http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/fall/emptinessandbuddhanature.html
by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche
The Buddhist schools are rich and varied in their perspectives,
but these many points of view all advance the Buddhist concept of
the middle view (madhya-drshti in Sanskrit and
ume tawa in Tibetan).
The middle view avoids the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.
Any view that does not fall into the parameters of the middle
view—in other words, all views that fall into the extremes of
eternalism or nihilism—are referred to as wrong views in Buddhist
literature. The Buddha and his subsequent followers have called
these wrong views because the nihilistic view minimizes what is
there in reality, while the eternalistic view adds more to reality
than what is really there.
Adherents of all Buddhist schools try to understand everything
about themselves—their consciousness, the material world, sentient
life, their karmic inheritance and its history, even rebirth or
reincarnation—in terms of this middle view. In the Mahayana
tradition, the establishment of the middle way is also an aspect of
one’s own practice, because the Buddhist adherent steers a course
between the two extremes to cultivate the two wisdoms:
transcendental knowledge (Skt., prajna) and wisdom/gnosis
(Skt., jnana).
With the emergence of Mahayana thought, this middle view was
critically examined and taken to highly refined levels of
philosophical sophistication. There were two major strands of
Buddhist thought in the Mahayana: Madhyamaka and Yogacara. These
two schools have had an enormous impact on the cultural,
philosophical and religious landscape of Buddhist thinking in the
whole of Asia, from India to Japan and beyond. Madhyamaka and
Yogacara have produced original and somewhat different (although
not necessarily incompatible) interpretations of the middle view.
Their perspective on how enlightenment is to be attained is also
different.
For the Madhyamikas (or Shunyatavadins), enlightenment is
obtained by the practice of the two accumulations, merit and
wisdom. In order to carry out this necessary but difficult task
with minimal risk of deviations and diversions, the practitioner
must engage in the six transcendental actions (Skt.,
paramitas). From the first four transcendental actions one
accumulates merit, while the last two transcendental actions lead
to the accumulation of wisdom (which includes both transcendental
knowledge and wisdom/gnosis). The reason for practicing these
accumulations is to reduce one’s negative karmic inheritance and
delusional tendencies. As Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka
school, continually stated, it is only by developing the middle
view that one can gain an understanding of emptiness (Skt.,
shunyata), which is ultimate reality itself. This
understanding of emptiness is applied to the rest of the
transcendental actions, so that even the merit that issues forth
from one’s practice is seen to be empty of substance or inherent
existence. In other words, it is through the realization of
emptiness that one attains enlightenment.
The Yogacarins (or Vijnanavadins), on the other hand, advanced a
slightly different perspective on how the two accumulations are to
be realized. For Maitreya and Asanga, the founders of the Yogacara
school, the main concern was establishing buddhanature (Skt.,
tathagatagarbha) as fact.
It was their firm belief that the reality of buddhanature was
the foundation upon which all the Mahayana paths and stages were to
be erected. They reasoned that if enlightenment were possible—not
just in principle but as a realizable actuality—then each sentient
creature must possess that enlightened nature. It is only due to
the presence of ignorance that sentient creatures have not realized
their “existentially intimate” and yet “experientially and
cognitively distant” nature.
The key text that Maitreya and Asanga authored—which is widely
used by followers of the Kagyü and Nyingma traditions of Tibetan
Buddhism—is known as the Mahayanuttaratantra (in one of
its shorter names). Its recurrent theme is the removability of the
defilements. These defilements are all that obscure the innate
purity of one’s inherent buddhanature, which exists in an
uncorrupted and incorruptible fashion within the continuum of one’s
being.
The difference between these two philosophical schools is that
the Madhyamikas see the realization of emptiness as the one
uniquely significant insight, whereas the Yogacarins see the
realization of buddhanature as the very essence of awakening. In
the Prajnaparamita sutras, the canonical Mahayana Buddhist
sutras upon which Nagarjuna singularly relied, the subject matter
is principally about emptiness. In them, shunyata is portrayed as
the “Mother of all the buddhas,” because enlightenment arises from
the realization of emptiness. According to the Yogacarins, the
source of enlightenment is buddhanature, which is pure and
untainted by defilements. However, it is the understanding of
emptiness that allows one to realize this buddhanature.
