Did Buddha Teach Buddha-Nature?

Dakini

Did the Buddha give teachings about the Buddha-nature that lies within us, or did that come later? What's the origin of teachings on Buddha-nature?

taiyaki

"Also, as Loppon Namdrol pointed out, Mahaparinirvana sutra and other teachings on Tathagatagarbha on permanence, self etc shld be understood in terms of Emptiness and No-self - it is simply the subversion of Hindu concepts of atman and brahman into emptiness and noself - the true essence is lack of essence. And as Lankavatara sutra points out, the teachings of true self by Buddha is not the same as non-Buddhist teachings of an all-pervasive creator and Self but is simply a skillful means to lead those who fear emptiness to the profound prajna wisdom. It (true self, tathagatagarbha, etc) is not meant to be taken literally as pointing to an inherently existing metaphysical essence. It is a teaching device."

-http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html?m=0

Jeffrey

Here is what I wrote in the thread "which branch of buddhism do you follow and why?"

Mahayana buddhism in the Tibetan tradition because the course material and my teachers dharma talks/interviews are very inspiring/encouraging, true/helpful, and offer perspective.

Buddha may not have taught this but he should have. And incidentally the lineage in Tibetan buddhism also goes back to buddha, just the tradition was recorded in writing at a later date. Just an example that may not be true, but perhaps some yogis with some of their own wisdom were in buddha's sangha and received transmission but have some differences with the rest of the group leading to a schism. We don't know what happened. But it happened in Christianity and it's likely to have happened in buddhism. Tibetan buddhism views the whole affair through a lens of three vehicles and it teaches all three of them. Which is not to say Theravada is hinayana as what's the use of applying TB system to those outsiders.

Dakini

This is already getting interesting. The Lankavatara Suttra is a Mahayana sutra, which means those teachings could be later teachings. "True self"? There is a belief in a "true self"? Does that mean the realized (Enlightened) self? Could you explain a little more, Tai?

Jeffrey

Buddha said in the Kalama sutra that you should believe what you find in your own experience to be true.


http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/buddhist-practice/kalama-sutta.html

– Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
– Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
– Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
– Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
– Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
– Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
– Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
– But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.

– Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.

taiyaki

This is already getting interesting. The Lankavatara Suttra is a Mahayana sutra, which means those teachings could be later teachings. "True self"? There is a belief in a "true self"? Does that mean the realized (Enlightened) self? Could you explain a little more, Tai?

Ten ox herding pictures.

The practioner finds mind or ox. Eventually ox and man is dropped.

Finding the unborn buddha mind marks the finding of the ox.

With the insight of anatta and emptiness both duality and inherency is dropped.

Buddha nature can be viewed from many pov. As impermanence, potentiality of full buddhahood, the already nature of all phenomena, nature which is empty-luminous.

Satori is direct realization of buddha mind, which leads to enlightenment. But enlightenment leads to nirvana.

Blah blah blah let me find something that the buddha says about this.

taiyaki

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html?m=0

This sums up what i was trying to say.

More elaborate and accurate.

Jeffrey

Four benefits of buddha nature concept:

1 overcome despair in suffering beings caused by feeling it is hopeless - they have buddhanature

and putting the responsibility onto their own self. for example a teacher was asked for a blessing. he said "you have buddha nature bless yourself"..

In other words - build confidence

2 to not mistake our flaws as permanent... hey my buddha nature can overcome! A nuance on confidence because it is more a disarming of self-agression

3 to not mistake others flaws as permanent..same as above, but can prevent: agression, conflict, and harming each other

4 to prevent one from becoming arrogant. "I am so educated and above these ones".. nope! the dharmakaya (buddhanature/emptiness) radiates to all beings respecting neither high nor low.

Spaceless

Thus I have heard, Buddha upon attained the supreme enlightenment from his quest of true life beneath the bodhi tree is supposed to enter supreme nirvana. He was approached by the heavenly beings requesting to teach buddha nature because sentience has been undergoing suffering in the cycle of birth & death. This earnesty is mentioned in the sutra known as “pleading buddha to stay or in other word, not to enter supremeness“ so that the buddha nature he attained to be lightened up to all living beings. Buddha dharma from buddha is only finger pointing to the moon which is innately of all sentience. According to buddha, the emergence of all dharma and traditions were base upon sentience‘s own tradition and/or culture at that point of ripen condition, to tweet them into their true self. Although it is the finger pointing the moon, the moon is buddha dharma in itself. Similarly to securalism, and mostly, it needs congregation to set the influence for living beings to get acquainted with in order to realize emptiness bliss. In modern technology era, it should be internet. aha... Be love, be joys and be moooooonie

