Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Difference between revisions of "Ātman"

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "the Buddha" to "the Buddha")
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[File:4188418528-1.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:4188418528-1.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
The word '''[[Ātman]]''' ([[Sanskrit]]: आत्मन्) or [[Atta]] ([[Pāli]]) refers to a [[self]]. Occasionally the terms "[[soul]]" or "[[ego]]" are also used. The words [[ātman]] and [[Atta]] derive from the Indo-European [[root]] *ēt-men ([[breath]]) and are cognate with Old English æthm, German Atem, and {{Wiki|Greek}} atmo-.
 
  
Whereas [[Buddhism]] generally stresses the non-Self teachings of The [[Buddha]], some [[Mahāyāna]][[ Buddhist sutras]] and [[tantras]] present cataphatic [[Buddhist teachings]] with positive [[language]] by asserting the [[ultimate reality]] of an [[Atman]] ([[Self]]), which is equated with the [[essential]], [[ultimate nature]] of [[mind]] ([[Dalai Lama]] — see relevant section below). This [[doctrine]], also known as [[Tathāgatagarbha]], is also seen as the inborn potential to become a [[Buddha]].
+
 
 +
The [[word]] '''[[Ātman]]'''  ([[Sanskrit]]: [[आत्मन्]]) or [[Attā]] ([[Pāli]]) refers to a [[self]]. Occasionally the terms "[[soul]]" or "[[ego]]" are also used. The words [[ātman]] and [[Atta]] derive from the {{Wiki|Indo-European}} [[root]] *ēt-men ([[breath]]) and are {{Wiki|cognate}} with {{Wiki|Old English}} æthm, {{Wiki|German}} Atem, and {{Wiki|Greek}} atmo-.  [[atman]]: The [[philosophical]] {{Wiki|concept}} that there is an {{Wiki|independent}}, [[unchanging]], and [[eternal identity]] at the [[core of individuals]] and entities. Not held to be true by most [[Buddhists]].
 +
 
 +
Whereas [[Buddhism]] generally stresses the [[non-Self]] teachings of The [[Buddha]], some [[Mahāyāna]][[ Buddhist sutras]] and [[tantras]] {{Wiki|present}} {{Wiki|cataphatic}} [[Buddhist teachings]] with positive [[language]] by asserting the [[ultimate reality]] of an [[Atman]] ([[Self]]), which is equated with the [[essential]], [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[nature]] of [[mind]] ([[Dalai Lama]] — see relevant section below). This [[doctrine]], also known as [[Tathāgatagarbha]], is also seen as the inborn potential to become a [[Buddha]].
  
 
[[Theravāda]] [[Dhammakaya Movement]] of {{Wiki|Thailand}} also asserts the [[reality]] of the [[Atman]], which it equates with [[Nirvana]].
 
[[Theravāda]] [[Dhammakaya Movement]] of {{Wiki|Thailand}} also asserts the [[reality]] of the [[Atman]], which it equates with [[Nirvana]].
 +
  
 
== Need for [[Buddhists]] to understand ''[[ātman]]'' ==
 
== Need for [[Buddhists]] to understand ''[[ātman]]'' ==
  
[[Shantideva|Śāntideva]] (an 8th-century [[Indian]] [[Buddhist]] [[philosopher]] and practitioner) informs us that in [[order]] to be able to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying.
+
 
 +
[[Shantideva|Śāntideva]] (an 8th-century [[Indian]] [[Buddhist]] [[philosopher]] and [[practitioner]]) informs us that in [[order]] to be [[able]] to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying.
 
[[File:Buhghddhists.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:Buhghddhists.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
<blockquote>Without contacting the entity that is imputed<br/>
+
<blockquote>Without contacting the [[entity]] that is [[imputed]]<br/>
You will not apprehend the absence of that entity. (''[[Bodhicaryāvatāra]]'')</blockquote>
+
You will not apprehend the absence of that [[entity]]. (''[[Bodhicaryāvatāra]]'')</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== [[Definition]] of ''[[ātman]]'' in [[Buddhism]] ==
  
== Definition of ''[[ātman]]'' in [[Buddhism]] ==
 
 
[[Candrakīrti]] contextualises [[ātman]] as follows:
 
[[Candrakīrti]] contextualises [[ātman]] as follows:
  
:    [[Ātman]] is an [[essence]] of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is [[selflessness]].
 
  
In the [[Abhidharmapiṭaka]] ([[Pāli]]: [[Abhidhammapiṭaka]]), a treatise on {{Wiki|metaphysics}}, the prime [[doctrine]] which allows pure [[Buddhist Philosophy]] to successfully explain all [[phenomena]] is that all things happen with [[cause]]. [[Ātman]] is a {{Wiki|conceptual}} [[attachment]] to oneself that promotes a [[belief]] that one is intrinsic and without incident. This [[attachment]] further diverges one's route from the [[path]] to [[enlightenment]] and hence [[Nirvāṇa]] as all forms of [[attachment]] do.
+
:    [[Ātman]] is an [[essence]] of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic [[nature]]. The [[non-existence]] of that is [[selflessness]].
 +
 
 +
In the [[Abhidharmapiṭaka]] ([[Pāli]]: [[Abhidhammapiṭaka]]), a treatise on {{Wiki|metaphysics}}, the prime [[doctrine]] which allows [[pure]] [[Buddhist Philosophy]] to successfully explain all [[phenomena]] is that all things happen with [[cause]]. [[Ātman]] is a {{Wiki|conceptual}} [[attachment]] to oneself that promotes a [[belief]] that one is intrinsic and without incident. This [[attachment]] further diverges one's route from the [[path]] to [[enlightenment]] and hence [[Nirvāṇa]] as all [[forms]] of [[attachment]] do.
 +
 
  
 
== Critique of ''[[ātman]]'' in [[Buddhist]] [[metaphysics]] ==
 
== Critique of ''[[ātman]]'' in [[Buddhist]] [[metaphysics]] ==
 +
 
With the [[doctrine]] of [[Anatta]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[Anātman]]) [[Buddhism]] maintains that the {{Wiki|concept}} of [[ātman]] is unnecessary and counterproductive as an explanatory device for analyzing [[action]], [[causality]], [[karma]], and [[rebirth]]. [[Buddhists]] account for these and other self-related [[phenomena]] by means such as [[pratitya-samutpāda]], the [[skandhas]], and, for some schools, a [[pudgala]]. [[Buddhists]] regard postulating the [[existence]] of [[ātman]] as undesirable, as they believe it provides the [[psychological]] basis for [[attachment]] and [[aversion]]. [[Buddhism]] sees the apparent [[self]] (our identification as [[souls]]) as a [[grasping]] after a [[self]] — i.e., inasmuch as we have a [[self]], we have it only through a deluded attempt to shore it up.
 
With the [[doctrine]] of [[Anatta]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[Anātman]]) [[Buddhism]] maintains that the {{Wiki|concept}} of [[ātman]] is unnecessary and counterproductive as an explanatory device for analyzing [[action]], [[causality]], [[karma]], and [[rebirth]]. [[Buddhists]] account for these and other self-related [[phenomena]] by means such as [[pratitya-samutpāda]], the [[skandhas]], and, for some schools, a [[pudgala]]. [[Buddhists]] regard postulating the [[existence]] of [[ātman]] as undesirable, as they believe it provides the [[psychological]] basis for [[attachment]] and [[aversion]]. [[Buddhism]] sees the apparent [[self]] (our identification as [[souls]]) as a [[grasping]] after a [[self]] — i.e., inasmuch as we have a [[self]], we have it only through a deluded attempt to shore it up.
  
==Developing the self==
 
While the [[suttas]] strongly attack notions of an [[eternal]], [[unchanging]] [[Self]], they "see an [[enlightened]] [[person]] as one whose [[empirical]] [[self]] is highly developed." One with great [[self]] has a [[mind]] which is not at the [[mercy]] of outside stimuli or its own moods, but is imbued with {{Wiki|self-control}} and self-contained. The [[mind]] of such a one is without boundaries, not limited by [[attachment]] or I-identification. One can transform one's [[self]] from an "insignificant [[self]]" into a "great [[self]]" through practices such as [[loving-kindness]] and [[mindfulness]] ([[sati]]). The [[suttas]] portray one [[disciple]] who has developed his [[mind]] through [[loving-kindness]] saying: "Formerly this [[mind]] of mine was limited, but now my [[mind]] is [[immeasurable]]."
 
