Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

When I first became a student of the Dhamma some years ago, the concept of Buddha-Nature served as a kind of bridge from the Theism of childhood , to an understanding of a very different world view. As saddha developed to some degree that same concept seemed vague, woolly, and irrelevant. I think it helped me to some extent, but it was help to enable my understanding to move from atta to Anatta.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Individual »

Pannapetar wrote:Apparently the notions of Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha embryo or Buddha matrix) and Buddha-dhātu (Buddha nature) are not part of the Theravada teaching. However, I see a logical problem with the concept of arahatship and enlightenment in Theravada without the notion of Buddha-dhātu. If enlightenment is possible in this (human) life then how is this supposed happen? In absence of the Buddha nature, would this not require some sort of "magical" transformation?

The same problem can be phrased in another way: if sentient beings have the potential for enlightenment, and if enlightenment does not involve becoming something else altogether, then the logical conclusion must be that we are in some sense already enlightened. In other words, the seeds for enlightenment should be present already. I know this is a slightly esoteric question. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of the subtleties of the Theravadin doctrines could answer it.

Cheers, Thomas
Let's say that you take a match-stick, then you strike it on a match-box. This reaction is called "fire" and it would be unnecessary, even convoluted, to say that the match-stick has the "fire-nature", "fire-element", the "fire-womb", the "fire-matrix." It has the potential to burn of course, but until certain interactions take place, it is not yet fire and does not contain fire in any sort of hidden esoteric form.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Pannapetar »

Individual wrote:Let's say that you take a match-stick, then you strike it on a match-box. This reaction is called "fire" and it would be unnecessary, even convoluted, to say that the match-stick has the "fire-nature", "fire-element", the "fire-womb", the "fire-matrix.
Well, "fire-nature" sounds a bit silly, since we have anther word for it. We call matches "flammable". I hope your are not saying that the distinction between flammable and non-flammable materials is superfluous.

Cheers, Thomas
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Individual »

Pannapetar wrote:
Individual wrote:Let's say that you take a match-stick, then you strike it on a match-box. This reaction is called "fire" and it would be unnecessary, even convoluted, to say that the match-stick has the "fire-nature", "fire-element", the "fire-womb", the "fire-matrix.
Well, "fire-nature" sounds a bit silly, since we have anther word for it. We call matches "flammable". I hope your are not saying that the distinction between flammable and non-flammable materials is superfluous.

Cheers, Thomas
It isn't a superflous distinction, but there is also clearly a distinction between flammability and the idea of a fire-element being present in flammable objects.

Match-sticks can burn, but it's wrong to say, "A match-stick's true nature is fire."

After all, consider the fact that Buddha-dhatu also contradicts voidness. If there is no svabhava (own-nature), then the idea of a Buddha-nature is also implausible, since there's really no such thing as a "person" and conventionally, a person can choose to be whatever they want to be, morally.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Very well said..
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by rowyourboat »

Hi Thomas,

I don't know if the idea of buddha nature has prompted anyone to progress all the way, but the idea of suffering does. The idea of buddha nature might stand in the way of progress making it harder for the person to let go of the idea of self. However it does seem like a nice idea to make the teaching popular to the masses.
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

I am rather inclined to the view which says that the development of the Buddha -dhatu doctrine represents a reversion within Buddhism to the Upanashadic philosophy that the Buddha rejected.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Individual »

Sanghamitta wrote:I am rather inclined to the view which says that the development of the Buddha -dhatu doctrine represents a reversion within Buddhism to the Upanashadic philosophy that the Buddha rejected.
The Upanishads came after the Buddha. The Buddha rejected Brahminism, but what we call "Hinduism" (including Advaita Vedanta specifically) had yet to develop.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

You are quite right. I should have said that Buddha-dhatu seems to me to be a reversion to the Indian philosophical tradition later to evolve into what is commonly known as " Hinduism " which was current at the time of The Buddha, and which he rejected. I dont see how it differs fron Atta doctrine.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Individual »

Sanghamitta wrote:You are quite right. I should have said that Buddha-dhatu seems to me to be a reversion to the Indian philosophical tradition later to evolve into what is commonly known as " Hinduism " which was current at the time of The Buddha, and which he rejected. I dont see how it differs fron Atta doctrine.
Brahmanism didn't really have anything that could be called a philosophical tradition. They only developed one in reaction to criticism by sramanas, such as the Buddha.

