CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Javierfv1212
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 am
Location: South Florida

CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Javierfv1212 »

CV Jones has a recent publication on the Tathāgatagarbha literature which seems interesting. It apparently won the 2021 Toshihide Numata Book Prize in Buddhism.

Here's the book blurb:
The assertion that there is nothing in the constitution of any person that deserves to be considered the self (ātman)―a permanent, unchanging kernel of personal identity in this life and those to come―has been a cornerstone of Buddhist teaching from its inception. Whereas other Indian religious systems celebrated the search for and potential discovery of one’s “true self,” Buddhism taught about the futility of searching for anything in our experience that is not transient and ephemeral. But a small yet influential set of Mahāyāna Buddhist texts, composed in India in the early centuries CE, taught that all sentient beings possess at all times, and across their successive lives, the enduring and superlatively precious nature of a Buddha. This was taught with reference to the enigmatic expression tathāgatagarbha―the “womb” or “chamber” for a Buddha―which some texts refer to as a person’s true self.

The Buddhist Self is a methodical examination of Indian teaching about the tathāgatagarbha (otherwise the presence of one’s “Buddha-nature”) and the extent to which different Buddhist texts and authors articulated this in terms of the self. C. V. Jones attends to each of the Indian Buddhist works responsible for explaining what is meant by the expression tathāgatagarbha, and how far this should be understood or promoted using the language of selfhood. With close attention to these sources, Jones argues that the trajectory of Buddha-nature thought in India is also the history and legacy of a Buddhist account of what deserves to be called the self: an innovative attempt to equip Mahāyāna Buddhism with an affirmative response to wider Indian interest in the discovery of something precious or even divine in one’s own constitution. This argument is supplemented by critical consideration of other themes that run through this distinctive body of Mahāyānist literature: the relationship between Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings about the self, the overlap between the tathāgatagarbha and the nature of the mind, and the originally radical position that the only means of becoming liberated from rebirth is to achieve the same exalted status as the Buddha.
The book was reviewed in Lion's Roar recently: https://www.lionsroar.com/what-is-the-buddha-in-you/

According to this review, Jones seems to support the idea that the early Buddha nature literature did indeed posit an essential self of some sort (and he compares this to similar trends in Brahamnical literature that was popular at around the same time the Buddha nature texts were written). The review states:
He [Jones] argues that the earliest articulations of buddhanature in this corpus advanced their visionary proposals as a version of an acknowledgment of self rather than a denial: notwithstanding what the Buddha appears to have taught, there can be such a thing as a true or real essence of beings, even as there can be value bodied forth in the stuff of this world, an extrusion of the highest reality within the compass of our very bodies. This self is buddhanature, or the presence of the tathagatagarbha within us. As Jones puts it, “Buddhist dharma has its own account of the self.”

Hold on. This is not the self of untutored opinion; nor does it exactly conform to the self as taught by rival Indian traditions. But it is in the same ballpark, so to speak. Iterations of buddhanature (as self) satisfy the conceptual as well as therapeutic criteria employed in the search for (a hidden) self in Indian religions, something permanent, unchanging, pure, precious, and valuable, and above all, sovereign, free from time and contingency—and thus something one ought to learn to see, to identify with, as bodying-forth reality within us. Or so, Jones argues, the earliest buddhanature texts would have us understand the Buddha to have taught as his considered view.
Jones writes in the introduction to the book
A central claim of this study, with the benefit of renewed attention to Indian sources that teach about Buddha-nature, is that we should indeed understand the tathāgatagarbha tradition to have begun its life as a Buddhist account of something that deserved to be called ātman, and that the early history of tathāgatagarbha teaching in India entailed an attempt by Buddhist authors to present, and then explain, a Mahāyānist account of what was an enduring concern for Indian religious teachers and adepts in general: the pursuit and liberation of that which could be called the self.
I haven't read the book yet, but it seems interesting. I myself think that his thesis is certainly possible for some of the Buddha nature texts, but not all of them. They are just too heterogenous to make a single sweeping claim for all of them and several of these texts are pretty clear that when they say "self" they don't mean it literally. Jones knows this and his claim is that the earliest Buddha nature texts (for him these are the Nirvana and Angulimaliya) do teach a real essential Self (atman), while later texts were working to diffuse this idea and tame it (as a skillful means, etc). Perhaps this is what happened, but I just don't know if our chronology of these texts is good enough that it allows us to make this claim.