  
At the culmination of the [[path]] is the [[Arahant]], described as "one of developed [[self]]" ([[bhāvit-atto]]), who has carried the process of personal development and self-reliance to its [[perfection]]. Such a [[person]] has developed all the good aspects of their [[personality]]. An [[Arahant]] is described as "one with a [[mind]] like a [[diamond]]", it can "cut" anything and is itself uncuttable; [[nothing]] can affect it. The [[suttas]] portray "one of developed [[self]]" in the following ways:
+
==Developing the [[self]]==
 +
 
 +
 
 +
While the [[suttas]] strongly attack notions of an [[eternal]], [[unchanging]] [[Self]], they "see an [[enlightened]] [[person]] as one whose [[empirical]] [[self]] is highly developed." One with great [[self]] has a [[mind]] which is not at the [[mercy]] of outside {{Wiki|stimuli}} or its [[own]] [[moods]], but is imbued with {{Wiki|self-control}} and self-contained. The [[mind]] of such a one is without [[boundaries]], not limited by [[attachment]] or I-identification. One can [[transform]] one's [[self]] from an "insignificant [[self]]" into a "great [[self]]" through practices such as [[loving-kindness]] and [[mindfulness]] ([[sati]]). The [[suttas]] portray one [[disciple]] who has developed his [[mind]] through [[loving-kindness]] saying: "Formerly this [[mind]] of mine was limited, but now my [[mind]] is [[immeasurable]]."
 +
 
 +
 
 +
At the culmination of the [[path]] is the [[Arahant]], described as "one of developed [[self]]" ([[bhāvit-atto]]), who has carried the process of personal [[development]] and [[self-reliance]] to its [[perfection]]. Such a [[person]] has developed all the good aspects of their [[personality]]. An [[Arahant]] is described as "one with a [[mind]] like a [[diamond]]", it can "cut" anything and is itself uncuttable; [[nothing]] can affect it. The [[suttas]] portray "one of developed [[self]]" in the following ways:
 +
 
 
[[File:Atman.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:Atman.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
*    [[Virtue]], [[Wisdom]], and the [[meditative]] and other {{Wiki|spiritual}} [[faculties]] are well-developed;
 
*    [[Virtue]], [[Wisdom]], and the [[meditative]] and other {{Wiki|spiritual}} [[faculties]] are well-developed;
 
*    [[Body]] is "developed" and "steadfast";
 
*    [[Body]] is "developed" and "steadfast";
 
*    [[Mind]] is "developed", "steadfast", "well-released" and without [[ill-will]];
 
*    [[Mind]] is "developed", "steadfast", "well-released" and without [[ill-will]];
*    When confronted with [[objects]] of the [[six senses]], he or she has [[equanimity]] and is not confused, [[seeing]] only what is seen, and [[hearing]] only what is heard, not [[mental]] projections and elaborations such as [[attachment]], [[desire]], and [[aversion]];
+
 
 +
 
 +
*    When confronted with [[objects]] of the [[six senses]], he or she has [[equanimity]] and is not confused, [[seeing]] only what is seen, and [[hearing]] only [[what is heard]], not [[mental]] {{Wiki|projections}} and elaborations such as [[attachment]], [[desire]], and [[aversion]];
 +
 
 +
 
 
*    The [[six senses]] are "controlled" and "guarded";
 
*    The [[six senses]] are "controlled" and "guarded";
*    He or she is "self-controlled" ([[Atta-danto]]) and "with a well-controlled [[self]]" ([[attanā sudantena]]); and is
+
*    He or she is "[[self-controlled]]" ([[Atta-danto]]) and "with a [[well-controlled self]]" ([[attanā sudantena]]); and is
*    "[[Unlimited]], great, deep, [[immeasurable]], hard to fathom, with much [[treasure]], arisen (like the) ocean."
+
*    "[[Unlimited]], great, deep, [[immeasurable]], [[hard to fathom]], with much [[treasure]], arisen (like the) ocean."
 +
 
  
 
== [[Thai]] [[Dhammakaya]] movement’s teachings on [[non-self]] and [[self]] ==
 
== [[Thai]] [[Dhammakaya]] movement’s teachings on [[non-self]] and [[self]] ==
Over the past several decades (dating back to at least 1939), a controversial movement of [[monks]] and [[meditation]] [[masters]], later called the "[[Dhammakaya Movement]]", has developed in {{Wiki|Thailand}}. The [[Dhammakaya Movement]] teaches that it is erroneous to subsume [[Nirvana]] under the rubric of [[Anatta]] ([[non-self]]); instead, [[Nirvana]] is claimed to be the "[[true self]]" or [[dhammakaya]]. This [[teaching]] is strikingly similar to that of the [[Tathāgatagarbha sutras]]. Professor Paul Williams explains the [[views]] of this movement:
+
 
 +
Over the {{Wiki|past}} several decades (dating back to at least 1939), a controversial {{Wiki|movement}} of [[monks]] and [[meditation]] [[masters]], later called the "[[Dhammakaya Movement]]", has developed in {{Wiki|Thailand}}. The [[Dhammakaya Movement]] teaches that it is erroneous to subsume [[Nirvana]] under the rubric of [[Anatta]] ([[non-self]]); instead, [[Nirvana]] is claimed to be the "[[true self]]" or [[dhammakaya]]. This [[teaching]] is strikingly similar to that of the [[Tathāgatagarbha sutras]]. {{Wiki|Professor}} [[Paul Williams]] explains the [[views]] of this {{Wiki|movement}}:
 +
 
 
[[File:Im45.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:Im45.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
:    [[Dhammakaya]] [[meditations]] involve the [[realization]], when the [[mind]] reaches its purest state, of an [[unconditioned]] “[[Dhamma]] [[Body]]” ([[dhammakaya]]) in the [[form]] of a luminous, radiant and clear [[Buddha]] figure free of all [[defilements]] and situated within the [[body]] of the [[meditator]]. [[Nirvana]] is the true [[Self]], and this is also the [[dhammakaya]].
+
:    [[Dhammakaya]] [[meditations]] involve the [[realization]], when the [[mind]] reaches its purest [[state]], of an [[unconditioned]] “[[Dhamma]] [[Body]]” ([[dhammakaya]]) in the [[form]] of a {{Wiki|luminous}}, radiant and clear [[Buddha]] figure free of all [[defilements]] and situated within the [[body]] of the [[meditator]]. [[Nirvana]] is the true [[Self]], and this is also the [[dhammakaya]].
  
The bulk of [[Thai]] [[Theravāda Buddhism]] rejects this [[teaching]] and insists upon [[non-self]] as a [[universal]] fact. As against this, [[Phra Rajyanvisith]] of the [[Dhammakaya Movement]] (which does not see itself as [[Mahāyānist]] but as modern [[Theravāda]]) argues that it tends to be [[scholars]] who hold the [[view]] of [[absolute]] [[non-self]], rather than [[Buddhist]] [[meditator]]s. Also, according to him, only the [[compounded]] and [[conditioned]] is [[non-self]] - not [[Nirvana]]. Professor Williams summarises [[Phra Rajyanvisith]]’s [[views]], and adds his own comment at the end:  
+
The bulk of [[Thai]] [[Theravāda Buddhism]] rejects this [[teaching]] and insists upon [[non-self]] as a [[universal]] fact. As against this, [[Phra Rajyanvisith]] of the [[Dhammakaya Movement]] (which does not see itself as [[Mahāyānist]] but as {{Wiki|modern}} [[Theravāda]]) argues that it tends to be [[scholars]] who hold the [[view]] of [[absolute]] [[non-self]], rather than [[Buddhist]] [[meditator]]s. Also, according to him, only the [[compounded]] and [[conditioned]] is [[non-self]] - not [[Nirvana]]. {{Wiki|Professor}} [[Williams]] summarises [[Phra Rajyanvisith]]’s [[views]], and adds his [[own]] comment at the end:  
  
