论如来藏之空性义

论如来藏之空性义
　　释 恒 清
　　HENG-CHING SHIH
　　七十七年一月
　　--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
　　227页
　　THE SIGNIFICANCE OF `TATHAGATAGARBHA`：
　　A POSITIVE EXPRESSION OF `SUNYATA`
　　HENG-CHING SHIH
　　The well-known motto of Ch'an Buddhism is that
　　"perceiving the true self, one becomes a Buddha."
　　The "true self" signifies the Buddha nature inherent
　　in all sentient beings. The discovering of the "true
　　self" has become the single most important pursuit
　　of the Buddhist, especially in Sino-Japanese
　　Buddhism. On the contrary, early Buddhism teaches
　　that ultimately no substantial self (i.e.,
　　`anatman`) can be found, since the self is nothing
　　but the union of the five aggregates. Modern
　　Buddhologists as well as the Buddhists have been
　　intrigued by the inconsistency that one single
　　tradition teaches both that there is no self on the
　　one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to
　　discover the true self, on the other hand.
　　The big questions concerning these two
　　contradictory doctrines include： How did they
　　develop during the course of Buddhist history？ How
　　can they be reconciled？ Are these two ideas
　　actually as contradicting as they appear to be？ Is
　　the concept of the Buddha nature an outcome of the
　　influence of other Indian religious thought upon
　　Buddhism？ It is out of the scope of this short
　　paper to answer all these questions. Therefore, this
　　paper will deal with the antecedent and synonymous
　　concept of the Buddha nature, that is, `tathagata-
　　garbha`(`ju lai tsang`). Specifically, this paper
　　will examine the meaning and significance of the
　　`tathagatagarbha` (Buddha nature) based on three
　　`tathagatagarbha` texts and argue that the
　　228页
　　`tathagatagarbha`/Buddha nature does not
　　represent a substantial self (`atman`); rather, it
　　is a positive language and expression of `sunyata`
　　(emptiness) and represents the potentiality to
　　realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In
　　other words, the intention of the teaching of
　　`tathagatagarbha`/Buddha nature is soteriological
　　rather than theoretical.
　　The term "`tathagatagarbha`" is generally taken
　　as to mean that the "garbha" of a `Tathagata` exists
　　in all sentient beings without exception, and though
　　temporarily contaminated by adventitious defilement
　　(`agantukaklesa`), it is the cause which eventually
　　leads sentient beings to enlightenment. The notion
　　of the `tathagatagarbha` can be traced to a luminous，
　　inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta) found in
　　the `Anguttara-nikaya` (1:5):
　　Pabhassarm `idam` bhikkhave cittam `tan` ca kho
　　`agantukehi` upakkilesehi `upakkilitthan` ti
　　pabhassaram idam bhikkhave `cittam tan` ca kho
　　`agantukehi` upakkilesehi vippamuttan ti
　　Oh！ `Bhiksus`. The mind is pure； it is defiled
　　by The adventitious defilement.
　　Oh！ `Bhiksus`. The mind is pure； it obtains
　　liberation
　　Through the adventitious defilement.
　　When the original pure mind came to be regarded
　　as something capable of growing into Buddhahood,
　　there was the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine. Although
　　the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in
　　the Nikaya Buddhism, many Buddhologists, such as
　　Wayman,(1)Paul,(2) Yin-shun(3) think that
　　────────────
　　1. A. Wayman, "The `Mahasamghika` and the
　　`Tathagatagarbha`,' Journal of International
　　Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 1, no. 3,
　　pp. 35-80.
　　2. Diana Paul, A Prolegomena to the
　　`Srimaladevi-sutra` and the `Tathagatagarbha`
　　Theory, dissertation, Wisconsin, 1974, pp.73-80.
　　3. Yun-shun, Indian Buddhism (印度之佛教), Chen-wen
　　Press, Taipei, 1976, p.167.
　　229页
　　the `tathagatagarbha` thought was originated from
　　the `Mahasamgika`, but was rejected by the
　　`Theravada`. This theory is also held by Mizuno who
　　points out that the pure mind (`pabhassarcitta`)
　　articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally
　　identical with the original pure mind
　　(`prakrtivisuddhi-citta`) articulated in the
　　`Tathagatagarbha` doctrine, for Mizuno asserts that
　　the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic
　　in that it is capable of eradicating defilement.(4)
　　At any rate, the relationship between pure mind and
　　the adventitious defilement appears to have been
　　wholly adopted by the `Mahasamghika` and later by
　　the `Mahayana`.