There is very little evidence in Indian literature to suggest
that there were any critical exchanges in India between these two
prominent Buddhist philosophical schools. However, after the
transplantation of Buddhism to Tibet, matters became wildly
different. Rival schools of Tibetan Buddhist tradition, each
claiming to be faithfully following the preceding Indian schools,
engaged in a flurry of scholarly exchanges in which the concept of
buddhanature was subjected to severe critical discussion.
These rival schools could not agree on the nature of
buddhadharma and its status within the Mahayana teachings as a
whole. Their disputes mainly came down to this: “Is buddhanature to
be treated as a definitive teaching, or is it an interpretative
teaching that relies on explanations to reveal itself?” Many
latter-day Kagyü masters, for example, came to accept the teachings
on buddhanature as belonging to the definitive class of Mahayana
teachings. Those who followed strictly Madhyamaka interpretations
of emptiness, on the other hand, did not accept this
interpretation. For them, it had pedagogical value only, something
that an individual grows out of as he or she develops a deeper
understanding of emptiness. They argued that it is only through
emptiness that all conceptual categories are deconstructed, and
that these conceptual categories include the notion of
buddhanature.
We can see, then, that the Yogacara teachings have had just as
much influence on the development of Kagyü and Nyingma thought as
the Madhyamaka ones, although no Kagyü or Nyingma teacher would
consider him- or herself to be a Yogacarin. What the early and
contemporary Kagyü teachers have done is combine the Yogacara
teachings on buddhanature and the Madhyamaka teachings on
emptiness.
Further complications regarding the understanding of
buddhanature occurred in Tibet as a result of the marriage of these
two streams of thought within the Kagyü and other Buddhist schools.
This marriage led to the development of the distinctly Tibetan
philosophical tradition called the Shentong (“emptiness of
other”) school. The Shentongpas charged those schools that
interpreted the teachings on emptiness as definitive with falling
into the extreme of nihilism. These schools, known in this context
as upholders of Rangtong (“emptiness of itself”),
counter-charged the Shentongpas with falling into the extreme of
eternalism.
It should be noted at this point that many great Kagyü and
Nyingma masters have not arrived at the same conclusion as the
Shentongpas regarding the concept of buddhanature. Rather, they
have accepted the reality of buddhanature while maintaining the
Rangtong view of emptiness of itself. Accepting the reality of
buddhanature does not mean that one has to accept the Shentong
interpretation of emptiness. Shentongpas regard the nature of mind
as empty of defilements but not empty of its intrinsic nature. The
notion of buddhanature, however, does not in itself imply that mind
has any intrinsic nature. Many of the great Kagyü and Nyingma
masters, in fact, have interpreted buddhanature to mean that mind
is empty of both the defilements and any kind of inherent
existence.
The Mahayanuttaratantra itself may yield a conclusion
that is consistent with the Rangtong view of emptiness of itself. A
true Shentongpa, if there is such a person, is seen by Rangtongpas
as always being at risk of reifying buddhanature, thus falling into
the extreme of eternalism—a Buddhist heresy. However, for our
purposes, we need not be detained by these different
interpretations. Suffice it to say that the appropriations and
intermingling of the Madhyamaka and Yogacara traditions within
Tibetan Buddhism has had a rather complicated and illustrious
history. This is not the place to assess and evaluate the
legitimacy of the claims and counter-claims, let alone defend this
or that master’s favored interpretation. Rather, I would like to
offer a general outline of buddhanature, with certain inspirations
drawn from the teachings of the mainstream Kagyü tradition.
The Kagyüpas rely on the Mahayanuttaratantra as the
main text on buddhanature. According to the Uttaratantra
(its shorthand name) we all possess buddhanature. Our true nature
is said to be untainted and not devalued by defilements, delusions,
obscurations and other pollutants. However, buddhanature is
obscured by those defilements, which have their origins in
primordial ignorance. As such, these defilements and obscurations
have to be removed. Their removal will lead to the realization of
buddhanature, and the realization of buddhanature is equated with
the attainment of true freedom or liberation.