Spaceless

According to scripture the only way for sentience to become buddha is through teaching and this form of teaching can only be found in buddhism similarly to secularistic teaching like economic faculty, it only developing capitalism that witnesses mass in the world overtime. While buddhism is to unfold the nature of capitalist into generosity and benevolence to the society and its staff : D

Vastmind

Four benefits of buddha nature concept:

1 overcome despair in suffering beings caused by feeling it is hopeless - they have buddhanature

and putting the responsibility onto their own self. for example a teacher was asked for a blessing. he said "you have buddha nature bless yourself"..

In other words - build confidence

2 to not mistake our flaws as permanent... hey my buddha nature can overcome! A nuance on confidence because it is more a disarming of self-agression

3 to not mistake others flaws as permanent..same as above, but can prevent: agression, conflict, and harming each other

4 to prevent one from becoming arrogant. "I am so educated and above these ones".. nope! the dharmakaya (buddhanature/emptiness) radiates to all beings respecting neither high nor low.

@Jeffry....I liked this. May I add some to the list?

5. the golden starting point in which my compassion arises.

6. First place meditation took me. The place meditation CAN take me.
"This little light of mine....I'm gonna let it shine".

7.Preparing for the mind to go. All things are impermanent...These sharp minds. Maybe. You dont know. Your body may be here...but all this knowledge....?
Ever took care of someone with Alziemers?

When it's your time to die........the last breath....If your "mind" is gone...I suggest you create a nice place to fall. If it's not Buddha certified...call it my plan B

Plan Buddha Nature.

stavros388

I thought I already posted this, but I don't see it, so if I double-post, apologies.

Here is a different perspective from Thanissaro Bhikkhu (my italics):

"...Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

And it bogs you down."

Interesting article!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

zen_world

this Buddhism thing is getting so confusing:) I must be going in the wrong direction:)

seeker242

The Buddha didn't teach the Buddha nature doctrine. It's a strictly Mahayana doctrine and of course came afterwards because all of Mahayana came afterwards. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on it. The best explanation I have heard of it which does not contradict earlier teaching is that it's a "positive verbal expression of emptiness". And in my personal opinion, was introduced by skillful teachers to counter-act a nihilistic misunderstanding of the emptiness doctrine. As I see it, Buddha nature and emptiness mean exactly the same thing.

Dakini

Cool, @stavros388. Thanks.

@seeker242, that's what I thought, the Buddha didn't teach it. However, it can no longer be assumed that Mahayana came later, in the wake of the translation of the Gandhari scrolls. Experts now say it looks like Mahayana and "Hinayana" developed simultaneously, each tradition stressing different teachings of the Buddha.

I've been told that "Tathagatagarbha" originally was translated as "womb of the Buddha" or "Buddha seed". So we all have a seed inside us that can develop into a Buddha with proper care and feeding. That I can understand. Buddha-seed as emptiness, I can't, though I have heard that interpretation.

Vastmind

The Buddha didn't teach the Buddha nature doctrine. It's a strictly Mahayana doctrine and of course came afterwards because all of Mahayana came afterwards. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on it. The best explanation I have heard of it which does not contradict earlier teaching is that it's a "positive verbal expression of emptiness". And in my personal opinion, was introduced by skillful teachers to counter-act a nihilistic misunderstanding of the emptiness doctrine. As I see it, Buddha nature and emptiness mean exactly the same thing.

Gratitude for putting into words.
My lessons of Buddha nature were in fact sprinkled within emptiness lessons.
As children...it's easy to learn....of course, less established views.
The positive aspect only adds to merit and compassion.
The stripping away of everything...including the mind. I saw it first hand.
My Nana.
Emptiness was at its simplest.

Vastmind

Over a 4 year period. All her views were down to no view.
All her talking about the Nuns and practicing her religion....were down to nothing.
Her practice was reduced to holding the Rosary and repeating prayers after me.
Emptiness was a slow drip.

andyrobyn

From my experience and understandings, the concept of Buddha Nature is consistent with the understandings about emptiness from the Pali canon suttas.

Cinorjer

Did Buddha teach Buddha-Nature? I don't know. I wasn't there. Are the twin teachings of Buddha-Nature and Emptiness helpful in bringing the mind to understanding beyond words? In my case, yes.

