論 如 來 藏 之 空 性 義
釋 恆 清
HENG-CHING SHIH
七十七年一月
227頁
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF `TATHAGATAGARBHA`：
A POSITIVE EXPRESSION OF `SUNYATA`
HENG-CHING SHIH
The well-known motto of Ch'an Buddhism is that
"perceiving the true self, one becomes a Buddha."
The "true self" signifies the Buddha nature inherent
in all sentient beings. The discovering of the "true
self" has become the single most important pursuit
of the Buddhist, especially in Sino-Japanese
Buddhism. On the contrary, early Buddhism teaches
that ultimately no substantial self (i.e.,
`anatman`) can be found, since the self is nothing
but the union of the five aggregates. Modern
Buddhologists as well as the Buddhists have been
intrigued by the inconsistency that one single
tradition teaches both that there is no self on the
one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to
discover the true self, on the other hand.
The big questions concerning these two
contradictory doctrines include： How did they
develop during the course of Buddhist history？ How
can they be reconciled？ Are these two ideas
actually as contradicting as they appear to be？ Is
the concept of the Buddha nature an outcome of the
influence of other Indian religious thought upon
Buddhism？ It is out of the scope of this short
paper to answer all these questions. Therefore, this
paper will deal with the antecedent and synonymous
concept of the Buddha nature, that is, `tathagata-
garbha`(`ju lai tsang`). Specifically, this paper
will examine the meaning and significance of the
`tathagatagarbha` (Buddha nature) based on three
`tathagatagarbha` texts and argue that the
228頁
`tathagatagarbha`/Buddha nature does not
represent a substantial self (`atman`); rather, it
is a positive language and expression of `sunyata`
(emptiness) and represents the potentiality to
realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In
other words, the intention of the teaching of
`tathagatagarbha`/Buddha nature is soteriological
rather than theoretical.
The term "`tathagatagarbha`" is generally taken
as to mean that the "garbha" of a `Tathagata` exists
in all sentient beings without exception, and though
temporarily contaminated by adventitious defilement
(`agantukaklesa`), it is the cause which eventually
leads sentient beings to enlightenment. The notion
of the `tathagatagarbha` can be traced to a luminous，
inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta) found in
the `Anguttara-nikaya` (1:5):
Pabhassarm `idam` bhikkhave cittam `tan` ca kho
`agantukehi` upakkilesehi `upakkilitthan` ti
pabhassaram idam bhikkhave `cittam tan` ca kho
`agantukehi` upakkilesehi vippamuttan ti
Oh！ `Bhiksus`. The mind is pure； it is defiled
by The adventitious defilement.
Oh！ `Bhiksus`. The mind is pure； it obtains
liberation
Through the adventitious defilement.
When the original pure mind came to be regarded
as something capable of growing into Buddhahood,
there was the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine. Although
the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in
the Nikaya Buddhism, many Buddhologists, such as
Wayman,(1)Paul,(2) Yin-shun(3) think that
────────────
1. A. Wayman, "The `Mahasamghika` and the
`Tathagatagarbha`,' Journal of International
Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 1, no. 3,
pp. 35-80.
2. Diana Paul, A Prolegomena to the
`Srimaladevi-sutra` and the `Tathagatagarbha`
Theory, dissertation, Wisconsin, 1974, pp.73-80.
3. Yun-shun, Indian Buddhism (印度之佛教), Chen-wen
Press, Taipei, 1976, p.167.
229頁
the `tathagatagarbha` thought was originated from
the `Mahasamgika`, but was rejected by the
`Theravada`. This theory is also held by Mizuno who
points out that the pure mind (`pabhassarcitta`)
articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally
identical with the original pure mind
(`prakrtivisuddhi-citta`) articulated in the
`Tathagatagarbha` doctrine, for Mizuno asserts that
the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic
in that it is capable of eradicating defilement.(4)
At any rate, the relationship between pure mind and
the adventitious defilement appears to have been
wholly adopted by the `Mahasamghika` and later by
the `Mahayana`.
According to I-tsing's (義淨) Nan-hai-chi-kuei
Nei-fa-chuan (The record of the Buddhist kingdoms in
the Southern Archipelago 南海寄歸內法傳), "the
so-called `Mahayana` (in India) is no more than the
two: one `Madhyamika`, the other `Yogacara`."(5)
Although it is commonly held that the `Madhyamika`
and `Yogacara` were the two major philosophical
schools in Indian `Mahayana` and although it might
be true that `tathagatagarbha` thought never formed
an academic school in India, this does not mean that
the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine never played a
significant role in the development of Indian
Buddhist thought.(6) This is attested by the fact
that there are
────────────
4. Mizuno Hiromoto (水野弘元), "心性本淨ソ意味" (The
Meaning of the Original Pure Mind), Indogaku
Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 8-16.