　　According to I-tsing's (义净) Nan-hai-chi-kuei
　　Nei-fa-chuan (The record of the Buddhist kingdoms in
　　the Southern Archipelago 南海寄归内法传), "the
　　so-called `Mahayana` (in India) is no more than the
　　two: one `Madhyamika`, the other `Yogacara`."(5)
　　Although it is commonly held that the `Madhyamika`
　　and `Yogacara` were the two major philosophical
　　schools in Indian `Mahayana` and although it might
　　be true that `tathagatagarbha` thought never formed
　　an academic school in India, this does not mean that
　　the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine never played a
　　significant role in the development of Indian
　　Buddhist thought.(6) This is attested by the fact
　　that there are
　　────────────
　　4. Mizuno Hiromoto (水野弘元), "心性本净?意味" (The
　　Meaning of the Original Pure Mind), Indogaku
　　Bukkyogaku Kenkyu, Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 8-16.
　　5. T. 54, p. 205c.
　　6. There is no evidence that the `Tathagatagarbha`
　　formed a school in India. For one thing there
　　never existed a patriarchal figure in the
　　`tathagatagarbha` as `Nagarjuna` in `Madhyamika`
　　and `Asanga` in `Yogacara`. However, Fa-tsang
　　identified a "ju-lai-tsang yuan-chi tsang", i.e".
　　"a school of `Tathagatagarbha-pratityasamut-pada`".
　　Furthermore , Takasaki identifies
　　`Tathagatagarbha-vada` in
　　230页
　　many `tathagatagarbha` scriptures composed in India
　　approximately from the third to the sixth century,
　　such as the `Tathagatagarbha-sutra`,
　　`Maha-parinirvana-sutra`,
　　`Anuatyapurn-atvanirdesa-sutra`,
　　`Srimaladevisimhanada-sutra`, `Lankavatara-sutra`,
　　Rotnagotravibhaga, Buddha-nature Treatise, etc.
　　Since the beginning of this century, many
　　`Buddhologists` have become interested in the
　　`Tathagararbha` doctrine and have shed new light on
　　tathagatagarbha thought. However, their studies,
　　especially on the Ratnagotravibhaga, lead to two
　　different interpretations of the `tathagatagarbha`
　　doctrine, i.e., `tathagatagarbha as a monistic
　　doctrine, and `tathagatagarbha` as the embodiment of
　　the principle of dependent co-arising
　　(`pratityasamutpada`) or `sunyata`, following the
　　traditional `Mahayana` Buddhist lines.
　　Obermiller, who maintains the `Tathagatagarbha`
　　as monistic, in the introduction to his translation
　　of the Ratnagotravibhaga, says that in this text,
　　"we see that Aryasanga has come to a fully monistic
　　and pantheistic conception" and that
　　The central point of this most developed
　　theory is the teaching that the fundamental
　　element of Buddhahood, the essence of the
　　Buddha in a living being represents an eternal,
　　immutable (`asamskrta`) element, which is
　　identical with the monistic Absolute and is
　　unique and undifferentiated in everything that
　　lives."(7)
　　────────────
　　the `Lankavatara-sutra` and claims it is used as an
　　independent school in contrast to `Atmavada`. For
　　further discussion on this issue, see M. Kiyota,
　　"`Tathagatagarbha` Thought─A Basis of Buddhist
　　Devotionalism in East Asia," Japanese Journal of
　　Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3, pp. 207-229.
　　7. Leningrad Obermiller, "The Sublime School of
　　the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual
　　of Buddhist Monism," Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX,
　　p. 104.