But to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's quote, — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path. And it bogs you down."

I would reply, "All words and concepts are unnecessary baggage on the path, once they have served their function to get you to clear mind. At that moment, your carefully cherished words that were so useful to bring you here are as much excess baggage as my cherished words. So we should both put them down. The important question then is, what do we do next?"

seeker242

@Dakini Interesting! Never heard of these scrolls before.

But to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's quote, — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path. And it bogs you down."

I would reply: "How is the nature of being empty not an innate nature? How is the nature of Anatta not an innate nature? How is the nature of impermanence not an innate nature?":) I wonder what he would say?

andyrobyn

My teacher explains that innate by definition can be understood as originating in the mind - we do not need to get caught up with innate natures ... I am a TB practitioner, by the way.

stavros388

I definitely can't speak for Thanissaro, but my understanding on his view (based on my reading and listening to him speak) is that adding Buddha Nature to the Buddha's original teaching is adding an unnecessary "something", or concept, and that this can be detrimental to an already pristine teaching leading to freedom from suffering (Theravada), and can therefore "bog" the practitioner down. I think, if my memory serves me, that he also sees the idea of a Buddha Nature as something else that can cause further subtle clinging to ideas of an eternal self, etc.

Jeffrey

The Buddha didn't teach the Buddha nature doctrine. It's a strictly Mahayana doctrine and of course came afterwards because all of Mahayana came afterwards. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on it. The best explanation I have heard of it which does not contradict earlier teaching is that it's a "positive verbal expression of emptiness". And in my personal opinion, was introduced by skillful teachers to counter-act a nihilistic misunderstanding of the emptiness doctrine. As I see it, Buddha nature and emptiness mean exactly the same thing.

Buddha nature is not an innate nature. The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that buddha nature is emptiness.

Nagarjuna clearly explains the dependent origination which is the central theory of Tibetan Buddhism. I invite you to study.

Dakini

@Dakini Interesting! Never heard of these scrolls before.

I find this discovery pretty exciting. See this older thread, which has a link to the article that brought this to the attention of Western Buddhists:

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/11592/significance-of-gandhari-scrolls-to-mahayana-theravada-split

federica

Buddha nature is not an innate nature. The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that buddha nature is emptiness.

Nagarjuna clearly explains the dependent origination which is the central theory of Tibetan Buddhism. I invite you to study.

@Jeffrey, the question at the top of the thread is whether or not the Buddha taught Buddha-nature.
Never mind what Nagarjuna taught. (and i don't mean that disrespectfully.)

That came later.
The question hinges specifically on whether anyone knows if the Buddha taught this concept, as described.....

Jeffrey

My comments were directed towardsVV

I thought I already posted this, but I don't see it, so if I double-post, apologies.

Here is a different perspective from Thanissaro Bhikkhu (my italics):

"...Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

And it bogs you down."

Interesting article!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

1) Nagarjaruna taught emptiness
2) Both Dependent origination/emptiness - Nagarjuna and Buddhanature teachings are embedded in the same system

Therefore:

Buddhanature is not a teaching of a innate self (which would be inconsistent with the dependent origination)

Unless:

the 1 and 2 ARE unconsistent in spite of being in the same tradition. Which we can go into

Jeffrey

So the relevance is:

Thanissaro's quotation disputes buddhanature came from buddha because it is a teaching of innate nature.

And I dispute that buddhanature is an innate nature. I show that on the contrary buddhanature is emptiness. Emptiness is always in the context of Nagarjuna. Both Yogacara and Madyamaka stem from Nagarjuna. I give as a reference the Jewel Ornament of Liberation. What I didn't mention is that the JoL text was written by Gampopa and was a synthesis of mahamudra and kadampa. After buddha's time there were many students of buddha and schools of buddhist thought. Thus his teachings went far and wide. And thus it is reasonable to believe mahumdra and kadampa are successors of Buddha's teaching.

Cinorjer

"To say either that one has or does not have Buddha-Nature is to already go wrong." (old Zen teaching)

So the concept of Buddha-Nature has been debated since Zen took the ball and ran with it back around 500 to 800 AD in China and the entire East. Did Buddha teach Buddha-nature? He didn't use those particular words, but then neither did he teach the dharma as practiced by any of the temples today, not unless you're a monk who wanders from town to town with a begging bowl and sleeps in the forest.

