|
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The text wonders then why it has been said (in the Perfection ofWisdom literature, for example) that all things are unreal, like clouds, a dream or illusionswhen the tathAgatagarbha is here said to exist in sentient beings? The reply is that theteaching of the tathAgatagarbha removes five defects which can be found (or perhaps are even 9780203428474_4_005.qxd 16/6/08 11:57 AM Page 112112 MahÖyÖna Buddhismencouraged) in the doctrine of universal emptiness of intrinsic existence: depression; con-tempt towards those who are inferior; clinging to the unreal; denial of the real; andexcessive self-love.The RatnagotravibhAga continues that this is the highest teaching(uttaratantra, the other name by which this text is known), and it teaches the existence ofthe Buddha-nature (buddhadhAtu).Depression regarding one s own spiritual potential, forexample, is overcome by realizing that one contains within a Tathagata; a sense of superi-ority too is eradicated by understanding that all sentient beings likewise contain aTathagata.Without the teaching of the Buddha-nature there can be no understanding ofthe equality between oneself and others.Hence the Bodhisattva may be prone to excessiveself-love.29Finally, let us note one point where the RatnagotravibhAga appears, perhaps, to modify orstrive to ameliorate the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha setras.Our text is concerned toexplain the setra references to the tathAgatagarbha/dharmakAya as the perfection of Self.According to the Sanskrit version of the text, Self here is interpreted to be another namefor not-Self , as is sometimes found in works (such as the Perfection of Wisdom setras)which use superficially paradoxical expressions such as standing by way of no standing.The Chinese version, however, could be older and appears to be rather different.The Buddhais said to have a True Self (shiwo; shih-wo) which is beyond being and nonbeing.30 It ispossible that later versions of the RatnagotravibhAga text attempted to neutralize here theapparently radical assertion of Self found in the Tathagatagarbha setra tradition.Tibet the gzhan stong and rang stong disputeIn portraying the tathAgatagarbha theory found in the setras and RatnagotravibhAga Ihave assumed that these texts mean what they say.In terms of the categories of Buddhisthermeneutics I have spoken as though the Tathagatagarbha setras were to be taken as definitive(nCtArtha) works, and their meaning is quite explicit and is to be taken literally.ThetathAgatagarbha teaching, however, appears at first glance to be rather different from that ofMadhyamika.Indeed, Takasaki has argued that the tathAgatagarbha doctrine arose inconscious opposition to the Madhyamika doctrine of emptiness (see de Jong 1979: 585),and we have seen evidence to support this view.Were I a Tibetan scholar who tookthe Prasaógika Madhyamika emptiness doctrine as the highest teaching of the Buddha,however, I would have to interpret the tathAgatagarbha teaching some way or another inorder to dissolve any apparent disagreement.31 In Tibet we find a major doctrinal riftbetween those teachers and traditions which took the tathAgatagarbha doctrines definitivelyand indeed literally, and saw them as representing the final, highest, doctrinal teachingsof the Buddha, and those teachers and schools which insisted that these are not as theystand literal teachings but need some sort of interpretation and were taught by theBuddha in this form with a specific purpose in order to help particular people.32Pre-eminent among those traditions for whom the tathAgatagarbha teachings were to beinterpreted was (and is) the dGe lugs pa school (sometimes known in China and the West 9780203428474_4_005.qxd 16/6/08 11:57 AM Page 113The TathÖgatagarbha 113as the Yellow Hats) founded by Tsong kha pa in the late fourteenth century.This is,incidentally, the tradition to which the Dalai Lama belongs.According to Tsong kha pa(following the LañkAvatAra SEtra and Candrakcrti) the difference between the tathAga-tagarbha doctrine and the Self teachings of non-Buddhists lies in the Buddha s intention ingiving the tathAgatagarbha teaching.If this doctrine were taken literally it would indeed beno different from the non-Buddhist Self theory.33 The Buddha, however, taught thetathAgatagarbha teaching for a purpose.He did not intend it to be taken in its prima-facieform as it stands (teaching some sort of intrinsically existent immutable ultimate reality,or True Self, for example) as a literally true doctrine.Rather, through his compassion, heintended it as a means to introduce non-Buddhists to Buddhism.Moreover, when the Buddhaspoke of the tathAgatagarbha what he was really referring to, the real truth behind histeaching, was none other than emptiness (ZEnyatA) understood in its Madhyamika senseas simply a negation, absence of intrinsic existence (see translation by Thurman 1984:347 50).After all, the tathAgatagarbha is said to be that within sentient beings which enablesthem to attain Buddhahood.This is emptiness, absence of intrinsic existence, whichenables sentient beings to change into Buddhas.Remember that emptiness is an implica-tion of dependent origination, and dependent origination entails impermanence andchange.Understood correctly, in this way, there is then no problem in taking theTathagatagarbha texts as texts teaching the final truth.In other words, once they are prop-erly understood we can then take the Tathagatagarbha texts as Madhyamika texts (indeed,for Tsong kha pa and his tradition Prasaógika Madhyamika texts) teaching emptinessin the Madhyamika sense.The Tathagatagarbha texts then need not be taken as worksrequiring interpretation in some further sense (neyArtha) but can rather be given the full pres-tige of definitive (nCtArtha) texts.Even so, however, the tathAgatagarbha is not just any emptiness.Rather it is specificallyemptiness of intrinsic existence when applied to a sentient being s mind, his or her mentalcontinuum.That is, emptiness here is the emptiness of intrinsic existence of the mind, whichentails that it is a changing mind, a mental flow.In Madhyamika to be empty and tobe caused are the same, so that if the mind changes then it must be empty of intrinsicexistence.Thus when we say that all sentient beings have within them the Buddha-essenceor the Buddha-nature we mean that all sentient beings have minds which can changeand become Buddha s minds.Since in Tibetan Buddhism the flow of mind is generallysaid to be eternal, with no beginning or end, so we can say that the mind, and thereforeits emptiness, are eternal (Hopkins 1983: 382)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pldoc.pisz.plpdf.pisz.plhanula1950.keep.pl
|