5. T. 54, p. 205c.
6. There is no evidence that the `Tathagatagarbha`
formed a school in India. For one thing there
never existed a patriarchal figure in the
`tathagatagarbha` as `Nagarjuna` in `Madhyamika`
and `Asanga` in `Yogacara`. However, Fa-tsang
identified a "ju-lai-tsang yuan-chi tsang", i.e".
"a school of `Tathagatagarbha-pratityasamut-pada`".
Furthermore , Takasaki identifies
`Tathagatagarbha-vada` in
230頁
many `tathagatagarbha` scriptures composed in India
approximately from the third to the sixth century,
such as the `Tathagatagarbha-sutra`,
`Maha-parinirvana-sutra`,
`Anuatyapurn-atvanirdesa-sutra`,
`Srimaladevisimhanada-sutra`, `Lankavatara-sutra`,
Rotnagotravibhaga, Buddha-nature Treatise, etc.
Since the beginning of this century, many
`Buddhologists` have become interested in the
`Tathagararbha` doctrine and have shed new light on
tathagatagarbha thought. However, their studies,
especially on the Ratnagotravibhaga, lead to two
different interpretations of the `tathagatagarbha`
doctrine, i.e., `tathagatagarbha as a monistic
doctrine, and `tathagatagarbha` as the embodiment of
the principle of dependent co-arising
(`pratityasamutpada`) or `sunyata`, following the
traditional `Mahayana` Buddhist lines.
Obermiller, who maintains the `Tathagatagarbha`
as monistic, in the introduction to his translation
of the Ratnagotravibhaga, says that in this text,
"we see that Aryasanga has come to a fully monistic
and pantheistic conception" and that
The central point of this most developed
theory is the teaching that the fundamental
element of Buddhahood, the essence of the
Buddha in a living being represents an eternal,
immutable (`asamskrta`) element, which is
identical with the monistic Absolute and is
unique and undifferentiated in everything that
lives."(7)
────────────
the `Lankavatara-sutra` and claims it is used as an
independent school in contrast to `Atmavada`. For
further discussion on this issue, see M. Kiyota,
"`Tathagatagarbha` Thought─A Basis of Buddhist
Devotionalism in East Asia," Japanese Journal of
Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3, pp. 207-229.
7. Leningrad Obermiller, "The Sublime School of
the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual
of Buddhist Monism," Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX,
p. 104.
231頁
Takasaki, `an` eminent scholar of the
`tathagatagarbha` doctrine, asserts that the
`tathagatagarbha` thought holds some monistic
element. He says,
When Buddhism developed itself into `Mahayana`
Buddhism, it could not but take the appearance of
Monism as a result of Absolutization of the Buddha，
and approach the Upanishadic thinking in its
philosophy....for explaining the possibility of
anyone's acquiring the Buddhahood, the Monistic
philosophy was used as the background. In this
last point lies the significance of the
`tathagatagarbha` theory of this text. This
theory is in one sense an inevitable result of the
development of Mahayanistic monism in its
religious expression."(8)
Although Takasaki notes that there is a difference
between the nature of monism in the Ratnagotravibhaga
and in the Upanishads, for the Absolute taught in the
Ratnagotravibhaga is the manifestion of `sunyata`
which is of a quite different character from the
substantial Absolute of the Upanishads, still he
believes "there was an influence from the
Upanishadic thought for the `astivada` of the Ratna
to establish its monistic doctrine."(9)
The reason for those scholars' holding the
`tathagatagarbha` doctrine as monistic is that they
base their interpretation on passages in various
`tathagatagarbha` literature which assert the
equivalence of the `tathagatagarbha` to terms with
all-pervading character, such as `tathata`,
`dharmakaya`, `dharmadhatu`, etc., which describe
the `tathagatagarbha` as being eternal (nitya) and
immutable (`atman`), which assert the fundamental
purity
────────────
8. Jikido Takasaki, A Study of the Ratnagotravibhaga
, Rome, 1966, p. 28.
9. Ibid. p.61.
232頁
of the `tathagatagarbha` (equating the
`tathagatagarbha` as `prakrtiparisuddhi-citta`, the
original pure mind), and which assert that the
`tathagatagarbha` functions like a first cause from
which the phenomenal reality emanates.
However, if we examine more carefully the
`tathagatagarbha` doctrine, we will find that it can
be interpreted as an expression of the concept of
`pratityasamutpada` and `sunyata`. Yamaguchi(10) and
Ogawa(11) follow this traditional line.
Interestingly, modern Buddhologists are not
alone in their puzzle about the question of whether
the `tathagatagarbha` represents a kind of
Upanishadic `atman`. Bodhisattva `Mahamati` in the
`Lankavatarasutra` raised a question concerning this
issue. He said to the Buddha,
Now the Blessed one makes mention of the
`tathagatagarbha` in the sutras, and it is
described by you as by nature bright and pure, as
primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two
marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every
being like a gem of great value....it is described
by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent,
auspicious and unchangeable. Is not this
`tathagatagarbha` taught by the Blessed One the
same as the ego-substance taught by the
philosophers (tirthikas)？(12)
In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the
`tathagatagarbha` with emptiness, markless,
`tathata`, etc., meaning that the `tathagatagarbha`
is without any substantial entity. Then the question
arises： if the `tathagatagarbha` is empty by nature
, why the Buddhas teach a `tathagatagarbha`
possessing all positive
────────────
10. Yamaguchi Susumu, Hanyo Shisoni (般若思想史),
Tokyo, 1956.
11. Ichijo Ogawa, Nyoraizo-Bussho no Kenkyu (如來藏•
佛性之研究), Kyoto, 1969.
12. Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The `Lankavatara Sutra`,
Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, pp.68-69.
233頁
attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self (`atman`),
bliss (sukha) and pure (subha)？ The Buddha goes on
to answer this question,
The reason why the `Tathagatas` who are Arhats and
fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing
to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of
non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the
ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to
teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who
manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay
of one sort by his own manual skill and labour
....that the `Tathagatas` preach the egolessness
of things which removes all the traces of
discrimination by various skillful means issuing
from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is,
sometimes by the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha`
, sometimes by that of egolessness....Thus,
`Mahamati`, the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha`
is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers
from their clinging to the idea of the ego.
Accordingly, `Mahamati`, the `Tathagatas` disclose
the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha` which is thus
not to be known as identical with the
philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore
, `Mahamati`, in order to abandon the
misconception cherished by the philosophers, you
must depend on the `anatman-tathagatagarbha`.(13)
It is pointed out in this passage that the
`tathagatagarbha` is empty in its nature yet real；
it is `Nirvana` itself, unborn, without predicates.
It is where no false discrimination (nirvikalpa)
takes place. There is nothing here for the Buddhas
or Bodhisattvas to take hold of as an `atman`. They
have gone beyond the sphere of false discrimination
and word. It is due to their wisdom and skillful
means (`upaya`) that they set up all kinds of names
and phrases in order to save
────────────
13. Ibid. p.69.
234頁
sentient beings from mistaken view of reality. In
other words, it is exactly to help sentient beings
case away their fear of `anatman` that the
`tathagatagarbha` with positive attributes (i.e.,
`asunya-tathagatagarbha`不空如來藏) is taught, and
at the same time it is to get rid of the clinging of
`atman` that the `anatman-tathagatagarbha`(無我如來
藏) is taught. Thus it is clear that the
`tathagatagarbha` is not an Upanishadic `atman`. Now
let's turn to examine how Yamaguchi and Ogawa who
hold this traditional line interpret this doctrine.
Yamaguchi points out that the statement in the
Ratnagotravibhaga, "O Noble youth, such is the
essential nature of the dharma (`dharmanam
dharmata`), whether the `Tathagatas` appear in the
world, or whether they do not, these living beings
are always possessed of the matrix of the
`Tathagata`" (15) is parellel to the statement found
in the Sammyutta-nikaya "Whether the `Tathagatas`
were to appear in the world, the theory of
`pratitysamutpada` remains."(16) Here we see the
`tathagatagarbha` was considered as a valid
principle as `pratitysamutpada`. Thus Yamaguchi
holds that the most important point in expounding
the `tathagatagarbha` in the Ratnagotravibharga is
that "the `pratitysamutpada` is the
`tathagatagarbha`." (engi sunawachi nyoraizo 緣起即
如來藏)(17).