In context, Buddha-Nature was probably first used as a balance to the increasingly insular and esoteric practice of the Buddhist monks who came from India. An honest accessment of the time has to bring one to the conclusion that there was a terrible flaw in the way Buddhism was taught as it developed in India. The temples had become insulated from everyday life, filled with the educated upper class and more interested in political power than actually spreading the Dharma. Enlightenment became something only dedicated monks who spent their lives in study and meditation could hope to accomplish. Buddha was worshiped, but Buddha-hood was a jealously guarded possession of the temple hierarchy. "Only monks can be enlightened." was the common wisdom of the time.

Chan with the message of Buddha-Nature and No-self was a revival of Buddhism as a universal message of liberation to all people, not just the monks in their temples. And Buddha-Nature is the balancing hand on the scale that says everyone, everywhere is a potential Buddha. Those monks who have memorized a hundred sutras? Good for them, but that's not necessary. Enlightenment isn't some prize to be won out there, it is who and what you are, right now, if only you penetrate the nature of your mind. In short, Buddha-Nature only says since there is nothing "out there" to acquire, then obviously what you seek is already inside you. In what way is this not what the Buddha taught?

Dakini

Interesting analysis, Cinorjer. Thanks.

seeker242

The Buddha didn't teach the Buddha nature doctrine. It's a strictly Mahayana doctrine and of course came afterwards because all of Mahayana came afterwards. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on it. The best explanation I have heard of it which does not contradict earlier teaching is that it's a "positive verbal expression of emptiness". And in my personal opinion, was introduced by skillful teachers to counter-act a nihilistic misunderstanding of the emptiness doctrine. As I see it, Buddha nature and emptiness mean exactly the same thing.

Buddha nature is not an innate nature. The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that buddha nature is emptiness.

Nagarjuna clearly explains the dependent origination which is the central theory of Tibetan Buddhism. I invite you to study.

Isn't that what I said? Buddha nature is the nature of emptiness?

Jeffrey

The Buddha didn't teach the Buddha nature doctrine. It's a strictly Mahayana doctrine and of course came afterwards because all of Mahayana came afterwards. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on it. The best explanation I have heard of it which does not contradict earlier teaching is that it's a "positive verbal expression of emptiness". And in my personal opinion, was introduced by skillful teachers to counter-act a nihilistic misunderstanding of the emptiness doctrine. As I see it, Buddha nature and emptiness mean exactly the same thing.

Buddha nature is not an innate nature. The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that buddha nature is emptiness.

Nagarjuna clearly explains the dependent origination which is the central theory of Tibetan Buddhism. I invite you to study.

Isn't that what I said? Buddha nature is the nature of emptiness?

Yes that's exactly what you said. I wanted to say it too! Yes the buddhanature is emptiness.. Thus the person is not of the nature of birth and death and the obscurations.

ImmersedOne

Buddha is Buddha-Nature

pegembara

-The Master persistently warned against the attempt to encompass Reality in a concept or a name. A scholar in mysticism once asked, "When you speak of BEING, sir, is it eternal, transcendent being you speak of, or transient, contingent being?"
The Master closed his eyes in thought. Then he opened them, put on his most disarming expression, and said, "Yes!"

-The master made it his task to systematically destroy every doctrine, every belief, every concept of the divine, for these things, which were originally intended as pointers, were now taken as descriptions. He loved to quote the Eastern saying: "When the sage points at the moon, all that the idiot sees is the finger."

de Mello

ImmersedOne

The "True Self vs. Not Self" thing is just the ultimate paradox. The truth is paradoxical in its nature, as it becomes differentiated through conceptual barriers. The Self, or Buddha Nature, is the inherent lack of essence that allows the infinite manifestation of essences to come into being. It is everything, without being any thing.

Vastmind

@Cinorjer said....

Chan with the message of Buddha-Nature and No-self was a revival of Buddhism as a universal message of liberation to all people, not just the monks in their temples. And Buddha-Nature is the balancing hand on the scale that says everyone, everywhere is a potential Buddha. Those monks who have memorized a hundred sutras? Good for them, but that's not necessary. Enlightenment isn't some prize to be won out there, it is who and what you are, right now, if only you penetrate the nature of your mind. In short, Buddha-Nature only says since there is nothing "out there" to acquire, then obviously what you seek is already inside you. In what way is this not what the Buddha taught?

Sounds like the Mantra/Chant of a Householder/Lay. Gratitude.
May your practices continue to bring you understanding in the here and now.