In Mahayana, Buddha-nature is the Universe Itself

The Watercooler
1

Zen master Dogen, along with other Mahayana teachers, taught that the universe itself is Buddha-nature.

Rather than something we have like a soul or spirit, Buddha-nature is instead what we are as particular manifestations of the one universal Buddha-nature, Existence itself:

For Dōgen, Buddha-nature or Busshō (佛性) is the nature of reality and all Being. In the Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen writes that “whole-being (Existence itself) is the Buddha-nature” and that even inanimate things (grass, trees, etc.) are an expression of Buddha-nature. He rejected any view that saw Buddha-nature as a permanent, substantial inner self or ground. Dōgen held that Buddha-nature was “vast emptiness”, “the world of becoming” and that “impermanence is in itself Buddha-nature”.[23] According to Dōgen:
Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dōgen#Buddha-nature

Humans, plants and animals, rather than separate living things which each have a Buddha-nature, are temporary manifestations of the one Buddha-nature, which is none other than the totality of Existence itself.

This does away with the distinction between the material and the spiritual, since they are instead seen as different aspects of the same reality. The experience of enlightenment is realizing the interconnectedness of all things (dependent origination), that we are not separate or distinct from the Whole.

The reason why I am sharing these things is to show that the concept of Buddha-nature, when seen as another way of describing the totality of Existence itself, in no way contradicts the Buddha’s original teachings on impermanence and anatta or non-self.

2

Why are they “Buddha-nature” and not “Baluba - nature” ?
(made up word)

What new things does this philosophy bring to the table except the “all these things exist” that even a kid already has ? Instead of “totality of things that exist” or “samsara” - we go and call it “buddha nature” or “baluba nature” or “trilulilu nature”, or claim that “everything has trilulilu nature because they exist, and trilulilu nature is nothing other than the quality of existing itself” - Ok, ok, but what is the point of this ?

Is it a useful philosophy or a useless one, telling us the same stuff that even a kid already knows but worded differently ? What’s the point of taking things that even a kid knows, word them differently and then pretend this has some kind of bigger value that simple children knowledge ?

3

Buddha-nature is just another way of describing the “luminous mind” or the innate potential for enlightenment. It is not a self.

1 Like
4

Sort of, but the way in which the “universe” “is” Buddha-nature is not a straightforward equivalency, as if either the universe or Buddha-nature, ‘in its own’, were ‘something’. I can only speak for one Mahāyāna teacher, Ven Śramaṇa Zhìyǐ, who stated that the “skandhas, sense entrances, and sense realms” of saṃsāra were the skandhas, sense entrances, and sense realms of nirvāṇa, based on the example set by Ven Nāgārjuna.

Unfortunately this is only tangentially related to the Buddhism attested to in the dispensation of the texts that this forum addresses, but, it does bring up another interesting notion.

Much of the above Mahāyāna thought is predicated on the notion of ‘emptiness as coterminous with dependent origination’. Some more of it is predicated on Ven Nāgārjuna’s Nirvānaparīkṣā (Ch 25) from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

It would be interesting to see how these concepts, and the Nāgārjuna text, stacked against the dhamma as attested to in the EBTs. Especially perhaps in light of this article by Ven Huifeng.

1 Like
5

I think it might help if people were to come to an understanding that a concept like Buddha-nature need not contradict the Buddha’s teaching of non-self.

6

Only it does contradict the Buddha’s teachings in the EBTs at just about every turn though. But I think again, this is your effort, Kensho, to “show” yourself (at this point it seems certain your pontifications aren’t for us readers) that mahayana is entirely compatible with the early Buddhist texts. Most mahayana folks respect that this isn’t the case, but for some reason, there seems to be a need on your part to make the square peg to fit into the round hole. Just because mahayana doesn’t correlate with the EBTs doesn’t make it a invalid spiritual path, so I don’t see the need for this continual review.

But let’s specify:
The Buddha didn’t teach oneness. He specifically rejected the idea we are all parts of one whole or totality.

Read this: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

Such a world view is described as a “fool’s teaching”. So, there is considerable distance between these ideas at a minimum.

I also recommend listening here.

5 Likes
7

Are you certain of this? There are hundreds of millions of Mahayana Buddhists in the world.

