Buddha Nature
by Michael Erlewine
[A little housekeeping here, juggling of dharma terms, and clarification.]
Let’s talk about the popular term “Buddha Nature,” which became part of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, but is not found acceptable by many Buddhists, including me. While I can understand what is meant by ‘Buddha Nature’, that because the historical Buddha Realized the true nature of the mind, then we too, any of us, can do the same. That has been called ‘Buddha Nature.’
I personally don’t favor the term “Buddha Nature,” and many Buddhists don’t, although it is generally accepted, and I understand. To my mind, the dharma existed long before the Buddha realized it, so I prefer using the term ‘the True Nature of the Mind’ to the term ‘Buddha Nature” because it sounds too much, IMO, like it is a Self or permanent “Soul” and that can be confusing to inquirers.
To repeat, just as the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, achieved enlightenment, Buddhists believe each of us has that same potential for enlightenment as the Buddha did for realizing the true nature of the mind. Of course, I agree.
In other words, Buddhists do not believe as do most theists (Christians, etc.) in the doctrine of original sin, meaning that at some time in the past, perhaps at the ‘Garden of Eden’, mankind ‘sinned’ and fell from purity and grace, and now each of us needs to redeem ourselves or have Christ do this for us. In other words, Buddhists do not believe in ‘Original Sin’, that we have fallen and somehow now have to be saved.
It’s fair to ask where is our ‘Buddha Nature’ or where is the ‘True Nature of the Mind’, even though we may still have a hard time seeing it in others or even when we look at ourselves in a mirror. Why is that?
What do we expect to see in the mirror? Or is it that in the mirror we see the same stuff that keeps us from being enlightened in the first place. Does Samsara (this cyclic world of confusion) drown out or cloud the visibility of the true nature of the mind. That seems to be what the dharma teachings state.
And that’s what Buddhists mean when they say we are not aware of the true nature of our own mind. And it gets a little more complicated, because if we already are perfect and pure within, we don’t need to improve what we inherently are, but only to remove what obscures the true nature of the mind. We can’t improve the true nature of the mind, only reveal it. Discover.
And perhaps we should give up trying to get ‘there’ because we are already there; we already have within us the true nature of the mind, and for that matter have always been there and so has everyone else. Again, we each already have within us the true nature of the mind or, if you wish, Buddha Nature.
So, it’s beyond backtracking or improvement because there is nowhere to backtrack to or need for it. It’s more about giving up the effort we are making to get to where we already by nature are.
To repeat, we will never get there because we are already there and just don’t realize it. We are not aware of what is our own nature. We just have to cease and desist with the effort. “Relax, as it is” as the great Mahasiddha Tilopa put it.
And so, instead of struggling with ‘Original Sin’ as many Christians do, Buddhists struggle with Samsara and all of the obscurations that prevent us from being aware of the pure nature of our own mind. And so, practically speaking, both theists (Christians, etc.) and non-theists (Buddhists) have their work cut out for them. Christians work to get back to their original purity, and Buddhists work to remove whatever obscures their Buddha Nature — defilements, ignorance, and negative karma. These are not that dissimilar, with Christians trying to get back to their pure state and Buddhists uncovering what obscures their pure state.
And, as mentioned, “Buddha Nature” should not be confused with the theist concept of a permanent or ‘Eternal Soul’, which is why I prefer the term “true nature of the mind.” However, regardless, “Buddha Nature” is said to have no inherent Self but is also (like everything else) impermanent.
If these two views are similar, what’s the difference? One obvious difference is that Christians hold that they have done something wrong, which they call ‘sin’, and are “trying to atone for these sins,” which IMO is a heavy burden, while the Buddhists have never sinned, but instead have yet to remove what obscures their own view of the true nature of the mind. However, there is no original sin involved.
As my dharma teacher once said to us, “We are the stragglers, the rebirths that in all the time there has been up to now, never got enlightened.” In other words, enlightenment is still in our future, which some see as a problem.
Although, IMO, this is why it can be said that if we see that as a problem, it is a problem we cannot solve, a problem for which there is no solution, and that is because the problem does not exist. I have a problem with the problem, so to speak.
And as to the process of the reveal of the true nature of the mind, I just say, it is straight forward and “Not a Problem.”
[Midjourney graphic prompted by me.]
Note: If you would like to have access to other free books, articles, and videos on these topics, here are the links:
SpiritGrooves.net
YouTube.com/channel/UC3cL8v4fkupc9lRtugPkkWQ
https://michaelerlewine.substack.com/?r=abl9o&utm_campaign=pub-share-checklist
https://medium.com/@MichaelErlewine/1340276ad390
“As Bodhicitta is so precious,
May those without it now create it,
May those who have it not destroy it,
And may it ever grow and flourish.”