:  [[Scholars]] incline towards a not-Self perspective. But only [[scholars]] hold that [[view]]. By way of contrast, [[Phra Rajyanvisith]] mentions in particular the realizations of several distinguished forest [[hermit]] [[monks]]. Moreover, he argues, [[impermanence]], [[suffering]] and not-Self go together. Anything which is not-Self is also [[impermanent]] and [[suffering]]. But, it is argued, [[Nirvana]] is not [[suffering]], nor is it [[impermanent]]. It is not possible to have something which is permanent, not [[suffering]] (i.e. is [[happiness]]) and yet for it still to be not-Self. Hence it is not not-Self either. It is thus (true, or [[transcendental]]) [[Self]] … These ways of reading [[Buddhism]] in terms of a true [[Self]] certainly seem to have been congenial in the East Asian environment, and hence flourished in that context where for complex [[reasons]] [[Mahayana]] too found a ready home.
+
:  [[Scholars]] incline towards a [[not-Self]] {{Wiki|perspective}}. But only [[scholars]] hold that [[view]]. By way of contrast, [[Phra Rajyanvisith]] mentions in particular the realizations of several {{Wiki|distinguished}} {{Wiki|forest}} [[hermit]] [[monks]]. Moreover, he argues, [[impermanence]], [[suffering]] and [[not-Self]] go together. Anything which is [[not-Self]] is also [[impermanent]] and [[suffering]]. But, it is argued, [[Nirvana]] is not [[suffering]], nor is it [[impermanent]]. It is not possible to have something which is [[permanent]], not [[suffering]] (i.e. is [[happiness]]) and yet for it still to be [[not-Self]]. Hence it is not [[not-Self]] either. It is thus (true, or [[transcendental]]) [[Self]] … These ways of reading [[Buddhism]] in terms of a true [[Self]] certainly seem to have been congenial in the {{Wiki|East Asian}} {{Wiki|environment}}, and hence flourished in that context where for complex [[reasons]] [[Mahayana]] too found a ready [[home]].
  
Professor Williams sees the [[Dhammakaya Movement]] of [[Thailand]] as having developed independently of the [[Mahayana]] [[Tathāgatagarbha]] [[tradition]] but as achieving some remarkably similar results in their understanding of [[Buddhism]].
+
{{Wiki|Professor}} [[Williams]] sees the [[Dhammakaya Movement]] of [[Thailand]] as having developed {{Wiki|independently}} of the [[Mahayana]] [[Tathāgatagarbha]] [[tradition]] but as achieving some remarkably similar results in their [[understanding]] of [[Buddhism]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==Positive teachings on the [[ātman]] in [[Mahāyāna]] [[Buddhism]]==
  
==Positive teachings on the [[ātman]] in [[Mahāyāna]] Buddhism==
 
 
[[File:Atmana.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:Atmana.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
Within the [[Mahāyāna]] branch of [[Buddhism]], there [[exists]] an important class of [[sutras]] (influential upon [[Ch'an]] and [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]), generally known as [[Buddha nature]] ([[Tathāgatagarbha]]) [[sutras]] (also: "Buddha-matrix" or "Buddha-embryo" [[sutras]]), a number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the [[impermanent]] "[[mundane]] [[self]]" of the [[Five Skandhas]] (the [[physical]] and [[mental]] components of the mutable [[ego]]), there does [[exist]] an [[eternal]] [[true self]], which is in fact none other than the [[Buddha]] himself in his [[ultimate]] nirvanic nature. This is the "[[true self]]" in the [[self]] of each [[being]], the ideal [[personality]], attainable by all [[beings]] due to their inborn potential for [[Enlightenment]]. The [[Buddha nature]] does not represent a substantial [[self]] ([[ātman]]); rather, it is a positive [[language]] and expression of [[emptiness]] ([[śūnyatā]]) and represents the potentiality to realize [[Buddhahood]] through [[Buddhist]] practices; the {{Wiki|intention}} of the [[teaching]] of [[Buddha nature]] is {{Wiki|soteriological}} rather than theoretical.
 
  
Prior to the period of the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] genre, [[Mahāyāna]] [[metaphysics]] had been dominated by teachings on [[emptiness]] in the [[form]] of [[Madhyamaka]] [[philosophy]]. The [[language]] used by this approach is primarily negative, and the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] genre of [[sutras]] can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox [[Buddhist]] teachings of [[dependent origination]] using positive [[language]] instead, to prevent [[people]] from [[being]] turned away from [[Buddhism]] by a false [[impression]] of {{Wiki|nihilism}}. In these [[sutras]] the [[perfection]] of the [[wisdom]] of [[not-self]] is stated to be the [[true self]]; the [[ultimate]] goal of the [[path]] is then characterized using a range of positive [[language]] that had been used in [[Indian philosophy]] previously by essentialist {{Wiki|philosophers}}, but which was now transmuted into a new [[Buddhist]] vocabulary to describe a [[being]] who has successfully completed the [[Buddhist]] [[path]].
+
Within the [[Mahāyāna]] branch of [[Buddhism]], there [[exists]] an important class of [[sutras]] (influential upon [[Ch'an]] and [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]), generally known as [[Buddha nature]] ([[Tathāgatagarbha]]) [[sutras]] (also: "[[Buddha-matrix]]" or "Buddha-embryo" [[sutras]]), a number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the [[impermanent]] "[[mundane]] [[self]]" of the [[Five Skandhas]] (the [[physical]] and [[mental]] components of the [[mutable]] [[ego]]), there does [[exist]] an [[eternal]] [[true self]], which is in fact none other than the [[Buddha]] himself in his [[ultimate]] [[nirvanic]] [[nature]].  
  
Not all [[Buddhists]] and [[scholars]] share this interpretation of the [[doctrine]] of [[self]] in the [[Tathāgatagarbha sutras]]. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire [[Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra]] into English, tells of how the [[Buddha]] speaks in that [[scripture]] of [[doctrines]] previously not articulated. Now, in [[order]] to correct people’s misunderstanding of the [[Dharma]], the [[Buddha]] - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of [[Nirvana]], which includes the [[self]]:
+
This is the "[[true self]]" in the [[self]] of each [[being]], the {{Wiki|ideal}} [[personality]], attainable by all [[beings]] due to their inborn potential for [[Enlightenment]]. The [[Buddha nature]] does not represent a substantial [[self]] ([[ātman]]); rather, it is a positive [[language]] and expression of [[emptiness]] ([[śūnyatā]]) and represents the potentiality to realize [[Buddhahood]] through [[Buddhist]] practices; the {{Wiki|intention}} of the [[teaching]] of [[Buddha nature]] is {{Wiki|soteriological}} rather than {{Wiki|theoretical}}.
  
:    He [i.e. the [[Buddha]]] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down [[thoughts]]. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of [[Nirvana]], which are none other than the [[Eternal]], [[Bliss]], the [[Self]] and the Pure.
 
  
The [[Zen]] [[Buddhist]] [[master]], [[Sekkei Harada]], likewise speaks of a true [[Self]] in his explications of [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]]. This true [[Self]] is found when one "forgets the ego-self". Harada states that the [[doctrine]] of "[[no-self]]" really means [[awakening]] to a [[self]] that is without any limits and thus invisible: "[[No-self]] means to awaken to a [[Self]] that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen." Harada concludes his reflections on [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]] by speaking of the need for an almost [[passionate]] encounter with the "[[person]]" of the [[essential]] [[True Self]]:
+
Prior to the period of the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] genre, [[Mahāyāna]] [[metaphysics]] had been dominated by teachings on [[emptiness]] in the [[form]] of [[Madhyamaka]] [[philosophy]]. The [[language]] used by this approach is primarily negative, and the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] genre of [[sutras]] can be seen as an attempt to [[state]] {{Wiki|orthodox}} [[Buddhist]] teachings of [[dependent origination]] using positive [[language]] instead, to prevent [[people]] from [[being]] turned away from [[Buddhism]] by a false [[impression]] of {{Wiki|nihilism}}. In these [[sutras]] the [[perfection]] of the [[wisdom]] of [[not-self]] is stated to be the [[true self]]; the [[ultimate]] goal of the [[path]] is then characterized using a range of positive [[language]] that had been used in [[Indian philosophy]] previously by essentialist {{Wiki|philosophers}}, but which was now transmuted into a new [[Buddhist]] vocabulary to describe a [[being]] who has successfully completed the [[Buddhist]] [[path]].
  