Thus, freedom and determinism are not incompatible in the
Buddhist philosophical tradition. In fact, according to the
Buddhist teachings, freedom is contingent on understanding the
prevailing and predetermined karmic causes and conditions in our
lives. An act of freedom is not regarded as something that occurs
in a miraculous fashion, as if our actions had no antecedent causal
conditions. Only by understanding the governing causes and
conditions—which have led to our present state of bondage in
samsara—can we entertain the possibility of achieving true freedom.
If we are to have any real chance of realizing ultimate freedom, we
need to understand how such and such causes and conditions have
contributed to our state of bondage, and we need to understand the
factors that sustain the underlying mechanisms of samsaric
imprisonment. According to the teachings on buddhanature, our state
of ignorance and the obscurations that govern our current state of
being are caused by distorted thoughts, conflicting emotions and
unbridled instinctual feelings. However, because these things are a
product of causes and conditions, they can be illuminated and
renounced. Their potential removability, combined with the
primordial presence of buddhanature, is what makes liberation
possible. In the Uttaratantra, the following three reasons
are given for this possibility of liberation:
The defilements are removable.
Owing to ignorance, we have unconsciously become afflicted by
distorted thoughts, corrupted by conflicting emotions, and led
astray by erroneous views and misunderstandings. These various
states and tendencies of the mind supply the necessary materials
for the formation of fairly stable and persistent character traits,
personality structures, self-images and habit patterns. However,
although these deluded states of mind—the source of all of one’s
misery and anguish—are persistent, they are not permanent fixtures
of one’s dispositional properties. Therefore, they are removable
and can be jettisoned, provided one engages in the appropriate
methods of training.
The remedial qualities and attributes that tend towards
enlightenment are already present.
We have the ability to accomplish the difficult, although not
impossible, task of eradicating undesirable, self-destructive and
degrading states and habits of mind. This is due fundamentally to
the wholesome states of the mind and traits that one can cultivate
and develop by and within oneself. Therefore, we do not need to
draw on divine inspiration in the form of grace. It is evident that
liberation is attained through personal effort and not through the
bestowal of salvation by an ultimate Other.
Buddhanature is not different from the nature of a
fully enlightened being.
Our true nature is buddhanature and that buddhanature is the
nature of all sentient beings. Therefore, it is not our nature that
separates sentient beings such as ourselves from the fully
enlightened beings—although there certainly is a temporal gap that
separates the time before and the time after the onset of
enlightenment. Since our true nature is the nature of the buddhas,
the temporal divide that separates these two states can be narrowed
for now and completely bridged in the future.
Heeding the authoritative nature of the
Mahayanuttaratantra and other such texts, followers of
Mahayana are counselled to become what they were portended to
become in the first place. In a manner of speaking, buddhanature is
the very purpose of one’s life, the destiny that one is almost
necessarily propelled towards—the very raison d’être of
one’s existence. The Uttaratantra, in fact, suggests that
our sense of incompleteness and meaninglessness, our feelings of
emptiness, dissatisfaction and disquiet, our experience of
unhappiness and the litany of other samsaric misfortunes we have,
are all indicators of the stirrings of buddhanature that we must
heed and respond to.
Furthermore, the Uttaratantra elaborates upon the
reasons why, as human beings, we fail to achieve our potential, to
actualize our true nature. This temporary failing on our part—which
is all that it is according to the Uttaratantra—is
attributable to the conditioned nature of our minds. Although our
own nature is buddhanature, our thoughts and actions spring not
from this unconditioned state but from the deluded and conditioned
nature of our minds. As such, every physical, verbal and mental act
we perform leaves imprints on our body-mind complex.
It is worth pointing out that in Buddhism, mind does not refer
to what we normally mean by consciousness, where consciousness is
narrowly defined as that which is opposite to the material or
corporeal, and thus of a totally different nature. In Buddhism,
mind encompasses the working of any organism that has input/output
functions and responds to stimuli. In other words, what is mental
is the same as what is sentient. (The term sentient covers
a broad range of living organisms, from the microscopic organisms
of aquatic life to highly intelligent, fully realized human
beings.) Nothing that sentient beings experience—either on the
conscious sentient level or the unconscious level—vanishes. The
resulting imprints influence, mold, shape and color the subsequent
experiences of the individual.
