Samsara, Nirvana, and Buddha Nature

by Dalai Lama

  Are We Already Buddhas?

  In the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Buddha explained that each sentient being possesses a permanent, stable, and enduring tathāgatagarbha that is a fully developed buddha body (kāya) replete with the thirty-two signs of a buddha. Questions arise: If an already realized buddha existed within us, wouldn’t we be ignorant buddhas? If we were actual buddhas now, what would be the purpose of practicing the path? If we were already buddhas and yet still needed to purify defilements, wouldn’t a buddha have defilements? If we had a permanent, stable, and enduring essence, wouldn’t that contradict the teachings on selflessness and instead resemble the self or soul asserted by non-Buddhists? Mahāmati expressed these same doubts to the Buddha in the Descent into Lanka Sūtra:

  The tathāgatagarbha taught [by the Buddha in some sūtras] is said to be clear light in nature, completely pure from the beginning, and to exist possessing the thirty-two signs in the bodies of all sentient beings. If, like a precious gem wrapped in a dirty cloth, [the Buddha] expressed that [tathāgatagarbha] — wrapped in and dirtied by the cloth of the aggregates, constituents, and sources; overwhelmed by the force of attachment, animosity, and ignorance; dirtied with the defilements of conceptualizations; and permanent, stable, and enduring — how is this propounded as tathāgatagarbha different from the non-Buddhists propounding a self?88

  Some Tibetan scholars accept the teaching on a permanent, stable, and enduring buddha nature literally, saying it is a definitive teaching. Sharing the doubts expressed above by Mahāmati, Prāsaṅgikas say this is an interpretable teaching. They say this, not on a whim, but by examining three points.

  (1) What was the Buddha’s final intended meaning when he made this statement? When speaking of a permanent, stable, and enduring essence in each sentient being, the Buddha’s intended meaning was the emptiness of the mind, the naturally abiding buddha nature, which is permanent, stable, and enduring. Because the mind is empty of inherent existence and the defilements are adventitious, buddhahood is possible.

  (2) What was the Buddha’s purpose for teaching this? The Buddha taught a permanent, stable, enduring essence complete with the thirty-two signs, in order to calm some people’s fear of selflessness and to gradually lead non-Buddhists to the full realization of suchness. At present, these people, who are spiritually immature, feel comfortable with the idea of a permanent essence. The idea of the emptiness of inherent existence frightens them; they mistakenly think it means that nothing whatsoever exists. They fear that by realizing emptiness, they will disappear and cease to exist. To calm this fear, the Buddha spoke in a way that corresponds with their current ideas. Later, when they are more receptive, he will teach them the actual meaning. This is similar to the way skillful parents simplify complex ideas to make them comprehensible to young children.

  (3) What logical inconsistencies arise from taking this statement literally? Accepting this teaching on a permanent, stable, and enduring buddha nature at face value contradicts the definitive meaning of emptiness and selflessness explained by the Buddha in the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. In those sūtras, the Buddha set forth many reasonings that refute this view. Furthermore, if this statement were accepted literally, the Buddha’s teachings would be no different from those of non-Buddhists who assert a permanent self.

  The emptiness of inherent existence — which is the ultimate reality and the natural purity of the mind — exists in all sentient beings without distinction. Based on this, it is said that a buddha is present. But the ultimate reality of a buddha does not exist in sentient beings. While buddhas and sentient beings are the same in that the ultimate nature of their minds is emptiness, that ultimate reality is not the same because one is the ultimate reality of a buddha’s mind — the nature dharmakāya — and the other is the ultimate reality of a defiled mind. If we said that the nature dharmakāya existed in sentient beings, we would have to also say that the wisdom dharmakāya, which is one nature with it, existed in sentient beings. That would mean that sentient beings were omniscient, which certainly is not the case! Similarly, if the abandonment of all defilements existed in ordinary sentient beings, there would be nothing to prevent them from directly perceiving the natural purity of their minds. They would directly realize emptiness. This, too, is not the case.

  Some people say the dharmakāya with the two purities — the natural purity and the purity of the abandonment of all defilements — exists in the mindstreams of sentient beings, but because sentient beings are obscured, they don’t perceive it. If that were the case, then whose mind is purified and who attains the freedom that is the purity of all defilements? If sentient beings already possess the dharmakāya, there is no need for them to practice the path and purify their minds, because from beginningless time their minds have been free of adventitious defilements.

  The assertion that a buddha complete with the thirty-two signs exists within the continuums of all sentient beings echoes the theistic theory of an eternally pure, unchanging self. If the thirty-two signs were already present in us, it would be contradictory to say that we still need to practice the path to create the causes for them. If someone says that they are already in us in an unmanifest form and they just need to be made manifest, that resembles the Sāṃkhya notion of arising from self, because even though existing, this buddha would need to be produced again in order to be made manifest. Nāgārjuna and his followers soundly refuted production from self.