:    … in our lifetime there is only one [[person]] we must encounter, one [[person]] we must meet as though we were passionately in [[love]]. That [[person]] is the [[essential]] [[Self]], the true [[Self]]. As long as you don’t meet this [[Self]], it will be impossible to find true [[satisfaction]] in your [[heart]] …
 
  
Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the [[Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra]], writes: "the [[existence]] of an [[eternal]], imperishable [[self]], that is, [[Buddhahood]], is definitely the basic point of the [[Tathagatagarbha Sutra]]". Professor Zimmermann also declares: "[The compilers of the [[Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra]]] did not hesitate to attribute an obviously substantialist notion to the [[Buddha-nature]] of living [[beings]]" and notes the evident total lack of interest in this [[Sutra]] for any ideas of non-substantialism or "[[emptiness]]" ([[śūnyatā]]): "Throughout the whole [[Tathagatagarbha Sutra]] the term [[śūnyatā]] does not even appear once, nor does the general drift of the TGS somehow imply the notion of [[śūnyatā]] as its hidden foundation. On the contrary, the [[Sutra]] uses very positive and substantialist terms to describe the nature of living [[beings]]."
+
Not all [[Buddhists]] and [[scholars]] share this [[interpretation]] of the [[doctrine]] of [[self]] in the [[Tathāgatagarbha sutras]]. Dr. [[Kosho Yamamoto]], who translated the entire [[Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra]] into English, tells of how the [[Buddha]] speaks in that [[scripture]] of [[doctrines]] previously not articulated. Now, in [[order]] to correct people’s {{Wiki|misunderstanding}} of the [[Dharma]], the [[Buddha]] - according to [[Yamamoto]] - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of [[Nirvana]], which includes the [[self]]:
  
Dr. Jamie Hubbard writes on the diverse ways in which the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] texts (which on occasion speak of the [[self]]) are viewed by various [[scholars]], some [[seeing]] an absolutist {{Wiki|monism}} in them, others not. Dr. Hubbard comments:
 
  
:    Matsumoto [calls] [[attention]] to the similarity between the extremely positive [[language]] and causal structure of [[dnlightenment]] found in the [[Tathagatagarbha]] literature and that of the substantial {{Wiki|monism}} found in the [[Atman]]/[[Brahman]] [[tradition]]. Matsumoto, of course, is not the only one to have noted this resemblance. Takasaki [[Jikido]], for example, the preeminent [[scholar]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] [[tradition]], sees {{Wiki|monism}} in the [[doctrine]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] and the [[Mahayana]] in general … Obermiller wedded this notion of a monistic [[Absolute]] to the [[Tathagatagarbha]] literature in his translation and comments to the Ratnagotra, which he aptly subtitled “A Manual of [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|Monism}}” … Lamotte and Frauwallner have seen the [[Tathagatagarbha]] [[doctrine]] as diametrically opposed to the [[Madhyamika]] and representing something akin to the {{Wiki|monism}} of the [[Atman]]/[[Brahman]] strain, while yet others such as Nagao, Seyfort Ruegg, and Johnston (the editor of the Ratnagotra) simply {{Wiki|voice}} their [[doubts]] and state that it seems similar to post-{{Wiki|Vedic}} forms of {{Wiki|monism}}. Yet another camp, represented by Yamaguchi Susumu and his student Ogawa Ichijo, is able to understand [[Tathagatagarbha]] [[thought]] without recourse to {{Wiki|Vedic}} notions by putting it squarely within the [[Buddhist]] [[tradition]] of [[conditioned]] [[causality]] and [[emptiness]], which, of course, explicitly rejects {{Wiki|monism}} of any sort. Obviously, the question of the monist or absolutist nature of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] and [[Buddha-nature]] [[traditions]] is complex.
+
:    He [i.e. the [[Buddha]] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down [[thoughts]]. So he will now speak of the affirmative [[attributes]] of [[Nirvana]], which are none other than the [[Eternal]], [[Bliss]], the [[Self]] and the [[Pure]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The [[Zen]] [[Buddhist]] [[master]], [[Sekkei Harada]], likewise speaks of a true [[Self]] in his explications of [[Zen Buddhism]]. This true [[Self]] is found when one "forgets the ego-self". [[Harada]] states that the [[doctrine]] of "[[no-self]]" really means [[awakening]] to a [[self]] that is without any limits and thus {{Wiki|invisible}}: "[[No-self]] means to [[awaken]] to a [[Self]] that is so vast and {{Wiki|limitless}} that it cannot be seen." [[Harada]] concludes his reflections on [[Zen Buddhism]] by {{Wiki|speaking}} of the need for an almost [[passionate]] encounter with the "[[person]]" of the [[essential]] [[True Self]]:
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:    … in our [[lifetime]] there is only one [[person]] we must encounter, one [[person]] we must meet as though we were passionately in [[love]]. That [[person]] is the [[essential]] [[Self]], the true [[Self]]. As long as you don’t meet this [[Self]], it will be impossible to find true [[satisfaction]] in your [[heart]] …
 +
 
 +
Analogously, {{Wiki|Professor}} [[Michael Zimmermann]], a specialist on the [[Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra]], writes: "the [[existence]] of an [[eternal]], imperishable [[self]], that is, [[Buddhahood]], is definitely the basic point of the [[Tathagatagarbha Sutra]]". {{Wiki|Professor}} [[Zimmermann]] also declares: "[The compilers of the [[Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra]] did not hesitate to attribute an obviously substantialist notion to the [[Buddha-nature]] of living [[beings]]" and notes the evident total lack of [[interest]] in this [[Sutra]] for any [[ideas]] of [[non-substantialism]] or "[[emptiness]]" ([[śūnyatā]]): "Throughout the whole [[Tathagatagarbha Sutra]] the term [[śūnyatā]] does not even appear once, nor does the general drift of the TGS somehow imply the notion of [[śūnyatā]] as its hidden foundation. On the contrary, the [[Sutra]] uses very positive and substantialist terms to describe the [[nature]] of living [[beings]]."
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[Dr. Jamie Hubbard]] writes on the diverse ways in which the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] texts (which on [[occasion]] speak of the [[self]]) are viewed by various [[scholars]], some [[seeing]] an [[absolutist]] {{Wiki|monism}} in them, others not. [[Dr. Hubbard]] comments:
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:    [[Matsumoto]] [calls] [[attention]] to the similarity between the extremely positive [[language]] and causal {{Wiki|structure}} of [[dnlightenment]] found in the [[Tathagatagarbha]] {{Wiki|literature}} and that of the substantial {{Wiki|monism}} found in the [[Atman]]/[[Brahman]] [[tradition]]. [[Matsumoto]], of course, is not the only one to have noted this resemblance. {{Wiki|Takasaki}} [[Jikido]], for example, the preeminent [[scholar]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] [[tradition]], sees {{Wiki|monism}} in the [[doctrine]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] and the [[Mahayana]] in general … [[Obermiller]] wedded this notion of a {{Wiki|monistic}} [[Absolute]] to the [[Tathagatagarbha]] {{Wiki|literature}} in his translation and comments to the [[Ratnagotra]], which he aptly subtitled “A Manual of [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|Monism}}” … [[Lamotte]] and {{Wiki|Frauwallner}} have seen the [[Tathagatagarbha]] [[doctrine]] as diametrically opposed to the [[Madhyamika]] and representing something akin to the {{Wiki|monism}} of the [[Atman]]/[[Brahman]] strain, while yet others such as [[Nagao]], [[Seyfort Ruegg]], and Johnston (the editor of the [[Ratnagotra]]) simply {{Wiki|voice}} their [[doubts]] and [[state]] that it seems similar to post-{{Wiki|Vedic}} [[forms]] of {{Wiki|monism}}.  
 +
 
 +
Yet another camp, represented by [[Wikipedia:Susumu Yamaguchi|Yamaguchi Susumu]] and his [[student]] [[Ogawa Ichijo]], is [[able]] to understand [[Tathagatagarbha]] [[thought]] without recourse to {{Wiki|Vedic}} notions by putting it squarely within the [[Buddhist]] [[tradition]] of [[conditioned]] [[causality]] and [[emptiness]], which, of course, explicitly rejects {{Wiki|monism}} of any sort. Obviously, the question of the monist or [[absolutist]] [[nature]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] and [[Buddha-nature]] [[traditions]] is complex.
 +
 
 
[[File:Images54.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:Images54.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
Dr. Hubbard concludes his investigation into the notion of [[Tathāgatagarbha]] with the words:
+
[[Dr. Hubbard]] concludes his [[investigation]] into the notion of [[Tathāgatagarbha]] with the words:
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:    the [[teaching]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] has always been debatable, for it is fundamentally an affirmative approach to [[truth]] and [[wisdom]], [[offering]] descriptions of [[reality]] not in negative terms of what it is lacking or [[empty]] of ({{Wiki|apophatic}} description, typical of the [[Pefection of wisdom]] corpus and the [[Madhyhamika]] school) but rather in positive terms of what it is ({{Wiki|cataphatic}} description, more typical of the devotional, [[tantric]], [[Mahaparinirvana]] and [[Lotus Sutra]] [[traditions]], and, it should be noted, the {{Wiki|monistic}} terms of the {{Wiki|orthodox}} {{Wiki|Brahmanic}} systems)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The [[true self]] of the [[Buddha]] is indeed said to be [[pure]], real and [[blissful]], and to be attainable by anyone in the [[state]] of [[mahāparinirvāṇa]]. Furthermore, the [[essence]] of that [[Buddha]] — the [[Buddha-dhātu]] ("[[Buddha-nature]]", "[[Buddha]] [[principle]]"), or [[Dharmakāya]], as it is termed — is {{Wiki|present}} in all [[Sentient beings]] and is described as "radiantly {{Wiki|luminous}}". This [[Buddha-dhātu]] is said in the [[Nirvāṇa Sūtra]] to be the uncreated, [[immutable and immortal essence]] ([[Svabhāva]]) of all [[beings]], which can never be harmed or destroyed. The most extensive [[Sutra]] promulgating this as an "[[ultimate]] [[teaching]]" ([[uttara-tantra]]) on the [[Buddhic]] [[essence]] of all creatures, [[animals]] included, is the [[Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra]]. There we read in words attributed to The [[Buddha]]: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all [[phenomena]] are devoid of the [[Self]]. What is this [[Self]]?
  
:    the [[teaching]] of the [[Tathagatagarbha]] has always been debatable, for it is fundamentally an affirmative approach to [[truth]] and [[wisdom]], [[offering]] descriptions of [[reality]] not in negative terms of what it is lacking or [[empty]] of (apophatic description, typical of the Pefection of [[wisdom]] corpus and the Madhyhamika school) but rather in positive terms of what it is (cataphatic description, more typical of the devotional, [[tantric]], [[Mahaparinirvana]] and [[Lotus Sutra]] [[traditions]], and, it should be noted, the monistic terms of the orthodox {{Wiki|Brahmanic}} systems)
+
Any [[phenomenon]] ["[[dharma]]"] that is true ["[[satya]]"], real ["[[tattva]]"], [[eternal]] ["[[nitya]]"], sovereign/autonomous ["[[aishvarya]]"] and whose foundation is [[unchanging]] "[[ashraya-aviparinama]]" is termed 'the [[Self]]' [[atman]]." (translated from [[Dharmakṣema's]] version of the [[Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]]). This [[true self]] — so The [[Buddha]] of such [[scriptures]] indicates — must never be confused with the ordinary, ever-changing, [[worldly]] [[ego]], which, with all its [[emotional]] and [[moral]] [[taints]] and turmoil, conceals the [[true self]] from [[view]]. Far from [[being]] possessed of the negative [[attributes]] of the [[mundane]] [[ego]], the [[Buddhic]] or [[nirvanic]] [[Self]] is proclaimed by The [[Buddha]] of the [[Nirvāṇa Sūtra]] to be characterised by "great [[Loving-kindness]], great [[compassion]], great sympathetic [[joy]], and great [[equanimity]]" (see: the four [[Brahmavihāras]]).
  
The [[true self]] of the [[Buddha]] is indeed said to be pure, real and blissful, and to be attainable by anyone in the state of mahāparinirvāṇa. Furthermore, the [[essence]] of that [[Buddha]] — the [[Buddha]]-[[dhātu]] ("[[Buddha-nature]]", "[[Buddha]] principle"), or [[Dharmakāya]], as it is termed — is present in all [[Sentient beings]] and is described as "radiantly luminous". This Buddha-dhātu is said in the [[Nirvāṇa]] [[Sūtra]] to be the uncreated, immutable and [[immortal]] [[essence]] ([[Svabhāva]]) of all [[beings]], which can never be harmed or destroyed. The most extensive [[Sutra]] promulgating this as an "[[ultimate]] [[teaching]]" (uttara-tantra) on the [[Buddhic]] [[essence]] of all creatures, [[animals]] included, is the [[Mahāyāna]] Mahāparinirvāṇa [[Sūtra]]. There we read in words attributed to The [[Buddha]]: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all [[phenomena]]] are devoid of the [[Self]]. What is this [[Self]]? Any [[phenomenon]] ["[[dharma]]"] that is true ["satya"], real ["[[tattva]]"], [[eternal]] ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is [[unchanging]] ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the [[Self]]' [[[atman]]]." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the [[Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]]). This [[true self]] — so The [[Buddha]] of such scriptures indicates — must never be confused with the ordinary, ever-changing, [[worldly]] [[ego]], which, with all its [[emotional]] and [[moral]] [[taints]] and turmoil, conceals the [[true self]] from [[view]]. Far from [[being]] possessed of the negative attributes of the [[mundane]] [[ego]], the [[Buddhic]] or nirvanic [[Self]] is proclaimed by The [[Buddha]] of the [[Nirvāṇa Sūtra]] to be characterised by "great [[Loving-kindness]], great [[compassion]], great sympathetic [[joy]], and great [[equanimity]]" (see: the four [[Brahmavihāras]]).
 
  
In equating the [[Buddha-nature]] with practice, {{Wiki|King}} argues that the author of the [[Buddha-nature]] Treatise "undercuts any possibility of conceiving [[Buddha nature]] as an entity of any kind, as a Hindu–like [[Ātman]] or even as a purely [[mental]] process."
+
In equating the [[Buddha-nature]] with [[practice]], {{Wiki|King}} argues that the author of the [[Buddha-nature]] Treatise "undercuts any possibility of [[conceiving]] [[Buddha nature]] as an [[entity]] of any kind, as a Hindu–like [[Ātman]] or even as a purely [[mental]] process."
  
In the [[Mahāyāna]] Mahāparinirvāṇa [[Sūtra]] The [[Buddha]] is portrayed explaining that he proclaims all [[beings]] to have [[Buddha-nature]] in the [[sense]] that they will in the future become [[Buddhas]]:
 
  
:    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]].
+
In the [[Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra]] The [[Buddha]] is portrayed explaining that he proclaims all [[beings]] to have [[Buddha-nature]] in the [[sense]] that they will in the {{Wiki|future}} become [[Buddhas]]:
  
In the later Lankāvatāra [[Sūtra]] it is said that the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] might be mistaken for a [[self]], which it is not. In the 'Sagathakam' section of that same [[Sutra]], however, the [[Tathagatagarbha]] as the [[Self]] is not denied, but affirmed: 'The Atma [[[Self]]] characterised with purity is the state of self-realization; this is the [[Tathagata]]'s [[Womb]] (garbha), which does not belong to the [[realm]] of the theorisers'.
+
:    Good son, there are [[three ways]] of having: first, to have in the {{Wiki|future}}, secondly, to have at {{Wiki|present}}, and thirdly, to have in the {{Wiki|past}}. All [[Sentient beings]] will have in {{Wiki|future}} ages the most {{Wiki|perfect}} [[Enlightenment]], i.e., the [[Buddha nature]]. All [[Sentient beings]] have at {{Wiki|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 {{Wiki|past}} ages [[deeds]] leading to the elimination of [[defilements]] and so can now {{Wiki|perceive}} the [[Buddha nature]] as their {{Wiki|future}} goal. For such [[reasons]], I always proclaim that all [[Sentient beings]] have the [[Buddha nature]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
In the later Lankāvatāra [[Sūtra]] it is said that the [[Tathāgatagarbha]] might be mistaken for a [[self]], which it is not. In the '[[Sagathakam]]' section of that same [[Sutra]], however, the [[Tathagatagarbha]] as the [[Self]] is not denied, but [[affirmed]]: 'The [[Atma]] [[Self]] characterized with [[purity]] is the [[state]] of [[self-realization]]; this is the [[Tathagata's Womb]] ([[garbha]]), which does not belong to the [[realm]] of the theorists'.
 