The Mahayana teachings mention four different imprints, known as
traces and dispositions:
Perceptual traces and dispositions: This means that if
we perceive something through our sensory apparatuses, those
experiences leave imprints on our brain/mind structure. If we
perceive a visual object, even after we stop seeing it in our
visual field, that object will continue to appear to our
consciousness. For example, an item of clothing in a shop window
that caught our eye will subsequently appear to the mind as a
mental image. Similarly with audial perceptions, if we hear music
that we enjoy, we will continue to hear that tune played over and
over in our mind. Of course, these sensory experiences are not
simply mentally registered; we respond to them in various ways
because of our likes, dislikes, attractions, aversions and so on,
thus inculcating ever more fixed predilections and
propensities.
Traces and dispositions of apperception: This means
that every experience we have is processed, organized and edited,
as it were, by the self, although the subject may not be conscious
of this process at the time. In other words, there is a
self-referential element attached to most of our experiences, so
that the experiences that we have through the self are given
certain unique characteristics. In this way, they become
dispositional properties of the self.
Traces and dispositions of conditioned existence:
According to Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism, there are no
physical or mental substances. There are only interacting, mutually
interconnected networks of states and processes, brought about by
causes and conditions. The causes and conditions themselves are not
based in any kind of metaphysical ground. They simply constitute a
network of interacting states and processes. The mind, with its
conceptual categories and schemas, creates our dispositional
properties—in conjunction with the neurochemical activities of the
brain, other psychophysical states and processes, and external
sensory stimuli.
Traces and dispositions of homogeneity: This last
category simply means that our imprints will reflect our current
state of mind, as will the future experiences these imprints bring
about. For example, if one has the experience of anger, the imprint
of anger will give rise to future experiences of anger. A similar
process will operate with regard to the wholesome states.
We can see, then, that to realize our buddhanature we have to
deal with causes and conditions and work with our states of mind
with ever-increasing vigilance, mindfulness and awareness. We have
to become aware of what sort of likes and dislikes we have, what
sort of thoughts we entertain most of the time, what kind of
emotional conflicts we habitually perpetuate, and the manner in
which we habitually respond to various circumstances, situations
and events in life. Knowing more about our potential, on the one
hand, and the states and propensities that prevent us from
realizing that true potential, on the other, is what leads to the
attainment of true freedom or enlightenment.
In order to realize our true potential, we have to engage in
what are known as the four renunciations. One engages in these
practices to attenuate the forces of habit, so that there will be a
marked decrease in the unwholesome, non-virtuous, dispositional
properties and a corresponding increase in the wholesome and
virtuous dispositional properties.
The first two renunciations consist of thinking about one’s
unwholesome states of mind, dispositional properties and habit
patterns. Having done so, one should make a pledge to oneself,
appealing to one’s own more noble nature by saying, “Whatever
unwholesome states of mind, dispositions and propensities that have
not yet arisen, I will do everything to make sure that they will
not arise in the future.” By engaging in pre-emptive measures, such
as the cultivation of mindfulness and awareness, one should also do
whatever one can to reduce those unwholesome, non-virtuous states
that have already arisen and in so doing attenuate their force.
The second two renunciations consist of the positive side. One
must ensure that all of the wholesome states of mind and the
virtuous dispositional states and habit patterns that have not yet
arisen will arise in the future. One must also vow to do
everything within one’s power to increase and inculcate those
virtuous and wholesome dispositional properties and habit patterns
that have already arisen. By the cultivation of virtues and
wholesome qualities and the renunciation of vices and unwholesome
qualities, one realizes buddhanature and thus attains
buddhahood.
Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche is a lama in the Kagyü tradition of
Tibetan Buddhism. He lives in Melbourne, Australia, where he
founded the E-vam Institute. He also recently established the E-vam
Institute in Hudson, New York.
Order a trial subscription to Buddhadharma by clicking
here.