Yet it's not that consciousness and tathagatagarbha is not
empty. If it is not empty and have inherent existence, it is no
different from Hinduism's understanding of a metaphysical essence
(Atman-Brahman).
In Buddhism, ultimate reality is the union of luminosity and
emptiness, and which many names are given i.e. Tathagathagarbha,
Mind, etc. But it is the emptiness (dependent origination) aspect
that sets us aside from other religions, because other religions
teach and lead practitioners to experience the luminous aspect as
well (but misconstrue it as a metaphysical essence, a divine
Self).
Also I find it quite right that Master Yin Shun is saying that
the Tathagatagarbha teachings are provisional teachings and
skillful means, which indeed it is, to lead sentient beings to the
understanding of Emptiness.
In the case of Buddhism, as you said and as Loppon Namdrol
said,
"Tathagatagarbha exists principally to describe emptiness in
terms that those frightened of absence of identity can handle."
"This is what the Lanka-avatara sutra says:
So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka
states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a
device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of
the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and
explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly
err about:
"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by
the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is
completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two
marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient
beings.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel
thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by
cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by
the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the
passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal,
how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not
similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent
creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with
the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having
demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit,
nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the
purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes,
demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of
complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of
tathaagatagarbha.
Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva
Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay
into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick,
thread and effort.
Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of
conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately
demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various
kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means;
like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words
and letters. As such, because of that,
Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar
with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those
grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will
demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of
tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen
into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide
in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete
manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete
enlightenment?"
Thus, the Lanka says:
All yaanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses
It does not add anything about a true self and so
on."
----------------
It is how Chandrakirti understands the citation. And the sutra
itself states:
"Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having
demonstrated the meaning of the words, emptiness, reality limit,
nirvana, non-arisen, signless, etc. as tathaagatagarbha; for the
purpose of the childish complete forsaking perishable realms,
demonstrate the sphere of activity of the non-appearing abode of
complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of
tathaagatagarbha. "
Tathagatagarbha is therefore just a synonym of
emptiness.
N
----------------
Sakya Pandita's approach to the issue is best: tathagatagarbha
is a provisional teaching, not a definitive one."
----------------
Next is about Yogaracara...
Yogacara also have some form a true self teaching but it is not
a metaphysical substance and is in accord with other Mahayana
teachings, those that teach 'true self'.
One of the founders of Yogacara Vasubandhu explained the meaning
of 'true self' which is not the same as the metaphysical essence
taught in other religions:
Good Friends:
I have been exploring Vasubandhu's 20 Verses and particularly Verse
10 which is the one under discussion, at times, in this thread. I
posted the Anacker translation which some took issue with on the
grounds that the Anacker translation was suspect. However, I have
found another, more recent, translation which, for the most part,
agrees with Anacker. It is by George Cronk, published in 1998. It
is as follows:
"And why did the Buddha present his teaching this way? Why did he
present it in an exoteric form rather than simply revealing
outright its esoteric meaining? The answer is as follows: 'In this
way, the disciples are gradually initiated into an understanding of
the insubstantiality of self and of the insubstantiality of
objects, that is, self and objects as constructed in ordinary
experience.' [Verse 10]
"The six levels of perception are only representations
(appearances) of consciousness that arise out of the unconscious
(the alaya-vijnana). Once a disciple, through his study of the
Dharma [the teaching of the Buddha], realizes that there is, in
fact, no seer, no hearer, no smeller, no taster, no toucher, and no
thinker, he will enter into an understanding of the
insubstantiality of self. And when he learns that the objects of
perception are also representations (appearances) of
consciousness-only, and that there are, in fact, no experienced
entities that have the characteristics of external objectivity,
then the disciple will enter into an understanding of the
insbustantiality of [experienced] objects.
"However, as the last phrase of Verse 10 indicates, we must
distinguish between reality [self and objects] as constructed by
ordinary consciousness (especially the imagination) and reality as
it is in itself, in its 'suchness' (tathata). Beyond the ordinary
(constructed) self [ego] and its subject-object duality, there is
an ineffable (anabhilapya) transcendent Self (in which the duality
of subject and object does not arise), which is known by the Buddha
and other enlightened ones. It is the constructed self and its
constructed objects that are insubstantial, merely transformations
and representations of consciousness . . ."
I post this not to add fuel to the fire, but to offer it for
consideration. At least two translators, translating from the
Sanskrit, render this Verse of Vasubandhu's in such a way as to
distinguish between a constructed self and a True, Ineffable Self.
Are they correct?
It depends on how one comprehends constructed and true self. I
don't see anything in this verse which would argue for accepting a
metaphysical substance. It seems to me to be in agreement with such
Sutras as the Nirvana, Golden Light, and Lotus Sutras in the sense
that the Golden Light and Lotus argue for the eternal life of the
Tathagata, while, in addition, the Nirvana Sutra argues for the
presence of a True Self. That is to say, I think that Vasubandhu
could consistently argue against the existence of a constructed
pudgala and for the existence of an unconstructed ineffable Self,
which is the domain of Buddhas.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim