Buddha-nature (as Depicted in the Lankavatara-sutra)
by Nguyen Dac Sy | 2012 | 70,344 words
This page relates ‘Clarification Of The Topic’ of the study on (the thought of) Buddha-nature as it is presented in the Lankavatara-sutra (in English). The text represents an ancient Mahayana teaching from the 3rd century CE in the form of a dialogue between the Buddha and Bodhisattva Mahamati, while discussing topics such as Yogacara, Buddha-nature, Alayavijnana (the primacy of consciousness) and the Atman (Self).
Clarification Of The Topic
Object of the present study
Although most of the followers of Mahāyāna Buddhism believe the doctrine of Buddha-nature and constantly try their best to attain the goal of Buddhahood, there were a lot of opinions to criticize that the doctrine of Buddha-nature is not Buddhist. For instance, in the article of “Philosophies of Sarvāstivāda School”, R.S. Tripathi gives several reasons to prove that Mahāyāna sūtras seem to be propagated by Māra (evil demon king) only to deceive people and cannot be accepted as the speeches of the Buddha.[1]
In recent years, scholars of the trend of Critical Buddhism in Japan such as Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō claim that the doctrine of Buddha-nature is not of Buddhism. Matsumoto Shirō himself promotes a new notion of dhātuvāda,[2] or the “theory of locus”, for Buddha-nature. The Shirō’s concept of dhātuvāda is identical with Brahman or Ātman of the Upaniṣads.
Conversely, according to some scholars, the Buddha nature or Tathāgatagarbha referred in some Mahāyāna sūtras does not represent a substantial self; it is rather a positive language to express the thought of “emptiness” (śūnyatā) and to represent the potentiality of realizing Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. Sallie B. King attempts to demonstrate in her article “The Doctrine of Buddha-nature Is Impeccably Buddhist” that Buddha-nature based firmly on the idea of śūnyatā, which in turn is a development of the principle of pratītyasamutpāda (Dependent Origination).[3]
In all the sūtras of both Early and Mahāyāna Buddhism, no scripture states that the Buddha-nature is not Buddhist. From the beginning, the Buddha taught in his first sermon, the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta, that his teaching is the middle path avoiding all extremes.[4] Therefore, the ultimate truth that the Buddha attainted is beyond self or no-self. In the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Buddha also taught that if one says that all things do not possess self, this is the nihilistic view (duanjian); if one says that self exists, this is the eternalistic view (changjian); and the Buddha’s Dharma is Middle Path which negates the two extremes of the characteristics of self and no-self.[5] Modern scholars today fall into an unending dispute about the concept of the Buddha-nature because of their different standpoint due to the incomplete consideration.
Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to attempt to clarify the Buddhist orthodoxy of the doctrine of Buddha-nature. Based on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and other scriptures, the work will clarify that the Buddhist thought of Buddha-nature had existed in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra before the Vedāntic thought of Brahman came into existence. Consequently, although the Buddha-nature is closely akin to Brahman/ Ātman of the Vedānta, the doctrine of Buddha-nature is originally of Buddhism. For this reason, the writer chose the topic entitled “Thought of Buddha-nature as Depicted in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra” for the Ph.D. thesis.
The Extent of Existing Studies on the Topic
Although the doctrine of Buddha-nature arose in India and occupied an important role in the entire domain of Mahāyāna Buddhism in East and Southeast Asia, the study of the Buddha-nature was not intense in its Indian origin.[6] In recent decades, there are so far the following scientific studies concerning the related issues.
* Studies on the Buddha-nature:
-The Sallie B. King’s “Buddha Nature” (1991)[7] is actually the English translation (from Chinese version) and commentary on the work “Buddha-nature Treatise” (foxing-lun) attributed to Vasubandhu. In this work, Sallie tries to prove that the Buddha-nature does not represent an individual self (Ātman) or universal principle (Brahman);rather, it is a positive language and expression of the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā).
-The Brian Edward Brown’s “The Buddha Nature: A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha and Ālayavijñāna” (1991)[8] is a study of the doctrines of Ālayavijñāna and Tathāgatagarbha presented in certain textual sources such as the Śrīmālāsūtra, Ratnagotravibhāgaśāstra and some other texts.
-The “Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism”[9] (1997) edited by J. Hubbard and P.L. Swanson is a collection of many arguments about Critical Buddhism such as the own editors” writings, the articles of Sallie B. King, Steven Heine, etc. The term “Critical Buddhism” refers to a movement in Buddhist scholarship represented in the years of 1990 by Hakamaya Nokiaki and one of his colleagues at Komazawa University, Matsumoto Shirō. In Critical Buddhism, the Buddha-nature is named dhātuvāda and is identical Brahma / Ātman of the Upaniṣads, so it is considered as the non-Buddhist thought.
* Studies on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra:
-The D.T. Suzuki’s “Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra” (1929) and “The Laṅkāvatārasūtra” (1932, the English translation of the sūtra from Sanskrit) are the immortal, authoritative and the most important works in the research of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. I mainly use these works in my study of the sūtra.
-The “Existence and Enlightenment in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra”[10] (1991) of F.G. Sutton is a study in the ontology and epistemology of the Yogācāra school as expounded in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. In this study, the author analyzes the dialectical-critical nature of Yogācāra. The work also presents a systematic understanding of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and places it in relationship to some main Western philosophical and psychological ideas.
Although the above studies support the thesis in many ways and in my view, no comprehensive work has been done on the topic in bringing out new and interesting conclusions of the Buddhist authenticity of the Buddha-nature as expounded in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, especially in comparative study on the chronology of the sūtra and the Upaniṣads. The thesis, therefore, will take into account the Buddhist literature besides Sanskrit, in Chinese and Vietnamese sources, where doctrine of the Buddha-nature played a predominant role in the life of the Buddhists, in order to clarify the thought of Buddha-nature, which is definitely a doctrine of Buddhism.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
G.C. Pande (ed.), “Philosophies of Sarvāstivāda School,” Life, Thought and Culture in India (from c. 600 BC to c. AD 300), pp. 647-48.
[2]:
[3]:
Ibid., 174-75.
[4]:
Saṃyuttanikāya. v, 420.
[6]:
Paul William, Buddhist Thought: Aṅguttaranikāya Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition, p. 162.
[8]:
Brian Edward Brown, The Buddha Nature: Aṅguttaranikāya Study of the Tathāgatagarbha and Ālayavijñāna, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991, reprinted 1994).
[9]:
Jamie Hubbard & P.L. Swanson (eds.), Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism, (Honolulu: University of Hawai”i Press, 1997).
[10]:
Florin Giripescu Sutton, Existence and Enlightenment in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, (Delhi: Satgugu,1991.)