Ogawa, following the same position, interprets
the `tathagatagarbha` according to the commentary of
the `Ratnagotravibhaga` by the Tibetan master,
Dhar-ma rin-chen. He argues that the
`tathatagatagarbha` is essentially the same as
`sunyata`, and also it has the `sunyata` nature
which allows the
────────────
14. Ibid. p.69.
15. Takasaki, pp.294-295.
16. T. 2, p.84b.
17. Yamaguchi, p.86.
235頁
mind to understand `sunyata`. The crucial point of
this interpretation centers on the passage "all
sentient beings are possessed of the
`tathagatagarbha`" in the Ratnagotravibhaga. It
expounds three `svabhavas` of the `tathagatagarbha`
to justify the above passage. According to Dhar-ma
rin-chen, the three `svabhavas` are ways of
explaining the `tathagatagarbha` form three
perspectives： from the perspective of the result
level of the `Tathagata`, from the perspective of
the nature of the `Tathagata` and form the
perspective of the cause of the `Tathagata.`(18)
(1) `Dharmakaya-svabhava`： from the
perspective of the result level of the `Tathagata`.
The `Dharmakaya-svabhava` means that the
`Dharmakaya` of the `Tathagata` penetrates all
sentient beings. According to Takasaki, this first
`svabhava` is derived from the `
Tathagatotpattisambhavambhava-parivarta` of the
`Avatamsaka-sutra` as cited in the Ratnagotravibhaga
： "There is no one among the groups of sentient
beings in whose body the wisdom of the `Tathagata`
does not penetrate at all."(19) It seems that when
"the `dharmakaya` of the `Tathagata` pervades" is
taken to mean that there is no part of the universe
where the substantial entity is not present, it
could fall into a monistic interpretation. However,
according to Dhar-ma rin-chen, the `Dharmakaya` is
explained as having two aspects： 1) `Dharma-dhatu`,
the perfectly pure realm of ultimate truth itself,
in which "dharma" means "teaching" and "`dhatu`"
means "cause". Therefore, the `Dharmadhatu` refers
to the supreme truth which is the cause of the
teaching, and 2)
────────────
18. John Makransky, "Rgyal Tshab Rje's Interpretation
of the Three Meanings of `Tathagatagarbha` with
Reference to the `Tathagatagarbhasutra`, the
Ratnagotravibhaga and some Philosophical and
Historical Developments," unpub. paper.
19. Takasaki, p.35 and p.189.
236頁
arya-dharma which means the teaching in its form as
conventional truth. This conventional teaching is
the nature outflow (`nisyanda`) of wisdom. Thus we
see whereas the former aspect of the `Dharmadhatu`
refers to the truth realized by the Buddha, the
static aspect of the `Tathagata's` enlightenment,
the later refers to the dynamic aspect of the
`Tathagata's` enlightenment, i.e., teaching the
Dharma. This is to say that the Buddhadharma, or the
teaching, spontaniously flows out of the
`Tathagata's` compassion for the benefit of sentient
beings. Therefore, when the Ratnagotravibhaga states
that "all beings possess the `tathagatagarbha`"
(because the `Dharmakaya` of the `Tathagata`
penetrates all sentient beings), it simply means
that sentient beings are able to hear the pure
dharmas and are everywhere and constantly permeated
by them, as the nesessary outflow of the
`Dharmadhatu`.(20) In other words, the universality
of the `Tathatagatagarbha` expressed here refers to
the potential capacity within living beings to be
effected by the teaching of the Buddha and hence
does not have a notion of a substantial entity.
2) `Tathata-svabhava`： from the perspective of
the nature of the `Tathagata`. This
`tathata-svabhava` means that the `tathata` of the
`Tathagata` is not different from the `tathata` of
the sentient beings. The underlying principle of
this identity of the `tathata` of the `Tathagata`
and that of sentient being is `sunyata`. Since the
ultimate nature of both the `Tathagata` and sentient
beings are `sunyata`, they are seen to be
undifferentiated. The only difference is that when
the `tathata` is associated with defilement, it is
called the "`tathagatagarbha`" or `samala tathata`
(of sentient beings), and when the defilement
────────────
20. Ogawa, pp. 75-77.
237頁
is removed, it becomes `nirmala tathata` (of the
`Tathagata`). Yet they are essentially identical.
Therefore, one says that all sentient beings possess
the `tathagatgarbha` when referring to the existence
of the `sunyata` nature of living being's mind which
is essentially free of defilement. Again no notion
of immutable substance should be asserted.