Are you certain of this? According to the Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination, all things are dependent on everything else. Mahayana Buddhists call this emptiness.

Under the concept of dependent origination, to realize that you are not separate from the Whole is to realize the truth of non-self. To realize non-self is to attain Nirvana.

When Dogen says that impermanence itself is Buddha-nature, what that means is to realize the truth of non-self is to awaken to Buddha-nature, which are two ways of describing the same experience enlightenment.

8

Rather than something we have like a soul or spirit, Buddha-nature is instead what we are as particular manifestations of the one universal Buddha-nature

Humans, plants and animals, rather than separate living things which each have a Buddha-nature, are temporary manifestations of the one Buddha-nature, which is none other than the totality of Existence itself.

I’ll quote something I wrote up for Wikipedia some time ago:

As noted by K.R. Norman and Richard Gombrich, the Buddha extended his anatta critique to the Brahmanical belief expounded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that the Self (Atman) was indeed the whole world, or Brahman.[33][34] This is shown by the Alagaddūpama-sutta, where the Buddha argues that an individual cannot experience the suffering of the entire world. He used the example of someone carrying off and burning grass and sticks from the Jeta grove and how a monk would not sense or consider themselves harmed by that action. In this example the Buddha is arguing that we do not have direct experience of the entire world, and hence the Self cannot be the whole world. [b] In this sutta (as well as in the Soattā Sutta) the Buddha outlines six wrong views about Self:

“There are six wrong views: An unwise, untrained person may think of the body, ‘This is mine, this is me, this is my self’; he may think that of feelings; of perceptions; of volitions; or of what has been seen, heard, thought, cognized, reached, sought or considered by the mind. The sixth is to identify the world and self, to believe: ‘At death I shall become permanent, eternal, unchanging, and so remain forever the same; and that is mine, that is me, that is my self.’ A wise and well-trained person sees that all these positions are wrong, and so he is not worried about something that does not exist.”[35]

Furthermore, the Buddha argues that the world can be observed to be a cause of suffering (Brahman was held to be ultimately blissful) and that since we cannot control the world as we wish, the world cannot be the Self. The idea that “this cosmos is the self” is one of the views rejected by the Buddha [36] along with the related Monistic theory that held that “everything is a Oneness” (SN 12.48 Lokayatika Sutta)

Also, I’ll note that this monistic view that you espousing right now is not the normative Buddhist view even in Mahayana. For example, in Dzogchen, every person has their own individual basis or ground (gzhi) aka Buddha nature. Indian and Tibetan Mahayana Buddhists were pretty careful not to lapse into monism - “we are all one”, etc, which is the view of Vedanta and Shaivism. So even the Buddha nature view of the Indian Mahayana was definitely not a view which sees Buddha nature as the whole universe, that is clearly a view which they reject as being a Hindu view.

Anyways, I think you’re pretty confused, and would recommend you read the suttas cited in this post, as well as the Tathagathagarbha literature which actually talks about Buddha nature. You’ll find no “you are the universe” theories there.

3 Likes
9

Huh? That isn’t what dependent origination is at all. I think you’re really confused. Best of luck to you, I hope you get some clarity on some of this, somehow.

4 Likes
10

It would be interesting to see how these concepts, and the Nāgārjuna text, stacked against the dhamma as attested to in the EBTs. Especially perhaps in light of this article by Ven Huifeng

Well, the idea of Buddhandhatu - Tathagathagarbha is actually later than Nagarjuna and not exactly related to his work. Nagarjuna’s work is well known to be based on the EBTs, he cites a parallel to Kaccayanagota sutta and so on.

But the Tathagathagarbha literature is later than this and is not based on the EBTs, they are original compositions claiming to be Buddhavacana, possibly from the Mahasamgika’s of the Andhra region. Also Dogen’s view of Buddha nature is filtered through centuries of Chinese interpretation, and then is being translated here into quite a strange doctrine which I question is even Dogen’s view itself - but then again, I am no Soto scholar so who am I to say, maybe Dogen did believe what Kensho is espousing here.

Either way it is something which is somewhat removed from the early Buddhist literature which best reflects the intentions and ideas of the historical Buddha - which is what I and others here see as the most important foundation for their dhamma practice and right view.

3 Likes
11

Can you please show me elsewhere that Dogen’s position on Buddha-nature has been described as monism? Are you arriving at that on your own or is it something that’s been said before?