[[File:1543.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
 
[[File:1543.jpg|thumb|250px|]]
Some other [[Buddhist]] [[sutras]] and [[tantras]] also speak affirmatively of the [[self]]. For instance, the [[Mahabheriharaka Sutra]] insists: "... at the time one becomes a [[Tathagata]], a [[Buddha]], he is in [[Nirvana]], and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', '[[calm]]', '[[eternal]]', and '[[Self]]' [[[atman]]]." Similarly, the Śrīmālā [[Sūtra]] declares unequivocally: "When [[Sentient beings]] have [[faith]] in the [[Tathagata]] [[[Buddha]]] and those [[Sentient beings]] conceive [him] with permanence, [[pleasure]], [[self]], and purity, they do not go astray. Those [[Sentient beings]] have the [[right view]]. Why so? Because the [[Dharmakaya]] [[[ultimate nature]]] of the [[Tathagata]] has the [[perfection]] of permanence, the [[perfection]] of [[pleasure]], the [[perfection]] of [[self]], the [[perfection]] of purity. Whatever [[Sentient beings]] see the [[Dharmakaya]] of the [[Tathagata]] that way, see correctly." An early [[Buddhist]] [[tantra]], the Guhyasamājā [[Tantra]], declares: "The [[universal]] [[Self]] of entities sports by means of the [[illusory]] [[Samādhi]]. It performs the [[deeds]] of a [[Buddha]] while stationed at the [[traditional]] post" (i.e. while never moving). The same [[tantra]] also imbues the [[self]] with radiant [[light]] (a common image): "The pure [[Self]], adorned with all adornments, shines with a [[light]] of blazing [[diamond]] ..." And the All-Creating {{Wiki|King}} [[Tantra]] (the [[Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra]], a [[scripture]] of the [[Nyingma]] school of [[Tibetan Buddhism]], also designated a [[Sutra]]) has the [[primordial]] [[Buddha]], [[Samantabhadra]], state, "... the [[root]] of all things is [[nothing]] else but one [[Self]] … I am the place in which all [[existing]] things abide."
 
  
Furthermore, the [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[scripture]] entitled The Expression of [[Manjushri]]'s [[Ultimate]] Names (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), as quoted by the [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[master]], [[Dolpopa]], applies the following terms to the [[Ultimate]] [[Buddhist]] [[Reality]]:
+
Some other [[Buddhist]] [[sutras]] and [[tantras]] also speak affirmatively of the [[self]]. For instance, the [[Mahabheriharaka Sutra]] insists: "... at the [[time]] one becomes a [[Tathagata]], a [[Buddha]], he is in [[Nirvana]], and is referred to as '[[permanent]]', 'steadfast', '[[calm]]', '[[eternal]]', and '[[Self]]' [[atman]]." Similarly, the [[Śrīmālā]] [[Sūtra]] declares unequivocally: "When [[Sentient beings]] have [[faith]] in the [[Tathagata]] [[Buddha]] and those [[Sentient beings]] [[conceive]] [him] with [[permanence]], [[pleasure]], [[self]], and [[purity]], they do not go astray. Those [[Sentient beings]] have the [[right view]]. Why so? Because the [[Dharmakaya]] [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[nature]] of the [[Tathagata]] has the [[perfection]] of [[permanence]], the [[perfection]] of [[pleasure]], the [[perfection]] of [[self]], the [[perfection]] of [[purity]].
 +
 
 +
Whatever [[Sentient beings]] see the [[Dharmakaya]] of the [[Tathagata]] that way, see correctly." An early [[Buddhist]] [[tantra]], the [[Guhyasamājā Tantra]], declares: "The [[universal]] [[Self]] of entities [[sports]] by means of the [[illusory]] [[Samādhi]]. It performs the [[deeds]] of a [[Buddha]] while stationed at the [[traditional]] post" (i.e. while never moving). The same [[tantra]] also imbues the [[self]] with radiant [[light]] (a common image): "The [[pure]] [[Self]], adorned with all adornments, shines with a [[light]] of blazing [[diamond]] ..." And the All-Creating {{Wiki|King}} [[Tantra]] (the [[Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra]], a [[scripture]] of the [[Nyingma]] school of [[Tibetan Buddhism]], also designated a [[Sutra]]) has the [[primordial]] [[Buddha]], [[Samantabhadra]], [[state]], "... the [[root]] of all things is [[nothing]] else but one [[Self]] … I am the place in which all [[existing]] things abide."
 +
 
 +
Furthermore, the [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[scripture]] entitled The Expression of [[Manjushri]]'s [[Ultimate]] Names ([[Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti]]), as quoted by the [[Tibetan Buddhist]] [[master]], [[Dolpopa]], applies the following terms to the [[Ultimate]] [[Buddhist]] [[Reality]]:
  
 
*    "Pervasive [[Lord]]"
 
*    "Pervasive [[Lord]]"
 +
 
*    "Supreme Guardian of the [[world]]"
 
*    "Supreme Guardian of the [[world]]"
*    "Buddha-Self"
+
*    "[[Buddha-Self]]"
*    "Beginningless [[Self]]"
+
*    "[[Beginningless]] [[Self]]"
*    "[[Self]] of Thusness"
+
*    "[[Self]] of [[Thusness]]"
*    "[[Self]] of [[primordial]] purity"
+
*    "[[Self]] of [[primordial]] [[purity]]"
 
*    "Source of all"
 
*    "Source of all"
 
*    "Single [[Self]]"
 
*    "Single [[Self]]"
 
*    "[[Diamond]] [[Self]]"
 
*    "[[Diamond]] [[Self]]"
 
*    "Solid [[Self]]"
 
*    "Solid [[Self]]"
*    "Holy, [[Immovable]] [[Self]]"
+
*    "{{Wiki|Holy}}, [[Immovable]] [[Self]]"
 
*    "Supreme [[Self]]"
 
*    "Supreme [[Self]]"
 
*    "Supreme [[Self]] of All Creatures".
 
*    "Supreme [[Self]] of All Creatures".
  
Moreover, with reference to one of Vasubandhu's commentarial works, [[Dolpopa]] affirms the [[reality]] of the pure [[self]], which is not the [[worldly]] [[ego]], in the following terms:
+
Moreover, with reference to one of [[Vasubandhu's]] {{Wiki|commentarial}} works, [[Dolpopa]] affirms the [[reality]] of the [[pure]] [[self]], which is not the [[worldly]] [[ego]], in the following terms:
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:    ... the uncontaminated [[element]] is the [[Buddhas]]' supreme [[Self]] ... because [[Buddhas]] have [[attained]] [[pure]] [[Self]], they have become the [[Self]] of great [[Selfhood]]. Through this [[consideration]], the uncontaminated is posited as the supreme [[Self]] of [[Buddhas]].
  
