2. Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

As described in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha under the name Ālayavijñāna is seen as the fundamental essence from which seven Vijñānas arise and all things exist; such the concept of Tathāgatagarbha is easy to be dangerously understood as an ego-substance which is persistently denied by Buddhism.

The Ālayavijñāna also has another name Ādāna-Vijñāna, meaning “grasping” or “receiving” taken from the Chinese Sandhi-nirmocana-sūtra, is said that it can be imagined to an ego-substance.

The Ādāna-Vijñāna is deep and subtle,
Where all the seeds are evolved like a stream;
I do not elucidate this for the ignorant,
For they are apt to imagine it an ego-substance.^[1]

The idea of ego-substance (ātman) is a common psychological habit of people, but it obscures the real nature of mind, obstructs the path to liberation, and opposes to the experience of enlightenment in the religious life. There are two kinds of the attachment on ego-substance: “ego of things” or dharma-hindrance (fazhi) leading to knowledgehindrance, and “ego of persons” or self-hindrance (wozhi) leading to passion-hindrance. The philosophers take the Tathāgatagarbha or Ālayavijñāna for the ego, that is, the “ego of persons”, which is different from the teaching of the Buddha about the real immaculate self (śuddhisatyātman) of the Tathāgatagarbha, which goes beyond the grasp of relative knowledge, cannot be easily understood by the ignorant.

Many verses in the chapter Sagāthakam [Sagāthaka] in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra mention this matter as follows:

“Those theorisers who are destitute of the principle are lost in the forest of Vijñānas; seeking to establish the theory of an ego-soul, they wander about here and there.

“The ego (ātma) characterised with purity is the state of selfrealisation; this is the Tathagata's womb (garbha) which does not belong to the realm of the theorisers.

“The Ālaya where the Garbha (womb) is stationed is declared by the philosophers to be [the seat of] thought in union with the ego; but this is not the doctrine approved [by the Buddhas].

“The Mind primarily pure is the Tathāgatagarbha which is good but is attached to [as an ego-soul] by sentient beings; it is free from limitation and non-limitation.

“The Mind, primarily pure, is with the secondary passions, with the Manas, etc., and in union with the ego-soul—this is what is taught by the best of speakers.

“The ego [primarily] pure has been defiled on account of the external passions since the beginningless past, and what has been added from outside is like a [soiled] garment to be washed off.

“Trying to find permanency and emptiness in all things, the unenlightened cannot see them; so with the ego-soul within the Skandhas.”^[2]

Thus, like the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra also holds the theory of True-self (śuddhisatyātman) for the Buddha-nature. This true self, as the above verses, is different from the doctrine of self as the ego-soul of other philosophers. The true self in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra is the Tathāgatagarbha as the immaculate essence of all things. When the Tathāgatagarbha is identical with the Ālayavijñāna, which is the fundamental essence from which other Vijñānas arise, the Ālayavijñāna is probable to be regarded as a kind of “ego of persons”.

Therefore, the Bodhisattva Mahāmati put the question to the Buddha:

“At that time, Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said this to the Blessed One: Now the Blessed One makes mention of the Tathāgatagarbha in the sutras, and verily 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, which is enwrapped in a dirty garment, enveloped in the garment of the Skandhas, Dhātus, and Āyatanas, and soiled with the dirt of greed, anger, folly, and false imagination, while it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious, and unchangeable. Is not this Tathāgatagarbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the egosubstance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught in the systems of the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable.”^[3]

The Buddha with his compassion answered this question raised by Mahāmati as follows:

“No, Mahāmati, my Tathāgatagarbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathāgatagarbha in the sense, Mahāmati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort;the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathāgatagarbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. I also wish, Mahāmati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul]. Mahāmati, 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 combined with a rod, water, and thread, Mahāmati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and, like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason, Mahāmati, the philosophers‘doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same as the teaching of the Tathāgatagarbha. Thus, Mahāmati, the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment. Accordingly, Mahāmati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathāgatagarbha which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher‘s notion of an ego-substance. Therefore, Mahāmati, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathāgatagarbha.”^[4]

The above answer of the Buddha to the Mahāmati‘s question is too clear to explain more meaning of the true self of the Tathāgatagarbha. The answer also expounds the reason why the Buddha came to talk about the Tathāgatagarbha and what it differs from the ordinary meaning of the ego-soul. The doctrine of the true self which seemingly contradicts to the traditional view of No-self is difficult to understand for the ignorant as well as for the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas. The Buddha says Tathāgatagarbha as true self or sometimes as No-self that is just a means of language to lead his disciples to the ultimate liberation and enlightenment. As the Parable of the Raft that the Buddha teaches in the Majjhima Nikāya, sutta Alagaddūpamasutta, that his dharma is like a raft used to cross the river, when the further bank has been reached, the raft should be left behind.^[5] So the doctrine of Tathāgatagarbha may be taught as True-self or No-self, these teachings are all useful to reach the further bank of security, liberation, not frightening, not danger and not suffering of rebirth.

The above presentation of the Buddha-nature is the analysis of the hidden state of the Buddha-nature within living beings under the names Tathāgatagarbha, Ālayavijñāna and Śuddhisatyātman (True-self). In the next sections, the thesis will discuss the state of the Buddha-nature in it full exposition under the names Buddhatā and Dharmakāya.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, p. 258.

[2]:

Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 382-83 (Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 358-59)

[3]:

Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 68 (Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 77-78)

[4]:

Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 69 (Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 79)

[5]:

Majjhimanikāya i,134; The Collection of the Middle Length Sayings, tr. I.B. Horner, Vol. I, p. 173.