{"id":214,"date":"2012-03-09T18:08:03","date_gmt":"2012-03-09T17:08:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=214"},"modified":"2012-04-07T22:04:43","modified_gmt":"2012-04-07T20:04:43","slug":"the-connection-to-a-svabhava-teaching-in-buddhism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/the-connection-to-a-svabhava-teaching-in-buddhism\/","title":{"rendered":"The Connection to a Svabh\u0101va Teaching in Buddhism"},"content":{"rendered":"

There remains the question of the missing link. The missing link is between how the term svabh\u0101va is used in the stanzas we have from the Book of Dzyan and a svabh\u0101va teaching, if not a Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school, that is represented in Theosophical writings to be Buddhist. The obvious choice for this, the Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school of Buddhism in Nepal that was referred to in Western writings on Buddhism from 1828 to 1989, was disqualified when doubts about its existence were confirmed in 1989. The fact that a Nepalese Buddhist teacher could describe such a school of thought to Brian H. Hodgson in 1828, based on Sanskrit Buddhist texts, is nonetheless intriguing. The next candidate was not a Buddhist school called Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika, but rather the svabh\u0101va or inherent nature doctrine held by the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school of Buddhism. Although some of the Theosophical references may have been to this school, its doctrine as we know it pertains to the svabh\u0101vas of the individual dharmas, while the Theosophical references pertain to the svabh\u0101va of a single element. The Buddhist schools denied a single existing element, and even the individual dharmas had to be impermanent (anitya) and without a self (nair\u0101tmya). Rightly or wrongly, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school was criticized by other Buddhist schools for its doctrine that the dharmas always exist (sarv\u0101sti) by way of their svabh\u0101va. As stated by Y. Karunadasa: \u201cWhat provoked much opposition to the theory of sarv\u0101stitva was that it was alleged to be a veiled recognition of the substance view which is radically at variance with the Buddhist teaching on the non-substantiality of all phenomena\u201d (Foreword to Bhikkhu Dhammajoti\u2019s Entrance into the Supreme Doctrine<\/em>; \u201cnon-substantiality of all phenomena\u201d translates nair\u0101tmya of all dharmas). This leads us into the question of whether there can be a third candidate within Buddhism.<\/p>\n

There has always been the dilemma of why the entire edifice of Buddhism was built on a worldview that postulates only dharmas, a word that means attributes or properties, when these are not held to be the attributes or properties of anything. This is rather like postulating that there is sunshine, but no sun. The early Buddhist schools solved this by making the dharmas real (dravya), endowing them with svabh\u0101va, an inherent nature that gives them reality. The Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhist schools with their emptiness doctrine took this reality, this svabh\u0101va, away from the dharmas, bringing us back to square one. We have dharmas that are not ultimately real in themselves, like attributes or properties, but no dharmin, something these attributes or properties belong to.<\/p>\n

The dharmas are described by Vy\u0101sa in the Hindu Yoga-s\u016btra-bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em>, 3.13, as arising and disappearing in the dharmin, the substratum, an abiding substance (avasthita dravya). This same verse is where we have the parallel to the explanations of how the dharmas exist in the three periods of time, given in the Buddhist Abhidharmako\u015ba-bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em> by Vasubandhu. In the Hindu account, the three explanations of how change occurs are all given as true, happening side by side; while in the Buddhist account, the four explanations are given as alternatives from which one is to be chosen as correct. Vy\u0101sa\u2019s account appears to me to be the more original one, while Vasubandhu\u2019s account appears to me to be adapted to the requirements of its Buddhist setting. For, like other Buddhists, the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins did teach that the dharmas are impermanent (anitya). Even though they exist in the three periods of time, they come into activity only in the present moment, and thus are momentary (k\u1e63a\u1e47ika). In the Hindu account, Vy\u0101sa sums up by saying that ultimately (param\u0101rthata\u1e25) there is only one kind of change, because a dharma or attribute is only the nature (svar\u016bpa, a synonym of svabh\u0101va) of the dharmin, the substratum. They are not different. In his commentary on the next verse, 3.14, Vy\u0101sa tells us that a dharma is only the potency or power or force (\u015bakti) of the dharmin, the substratum, distinguished by its functionality. This is just like the Mahatma K.H.\u2019s statement that svabh\u0101va is force or motion. In the Buddhist Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da account, the force (\u015bakti) is of the individual dharmas, not of the dharmin, the substratum. An existent substratum was always rejected in Buddhist philosophy, as having too many logical problems. But what if it is beyond existence, neither existent nor non-existent?<\/p>\n

The dharma-dh\u0101tu, the element or realm of the dharmas, is not usually regarded in Buddhism as an existent substratum or existing element. It is an ultimate that is a non-entity. Nonetheless, in the Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhist writer Haribhadra\u2019s \u0100loka<\/em>, a joint commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom S\u016btra in 8,000 Lines<\/em> and on Maitreya\u2019s Abhisamay\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra,<\/em> we find it said that the dharmas are the svabh\u0101va of the dharma-dh\u0101tu. Here are a couple examples, where he sums up the meaning of what has preceded. The Sanskrit references are given to both Unrai Wogihara\u2019s 1932 edition, Abhisamay\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101r\u0101lok\u0101<\/em>, and to P. L. Vaidya\u2019s 1960 edition, A\u1e63\u1e6das\u0101hasrik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em>.<\/p>\n

etad uktam | r\u016bp\u0101d\u012bn\u0101\u1e43 dharma-dh\u0101tu-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 mahatt\u0101 (Wogihara p. 176, line 3, Vaidya p. 349, line 15), \u201cThis is what was said: Form, etc. [the dharmas], are great, because they are the inherent nature [svabh\u0101va] of the dharma-dh\u0101tu.\u201d<\/p>\n

etad uktam | dharma-dh\u0101tu-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101y\u0101\u1e43 sthitasya bodhisattvasya sarva-dharm\u0101\u1e47\u0101\u1e43 nodgraha-ty\u0101ga-bh\u0101van\u0101dikam iti (Wogihara, p. 185, lines 21-23, Vaidya p. 353, lines 10-11), \u201cThis is what was said: For a bodhisattva established in the Perfection of Wisdom there is no cultivation, etc., of the taking up or abandoning of all dharmas, because they are the inherent nature [svabh\u0101va] of the dharma-dh\u0101tu.\u201d<\/p>\n