　　231页
　　Takasaki, `an` eminent scholar of the
　　`tathagatagarbha` doctrine, asserts that the
　　`tathagatagarbha` thought holds some monistic
　　element. He says,
　　When Buddhism developed itself into `Mahayana`
　　Buddhism, it could not but take the appearance of
　　Monism as a result of Absolutization of the Buddha，
　　and approach the Upanishadic thinking in its
　　philosophy....for explaining the possibility of
　　anyone's acquiring the Buddhahood, the Monistic
　　philosophy was used as the background. In this
　　last point lies the significance of the
　　`tathagatagarbha` theory of this text. This
　　theory is in one sense an inevitable result of the
　　development of Mahayanistic monism in its
　　religious expression."(8)
　　Although Takasaki notes that there is a difference
　　between the nature of monism in the Ratnagotravibhaga
　　and in the Upanishads, for the Absolute taught in the
　　Ratnagotravibhaga is the manifestion of `sunyata`
　　which is of a quite different character from the
　　substantial Absolute of the Upanishads, still he
　　believes "there was an influence from the
　　Upanishadic thought for the `astivada` of the Ratna
　　to establish its monistic doctrine."(9)
　　The reason for those scholars' holding the
　　`tathagatagarbha` doctrine as monistic is that they
　　base their interpretation on passages in various
　　`tathagatagarbha` literature which assert the
　　equivalence of the `tathagatagarbha` to terms with
　　all-pervading character, such as `tathata`,
　　`dharmakaya`, `dharmadhatu`, etc., which describe
　　the `tathagatagarbha` as being eternal (nitya) and
　　immutable (`atman`), which assert the fundamental
　　purity
　　────────────
　　8. Jikido Takasaki, A Study of the Ratnagotravibhaga
　　, Rome, 1966, p. 28.
　　9. Ibid. p.61.
　　232页
　　of the `tathagatagarbha` (equating the
　　`tathagatagarbha` as `prakrtiparisuddhi-citta`, the
　　original pure mind), and which assert that the
　　`tathagatagarbha` functions like a first cause from
　　which the phenomenal reality emanates.
　　However, if we examine more carefully the
　　`tathagatagarbha` doctrine, we will find that it can
　　be interpreted as an expression of the concept of
　　`pratityasamutpada` and `sunyata`. Yamaguchi(10) and
　　Ogawa(11) follow this traditional line.
　　Interestingly, modern Buddhologists are not
　　alone in their puzzle about the question of whether
　　the `tathagatagarbha` represents a kind of
　　Upanishadic `atman`. Bodhisattva `Mahamati` in the
　　`Lankavatarasutra` raised a question concerning this
　　issue. He said to the Buddha,
　　Now the Blessed one makes mention of the
　　`tathagatagarbha` in the sutras, and 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....it is described
　　by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent,
　　auspicious and unchangeable. Is not this
　　`tathagatagarbha` taught by the Blessed One the
　　same as the ego-substance taught by the
　　philosophers (tirthikas)？(12)
　　In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the
　　`tathagatagarbha` with emptiness, markless,
　　`tathata`, etc., meaning that the `tathagatagarbha`
　　is without any substantial entity. Then the question
　　arises： if the `tathagatagarbha` is empty by nature
　　, why the Buddhas teach a `tathagatagarbha`
　　possessing all positive
　　────────────
　　10. Yamaguchi Susumu, Hanyo Shisoni (般若思想史),
　　Tokyo, 1956.
　　11. Ichijo Ogawa, Nyoraizo-Bussho no Kenkyu (如来藏?
　　佛性之研究), Kyoto, 1969.
　　12. Daisetz T. Suzuki, tr. The `Lankavatara Sutra`,
　　Parajna Press, Boulder, 1978, pp.68-69.
　　233页
　　attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self (`atman`),
　　bliss (sukha) and pure (subha)？ The Buddha goes on
　　to answer this question,
　　The reason why the `Tathagatas` who are Arhats and
　　fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing
　　to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of
　　non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the
　　ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to
　　teaching of egolessness. 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
　　....that the `Tathagatas` preach the egolessness
　　of things which removes all the traces of
　　discrimination by various skillful means issuing
　　from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is,
　　sometimes by the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha`
　　, sometimes by that of egolessness....Thus,
　　`Mahamati`, the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha`
　　is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers
　　from their clinging to the idea of the ego.
　　Accordingly, `Mahamati`, the `Tathagatas` disclose
　　the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha` which is thus
　　not to be known as identical with the
　　philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore
　　, `Mahamati`, in order to abandon the
　　misconception cherished by the philosophers, you
　　must depend on the `anatman-tathagatagarbha`.(13)
　　It is pointed out in this passage that the
　　`tathagatagarbha` is empty in its nature yet real；
　　it is `Nirvana` itself, unborn, without predicates.
