How does that relate to the Dharmakaya as described in the sutras and commentaries?
The Dharma-body isn’t an individual entity, passed down from Buddha to Buddha. It’s instead the true nature of reality itself:
The dharmakaya is the Absolute; the essence of the universe; the unity of all things and beings, unmanifested.
The dharmakaya is beyond existence or nonexistence, and beyond concepts. The late Chogyam Trungpa called the dharmakaya “the basis of the original unbornness.” The Dharmakaya, or Truth Body of the Buddha
Dharmakaya is just another way of describing the Buddha-nature in all things and beings:
The Dharma body is the same as the intrinsic, pure Buddha nature that resides in all things everywhere. The deluded self can find peace when it understands that it inherently possesses Buddha nature, that this nature pervades all things. Our wish to find what is real and permanent can only be resolved by attaining the Dharma body. Hsingyun.org
In other words, Dharmakaya is samsara and Nirvana when seen as a whole, rather than as separate from each other, since Dharmakaya is the body of all reality.
But it is. It is definitely ‘one’. There is only ‘one’ awakening. Which has to be realized by someone. By that Buddha it is passed down to. By me. By you. Otherwise it’s just “reality”. “Out there”. Not relevant. IMO, at least.
And that statement is what I meant by referring to my grandfather’s axe. Me. You. The ascetic Gautama. That is the permanence of my grandfather’s axe. Not proper straightforward persistence at all. The head got replaced, the handle got replaced, but this is my grandfather’s axe.
Buddha-nature. The topic of the thread, I suppose.
The Mahāyāna, historically, has had to deal with different heretical tendencies than contemporary Theravāda, much moreso, I can imagine, than the Buddhadharma of the EBTs. I speculate such based on chronology alone.
With this in mind, I see Buddha-nature as an attempt, by the Mahāyāna, to subvert it’s own tendencies towards reification and objectification of emptiness. If there are any latent potentialities for slippery slopes within Mahāyāna, IMO, it is the hypostatization of emptiness that is foremost.
There have been teachers who say that Buddha-nature is a way of describing emptiness in more positive terms:
According to Heng-Ching Shih, the tathāgatagarbha/Buddha-nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman). Rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness (śūnyatā), which emphasizes the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. The intention of the teaching of tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.[72]
Paul Williams puts forward the Madhyamaka interpretation of the Buddha-nature as emptiness in the following terms:
… if one is a Madhyamika then that which enables sentient beings to become buddhas must be the very factor that enables the minds of sentient beings to change into the minds of Buddhas. That which enables things to change is their simple absence of inherent existence, their emptiness. Thus the tathagatagarbha becomes emptiness itself, but specifically emptiness when applied to the mental continuum.[111] Buddha-nature - Wikipedia
I agree with this in the sense that realizing Buddha-nature is one and the same as realizing non-self or the emptiness of the self.
As explained by Dogen and other Zen masters, realizing one’s Buddha-nature is simply the same as realizing emptiness, that you are not separate or ultimately distinct from the whole of reality. Because of dependent origination, all things are dependent on everything else.
Indeed. Since we are on a board catering towards EBT studies, this brings up perhaps the most controversial and problematic piece of Mahāyāna Buddhavacana, in light of the above framing of “positive expressions of emptiness”:
迦葉菩薩白佛言：「世尊！我從今日始得正見。世尊！自是之前，我等悉名邪見之人。
Mahākāśyapa Bodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak: "Bhagavān! I from today start in obtaining samyagdṛṣṭi. Bhagavān! Until now, we all entirely abided in mithyādṛṣṭi.
世尊！二十五有，有我不耶？」
Bhagavān! In the twenty five existences, is there ātman definitely?
佛言：「善男子！我者即是如來藏義。一切眾生悉有佛性，即是我義。
The Buddha said: "Kulaputra! Ātman, prompt and exact, is Tathāgatagarbha in meaning. All sentient beings in entirety have the Buddha’s nature, prompt and exact, ātman is it’s meaning.
如是我義，從本已來，常為無量煩惱所覆，是故眾生不能得見。
Thus so ātman’s meaning is, from root proceeding onwards, constantly without limit under kleśāḥ covered, therefore sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it.
-Mahāyānaparinirvāṇasūtra
A fair many decided that this was too far, I imagine, when this vaipulya obtained prominence.
If this is aimed at me, then I would reply that it’s in nowise “sectarian” to state that paṭiccasamuppāda in the suttas is a teaching concerned solely with how dukkha arises, and how it can be made to cease, and is not a metaphysics of universal interconnectedness. It’s not sectarian to state this for it appears to have been the shared and uncontested understanding of all of Indian Buddhism’s “eighteen” schools. What might well be sectarian, however, would be to privilege and treat as normative an eccentric 4th century Chinese interpretation based on a 1st century apocryphal sūtra.