:    ... the uncontaminated [[element]] is the [[Buddhas]]' supreme [[Self]] ... because [[Buddhas]] have attained pure [[Self]], they have become the [[Self]] of great Selfhood. Through this [[consideration]], the uncontaminated is posited as the supreme [[Self]] of [[Buddhas]].
+
==The [[14th Dalai Lama]] on the "{{Wiki|subtle}} [[person]] or [[self]]"==
  
==The [[14th Dalai Lama]] on the "subtle [[person]] or self"==
+
In 2005, commenting on the [[Tibetan Book of the Dead]], a text in the [[highest]] [[yoga tantra]], the [[14th Dalai Lama]] explained how this [[tantra]] conceives both of a temporary [[person]], and a {{Wiki|subtle}} [[person]] or [[self]], which it links to the [[Buddha nature]]. He writes:
  
In 2005, commenting on the [[Tibetan Book of the Dead]], a text in the highest [[yoga tantra]], the [[14th Dalai Lama]] explained how this [[tantra]] conceives both of a temporary [[person]], and a subtle [[person]] or [[self]], which it links to the [[Buddha nature]]. He writes:
 
  
:    … when we look at [the] [[interdependence]] of [[mental]] and [[physical]] constituents from the perspective of Highest [[Yoga Tantra]], there are two concepts of a [[person]]. One is the temporary [[person]] or [[self]], that is as we [[exist]] at the moment, and this is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross [[physical body]] and [[conditioned]] [[mind]], and, at the same time, there is a subtle [[person]] or [[self]] which is designated in dependence on the [[subtle body]] and [[subtle mind]]. This [[subtle body]] and [[subtle mind]] are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect which has the quality of [[awareness]], which can reflect and has the [[Power]] of [[cognition]], is the [[subtle mind]]. Simultaneously, there is its [[energy]], the force that activates the [[mind]] towards its [[object]] – this is the [[subtle body]] or subtle wind. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in Highest [[Yoga Tantra]], as the [[ultimate nature]] of a [[person]] and are identified as [[Buddha nature]], the [[essential]] or actual [[nature of mind]].
+
:    … when we look at [the] [[interdependence]] of [[mental]] and [[physical]] constituents from the {{Wiki|perspective}} of [[Highest Yoga Tantra]], there are two [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] of a [[person]]. One is the temporary [[person]] or [[self]], that is as we [[exist]] at the [[moment]], and this is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross [[physical body]] and [[conditioned]] [[mind]], and, at the same [[time]], there is a {{Wiki|subtle}} [[person]] or [[self]] which is designated in [[dependence]] on the [[subtle body]] and [[subtle mind]]. This [[subtle body]] and [[subtle mind]] are seen as a single [[entity]] that has two facets. The aspect which has the [[quality]] of [[awareness]], which can reflect and has the [[Power]] of [[cognition]], is the [[subtle mind]]. Simultaneously, there is its [[energy]], the force that activates the [[mind]] towards its [[object]] – this is the [[subtle body]] or {{Wiki|subtle}} [[wind]]. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in [[Highest]] [[Yoga Tantra]], as the [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[nature]] of a [[person]] and are identified as [[Buddha nature]], the [[essential]] or actual [[nature of mind]].
  
 
{{W}}
 
{{W}}
Line 115: Line 164:
 
[[Category:Buddhist Terms]]
 
[[Category:Buddhist Terms]]
 
[[Category:Theravada Buddhism]]
 
[[Category:Theravada Buddhism]]
 +
{{SanskritTerminology}}

Latest revision as of 14:52, 13 November 2020

4188418528-1.jpg


The word Ātman (Sanskrit: आत्मन्) or Attā (Pāli) refers to a self. Occasionally the terms "soul" or "ego" are also used. The words ātman and Atta derive from the Indo-European root *ēt-men (breath) and are cognate with Old English æthm, German Atem, and Greek atmo-. atman: The philosophical concept that there is an independent, unchanging, and eternal identity at the core of individuals and entities. Not held to be true by most Buddhists.

Whereas Buddhism generally stresses the non-Self teachings of The Buddha, some MahāyānaBuddhist sutras and tantras present cataphatic Buddhist teachings with positive language by asserting the ultimate reality of an Atman (Self), which is equated with the essential, ultimate nature of mind (Dalai Lama — see relevant section below). This doctrine, also known as Tathāgatagarbha, is also seen as the inborn potential to become a Buddha.

Theravāda Dhammakaya Movement of Thailand also asserts the reality of the Atman, which it equates with Nirvana.


Need for Buddhists to understand ātman

Śāntideva (an 8th-century Indian Buddhist philosopher and practitioner) informs us that in order to be able to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying.

Buhghddhists.jpg

Without contacting the entity that is imputed
You will not apprehend the absence of that entity. (Bodhicaryāvatāra)


Definition of ātman in Buddhism

Candrakīrti contextualises ātman as follows:


Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness.

In the Abhidharmapiṭaka (Pāli: Abhidhammapiṭaka), a treatise on metaphysics, the prime doctrine which allows pure Buddhist Philosophy to successfully explain all phenomena is that all things happen with cause. Ātman is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a belief that one is intrinsic and without incident. This attachment further diverges one's route from the path to enlightenment and hence Nirvāṇa as all forms of attachment do.


Critique of ātman in Buddhist metaphysics

With the doctrine of Anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: Anātman) Buddhism maintains that the concept of ātman is unnecessary and counterproductive as an explanatory device for analyzing action, causality, karma, and rebirth. Buddhists account for these and other self-related phenomena by means such as pratitya-samutpāda, the skandhas, and, for some schools, a pudgala. Buddhists regard postulating the existence of ātman as undesirable, as they believe it provides the psychological basis for attachment and aversion. Buddhism sees the apparent self (our identification as souls) as a grasping after a self — i.e., inasmuch as we have a self, we have it only through a deluded attempt to shore it up.


Developing the self

While the suttas strongly attack notions of an eternal, unchanging Self, they "see an enlightened person as one whose empirical self is highly developed." One with great self has a mind which is not at the mercy of outside stimuli or its own moods, but is imbued with self-control and self-contained. The mind of such a one is without boundaries, not limited by attachment or I-identification. One can transform one's self from an "insignificant self" into a "great self" through practices such as loving-kindness and mindfulness (sati). The suttas portray one disciple who has developed his mind through loving-kindness saying: "Formerly this mind of mine was limited, but now my mind is immeasurable."


At the culmination of the path is the Arahant, described as "one of developed self" (bhāvit-atto), who has carried the process of personal development and self-reliance to its perfection. Such a person has developed all the good aspects of their personality. An Arahant is described as "one with a mind like a diamond", it can "cut" anything and is itself uncuttable; nothing can affect it. The suttas portray "one of developed self" in the following ways:

Atman.jpg




Thai Dhammakaya movement’s teachings on non-self and self

Over the past several decades (dating back to at least 1939), a controversial movement of monks and meditation masters, later called the "Dhammakaya Movement", has developed in Thailand. The Dhammakaya Movement teaches that it is erroneous to subsume Nirvana under the rubric of Anatta (non-self); instead, Nirvana is claimed to be the "true self" or dhammakaya. This teaching is strikingly similar to that of the Tathāgatagarbha sutras. Professor Paul Williams explains the views of this movement:

Im45.jpg
Dhammakaya meditations involve the realization, when the mind reaches its purest state, of an unconditionedDhamma Body” (dhammakaya) in the form of a luminous, radiant and clear Buddha figure free of all defilements and situated within the body of the meditator. Nirvana is the true Self, and this is also the dhammakaya.

The bulk of Thai Theravāda Buddhism rejects this teaching and insists upon non-self as a universal fact. As against this, Phra Rajyanvisith of the Dhammakaya Movement (which does not see itself as Mahāyānist but as modern Theravāda) argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditators. Also, according to him, only the compounded and conditioned is non-self - not Nirvana. Professor Williams summarises Phra Rajyanvisith’s views, and adds his own comment at the end:

Scholars incline towards a not-Self perspective. But only scholars hold that view. By way of contrast, Phra Rajyanvisith mentions in particular the realizations of several distinguished forest hermit monks. Moreover, he argues, impermanence, suffering and not-Self go together. Anything which is not-Self is also impermanent and suffering. But, it is argued, Nirvana is not suffering, nor is it impermanent. It is not possible to have something which is permanent, not suffering (i.e. is happiness) and yet for it still to be not-Self. Hence it is not not-Self either. It is thus (true, or transcendental) Self … These ways of reading Buddhism in terms of a true Self certainly seem to have been congenial in the East Asian environment, and hence flourished in that context where for complex reasons Mahayana too found a ready home.

Professor Williams sees the Dhammakaya Movement of Thailand as having developed independently of the Mahayana Tathāgatagarbha tradition but as achieving some remarkably similar results in their understanding of Buddhism.


Positive teachings on the ātman in Mahāyāna Buddhism

Atmana.jpg

Within the Mahāyāna branch of Buddhism, there exists an important class of sutras (influential upon Ch'an and Zen Buddhism), generally known as Buddha nature (Tathāgatagarbha) sutras (also: "Buddha-matrix" or "Buddha-embryo" sutras), a number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the impermanent "mundane self" of the Five Skandhas (the physical and mental components of the mutable ego), there does exist an eternal true self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate nirvanic nature.