　　It is where no false discrimination (nirvikalpa)
　　takes place. There is nothing here for the Buddhas
　　or Bodhisattvas to take hold of as an `atman`. They
　　have gone beyond the sphere of false discrimination
　　and word. It is due to their wisdom and skillful
　　means (`upaya`) that they set up all kinds of names
　　and phrases in order to save
　　────────────
　　13. Ibid. p.69.
　　234页
　　sentient beings from mistaken view of reality. In
　　other words, it is exactly to help sentient beings
　　case away their fear of `anatman` that the
　　`tathagatagarbha` with positive attributes (i.e.,
　　`asunya-tathagatagarbha`不空如来藏) is taught, and
　　at the same time it is to get rid of the clinging of
　　`atman` that the `anatman-tathagatagarbha`(无我如来
　　藏) is taught. Thus it is clear that the
　　`tathagatagarbha` is not an Upanishadic `atman`. Now
　　let's turn to examine how Yamaguchi and Ogawa who
　　hold this traditional line interpret this doctrine.
　　Yamaguchi points out that the statement in the
　　Ratnagotravibhaga, "O Noble youth, such is the
　　essential nature of the dharma (`dharmanam
　　dharmata`), whether the `Tathagatas` appear in the
　　world, or whether they do not, these living beings
　　are always possessed of the matrix of the
　　`Tathagata`" (15) is parellel to the statement found
　　in the Sammyutta-nikaya "Whether the `Tathagatas`
　　were to appear in the world, the theory of
　　`pratitysamutpada` remains."(16) Here we see the
　　`tathagatagarbha` was considered as a valid
　　principle as `pratitysamutpada`. Thus Yamaguchi
　　holds that the most important point in expounding
　　the `tathagatagarbha` in the Ratnagotravibharga is
　　that "the `pratitysamutpada` is the
　　`tathagatagarbha`." (engi sunawachi nyoraizo 缘起即
　　如来藏)(17).
　　Ogawa, following the same position, interprets
　　the `tathagatagarbha` according to the commentary of
　　the `Ratnagotravibhaga` by the Tibetan master,
　　Dhar-ma rin-chen. He argues that the
　　`tathatagatagarbha` is essentially the same as
　　`sunyata`, and also it has the `sunyata` nature
　　which allows the
　　────────────
　　14. Ibid. p.69.
　　15. Takasaki, pp.294-295.
　　16. T. 2, p.84b.
　　17. Yamaguchi, p.86.
　　235页
　　mind to understand `sunyata`. The crucial point of
　　this interpretation centers on the passage "all
　　sentient beings are possessed of the
　　`tathagatagarbha`" in the Ratnagotravibhaga. It
　　expounds three `svabhavas` of the `tathagatagarbha`
　　to justify the above passage. According to Dhar-ma
　　rin-chen, the three `svabhavas` are ways of
　　explaining the `tathagatagarbha` form three
　　perspectives： from the perspective of the result
　　level of the `Tathagata`, from the perspective of
　　the nature of the `Tathagata` and form the
　　perspective of the cause of the `Tathagata.`(18)
　　(1) `Dharmakaya-svabhava`： from the
　　perspective of the result level of the `Tathagata`.
　　The `Dharmakaya-svabhava` means that the
　　`Dharmakaya` of the `Tathagata` penetrates all
　　sentient beings. According to Takasaki, this first
　　`svabhava` is derived from the `
　　Tathagatotpattisambhavambhava-parivarta` of the
　　`Avatamsaka-sutra` as cited in the Ratnagotravibhaga
　　： "There is no one among the groups of sentient
　　beings in whose body the wisdom of the `Tathagata`
　　does not penetrate at all."(19) It seems that when
　　"the `dharmakaya` of the `Tathagata` pervades" is
　　taken to mean that there is no part of the universe
　　where the substantial entity is not present, it
　　could fall into a monistic interpretation. However,
　　according to Dhar-ma rin-chen, the `Dharmakaya` is
　　explained as having two aspects： 1) `Dharma-dhatu`,
　　the perfectly pure realm of ultimate truth itself,
　　in which "dharma" means "teaching" and "`dhatu`"
　　means "cause". Therefore, the `Dharmadhatu` refers
　　to the supreme truth which is the cause of the
　　teaching, and 2)
　　────────────
　　18. John Makransky, "Rgyal Tshab Rje's Interpretation
　　of the Three Meanings of `Tathagatagarbha` with
　　Reference to the `Tathagatagarbhasutra`, the
　　Ratnagotravibhaga and some Philosophical and
　　Historical Developments," unpub. paper.
