Published by Soka Spirit Editor
Posted on August 11, 2009
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.