Since you mentioned Wikipedia:

Tiantai patriarch Zhanran argued that “even non-sentient beings have Buddha nature.”[31]
Who, then, is “animate” and who “inanimate”? Within the assembly of the Lotus, all are present without division. In the case of grass, trees and the soil…whether they merely lift their feet or energetically traverse the long path, they will all reach Nirvana.[31]
The Tiantai school was transmitted to Japan by Saicho, who spoke of the “buddha-nature of trees and rocks”.[31]
According to the 9th-century Shingon Buddhist thinker Kukai, the Dharmakaya is nothing other than the physical universe and natural objects like rocks and stones are included as part of the supreme embodiment of the Buddha.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

The Buddha-nature in all things, including rocks and trees, is a common theme in East Asian Buddhism. Here is another quote, this one from Shinran:

Buddha-nature is none other than Tathagata. This Tathagata pervades the countless worlds; it fills the hearts and minds of the ocean of all beings. Thus, plants, trees, and land all attain Buddhahood.
http://shinranwritings.blogspot.com/p/notes-on-essentials-of-faith-alone.html

No matter how you explain or look at it, Buddha-nature is not the same as a self:

Sometimes Buddha Nature is described as a “true self” or “original self.” And sometimes it is said that everyone has Buddha Nature. This is not wrong. But sometimes people hear this and imagine that Buddha Nature is something like a soul, or some attribute that we possess, like intelligence or a bad temper. This is not a correct view.

Smashing the “me and my Buddha nature” dichotomy appears to be the point of a famous dialogue between the Chan master Chao-chou Ts’ung-shen (778-897) and a monk, who inquired if a dog has Buddha nature. Chao-chou’s answer – Mu! (no, or does not have) has been contemplated as a koan by generations of Zen students.

Eihei Dogen (1200-1253) “made a paradigm shift when he translated a phrase rendered in the Chinese version of the Nirvana Sutra from ‘All sentient beings have Buddha nature’ to ‘All existents are Buddha nature,’” wrote Buddhist scholar Paula Arai in Bringing Zen Home, the Healing Heart of Japanese Women’s Rituals. “Moreover, by removing an explicit verb the whole phrase becomes an activity. The implications of this grammatical shift continue to reverberate. Some could interpret this move as the logical conclusion of a nondualistic philosophy.”

Very simply, Dogen’s point is that Buddha Nature is not something we have, it is what we are. And this something that we are is an activity or process that involves all beings. Dogen also emphasized that practice is not something that will give us enlightenment but instead is the activity of our already enlightened nature, or Buddha Nature.
https://www.thoughtco.com/buddha-nature-doctrine-450001

12

Well since you stated that this view you mention is about the “one buddha nature” and the “one universal buddha nature”, that sounds dangerously close to monism. If that is not what you mean, then perhaps you should be more careful in your statements to point out exactly what you mean and how it differs from monism, as well as how it relates to the historical Buddha’s teachings in the EBTs.

3 Likes
13

There is a difference between monism and non-duality:

Eihei Dogen (1200-1253) “made a paradigm shift when he translated a phrase rendered in the Chinese version of the Nirvana Sutra from ‘All sentient beings have Buddha nature’ to ‘All existents are Buddha nature,’” wrote Buddhist scholar Paula Arai in Bringing Zen Home, the Healing Heart of Japanese Women’s Rituals. “Moreover, by removing an explicit verb the whole phrase becomes an activity. The implications of this grammatical shift continue to reverberate. Some could interpret this move as the logical conclusion of a nondualistic philosophy.”

Very simply, Dogen’s point is that Buddha Nature is not something we have, it is what we are. And this something that we are is an activity or process that involves all beings. Dogen also emphasized that practice is not something that will give us enlightenment but instead is the activity of our already enlightened nature, or Buddha Nature.
https://www.thoughtco.com/buddha-nature-doctrine-450001

The Buddha-nature in all things, including rocks and trees, is a common theme in East Asian Buddhism. Here is another quote, this one from Shinran:

Buddha-nature is none other than Tathagata. This Tathagata pervades the countless worlds; it fills the hearts and minds of the ocean of all beings. Thus, plants, trees, and land all attain Buddhahood.
http://shinranwritings.blogspot.com/p/notes-on-essentials-of-faith-alone.html

It’s a common misconception that Buddha-nature is a self, and therefore contradicts the Buddha’s teaching on non-self. When Buddha-nature is described by Zen masters as “the true self,” that is in a metaphorical sense.

