 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| |
Freeing the Caged Bird Within
— A HISTORY OF THE BUDDHA NATURE |
|
|
|
Shin Yatomi
SGI-USA Study Department Leader
One word sometimes makes a world of difference. When the
practitioners of Mahayana Buddhism—the popular,
altruistic Buddhist movements that arose around the first
century of the Common Era partly in reaction to the ascetic
traditions of earlier Buddhism—added the word nature
to the word buddha, this newly coined term caused a radical
transformation of how Buddhism was viewed and practiced,
especially in East Asian countries such as China and Japan.
Buddhism was the sacred teaching taught by the Buddha,
but with the development of the Buddha nature concept,
it also came to be understood as the “Buddha vehicle”—
that is, the teaching by which to become a Buddha.
The Buddha nature refers to the potential for attaining
Buddhahood, a state of awakening filled with compassion
and wisdom. Although the Buddha nature and Buddhahood
are sometimes used interchangeably, strictly speaking,
the Buddha nature is one’s potential for becoming
a Buddha, and Buddhahood is the manifest state of that
potential. Through the development of the Buddha nature
concept, Buddhahood became the universal principle of
authentic happiness rather than the isolated awakening
of one gifted person.
The Origins of the Buddha
Nature
The Buddha nature concept is a characteristic teaching
of Mahayana Buddhism, but its origin can be traced back
to early Buddhism. In an early scripture, for example,
Shakyamuni talks about the “luminous mind”(Skt
citta-prakrti) covered by the layers of delusion: “This
mind…is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that
come from without;that mind…is luminous, but it
is cleansed of taints that come from without.”
Shakyamuni explains that since people are unaware of their
innate luminous mind, they do not even try to cultivate
their potential. So the brilliance of this luminous mind
remains obscured.
After Shakyamuni’s death, the early Buddhists strove
to achieve the state of arhat or “worthy one”
by following his teachings. Arhat was originally synonymous
with Buddha or “awakened one.” Later, however,
it became distinguished from Buddha. While the practitioners
of the ascetic traditions sought the state of arhat as
their highest attainment, the state of Buddhahood was
reserved exclusively for Shakyamuni.
Meanwhile, after Shakyamuni’s death, ordinary people—who
could not afford to study and practice Buddhism as rigorously
as did monks—tried to ease their anxiety about the
general belief that the great Buddha, who having extinguished
his flame of selfish cravings, put an end to the cycle
of reincarnation and would never be reborn in this world.
If so, what would happen to those left behind? They responded
to their spiritual crisis in two ways: one was to seek
salvation outside; the other was to seek the potential
of salvation within. Those two ideas, salvation from outside
and within, developed gradually in the Mahayana tradition—sometimes
together, sometimes separately.
Since the essence of Shakyamuni’s enlightenment
is the universal truth of liberation, people reasoned
there must be more than one Buddha existing throughout
time and space eager to help them. Thus was born the idea
of a savior Buddha who remains in this universe to continually
save the people from suffering—such as Amitabha
and Vairochana as Buddhas of the present, and Maitreya
as a future Buddha. People also felt that the Buddha tried
to save all people from suffering because he saw that
they already had some internal cause or potential to attain
Buddhahood. This eventually gave rise to the Buddha nature
concept of Mahayana Buddhism.
For example, the Flower Garland Sutra (likely compiled
before the year 200) describes the neglected existence
of the Buddha wisdom in all living beings. It states:
“There is not a single sentient being who is not
fully endowed with the knowledge of Buddha; it is just
that because of deluded notions, erroneous thinking, and
attachments, they are unable to realize it. If they would
get rid of deluded notions, then universal knowledge,
spontaneous knowledge, and unobstructed knowledge would
become manifest.”
But of all the early Mahayana scriptures, the Lotus Sutra
stands out in terms of representing the view of salvation
from within. The Lotus Sutra—part of which possibly
dates from the first century BCE—repeatedly emphasizes
the universality of Buddhahood. For example, it states,
“If there are those who hear the Law, / then not
a one will fail to attain Buddhahood” (The Lotus
Sutra, p.41). It also states, “The original vow
of the Buddhas / was that the Buddha way, which they themselves
practice, / should be shared universally among living
beings / so that they too may attain this same way”
(LS, 41).
The Lotus Sutra stresses the universality of Buddhahood
by recognizing its potential in those denied enlightenment
in other Buddhist teachings. For example, many Mahayana
sutras asserted that monastics and solitary mendicants
were incapable of attaining Buddhahood. Incapable as well,
in some Buddhist traditions, were women and evil men.
The Lotus Sutra, however, recognizes the potential for
Buddhahood in all categories of people denied enlightenment
elsewhere.
Another important feature of the Lotus Sutra is that all
people are acknowledged as the children of the Buddha.
The Buddha’s disciples proclaim: “So we did
not know that we were in truth the sons of the Buddha.But
now at last we know it” (LS, 86). The sutra also
explains, “And if in future existences / one can
read and uphold this sutra, / he will be a true son of
the Buddha” (LS, 181). All people, the sutra teaches,are
related to Shakyamuni—that is, they share the Buddha’s
spiritual makeup and therefore will eventually develop
into Buddhas, just as a child inevitably grows into an
adult.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