Buddha-nature is distinct from atta, because it doesn't claim that there is an individual Buddha-nature, like a soul, as in, "That's YOUR Buddha-nature. This is MY Buddha-nature." It's really not too different from Humanism in western philosophy: the presumption that people are fundamentally good.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Individual wrote:
Sanghamitta wrote:You are quite right. I should have said that Buddha-dhatu seems to me to be a reversion to the Indian philosophical tradition later to evolve into what is commonly known as " Hinduism " which was current at the time of The Buddha, and which he rejected. I dont see how it differs fron Atta doctrine.
Brahmanism didn't really have anything that could be called a philosophical tradition. They only developed one in reaction to criticism by sramanas, such as the Buddha.

Buddha-nature is distinct from atta, because it doesn't claim that there is an individual Buddha-nature, like a soul, as in, "That's YOUR Buddha-nature. This is MY Buddha-nature." It's really not too different from Humanism in western philosophy: the presumption that people are fundamentally good.
I could show good evidence for challenging both these statements, but Im am uninterested in debate for the sake of debate. My only interest is pragmatic. As as a practitioner of the Theravada. My point is that having examined the concept of Buddha-dhatu fairly thoroughly I concluded that it had nothing to offer me as a practitioner. Its history as a concept holds no interest for me at all, as a consequence.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Sanghamitta »

Peter wrote:The answer is that arahantship is not becoming anything. It is the ceasing of all becoming. It is the destruction of the taints, the cutting of the fetters, the removal of the defilements. It is a problem with using language like "becoming arahant" or "gaining enlightenment". These phrases can mislead a person into thinking there is something acquired or someone to do the acquiring.

It is like saying "the glass has become empty". Does this mean emptiness was always present even when the glass was full? Does this mean the glass magically transformed into something else? What it means is the stuff in the glass has been removed. "Empty" is a description of the state of the glass when it's contents has been removed, just as "arahant" is how we describe the state of one who has eradicated the defilements.
:anjali:
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
Dhammakid
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Contact:

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Dhammakid »

To me, the idea of Buddha-nature is helpful for people who feel they need something they can look for, they can tap into, that they can see and feel for themselves to convince them they are practicing rightly and continue along the path. A reward for hard work, if you will. Unfortunately, this not only plays right into the idea of an Atta, but also the idea of a unifying force in the universe, a "ground of being" so to speak. Kinda hard to stave off the idea of God in this regard.

But for those practitioners with deeper insights into anatta and emptiness, I feel Buddha-nature is simply silly. That looking for something is exactly what we're not supposed to do, if you follow the Theravada point of view.

Personally, Buddha-nature is convenient when in conversation with non-practitioners if the question of whether or not anyone can be enlightened arises. But for my practice, I find it useless.

:anjali:
Dhammakid
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by kc2dpt »

Sanghamitta wrote:My point is that having examined the concept of Buddha-dhatu fairly thoroughly I concluded that it had nothing to offer me as a practitioner.
Ditto. I do not find it helpful. I find it leads too easily to eternalist misunderstandings. I can see, however, the opposite might be true for someone else, i.e. helpful and prevents nihilist misunderstandings.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu

Post by Pannapetar »

I have finally listened to the 2-hour talk by Stephen Batchelor (thank you, tiltbillings) on Buddha nature. Batchelor contrasts Buddha nature with Mara nature, saying that these are two sides of the same coin, and that it depends on our effort which one we develop. I think this understanding is helpful in as far as it prevents the most obvious misunderstanding, namely that Buddha nature is a given. Batchelor also mentioned that the English term 'Buddha nature' is a translation accident that occurred earlier last century when Chinese Mahayana sources were translated by people like D.T. Suzuki and others. The more correct translation would be 'Buddha womb'. The proper understanding of this very term would probably have prevented some of the above discussion.

The original term Tathāgatagarbha does not imply thingness, essence, or even atta/atman, which may be associated with the English term 'Buddha nature'.

My conclusion is that whether the teaching is helpful, depends on the practitioner's level of development and -perhaps most importantly- on his/her karmic disposition. Rowyourboat believes that the idea of suffering prompts people to progress rather than the idea of Buddha nature. -I think it depends.- If you experience relatively gross levels of suffering, then the overcoming of suffering (in the sense of the 4NT) is probably a very good motivator. But what if you experience positive karmic fruits, if you are materially well off, have loving family and friends, a well-paid job, etc., in other words - what if life runs smoothly, except for the occasional smaller annoyance?

In this situation, people might spent time with relatively refined pursuits, and the idea of Tathāgatagarbha can become a powerful motivator on the path. It is like a signpost that declares the ultimate goal. It reminds you that all you have achieved in life, such as relationships, career, wealth, etc. is impermanent. It is a challenge to go further. It is a challenge to go even beyond the initial spiritual achievements which may have secured calm and peace of mind. This is the sort of situation, where tathāgatagarbha becomes meaningful. So, it should probably be considered by people enjoying good karmic fruits and intermediate practitioners.

Cheers, Thomas
Post Reply