　　19. Takasaki, p.35 and p.189.
　　236页
　　arya-dharma which means the teaching in its form as
　　conventional truth. This conventional teaching is
　　the nature outflow (`nisyanda`) of wisdom. Thus we
　　see whereas the former aspect of the `Dharmadhatu`
　　refers to the truth realized by the Buddha, the
　　static aspect of the `Tathagata's` enlightenment,
　　the later refers to the dynamic aspect of the
　　`Tathagata's` enlightenment, i.e., teaching the
　　Dharma. This is to say that the Buddhadharma, or the
　　teaching, spontaniously flows out of the
　　`Tathagata's` compassion for the benefit of sentient
　　beings. Therefore, when the Ratnagotravibhaga states
　　that "all beings possess the `tathagatagarbha`"
　　(because the `Dharmakaya` of the `Tathagata`
　　penetrates all sentient beings), it simply means
　　that sentient beings are able to hear the pure
　　dharmas and are everywhere and constantly permeated
　　by them, as the nesessary outflow of the
　　`Dharmadhatu`.(20) In other words, the universality
　　of the `Tathatagatagarbha` expressed here refers to
　　the potential capacity within living beings to be
　　effected by the teaching of the Buddha and hence
　　does not have a notion of a substantial entity.
　　2) `Tathata-svabhava`： from the perspective of
　　the nature of the `Tathagata`. This
　　`tathata-svabhava` means that the `tathata` of the
　　`Tathagata` is not different from the `tathata` of
　　the sentient beings. The underlying principle of
　　this identity of the `tathata` of the `Tathagata`
　　and that of sentient being is `sunyata`. Since the
　　ultimate nature of both the `Tathagata` and sentient
　　beings are `sunyata`, they are seen to be
　　undifferentiated. The only difference is that when
　　the `tathata` is associated with defilement, it is
　　called the "`tathagatagarbha`" or `samala tathata`
　　(of sentient beings), and when the defilement
　　────────────
　　20. Ogawa, pp. 75-77.
　　237页
　　is removed, it becomes `nirmala tathata` (of the
　　`Tathagata`). Yet they are essentially identical.
　　Therefore, one says that all sentient beings possess
　　the `tathagatgarbha` when referring to the existence
　　of the `sunyata` nature of living being's mind which
　　is essentially free of defilement. Again no notion
　　of immutable substance should be asserted.
　　3) `Gotra-svabhava： from the perspective of
　　the cause of the `Tathagata`. This `gotra-svabhava`
　　means that the gotra (seed nature) of the
　　`Tathagata` exists in all sentient beings. The gotra
　　in this context is explained accroding to the
　　two-fold structure： (1) the `prakrtistha-gotra`
　　(innate gotra), and (2) the `samudanilagora`
　　(acquired gotra). According to Dhar-ma rin-chen,
　　Based on the innate gotra, the first body, which
　　is `Dharmakaya`, is obtained. Based on the
　　acquired, perfected gotra, the later two form
　　bodies (`sambohogakaya` and `nirmanakaya`) are
　　obtained.(21)
　　The `prakrtistha` gotra which obtains the
　　`dharmakaya`, does so on the basis of the wisdom
　　(`prajna`) through which insight into the reality of
　　all dharmas is attained. According to Dharma
　　rin-chen, the `prakrtistha` gotra is the primary
　　meaning of the `tathagatagarbha`, because it is
　　identified with `sunyata` and as such the primary
　　"cause" of Buddhahood.
　　The `samudanita` gotra which obtains
　　`sambhogakaya` and `nirmanakaya`, does so on the
　　basis of vigorous practices and the accumulation of
　　innumberable merits and thus is the productive
　　"cause" of Buddhahood. The `samudanita` is called
　　the uttara, or ultimate, because it signifies the
　　central theme of general `Mahayana` practice, that
　　is, "wisdom (`Dharmakaya`) becomes compassion
　　(`rupakaya`)(22). In other words, within
　　────────────
　　21. Ogawa, p. 85.
　　22. Ibid.
　　238页
　　the very meaning of gotra is experssed the movement
　　from `prajna` to `karuna`. This might be called
　　hsia-huei-hsiang (下回向), a down-ward
　　transformation or `tatha-agata`, i.e., returning
　　from the realm of enlightenment to that of this
　　world of sentient beings─a process of enlightening
　　others, after the socalled shan-huei-hsiang (上回向)
　　, an up-ward transformation or `tatha-gata`, i.e.,
　　striving for the realm of enlightenment from the
　　realm of this world of sentient beings, a process of
　　enlightening oneself. However, this "two-way
　　traffic" process should not be seen as two
　　distinctive and separated processes； rather, they
　　are non-dual, interrelated and inter-dependent.