3) `Gotra-svabhava： from the perspective of
the cause of the `Tathagata`. This `gotra-svabhava`
means that the gotra (seed nature) of the
`Tathagata` exists in all sentient beings. The gotra
in this context is explained accroding to the
two-fold structure： (1) the `prakrtistha-gotra`
(innate gotra), and (2) the `samudanilagora`
(acquired gotra). According to Dhar-ma rin-chen,
Based on the innate gotra, the first body, which
is `Dharmakaya`, is obtained. Based on the
acquired, perfected gotra, the later two form
bodies (`sambohogakaya` and `nirmanakaya`) are
obtained.(21)
The `prakrtistha` gotra which obtains the
`dharmakaya`, does so on the basis of the wisdom
(`prajna`) through which insight into the reality of
all dharmas is attained. According to Dharma
rin-chen, the `prakrtistha` gotra is the primary
meaning of the `tathagatagarbha`, because it is
identified with `sunyata` and as such the primary
"cause" of Buddhahood.
The `samudanita` gotra which obtains
`sambhogakaya` and `nirmanakaya`, does so on the
basis of vigorous practices and the accumulation of
innumberable merits and thus is the productive
"cause" of Buddhahood. The `samudanita` is called
the uttara, or ultimate, because it signifies the
central theme of general `Mahayana` practice, that
is, "wisdom (`Dharmakaya`) becomes compassion
(`rupakaya`)(22). In other words, within
────────────
21. Ogawa, p. 85.
22. Ibid.
238頁
the very meaning of gotra is experssed the movement
from `prajna` to `karuna`. This might be called
hsia-huei-hsiang (下迴向), a down-ward
transformation or `tatha-agata`, i.e., returning
from the realm of enlightenment to that of this
world of sentient beings─a process of enlightening
others, after the socalled shan-huei-hsiang (上迴向)
, an up-ward transformation or `tatha-gata`, i.e.,
striving for the realm of enlightenment from the
realm of this world of sentient beings, a process of
enlightening oneself. However, this "two-way
traffic" process should not be seen as two
distinctive and separated processes； rather, they
are non-dual, interrelated and inter-dependent.
Based on the commentary of Dhar-ma rin-chen, we
can conclude that the real purpose of the passage
"the gotra of the `Tathagata` exists in all sentient
beings" is to articulate bodhisattva practices based
on wisdom. This is supported by the structure of the
Ratnagotravibhaga, which is arranged by the
following order： 1. Buddha, 2. Dharma, 3. Sangha,
4. `Dhatu`, 5. Bodhi, 6. `Guna` (merits) and Karma
(act). The seven `vajrapadas` are expalined in terms
of cause, condition and result. "`Dhatu`" is the
"cause"； bodhi, `guna`, and karma are the
"conditions" through which the three jewels (of the
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) as "result" are
manifested. As kiyota says that the wisdom, merits
and practice of a Bodhisattva constitute the
condition through which the "Buddha-is-caused". The
expression "Buddha-is-caused", or "Buddha-caused" is
derived from `Buddha-dhatu`. It is employed
synonymously with the `tathagatagarbha`. As Kiyota
rightly points out, the term "cause" here does not
refer to a first cause (i.e., a substance or a
physical entity), but symbolically as a potential (a
principle) which is empirically
239頁
revealed through a set of conditions─wisdom, merits
,and practices.(23) In other words, the
`tathagatagarbha` as a potential inherent in the
human consciousness can only be realized through
Bodhisattva practices.
The above arguments are mainly based on the
Rathagotravibhaga. At least two other
`Tatnagatagarbha` related `sutras` also support this
viewpoint. One is the Buddha Nature Treatise(24) and
the other the `Mahaparinirvana sutra`(25).
In the Buddha Nature Treatise, the author gives
five reasons to the question why the Buddha spoke of
Buddha nature. They are (1) to cause sentient beings
to depart from inferior mind, (2) to leave behind
arrogance, (3) to get rid of delusion, (4) to keep
away from slandering the truth and (5) to sever the
attachment to self(26). By overcoming these five
shortcomings, one gives rise to five virtues, namely
, diligent mind, reverence, widom (`prajna`)
knowledge (`jnana`) and compassion (`karuna`).