14

There is a difference between monism and non-duality

Sure, but you haven’t really defined “non-duality” or “Buddha-nature” and shown that it is the Buddha’s teaching in the earliest textual strata. As such, I am mostly uninterested because these ontological ideas don’t seem particularly helpful.

The Buddha-nature in all things, including rocks and trees, is a common theme in East Asian Buddhism.

Again, this kind of thing is all well and good, but so what? Why should I care? Why does this help me end suffering in any way? It all seems quite pointless and airy fairy, quite different than the pragmatic and down to earth teachings of the Buddha.

I just find it hard to care about.

4 Likes
15

The reason they are not helpful can be shown with a simile:

Let’s imagine there are 2 mechanics. There is a person coming in with a problem at the turbine of the car.

  1. First mechanic would start looking at the turbine, at the electrovalve, at the intercooler pipe, he would look at how these pieces actually work, etc.

  2. Second mechanic would be doing this kind of thinking: “this car is french, therefore it much be something regarding electricity” or “this car is black, therefore it must be a problem with the car overheating too much in the sun” or “does this car exist in the first place ?”

or “this car is part of the universe, this means there probably is a problem with the universe that is getting transmitted to the car. That problem is impermanence, therefore the problem of the car is impermanence.” etc.

While the second mechanic is thinking interesting stuff, the stuff he is thinking is divorced from reality and he will never get to fix the problem with the turbine. To fix the car, we need to look at it like the first mechanic does.

What the second mechanic actually does is playing “intellectual sudoku”. It’s just an exercise of thinking and imagination, not really helpful when it comes to fixing the turbine problem. He will end up with a lot of “sudoku theories” and understand nothing meaningful, nothing that can ever help him in fixing the turbine. You can’t even properly refute his theories cause they are mostly meaningless stuff like “all that exists has buddha nature because I say so” and “if everything has buddha nature, it means this X thing too has buddha nature” etc. - things that actually say nothing so they can never be proved or disproved.

2 Likes
16

Or let’s take for example the “emptiness” idea. If we say everything has the property of emptiness, that’s a totally meaningless idea. You can only say a thing is empty regarding X or Y. You can say “things are empty of a self” or etc. You can’t say “things have the quality of emptiness”

That is like saying a train has the quality of “bigness” or the quality of “smallness”. This is meaningless stuff. A train is big compared to a dog, a train is small compared to a mountain. You can never say about a train that is has the quality of “bigness”.

And it is the same regarding the quality of “emptiness”. It’s a meaningless idea. You can’t prove it or disprove it cause it’s simply meaningless. Try proving or refuting that trains have the quality of “bigness”. Good luck with that.

17

Please keep in mind that I am not here to have an extensive debate on every minutia of Mahayana doctrine. There is a wide variety of literature out there showing that the concept of Buddha-nature doesn’t contradict the Buddha’s teaching on non-self, and you are welcome to find and read it.

18

Of course it doesn’t contradict it, that was my point. It’s a meaningless idea that can never be proven or disproven. Let me give you this idea:

Trains have the quality of “bigness” or
Trains have the quality of “smalness”

You can never prove or disprove these ideas cause they are totally meanigless. And of course none of these 2 ideas listed above contradicts Buddha teachings on no-self.

19

Try contradicting this idea:

Everything has trilulilu nature.

Just try contradicting it, or try showing how it’s not consistent with Buddha teachings on no-self. Do your best.

2 Likes
20

I can already guess what you’re thinking. You’re thinking of asking what does “trilulilu nature” mean. Well, it means the quality of impermanence. Everything is impermanent, therefore everything has “trilulilu nature”.

And why not start developing the idea furthure and start building a philosophy around it ?

Well… since everything has trilulilu nature, that means trilulilu itself has trilulilu nature and is itself impermanent.

Voala. You have a new philosophy right here in this post. A meaningless one that is gona help you with absolutely nothing. Just try contradicting it or try showing how it’s not consistent with Buddha ideas about no-self.

1 Like