And so to continue with the Nānātitthiyasutta’s elephant simile (Ud6.4)…
Studying the suttas that treat of paṭiccasamuppāda and taking them to be concerned with dukkha and its cessation is as if a normal-sighted man were to behold an elephant and perceive it as an elephant.
Studying those same suttas and mistaking paṭiccasamuppāda for a doctrine of universal interconnectedness is as if a normal-sighted but mentally deranged man were to behold an elephant but hallucinate that it’s a lawnmower.
Merely trusting that paṭiccasamuppāda is a doctrine of universal interconnectedness upon the authority of a fringe Mahayana school, without bothering to study the relevant EBTs at all, is as if a blind man were to be hoodwinked into purchasing a lawnmower by an unscrupulous elephant-dealer who tells him that it’s an elephant.
At the same time, this brings up the tendencies I spoke up with regards to the reification of emptiness in the Mahāyāna, which all of the great Mahāyāna masters have recognized and spoke of, IMO in the very least:
When the first type of fool hears that “all dharmas are reducible to the neither defiled nor non-defiled,” they take it to mean that all dharmas are inseparable from emptiness and that even if one were to traverse the entire universe, everywhere would be the same suchness [i.e. emptiness] as that found here as the suchness of, for example, this vase.
-Ven Śr Zhìyǐ, 法華玄義 (The Dharma Flower’s Profound Meaning), Taishō 33.703a, citing the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra Scroll 6, Ch 15, v 0561b20: “故一切法趣[…]”
You will have to forgive Ven Zhìyǐ for his harsh wording, and I was in no way directing this towards you, but this was brought to mind in relation to what I mentioned before with regards to how you phrased what you said.
How is supreme and complete enlightenment impermanent? Does this mean the Buddha attained enlightenment but it is impermanent, hence, he returned to his earlier condition after a period of time? There is a Mahayana doctrine like this - that Arahants eventually fall-out of their realisation and return to samsaric existence to practice the Bodhisattva path. I wonder if Dogen had something like this in mind?
innate potential? or, just a possibility that emerges given the right causes and supportive conditions? innate would suggest something inherent that exists in a sentient being that can be realised or brought to fruition. like a seed that has the potential to grow into something beautiful - liberation. i think the language of Buddha-Nature may be a consequence of our all-to-human tendency to mistake the metaphorical for the real?
It’s not quite like that. The dispensation of the EBTs does not have to deal with the issue of rival dispensations of Buddhadharma. As such, it is free to declare what it declares as the teaching of the ascetic Gautama and it is safe in knowing that there is only one ascetic Gautama.
Mahāyāna develops inside of an already extant, flourishing, and extremely diverse Buddhist world (which is about to become much more diverse).
Mahāyāna had an issue to deal with that the dispensation of the EBTs did not: how to address and deal with rival Buddhadharma dispensations, be them Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, or whatnot.
Some of the early Mahāyāna Buddhavacana has arhats at a sort-of ‘dead-end’ in saṃsāra forever. Other Mahāyāna Buddhavacana has the arhats ultimately liberated as Buddhas, which, unfortunately, has them practicing bodhisattvaśīla, albeit at a profoundly high level, and in the dispensation of a profound master.
Which is better? Condemnation or backhanded salvation?
I think that what you said can have it’s place, when viewed from a certain perspective, but I think that many people here may be unfamiliar with that way of looking at things.
On terms of Buddha-nature “being” the universe, I can agree with that on certain terms. The world, experienced by these very minds, is the very same world that was experienced by the Buddha.
However, regarding the notion that insentient things are enlightened or delusional, that is far more controversial and less established even in Chinese Buddhism.
I think you already mentioned Ven Zhànrán. It was he who argued that the stones and the trees were Buddhas despite being insentient AFAIK. I’ve never read his works, and I’ve not read much about him.
Save to say, it is likely one of his more eccentric statements IMO.
Fascinating stuff. I’d never read Dogen before:
“Grass, trees, and lands are mind, thus they are sentient beings.”
The universe in your mind. The universe as a sentient being? It is an interesting idea. I’m just not sure how he jumps from sense objects being sense objects to having them have their own… not consciousnesses? Very confusing, all in all.
Many of the things I’ve posted in this thread might not make sense for someone unfamiliar with the philosophy of Dogen. But in his main work on Buddha-nature, he used past commentaries and sutras to explain what he meant by saying that the entirety of being itself is Buddha-nature:
Dogen might have been the greatest Buddhist philosopher, or one of the greatest, in Japanese history.