Clearly, right from the beginning, the author does
not try to establish that the Buddha nature stands
for something substantial. Rather, he points out the
────────────
23. Minoru Kiyota, "`Thatagatagarbha` Thought─Basis
of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia," Japanese
Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3,
p.214.
24. Traditionally, Fo Hsing Lun (The Buddha Nature
Treatise) is attributed to Vasubandha and
translated into Chinese by `Paramartha`. Some
Buddhologists, for example, Takasaki, suspect
that it was actually written by `Paramartha`.
However, this is still an unresolved issue. At
any rate, this text represents the Yogacarin view
concerning the Buddha nature.
25. This is the `Mahayana` version of the Buddha's
`Parinirvana`. Its content concentrates mainly on
the `Mahayana` doctrines such as the eternal
nature of Buddhahood rather than on the
description of the last days of the Buddha.
26. T. 31, p. 787a.
240頁
soteriological function of the teaching of the Buddha
nature.
Delusion refers to the two erronous views of
the substential existence of both person (`atman`)
and things (dharma). Ignorant actions arise from
these two attachments to the self and external
things which prevent human beings from perceiving
the truth. To the author of the Buddha Nature
Treatise, the truth is nothing but the Buddha nature,
for "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the
twin emptiness of person and things."(27) Thus it
is said that "if one does not speak of Buddha
nature, then one does not understand emptiness and
consequently will cling to reality and slander
Thusness."(28) Since the Buddha nature is the
implementation of emptiness, it can be any thing but
an entity.
Furthermore, in the chapter of expounding the
nature of Buddha nature, the author identified
Buddha nature with the `Dharmakaya`, which is
characterized with four virtues (`guna`). One of
them is "self" (`atman`). This "self" is immediately
identified with the perfection of non-self
(`anatman-paramita`無我波羅蜜). How can the self be
at the same time the perfection of non-self？ The
author explains,
All the heterodox, in their various ways, conceive
and grasp a self in those things which lack self,
namely, the five skandhas─form, etc. Yet these
things such as form, etc. differ from what one
grasps as the mark of self； therefore, they are
eternally lacking in self [However] with the
wisdom of Thusness (chen ju chih真如智). all
Buddhas and bodhisattvas realize the perfection of
non-self (`anatman-paramita`) of all things
───────────
27. T. 31, p. 787b.
28. Ibid.
241頁
Since this perfection of non-self and that
which is seen as the mark of not-self are not
different, the `Tathagata` says that this mark of
the eternal not-self is the true, essential nature
(chen t'i hsing 真體性) of all things, therefore.
it is said that the perfection of not-self is
self. As the `sutra` verse says,
Already the twin emptiness [of person and
thing] is pure！
[In this] is realized the not-self, the
supreme self, Since the Buddha realizes the
pure nature (hsing性). Not-self turns on
itself (chuan轉) and becomes self.(29)
It is evident from this explanation that the
teaching of Buddha nature is the instrument employed
along with `prajna` to realize the true, essential
nature of all dharmas, namely, the non-self.
Soteriologically speaking, `tathagatagarbha/Buddha`
nature also functions as an active skillful means,
for it is reiterated in several `tathagatagarbha`
texts that `tathagatagarbha` is the basis of
`samsara` and `nirvana`. That is to say without
`tathagatagarbha/Buddha` nature, sentient beings
would neither arouse aversion to `samsara` nor
desire for `nirvana`. Therefore, `tathagatagarbha`
is active, not static. In other words, it represents
actions of practice, rather than an monastic
substance.
This interpretation can be further attested by
the three causes of the Buddha nature explained in
the Buddha Nature Treatise. The Buddha nature
consists of three causes： (1) "deserved" cause (應
得因), (2) the cause of intensified effort (加行因),
and (3) the casue of fulfillment (圓滿因).(30) The
────────────
29. T. 31, p. 798c. Adapted from the translation in
Sallie King's "The Buddha Nature： True Self As
Action," Religious Studies, 1982, pp. 259.
30. T. 31, p. 794a.
242頁
three-cause schema signifies that depending on the
"Thusness manifested by the twin emptiness (i.e.,
Buddha nature)"， and through the intensified effort
of Buddhist practices, one "should obtain" or
"deserves" the fulfillment of Buddhahood. Apparently
, the pivot of the triple cause is the cause of
intensified practice, for it plays the role of
activating the potentiality to realize the Buddha
nature.
