Skip to toolbar

No Nature


Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    • #1579

      QUESTION: Can you explain “Buddha Nature”?

      SHORT ANSWER: Buddha nature is no nature.

      ANSWER: Buddha nature is no nature. Different writers use the concept in different ways, so to elucidate it one needs to clarify which Buddha nature concept one is referring to. Thus, for instance, there is a common idea that Buddha nature is somehow the core or essence of the person – a kind of soul. This is an idea that has infected Buddhism from time to time, but is not in accord with the principles of non-self, dependent origination and emptiness that are fundamental to the teachings of Shakyamuni. It is more a Hindu or even humanistic psychology idea. A Buddha does not have a fixed nature. A Buddha simply has an absence of malice. However, it has been a problem in the presentation of Buddhism historically that people search for and cling to “positive” forms of expression of the Dharma and this then leads to the coining of many forms of upaya (skilful means). Thus the idea of Buddha nature does not go back to Shakyamuni, but seems to have been invented in the dialectic between Buddhism and other religions. In the West today it is a popular idea because ideas of soul are deeply embedded in Western culture and although people may think they have rejected the theistic ideas, they reinvent them. The soul then becomes the “self-actualising tendency” and so on, and Buddha nature can then be easily saddled onto the same horse. From time to time great teachers – like Nagarjuna – have to come along and dismantle all these constructions. In the meantime, however, if people find them helpful then they are not entirely bad, simply something that will have to be left behind one day.

      The idea that there may be something called Buddha nature “within” oneself, therefore, is non-Buddhist. Nagarjuna would no doubt have said that were there any such entity then either it acts or it does not act. If it acts (i.e. if it is the doer of one’s “good” deeds, for instance) then it cannot be eternal and must be subject to change, and if it does not act then it has no relevance to life and existence and so is a meaningless idea. Neither way can it really function as one’s “true nature”. There is no special agent “within” that is responsible for our good and wise actions any more than there is a devil within responsible for our bad and stupid ones. We can loosely and colloquially say that a person is part angel and part devil and so long as we take such expressions lightly and poetically they make sense, but if we try to reify them into a spiritual anatomy of the person we go astray. Buddhism is opposed to that kind of reification in all its varieties.

      All this led to a good deal of controversy in Japan in what is called the “critical Buddhism controversy”. There is excellent material all about it in the book Pruning the Bodhi Treee by Hubbard & Swanson. There is also a shorter account in my own book The New Buddhism. It is, for instance, sometimes thought that a belief in Buddha nature will make people into better people and insofar as it is simply an expression for seeing the best in others there is much to say for it. However, it has also been pointed out that the deeper logic of the idea that there is an indestructible core of goodness in people leads to the conclusion that it does not matter how badly you treat them because you will never destroy their core anyway, so it does not matter. This idea is strongly developed in the Bhagavad Gita and it is ideas of this kind that Shakyamuni was preaching against. The Critical Buddhists in Japan argue that this line of thinking lies behind many forms of social discrimination in Japanese sectarian Buddhism. We do not need to pursue every detail – sufficient to observe that ideas can be played both ways.

      There can also be a kind of subtle arrogance in the idea of thinking that one “has” Buddha nature. It is much safer spiritually to keep one’s focus upon one’s avidya, upon one’s blindness and short-comings. Perhaps I do have a perfect inner nature – so what? Perhaps I have a nature to make mistakes, to hurt people, to be vulnerable – so there is much to do and a basis for fellow-felling with others. If a person really does have a buddha-ly nature then that person is probably not particularly – if at all – aware of it. It might be noticed by others, but even if the person is told so by such an observer, the person in question is likely to say, “Oh, no, no, I’m just an ordinary foolish being.”

      Thus, in Pureland, the emphasis is upon our bombu nature. This is the root of compassion, modesty and gratitude. It is also the foundation of faith. If one were already of the nature of Buddha, what need would one have of the help of the Buddhas – one would already have everything one needs. It is only when and as I acknowledge my bombu nature that I open myself to the possibility of being helped, of receiving a grace that may lift me out of my karmic plight.

      Paradoxically, when I make such an act of humble faith, I do immediately participate in a certain way in the freedom and emptiness of the Tathagatas, since doing so involves letting go of all that I previously had clung to as my nature, and that is how Buddhas are – having no fixed nature, just willing to be whatever is needed, gratefully receiving whatever comes along.

      Another slight, yet relevant, tangent to this line of thought is the question of awareness. As just pointed out, the buddha-ly person is not aware of being buddha-like. Saints are generally humble people more conscious of their sins than their virtues. The common idea that spiritual awakening is a function of becoming aware of one’s Buddha nature is, therefore, well wide of the mark. To have a buddha-ly nature means to be somebody who acts in the manner of a Buddha quite naturally and when we do things quite naturally we are not especially aware of them. A Buddha is not acutely aware – a Buddha is a natural. Thus Dogen, in Genjokoan, says that enlightened people are not necessarily aware of being so. Certainly, Buddha nature is not a kind of awareness.

      :: link

    • #1721

      Great teaching! Thank you for this. Namu Amida Butsu!

    • #1778

      Thank you for this teaching.

      Could I ask how Nichiren Buddhism is viewed in the light of no nature? In that Nichiren teaching explains that chanting the Daimoku allows one to “tap into ” ones buddha nature, is this related to experiencing non duality ( buddha nature )? Can this experience in terms of regular practice somehow help an individual to be influenced by his buddha nature/wisdom etc ? Not that Buddha Nature in this context is in any way fix but that it is our unconditioned nature/lifeforce.

      Namu Amida bu

    • #1780
      David Brazier

      Firstly, I have to say that I have no brief for explaining Nichiren teaching. I think that it has a rather different view of and way of using the concept of “Buddha Nature”. Within Buddhism there are many different systems of thought. Each system can generally explain (in its own terms) the phenomena observed by another system and explained by that other system in its own terms. Nichirenists might perhaps say that the results that we get by having faith in Amitabha are really a result of us tapping into our Buddha Nature and we shall say that what they call tapping into Buddha Nature is really a way of having faith in the Buddhas via chanting the Daimoku.

      If a person is fortunate enough to be graced with a profound spiritual experience that is genuine then this will certainly be a support to practice because it is an unforgettable evidence that supports faith; however such experiences are not essential and should not normally be seen as an objective of practice. Sometimes a person who has a particularly acute spiritual problem might undertake the kind of practice that we might term “vision quest” in the hope of receiving guidance through a dream or vision, but that is exceptional.

      Regular practice in the Amidist approach is simply nien fo: sustaining consciousness of one’s bombu nature, reciting the nembutsu on all occasions, and trusting in the saving grace Amida. Nothing else is required.

    • #1782

      Thank you David, thankyou for helping me to understand this. From a personal experience having chanted the Daimoku I have experienced a sense of joy welling up and an experience that I am not chanting but there is “Just chanting” During  sitting meditation, there has been an experience of stillness and breathing so light that it feels there is almost no breath. In the context of No Nature I would presume I am experiencing A change in awareness ? Or a glimpse of Buddha Nature ?

      However for me in Chanting Namu Amida Bu, I sense a different quality, a gentleness and almost a resting into, a relationship, perhaps that encompasses myself and other than myself manifested through love?  Hope that doesnt sound too strange. I am fumbling and grasping looking for light.

      Namu Amida Bu


Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.