and the view that "defilement and purity are identical".

5-3-3. Distinguish between the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's stated rationale for the Tathāgatagarbha self and the historical facts of its origins.

5-4. Study Notes for Section 4: The Tathāgatagarbha as Non-Empty

1. The Two Positions: Emptiness and Existence: a) The School of Emptiness: As taught in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, all phenomena are like illusions and transformations, including nirvāṇa. "Emptiness" does not have the same meaning as "non-existence": emptiness means the lack of inherent existence, not that all phenomena do not exist. The apparently existent phenomena (including the great practices of bodhisattvas and the fruition merits of the Tathāgata) are, in the present moment, ultimately empty and still. This is the principle of "existence is emptiness, emptiness and existence are unobstructed". b) The School of Existence: It views the teaching that "all phenomena are empty" as a provisional, not ultimate, truth, and asserts that certain things must "not be empty" ("some phenomena are empty, other phenomena are not empty").

2. The Two Branches of the Existence School: a) Both conditioned (saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) phenomena are truly existent, while the self and what belongs to the self do not exist: this is the view of the Sarvāstivāda school and the Mahāyāna Yogācāra system (the conditioned "dependent arising" and unconditioned "perfect nature" are truly existent, while the "conceptually constructed nature" of self-attachment does not exist). b) Worldly phenomena (conditioned phenomena) are false and delusive, while transcendental phenomena (unconditioned phenomena) are real: this is the view of the Lokottaravāda school and the Mahāyāna Tathāgatagarbha doctrine (the principle that "the mundane is false, the ultimate is real"). The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine's "emptiness" of afflictions and "non-emptiness" of nirvāṇa does not go beyond this principle.

3. Traces of the Ideological Shift from "Emptiness" to "Existence": a) At the conclusion of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, it is proposed that for newly arisen bodhicitta practitioners, one teaches that "birth and extinction are like transformations, while non-birth and non-extinction are not like transformations", which aligns with the Dharma gate of mundane emptiness and ultimate non-emptiness. b) The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in the chapter "The Absence of Inherent Nature", states: practitioners who have practiced for a long time and have sharp faculties can realize the truth directly upon hearing that all phenomena are empty by nature. Those with dull faculties who lack the five qualifications, upon hearing that all phenomena are empty, either reject teachings aligned with emptiness, or misinterpret them in an erroneous and inverted way, misleading both themselves and others. This implies that as emptiness-aligned sutras became popular, they caused serious negative side effects for those unsuited to their teachings. It therefore became necessary to explain the profound meaning in an explicit, clear, easy-to-believe, and easy-to-understand Dharma gate.

4. The Historical Significance of the Doctrine of "The Mundane is False, the Ultimate is Real": In the development of Mahāyāna emptiness teachings, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (its concluding sections), the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, and the Tathāgatagarbha Dharma Gate all propound the principle of "the mundane is false, the ultimate is real", reflecting a shared tendency of Buddhism in that era. However, according to the intent of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the teaching that "non-birth and non-extinction are not like transformations" (i.e., non-emptiness) is taught only as a necessary expedient for beginners. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra holds that beginners also require a simplified, accessible explanation of this truth. But the Tathāgatagarbha Dharma Gate, in contrast, reproaches emptiness teachings and propounds the ultimate Dharma gate of true non-emptiness, directly opposing the intent of both the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra.

5-4. Reflection Questions

5-4-1. What is the dividing line between early Mahāyāna and later Mahāyāna thought?

5-4-2. How does the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine define "emptiness" and "non-emptiness"?

5-4-3. Does the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine's teaching of "non-emptiness" misinterpret Buddhist teachings? Why or why not?