　　Based on the commentary of Dhar-ma rin-chen, we
　　can conclude that the real purpose of the passage
　　"the gotra of the `Tathagata` exists in all sentient
　　beings" is to articulate bodhisattva practices based
　　on wisdom. This is supported by the structure of the
　　Ratnagotravibhaga, which is arranged by the
　　following order： 1. Buddha, 2. Dharma, 3. Sangha,
　　4. `Dhatu`, 5. Bodhi, 6. `Guna` (merits) and Karma
　　(act). The seven `vajrapadas` are expalined in terms
　　of cause, condition and result. "`Dhatu`" is the
　　"cause"； bodhi, `guna`, and karma are the
　　"conditions" through which the three jewels (of the
　　Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) as "result" are
　　manifested. As kiyota says that the wisdom, merits
　　and practice of a Bodhisattva constitute the
　　condition through which the "Buddha-is-caused". The
　　expression "Buddha-is-caused", or "Buddha-caused" is
　　derived from `Buddha-dhatu`. It is employed
　　synonymously with the `tathagatagarbha`. As Kiyota
　　rightly points out, the term "cause" here does not
　　refer to a first cause (i.e., a substance or a
　　physical entity), but symbolically as a potential (a
　　principle) which is empirically
　　239页
　　revealed through a set of conditions─wisdom, merits
　　,and practices.(23) In other words, the
　　`tathagatagarbha` as a potential inherent in the
　　human consciousness can only be realized through
　　Bodhisattva practices.
　　The above arguments are mainly based on the
　　Rathagotravibhaga. At least two other
　　`Tatnagatagarbha` related `sutras` also support this
　　viewpoint. One is the Buddha Nature Treatise(24) and
　　the other the `Mahaparinirvana sutra`(25).
　　In the Buddha Nature Treatise, the author gives
　　five reasons to the question why the Buddha spoke of
　　Buddha nature. They are (1) to cause sentient beings
　　to depart from inferior mind, (2) to leave behind
　　arrogance, (3) to get rid of delusion, (4) to keep
　　away from slandering the truth and (5) to sever the
　　attachment to self(26). By overcoming these five
　　shortcomings, one gives rise to five virtues, namely
　　, diligent mind, reverence, widom (`prajna`)
　　knowledge (`jnana`) and compassion (`karuna`).
　　Clearly, right from the beginning, the author does
　　not try to establish that the Buddha nature stands
　　for something substantial. Rather, he points out the
　　────────────
　　23. Minoru Kiyota, "`Thatagatagarbha` Thought─Basis
　　of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia," Japanese
　　Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3,
　　p.214.
　　24. Traditionally, Fo Hsing Lun (The Buddha Nature
　　Treatise) is attributed to Vasubandha and
　　translated into Chinese by `Paramartha`. Some
　　Buddhologists, for example, Takasaki, suspect
　　that it was actually written by `Paramartha`.
　　However, this is still an unresolved issue. At
　　any rate, this text represents the Yogacarin view
　　concerning the Buddha nature.
　　25. This is the `Mahayana` version of the Buddha's
　　`Parinirvana`. Its content concentrates mainly on
　　the `Mahayana` doctrines such as the eternal
　　nature of Buddhahood rather than on the
　　description of the last days of the Buddha.
　　26. T. 31, p. 787a.
　　240页
　　soteriological function of the teaching of the Buddha
　　nature.
　　Delusion refers to the two erronous views of
　　the substential existence of both person (`atman`)
　　and things (dharma). Ignorant actions arise from
　　these two attachments to the self and external
　　things which prevent human beings from perceiving
　　the truth. To the author of the Buddha Nature
　　Treatise, the truth is nothing but the Buddha nature,
　　for "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the
　　twin emptiness of person and things."(27) Thus it
　　is said that "if one does not speak of Buddha
　　nature, then one does not understand emptiness and
　　consequently will cling to reality and slander
　　Thusness."(28) Since the Buddha nature is the
　　implementation of emptiness, it can be any thing but
　　an entity.