As we know, the `Mahaparnirvana-sutra` is one
of the most important `sutras` which articulate the
concept of Buddha nature. Just as the
Ratnagotravibhaga claims that all sentient beings
possess the `tathagatagarbha`, so the
`Mahaparinirvana Sutra` teaches that sentient beings
have the Buddha nature. In explaining what it means
by sentient beings' having the Buddha nature, the
`Mahaparinirvana Sutra` distinguishes three
different ways of understanding the term "to have",
Good son, there are three ways of having： first,
to have in the future, Secondly, to have at
present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All
sentient beings will have in future ages the most
perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature.
All sentient beings have at present bonds of
defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two
marks and eighty noble characteristics of the
Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds
leading to the elimination of defilements and so
can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future
goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all
sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)
Since the above passage identifies sentient beings'
ways of
────────────
31. T. 12, p. 524b. Adapted from the translation in
Miug-wood Liu's "The Doctrine of the Buddha
Nature in the `Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra,`"
Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1983, p. 70.
243頁
having Buddha nature with the third way of having,
i.e., having in the future, it is again a proof that
the teaching of the universal Buddha nature does not
intend to assert the existence of substantial,
entity-like self endowed with excellent features of
a Buddha. Rather, Buddha nature simply represents
the potentiality to be realized in the future.
Elsewhere in the `Mahaparinirana Sutra`, Buddha
nature is defined as the ultimate emptiness and the
Middle Way. It says,
Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness
,which is `prajna` itself. [False] emptiness means
not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness. The
wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness,
permanence and impermanence, suffering and
happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is
`samsara` and what is not empty is great
`nirvana`.... Perceiving the non-self but not the
self is not the Middle Way. The Middle Way is
Buddha nature.(32)
The essential point of this passage is that true
emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends
any dictomony─being and non-being, self and
non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary
people and the heterodox see only the existence of
self, while `Sravakas` and Pratyekabuddhas perceive
only the non-self, but not the existence of a self.
Clinging to one extreme or the other, they cannot
realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and
consequently cannot realize the Middle Way. Without
the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend
Buddha nature. Trying to lessen the monistic flavour
of the Buddha nature, the `Mahaparinirvana Sutra`
interprets Buddha nature as both emcompassing and
transcending the notions of self
────────────
32. T. 12, p. 523b.
244頁
and non-self. It makes the doctrine of the Buddha
nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of
non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature
should not be treated as equivalent to the monistic
absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of
a substantive self, it is actually a positive
expression of emptiness.
In conclusion, when we try to interpret the
thought of the `tathagatagarbha`, we should keep
several points in mind： (1) The `tathagatagarbha`
symbolizes the potential for enligh-tenment (a
principle) rather than a material "essence" of
ultimate truth, because (2) the `tathagatagarbha` is
based on the framework of the `Mahayana` doctrine of
`sunyata-pratitys-amutpada`. (3) The development of
the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine signifies the ability
of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs
of the masses aiming at a given time. That is to
say the `tathagatagarbha` thought was formed as an
positive soterio-logical approach to counteract the
"`sunyam sarvam`" (all is empty) view. The
`tathagatagarbha` which strongly articulates a
devotional and experiential approach to salvation
provides much to the hope and aspiration of the
people at large.
It is this positive aspect that was taken up
and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism. (4) The
`tathagatagarbha` doctrine is employed as a
skill-in-means (`upaya`). This does not necessarily
mean that the theory of the `tathagatagarbha` is
neyartha, a teaching requiring further
qualifications； rather, it is a skill-in-means in
that it is taught to suit the needs of a certain
kind of people and circumstances. This is why it is
said in the `sutra` that in order to teach the
emptiness of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach
sometimes by the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha`,
and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus
245頁
it is better to take the `tathagatagarbha/Buddha`
nature as representing "profound existence" (妙有)
derived from "true emptiness" (真空) rather than as
a monistic self.
246頁
論 如 來 藏 之 空 性 義
釋 恆 清
真常系思想為大乘佛教三大思想之一，影響中國佛教至鉅。
此系統主要是建立在如來藏(或佛性)的教義上，高揚人心中蘊含
的清淨本性。
然而，帶有神我色彩的如來藏卻自古引起不少諍議。例如，
如來藏是否代表某種有「我」論？清淨的如來藏如果是本然的存
在，則染污的「無明」又因何而起？
本文根據「寶性論」、「大般涅槃經」、「佛性論」等真常
系統經論，探討如來藏的空性義，以駁斥現代某些學者主張如來
藏思想為實體一元論的論調。