As will immediately be perceived, this is the idea that we have been seeking in Buddhist texts. The dharma-dh\u0101tu, or just dh\u0101tu, is the one element that is taught in Theosophical writings. That its svabh\u0101va or inherent nature is the dharmas, the factors of existence that make up the world, is exactly the idea that would be expected based on the Theosophical sources. This idea given in Haribhadra\u2019s writings did not seem to receive criticism from other Buddhist writers, presumably because the dharma-dh\u0101tu is not regarded as an existent substratum or existing element. In the Theosophical teachings, too, the one element is regarded as being beyond existence, neither existent nor non-existent. But neither did this idea seem to receive attention in Tibet, despite Haribhadra\u2019s honored position there, where he was regarded by Tsongkhapa and others as the foremost Indian commentator on the Perfection of Wisdom<\/em> texts. The idea that the dharmas are the svabh\u0101va of the dharma-dh\u0101tu does not seem to have become a topic of discussion among Tibetan Buddhist writers. The idea that the dharma-dh\u0101tu has a svabh\u0101va, however, did become a topic of debate, being regarded as heretical.<\/p>\n

The Jonang school teaches that the ultimate, whether called the dharma-dh\u0101tu or some other synonym, has a svabh\u0101va, an inherent nature (see, for example, \u201cWhose Svabh\u0101va is It?,\u201d by Michael Sheehy, on the Jonang Foundation website: http:\/\/www.jonangpa.com\/node\/1235<\/a>). This idea received much criticism from other Buddhist schools in Tibet, especially from the Gelugpas. The idea that the ultimate has a svabh\u0101va or inherent nature was regarded as saying that it has inherent existence, taken in the context of existence and non-existence. Svabh\u0101va became a bad word in Tibet, and the Jonang explanations that it is beyond the duality of existence and non-existence were unable to defuse the situation. The Jonang school is the only Tibetan Buddhist school known to me that openly teaches the svabh\u0101va of the ultimate. The Jonangpas were bold enough to espouse this unpopular idea because they believed that their tradition was the revival of the lost Golden Age Tradition (see Dolpopa\u2019s text, the Fourth Council<\/em>, translated by Cyrus Stearns in his book, The Buddha from Dolpo<\/em>). The primary Jonang writer, Dolpopa, uses many synonyms for the ultimate, including the dh\u0101tu or basic element, the dharma-dh\u0101tu, the tath\u0101gata-garbha, the dharmat\u0101, the prabh\u0101svara-citta or clear-light mind, etc. A quotation from his major work, Mountain Doctrine<\/em>, translated by Jeffrey Hopkins, shows one of these synonyms, ultimate mind, as having svabh\u0101va (p. 389): \u201cTherefore, the import is that an ultimate other-empty mind endowed with inherent nature [rang bzhin, svabh\u0101va] always abides as the basis of the emptiness of a conventional self-empty mind.\u201d This is quite like the \u201cone mind\u201d taught in The Awakening of Faith<\/em>, a classic in Chinese Buddhism. The svabh\u0101va idea taught in the Jonang school is by no means a svabh\u0101va doctrine, a svabh\u0101vav\u0101da, but their writers do specifically put this idea forth, explain it, and defend it.<\/p>\n

The fact that Haribhadra says the dharmas are the svabh\u0101va of the dharma-dh\u0101tu, matter-of-factly and without argument, would indicate that this idea was prevalent among Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhists in India during his time. The fact that Jonang writers teach and argue for the idea that the ultimate has svabh\u0101va, whether we call this ultimate the dharma-dh\u0101tu or something else, shows that this idea was held by at least one Buddhist school in Tibet. These two facts provide us with the missing link between how the term svabh\u0101va is used in the stanzas we have from the Book of Dzyan and a svabh\u0101va teaching in Buddhism. What is said about svabh\u0101va in the Book of Dzyan is not found in the writings of Brian Hodgson on the alleged Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school of Nepal. It does, however, well match the idea that the dharmas are the svabh\u0101va of the dharma-dh\u0101tu, and that the dharma-dh\u0101tu has svabh\u0101va, both of which are in fact found in Buddhism. That these are not standard Buddhist teachings is only to be expected, since Theosophy never claimed that it was based on known Buddhism, but quite the opposite.<\/p>\n

We have already seen such a svabh\u0101va teaching in the hitherto lost Pra\u1e47ava-v\u0101da<\/em>, and also in Gau\u1e0dap\u0101da\u2019s M\u0101\u1e47\u1e0d\u016bkya-k\u0101rik\u0101<\/em>, both Hindu works. The addition of these Buddhist sources fills in the gap that had remained. We now have a much clearer picture of the meaning and usage of svabh\u0101va in the Book of Dzyan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There remains the question of the missing link. The missing link is between how the term svabh\u0101va is used in the stanzas we have from the Book of Dzyan and a svabh\u0101va teaching, if not a Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school, that is represented in Theosophical writings to be Buddhist. The obvious choice for this, the Sv\u0101bh\u0101vika school […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-svabhavat"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":269,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214\/revisions\/269"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}