　　Furthermore, in the chapter of expounding the
　　nature of Buddha nature, the author identified
　　Buddha nature with the `Dharmakaya`, which is
　　characterized with four virtues (`guna`). One of
　　them is "self" (`atman`). This "self" is immediately
　　identified with the perfection of non-self
　　(`anatman-paramita`无我波罗蜜). How can the self be
　　at the same time the perfection of non-self？ The
　　author explains,
　　All the heterodox, in their various ways, conceive
　　and grasp a self in those things which lack self,
　　namely, the five skandhas─form, etc. Yet these
　　things such as form, etc. differ from what one
　　grasps as the mark of self； therefore, they are
　　eternally lacking in self [However] with the
　　wisdom of Thusness (chen ju chih真如智). all
　　Buddhas and bodhisattvas realize the perfection of
　　non-self (`anatman-paramita`) of all things
　　───────────
　　27. T. 31, p. 787b.
　　28. Ibid.
　　241页
　　Since this perfection of non-self and that
　　which is seen as the mark of not-self are not
　　different, the `Tathagata` says that this mark of
　　the eternal not-self is the true, essential nature
　　(chen t'i hsing 真体性) of all things, therefore.
　　it is said that the perfection of not-self is
　　self. As the `sutra` verse says,
　　Already the twin emptiness [of person and
　　thing] is pure！
　　[In this] is realized the not-self, the
　　supreme self, Since the Buddha realizes the
　　pure nature (hsing性). Not-self turns on
　　itself (chuan转) and becomes self.(29)
　　It is evident from this explanation that the
　　teaching of Buddha nature is the instrument employed
　　along with `prajna` to realize the true, essential
　　nature of all dharmas, namely, the non-self.
　　Soteriologically speaking, `tathagatagarbha/Buddha`
　　nature also functions as an active skillful means,
　　for it is reiterated in several `tathagatagarbha`
　　texts that `tathagatagarbha` is the basis of
　　`samsara` and `nirvana`. That is to say without
　　`tathagatagarbha/Buddha` nature, sentient beings
　　would neither arouse aversion to `samsara` nor
　　desire for `nirvana`. Therefore, `tathagatagarbha`
　　is active, not static. In other words, it represents
　　actions of practice, rather than an monastic
　　substance.
　　This interpretation can be further attested by
　　the three causes of the Buddha nature explained in
　　the Buddha Nature Treatise. The Buddha nature
　　consists of three causes： (1) "deserved" cause (应
　　得因), (2) the cause of intensified effort (加行因),
　　and (3) the casue of fulfillment (圆满因).(30) The
　　────────────
　　29. T. 31, p. 798c. Adapted from the translation in
　　Sallie King's "The Buddha Nature： True Self As
　　Action," Religious Studies, 1982, pp. 259.
　　30. T. 31, p. 794a.
　　242页
　　three-cause schema signifies that depending on the
　　"Thusness manifested by the twin emptiness (i.e.,
　　Buddha nature)"， and through the intensified effort
　　of Buddhist practices, one "should obtain" or
　　"deserves" the fulfillment of Buddhahood. Apparently
　　, the pivot of the triple cause is the cause of
　　intensified practice, for it plays the role of
　　activating the potentiality to realize the Buddha
　　nature.
　　As we know, the `Mahaparnirvana-sutra` is one
　　of the most important `sutras` which articulate the
　　concept of Buddha nature. Just as the
　　Ratnagotravibhaga claims that all sentient beings
　　possess the `tathagatagarbha`, so the
　　`Mahaparinirvana Sutra` teaches that sentient beings
　　have the Buddha nature. In explaining what it means
　　by sentient beings' having the Buddha nature, the
　　`Mahaparinirvana Sutra` distinguishes three
　　different ways of understanding the term "to have",
　　Good son, there are three ways of having： first,
　　to have in the future, Secondly, to have at
　　present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All
　　sentient beings will have in future ages the most
　　perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature.