This is the "true self" in the self of each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to their inborn potential for Enlightenment. The Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.


Prior to the period of the Tathāgatagarbha genre, Mahāyāna metaphysics had been dominated by teachings on emptiness in the form of Madhyamaka philosophy. The language used by this approach is primarily negative, and the Tathāgatagarbha genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism. In these sutras the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of the path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.


Not all Buddhists and scholars share this interpretation of the doctrine of self in the Tathāgatagarbha sutras. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra into English, tells of how the Buddha speaks in that scripture of doctrines previously not articulated. Now, in order to correct people’s misunderstanding of the Dharma, the Buddha - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of Nirvana, which includes the self:


He [i.e. the Buddha says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of Nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.


The Zen Buddhist master, Sekkei Harada, likewise speaks of a true Self in his explications of Zen Buddhism. This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self". Harada states that the doctrine of "no-self" really means awakening to a self that is without any limits and thus invisible: "No-self means to awaken to a Self that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen." Harada concludes his reflections on Zen Buddhism by speaking of the need for an almost passionate encounter with the "person" of the essential True Self:


… in our lifetime there is only one person we must encounter, one person we must meet as though we were passionately in love. That person is the essential Self, the true Self. As long as you don’t meet this Self, it will be impossible to find true satisfaction in your heart

Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, Buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra". Professor Zimmermann also declares: "[The compilers of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra did not hesitate to attribute an obviously substantialist notion to the Buddha-nature of living beings" and notes the evident total lack of interest in this Sutra for any ideas of non-substantialism or "emptiness" (śūnyatā): "Throughout the whole Tathagatagarbha Sutra the term śūnyatā does not even appear once, nor does the general drift of the TGS somehow imply the notion of śūnyatā as its hidden foundation. On the contrary, the Sutra uses very positive and substantialist terms to describe the nature of living beings."


Dr. Jamie Hubbard writes on the diverse ways in which the Tathāgatagarbha texts (which on occasion speak of the self) are viewed by various scholars, some seeing an absolutist monism in them, others not. Dr. Hubbard comments:


Matsumoto [calls] attention to the similarity between the extremely positive language and causal structure of dnlightenment found in the Tathagatagarbha literature and that of the substantial monism found in the Atman/Brahman tradition. Matsumoto, of course, is not the only one to have noted this resemblance. Takasaki Jikido, for example, the preeminent scholar of the Tathagatagarbha tradition, sees monism in the doctrine of the Tathagatagarbha and the Mahayana in general … Obermiller wedded this notion of a monistic Absolute to the Tathagatagarbha literature in his translation and comments to the Ratnagotra, which he aptly subtitled “A Manual of Buddhist Monism” … Lamotte and Frauwallner have seen the Tathagatagarbha doctrine as diametrically opposed to the Madhyamika and representing something akin to the monism of the Atman/Brahman strain, while yet others such as Nagao, Seyfort Ruegg, and Johnston (the editor of the Ratnagotra) simply voice their doubts and state that it seems similar to post-Vedic forms of monism.

Yet another camp, represented by Yamaguchi Susumu and his student Ogawa Ichijo, is able to understand Tathagatagarbha thought without recourse to Vedic notions by putting it squarely within the Buddhist tradition of conditioned causality and emptiness, which, of course, explicitly rejects monism of any sort. Obviously, the question of the monist or absolutist nature of the Tathagatagarbha and Buddha-nature traditions is complex.

Images54.jpg

Dr. Hubbard concludes his investigation into the notion of Tathāgatagarbha with the words:


the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha has always been debatable, for it is fundamentally an affirmative approach to truth and wisdom, offering descriptions of reality not in negative terms of what it is lacking or empty of (apophatic description, typical of the Pefection of wisdom corpus and the Madhyhamika school) but rather in positive terms of what it is (cataphatic description, more typical of the devotional, tantric, Mahaparinirvana and Lotus Sutra traditions, and, it should be noted, the monistic terms of the orthodox Brahmanic systems)


The true self of the Buddha is indeed said to be pure, real and blissful, and to be attainable by anyone in the state of mahāparinirvāṇa. Furthermore, the essence of that Buddha — the Buddha-dhātu ("Buddha-nature", "Buddha principle"), or Dharmakāya, as it is termed — is present in all Sentient beings and is described as "radiantly luminous". This Buddha-dhātu is said in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra to be the uncreated, immutable and immortal essence (Svabhāva) of all beings, which can never be harmed or destroyed. The most extensive Sutra promulgating this as an "ultimate teaching" (uttara-tantra) on the Buddhic essence of all creatures, animals included, is the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. There we read in words attributed to The Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena are devoid of the Self. What is this Self?

Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging "ashraya-aviparinama" is termed 'the Self' atman." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra). This true self — so The Buddha of such scriptures indicates — must never be confused with the ordinary, ever-changing, worldly ego, which, with all its emotional and moral taints and turmoil, conceals the true self from view. Far from being possessed of the negative attributes of the mundane ego, the Buddhic or nirvanic Self is proclaimed by The Buddha of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra to be characterised by "great Loving-kindness, great compassion, great sympathetic joy, and great equanimity" (see: the four Brahmavihāras).


In equating the Buddha-nature with practice, King argues that the author of the Buddha-nature Treatise "undercuts any possibility of conceiving Buddha nature as an entity of any kind, as a Hindu–like Ātman or even as a purely mental process."


In the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra The Buddha is portrayed explaining that he proclaims all beings to have Buddha-nature in the sense that they will in the future become Buddhas:

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.


In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the Tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not. In the 'Sagathakam' section of that same Sutra, however, the Tathagatagarbha as the Self is not denied, but affirmed: 'The Atma Self characterized with purity is the state of self-realization; this is the Tathagata's Womb (garbha), which does not belong to the realm of the theorists'.

1543.jpg

Some other Buddhist sutras and tantras also speak affirmatively of the self. For instance, the Mahabheriharaka Sutra insists: "... at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in Nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' atman." Similarly, the Śrīmālā Sūtra declares unequivocally: "When Sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata Buddha and those Sentient beings conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those Sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya ultimate nature of the Tathagata has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the perfection of purity.

Whatever Sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that way, see correctly." An early Buddhist tantra, the Guhyasamājā Tantra, declares: "The universal Self of entities sports by means of the illusory Samādhi. It performs the deeds of a Buddha while stationed at the traditional post" (i.e. while never moving). The same tantra also imbues the self with radiant light (a common image): "The pure Self, adorned with all adornments, shines with a light of blazing diamond ..." And the All-Creating King Tantra (the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra, a scripture of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, also designated a Sutra) has the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, state, "... the root of all things is nothing else but one Self … I am the place in which all existing things abide."

Furthermore, the Tibetan Buddhist scripture entitled The Expression of Manjushri's Ultimate Names (Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṅgīti), as quoted by the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, applies the following terms to the Ultimate Buddhist Reality:

Moreover, with reference to one of Vasubandhu's commentarial works, Dolpopa affirms the reality of the pure self, which is not the worldly ego, in the following terms:


... the uncontaminated element is the Buddhas' supreme Self ... because Buddhas have attained pure Self, they have become the Self of great Selfhood. Through this consideration, the uncontaminated is posited as the supreme Self of Buddhas.

The 14th Dalai Lama on the "subtle person or self"

In 2005, commenting on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, a text in the highest yoga tantra, the 14th Dalai Lama explained how this tantra conceives both of a temporary person, and a subtle person or self, which it links to the Buddha nature. He writes:


… when we look at [the] interdependence of mental and physical constituents from the perspective of Highest Yoga Tantra, there are two concepts of a person. One is the temporary person or self, that is as we exist at the moment, and this is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross physical body and conditioned mind, and, at the same time, there is a subtle person or self which is designated in dependence on the subtle body and subtle mind. This subtle body and subtle mind are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect which has the quality of awareness, which can reflect and has the Power of cognition, is the subtle mind. Simultaneously, there is its energy, the force that activates the mind towards its object – this is the subtle body or subtle wind. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in Highest Yoga Tantra, as the ultimate nature of a person and are identified as Buddha nature, the essential or actual nature of mind.

Source

Wikipedia:Ātman