According to Nagarjuna, to attain Buddhahood or enlightenment is to realize the truth of emptiness:
Nagarjuna’s central work was the Madhyamika-karika, considered to be a masterpiece as it systematically presents the philosophy of the Madhyamika school (Bapat, 106). His fundamentals are set forth in the invocation or dedication: that “There is neither origination nor cessation, neither origination nor cessation, neither permanence nor impermanence, neither unity nor diversity, neither coming-in nor going-out in the law of Pratitya-samutpada” (or dependent arising, dependently-coordinating-origination, etc.)(Bapat, 107). http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nagarjuna.htm
If all things are empty of inherent existence, since everything is dependent on everything else (dependent origination), then enlightenment is the experience of realizing non-duality between oneself and all other things, “that there is neither origination nor cessation, neither origination nor cessation, neither permanence nor impermanence, neither unity nor diversity, neither coming-in nor going-out.”
Enlightenment is the experience of realizing non-duality between oneself and all other things, because one’s self is empty of inherent existence, and to attain Buddhahood is to realize the truth of non-self. When we say that Buddha-nature is existence as a whole, what this means is that dependent origination is itself Buddha-nature.
At the same time, though, for the sake of exchange, the emptiness of my mug is also not the emptiness of my boss’s car. Because my mug is my mug and my boss’s car is my boss’s car. Both can be empty, but my mug will never be my boss’s car and my boss’s car will never be my mug. This is what Ven Śr Zhìyǐ referred to above as taking the emptiness of everywhere and equating it to the same suchness, or ‘as-it-is-ness’, as, for instance, a vase.
National Teacher Enkan Saian in Kangshū Province was an esteemed Master under Baso. He once pointed out to his assembly, “All sentient beings are possessed of Buddha Nature.” Right away, we need to thoroughly examine his words ‘all sentient beings’. All sentient beings have different internal propensities and external conditions, which are the fruits of past karma, so their perspectives are different. This holds true for each and every one of them, be they called ‘ordinary people’, ‘non-Buddhists’, ‘those in the Three Courses’, ‘those in the Five Courses’, or something else. ‘All sentient beings’, as spoken of in the Buddha’s Way in the present instance, means that all who possess a mind filled with craving are ‘sentient beings’, since having a mind is synonymous with being a sentient being. All those whose mind is beyond craving will likewise be sentient beings, since being a sentient being is synonymous with having a mind. Accordingly, all minds are, without exception, sentient beings, and all sentient beings are, without exception, possessed of Buddha Nature. And even grasses, trees, and our very nation are synonymous with Mind, and because they are synonymous with Mind, they are sentient beings, and because they are sentient beings, they are possessed of Buddha Nature.
Very interesting. I’m not sure if I follow or agree, but its interesting to read. I follow him right up until he calls grasses, trees, and the nation of Japan sentient beings!
I must be missing something, because later, skipping ahead 3 sentences…
Further, if anything were not a sentient being, it would not be possessed of Buddha Nature.
They both amount to the slandering of Ariyans, but condemnation seems to be the less bad of the two polemical strategies. At least those who would condemn an arahant for not being a bodhisatta don’t go as far as calling him a liar by denying that he is kato karaṇīyo, “one who has done what needed to be done.”
from above: “regarding the notion that insentient things are enlightened or delusional.”
“As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death.” - Dogen
This perspective requires us to take an enormous imaginative leap! In the context of Pari-Nibbana, Dogen’s line above, makes sense. Until then, its business as usual!
That’s all fine and well. But I am just not convinced that the lamppost outside my bedroom window is going to be reborn as a Buddha one day. Perhaps if I am a Buddha one day, I will see that lamppost, and see it pristine and wonderful, regardless of its condition and keeping, but even then, is it going to teach me Dharma?
I suppose if the Buddha can hand a flower to Mahākāśyapa as a dharma teaching, and have Mahākāśyapa receiving that teaching, through nothing more than the transmission of a flower, than the reality around us, in its way, I suppose, ‘teaches’ us about itself in the most direct way possible via our experiencing of it.
Even then, though, in the story of Mahākāśyapa & the flower, the flower is significant because the Buddha gave it to him. If someone else had given Mahākāśyapa that flower, I don’t think the story would have gained prominence as an origin narrative for Zen.
The quote above is interesting. Since there is no self there is no differentiation between a “person” and a rock. Both are lacking. I’m not convinced entirely, but it is interesting, and it is something I had considered before. I made a post about Buddhism and Robots that dealt with similar subject matter, actually, a while ago. Funny enough as it is with this popping up in the Dogen excerpts linked to.