　　All sentient beings have at present bonds of
　　defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two
　　marks and eighty noble characteristics of the
　　Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds
　　leading to the elimination of defilements and so
　　can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future
　　goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all
　　sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)
　　Since the above passage identifies sentient beings'
　　ways of
　　────────────
　　31. T. 12, p. 524b. Adapted from the translation in
　　Miug-wood Liu's "The Doctrine of the Buddha
　　Nature in the `Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra,`"
　　Journal of the International Association of
　　Buddhist Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 1983, p. 70.
　　243页
　　having Buddha nature with the third way of having,
　　i.e., having in the future, it is again a proof that
　　the teaching of the universal Buddha nature does not
　　intend to assert the existence of substantial,
　　entity-like self endowed with excellent features of
　　a Buddha. Rather, Buddha nature simply represents
　　the potentiality to be realized in the future.
　　Elsewhere in the `Mahaparinirana Sutra`, Buddha
　　nature is defined as the ultimate emptiness and the
　　Middle Way. It says,
　　Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness
　　,which is `prajna` itself. [False] emptiness means
　　not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness. The
　　wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness,
　　permanence and impermanence, suffering and
　　happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is
　　`samsara` and what is not empty is great
　　`nirvana`.... Perceiving the non-self but not the
　　self is not the Middle Way. The Middle Way is
　　Buddha nature.(32)
　　The essential point of this passage is that true
　　emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends
　　any dictomony─being and non-being, self and
　　non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary
　　people and the heterodox see only the existence of
　　self, while `Sravakas` and Pratyekabuddhas perceive
　　only the non-self, but not the existence of a self.
　　Clinging to one extreme or the other, they cannot
　　realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and
　　consequently cannot realize the Middle Way. Without
　　the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend
　　Buddha nature. Trying to lessen the monistic flavour
　　of the Buddha nature, the `Mahaparinirvana Sutra`
　　interprets Buddha nature as both emcompassing and
　　transcending the notions of self
　　────────────
　　32. T. 12, p. 523b.
　　244页
　　and non-self. It makes the doctrine of the Buddha
　　nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of
　　non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature
　　should not be treated as equivalent to the monistic
　　absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of
　　a substantive self, it is actually a positive
　　expression of emptiness.
　　In conclusion, when we try to interpret the
　　thought of the `tathagatagarbha`, we should keep
　　several points in mind： (1) The `tathagatagarbha`
　　symbolizes the potential for enligh-tenment (a
　　principle) rather than a material "essence" of
　　ultimate truth, because (2) the `tathagatagarbha` is
　　based on the framework of the `Mahayana` doctrine of
　　`sunyata-pratitys-amutpada`. (3) The development of
　　the `tathagatagarbha` doctrine signifies the ability
　　of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs
　　of the masses aiming at a given time. That is to
　　say the `tathagatagarbha` thought was formed as an
　　positive soterio-logical approach to counteract the
　　"`sunyam sarvam`" (all is empty) view. The
　　`tathagatagarbha` which strongly articulates a
　　devotional and experiential approach to salvation
　　provides much to the hope and aspiration of the
　　people at large.
　　It is this positive aspect that was taken up
　　and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism. (4) The
　　`tathagatagarbha` doctrine is employed as a
　　skill-in-means (`upaya`). This does not necessarily
　　mean that the theory of the `tathagatagarbha` is
　　neyartha, a teaching requiring further
　　qualifications； rather, it is a skill-in-means in
　　that it is taught to suit the needs of a certain
　　kind of people and circumstances. This is why it is
　　said in the `sutra` that in order to teach the
　　emptiness of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach
　　sometimes by the doctrine of the `tathagatagarbha`,
　　and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus
　　245页
　　it is better to take the `tathagatagarbha/Buddha`
　　nature as representing "profound existence" (妙有)
　　derived from "true emptiness" (真空) rather than as
　　a monistic self.
　　246页
　　论 如 来 藏 之 空 性 义
　　释 恒 清
　　真常系思想为大乘佛教三大思想之一，影响中国佛教至巨。
　　此系统主要是建立在如来藏(或佛性)的教义上，高扬人心中蕴含
　　的清净本性。
　　然而，带有神我色彩的如来藏却自古引起不少诤议。例如，
　　如来藏是否代表某种有「我」论？清净的如来藏如果是本然的存
　　在，则染污的「无明」又因何而起？
　　本文根据「宝性论」、「大般涅槃经」、「佛性论」等真常
　　系统经论，探讨如来藏的空性义，以驳斥现代某些学者主张如来
　　藏思想为实体一元论的论调。