  The sūtra continues with the Buddha’s response:

  Mahāmati, my teaching of the tathāgatagarbha is not similar to the propounding of a self by non-Buddhists. Mahāmati, the tathāgatas, arhats, the perfectly completed buddhas indicated the tathāgatagarbha with the meaning of the words emptiness, limit of complete purity, nirvāṇa, unborn, signless, wishless, and so forth. [They do this] so that the immature might completely relinquish a state of fear regarding the selfless, [and to] teach the nonconceptual state, the sphere without appearance.89

  Here we see that the Buddha skillfully taught different ideas to different people, according to what was necessary at the moment and beneficial in the long term to further them on the path. We also learn that we must think deeply about the teachings, exploring them from various viewpoints and bring knowledge gained from reasoning and from reading other scriptures to discern their definitive meaning.

  The purpose of learning about buddha nature is to understand that the mind is not intrinsically flawed and that, on the contrary, it can be perfected. It is not just that the mind can be transformed; there is already part of the mind that allows it to be purified and perfected. Understanding this gives us great confidence and energy to practice the methods to purify and perfect this mind of ours so that it will become the mind of a fully awakened buddha.

  REFLECTION

  1. What does it mean to say that pristine wisdom abides in the afflictions?

  2. Are we already wise buddhas but just don’t know it? Do buddhas have afflictions?

  3. The Buddha said there is a permanent, stable, and enduring buddha nature in each of us. What was his final intended meaning in saying this?

  4. What was his purpose for teaching this?

  5. What logical inconsistencies arise from taking this statement literally?

  Awareness of Our Buddha Nature Eliminates Hindrances

  Maitreya said (RGV 1.158):

  [The sūtras of the second turning of the Dharma wheel] state in numerous places that all knowable [phenomena] are in all ways empty like a cloud, a dream, or an illusion. Why is it then, that in [the sūtras of the third turning of the Dharma wheel] the Buddha, having said this, declared that the buddha nature is present within beings?

  Maitreya tells us that although the sūtras of the second turning characterize the buddha nature by giving the examples of an illusion and so forth to illustrate the emptiness of the mind, he will explain buddha nature slightly differently in the Sublime Continuum. This is a clue implying that he will emphasize the clear light mind being the buddh
a nature. This may cause some people to doubt: “The Buddha taught emptiness extensively in the second turning, saying that was the buddha nature. Why in the third turning would he speak about buddha nature being the clear light mind that has beginninglessly been completely pure in sentient beings? Is there a contradiction between the second and third turnings?”

  Maitreya explains that the Buddha spoke of buddha nature being the clear light mind in order to help us sentient beings overcome five factors that hinder us from developing bodhicitta, realizing emptiness, and attaining buddhahood.

  (1) Discouragement makes us believe that awakening cannot be attained. Because we don’t know that the buddha nature exists in us, cynicism and a lack of confidence prevent us from generating bodhicitta. Even before beginning, we give up and don’t make an effort.

  (2) Having arrogant contempt for those we consider inferior comes from not knowing that the buddha nature exists in others. With derision we judge and disparage others, abandon love and compassion, and abstain from engaging in the bodhisattva practices.

  (3) Distorted conceptions incorrectly hold that adventitious defilements are truly existent, exist in the nature of the mind, and are impossible to eradicate. These wrong views superimpose true existence on things that are empty of true existence. They arise from not knowing the existence of the buddha nature in all sentient beings and interfere with our cultivation of the wisdom correctly realizing reality.

  (4) Denigrating the true nature is to deny the existence of buddha nature or to think the buddha nature has not been present beginninglessly. This misconstrued deprecation repudiates the potential that exists within each sentient being and inhibits realizing the excellent qualities that are inseparable in nature from the buddha nature.

  (5) Self-centeredness makes us biased toward the self, quenching the equanimity that sees self and others as equally valuable. Egocentrism obliterates the thought that buddha nature exists equally in ourselves and others. Pre-occupied with our own concerns, we are unable to generate the love and compassion that regard ourselves and others as equal. This, in turn, interferes with generating bodhicitta.

  Understanding buddha nature counteracts these five faults. When we sentient beings hear about buddha nature, (1) joy, not discouragement, arises in our minds because we know duḥkha can be overcome; (2) in place of contempt arises respect for the Buddha and sentient beings who have this great potential; (3–4) analytical wisdom that correctly views reality abolishes superimpositions and denigration of the actual nature, replacing it with liberating wisdom; and (5) great love for all sentient beings overcomes confining self-preoccupation by opening our hearts to others. In short, eliminating these faults clears the way to generating bodhicitta and engaging in the six perfections, especially meditative stability and wisdom, which are essential to overcome the two obscurations.

  In this way, Maitreya clarifies that the description of buddha nature in the Sublime Continuum does not contradict that of the second turning but speaks of it from a different perspective. He also elucidates the purpose for teaching the tathāgatagarbha in the third turning: it is to help sentient beings overcome the five faults and have enthusiasm and determination to practice the path and attain full awakening.

  Join Wisdom’s mailing list and find out what to read next!

  Receive the latest news and updates from Wisdom, including new releases and special offers.

  Click here to sign up.

  Notes

  1. Upādāna means clinging, the aggregates being subject to clinging. This connotes that the aggregates are objects of our clinging and are brought about by clinging. Upādāna may also be translated as appropriated, connoting that the aggregates have been “taken” by the person.

  2. In Buddhism permanent means unchanging. Permanent phenomena are not dependent on causes and conditions. Impermanent means changing from one moment to the next.

  3. The way nirvāṇa is described here in the Pāli tradition — as a permanent, unconditioned, and unborn reality that allows for the eradication of defilements — sounds similar to the Madhyamaka description of emptiness in the Sanskrit tradition.

  4. This refers to the fourfold classification of nirvāṇa. See chapter 11. According to the Prāsaṅgikas, natural nirvāṇa is emptiness. Nirvāṇa without remainder is true cessation in the continuums of arhats of the three vehicles that is qualified by the vanishing of the manifest appearance of true existence. Nirvāṇa with remainder is true cessation in the continuums of arhats of the three vehicles that is together with the manifest appearance of true existence. This occurs in the postmeditation time of arhats who are not buddhas. Nonabiding nirvāṇa is true cessation in which the two obscurations have been extinguished, and it is possessed only by buddhas. The lower tenet systems explain nirvāṇa with and without remainder differently.

  5. See His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron, Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions for an explanation of the sixteen attributes according to the Pāli tradition.

  6. Self has two distinct meanings, depending on the context: (1) the person, someone who is a sentient being or a buddha, and (2) inherent existence, as in self-grasping ignorance.

  7. Māra is the personification of hindrances and obscurations.

  8. See the first four chapters of Āryadeva’s The Four Hundred for a thorough description of the four distorted conceptions and their antidotes.

  9. In both the Pāli and Sanskrit traditions, the three higher trainings of ethical conduct, concentration, and wisdom — which include the eightfold path — are generally specified as the path to liberation. Alex Wayman notes that the four distorted conceptions and four attributes of true cessations correspond to the four distorted conceptions and four attributes of true paths. These, in turn, relate to the three higher trainings. (1) True paths lead to true cessations, which together counteract the distorted conception that nirvāṇa does not exist because true paths do not exist. (2) The higher training of concentration is a suitable path that leads to peace because it calms and focuses the mind. (3) The higher training in ethical conduct is the accomplishment leading to magnificence because realizing the nature of the mind promotes nonharmfulness. (4) The higher training in wisdom is the way to deliverance because it leads to irreversible freedom. See Alex Wayman, “The Sixteen Aspects of the Four Noble Truths and Their Opposites,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 3, no. 2 (1980), 73.

  10. In general, when the meditative concentrations of both the form and formless realms are referred to together, they are called meditative absorptions. However, technically, dhyāna refers specifically to the levels of concentration in the form realm and samāpatti to those in the formless realm.

  11. For a more detailed explanation, see Lati Rinpoche, Denma Locho Rinpoche, Leah Zahler, and Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1983), 23–47.

  12. Classes 29 to 25 are the Five Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa).

  13. Some say this is a separate division of the fourth dhyāna, making eighteen dhyānas; others say it is within the Great Fruit Land.

  14. The Pāli tradition does not include the Increasing Merit or Cloudless in the fourth dhyāna; it does include the Unconscious Beings. Some Sanskrit versions include the Unconscious Beings, making eighteen form realm gods; others do not.

  15. Śubha can also be translated as “pure” or “auspicious.”

  16. See AN 4.123 for a fuller description of the form realm.

  17. The Pāli Abhidhamma says they also lack the sense of touch.

  18. The Treasury of Knowledge explains why the Realm of Thirty-Three Devas is so-called: “There are eight wealth gods, eleven wrathful gods, twelve sun gods, and the two young sons of Ashvini. Due to there being these thirty-three principal [gods,] it is called so, or, alternatively, due to there being thirty-three residences of the gods, such as Excellent Dharma (Sudharma), the meeting place of the gods, and so forth, it is called so.”


  19. Pāli sūtras do not speak of asuras as a separate realm, but consider them as having an unfortunate rebirth. They mention asuras who are neighbors of the devas in the Land of the Thirty-Three, but often fight with them. Some Pāli commentators say asuras are in the hungry ghost realm.

  20. In some texts, the order of hungry ghosts and animals is reversed.

  21. The Dalai Lama, The Meaning of Life from a Buddhist Perspective, trans. and ed. Jeffrey Hopkins (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1993), 7.

  22. See also Artemus Engle, Inner Science of Buddhist Practice (Boston: Snow Lion Publications, 2009), 125–34.

  23. Candrakīrti’s Commentary on Āryadeva’s “Four Hundred” (Catuḥśatakaṭīka).

  24. The following list shows different contexts in which the term “ignorance” is used; it is not a standard textual enumeration.

  25. Gratification is the pleasure experienced by contact with the aggregates. Danger is the decay of the aggregates that leaves us disappointed. Escape is giving up desire for the aggregates, wisely freeing ourselves from the afflictions that bind us to duḥkha.

  26. A primary consciousness has several mental factors that accompany or are concomitant with it, meaning that they share five similarities: they have the same basis, observed object, aspect, time, and entity. In this case, ignorance is a mental factor accompanying the primary mental consciousness and thus shares these five similarities with it. See The Foundation of Buddhist Practice, chapter 3.