Still, this book seems like probably the best overview of the modern scholarship on Tathagathabarbha at the moment. Seems to be very detailed. :reading:
It is quite impossible to find the Buddha anywhere other than in one's own mind.
A person who is ignorant of this may seek externally,
but how is it possible to find oneself through seeking anywhere other than in oneself?
Someone who seeks their own nature externally is like a fool who, giving a performance in the middle of a crowd, forgets who he is and then seeks everywhere else to find himself.
— Padmasambhava

Visit my site: https://sites.google.com/view/abhayajana/
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

There is no “I” in “Buddhist”.
:jumping:
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Caoimhghín »

Buddhst
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:01 pmBuddhst
There is definitely no "I' in "bauddha"
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Matt J »

I noted in the description and review, the term self is never defined.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Zhen Li »

I read this as soon as it came out, so my memory is gradually fading, but I can comment based on what I can still recall. Indeed his claim on the fact that Buddhist texts do posit a self is correct, but it is as a part of a series of qualities of Tathāgatagarbha. I enjoyed it overall. I can recommend it.

I think it is important to discuss this topic academically, and I don't want to focus on the negative aspects, but I think there are several shortcomings of this publication. One of them is to treat this matter as if it is some how upsetting a narrative—no, in fact, Buddhists who have read these sūtras already know that the Buddha is depicted as positing a self, and scholars who work on Tathāgatagarbha literature have known this for decades. This is not really anything innovative.

The other major short coming, I think (hinted at by Matt), is that he does not really make a great attempt to understand what the MPNS and later sūtras actually mean by a self, and he does not really make much of an effort to see how they balance a continuation of anātman doctrine (which is clearly present in the MPNS as well) with this idea of a self. Clearly, the term "self" as used in the MPNS is not the ātman that is being refuted in anātman doctrine, but he never seems to catch onto this—the self, which goes along with bliss, purity, and permanence, are qualities of Tathāgatagarbha that are distinctly different from the terms as they can be understood when referring to saṃsāric phenomena. It seems like he clings onto the ideas that are posited and how they are used throughout time, but did not really make much of an effort to understand what they mean for Buddhists and in the texts themselves. In this way, his approach felt a bit naïve to me, and to link back to my first point, he seemed to be talking about these matters in the book as if they were a surprise to him or the first time he was encountering them.

Finally, he really tries to show that there is a distinct reaction and opposition within Tathāgatagarbha thinking to the idea of a self. I don't think the issue here is chronology (though this is something to consider). In my opinion, he really does not do a convincing job of showing that the Laṅka represents a direct and incompatible reaction to the MPNS (and this is a claim that has been made repeatedly, and never, I think, convincingly). The arguments in the Laṅka with regard to TG and a self are not oppositional in my opinion because the MPNS is not positing the kind of self that the Laṅka is refuting. I think this is another case where reading as a Buddhist insider, who tries to take seriously the claims made and how they may be consistent, might help. Drewes made the argument recently that Mahāyāna Buddhists were aware of each other and themselves as a unit, and the idea that they were somehow independent groups that didn't have group-consciousness is unfounded—they were not in the business of throwing each other under the bus, though this does happen with śāstric debates.

Anyway, the last thing I wanted to say is that it is a shortcoming that Jones doesn't consider the Tathāgataguhyaka Sūtra except for in one footnote, which is distinctly pre-Tathāgatagarbha and suggests that the Buddha exists within the physical body of all beings. This is maybe forgivable, considering its lack of exposure in English scholarship. I am going to be very busy for the next week, but after that I all be able to focus on finishing editing my translation of that sūtra (which I completed months ago) and publishing it.
User avatar
Javierfv1212
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 am
Location: South Florida

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Javierfv1212 »

Zhen Li wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:52 am Anyway, the last thing I wanted to say is that it is a shortcoming that Jones doesn't consider the Tathāgataguhyaka Sūtra except for in one footnote, which is distinctly pre-Tathāgatagarbha and suggests that the Buddha exists within the physical body of all beings. This is maybe forgivable, considering its lack of exposure in English scholarship. I am going to be very busy for the next week, but after that I all be able to focus on finishing editing my translation of that sūtra (which I completed months ago) and publishing it.
Thanks for your reply Zhen Li, I generally agree with your assessment here. It seems to me many modern scholars often excessively focus on what they see as contradictions and disagreements among ancient Buddhist material - even though often there is no obvious contradiction, just heterogeneity and diversity.

General question: is Tathāgataguhyaka Sūtra available in english translation somewhere?
It is quite impossible to find the Buddha anywhere other than in one's own mind.
A person who is ignorant of this may seek externally,
but how is it possible to find oneself through seeking anywhere other than in oneself?
Someone who seeks their own nature externally is like a fool who, giving a performance in the middle of a crowd, forgets who he is and then seeks everywhere else to find himself.
— Padmasambhava

Visit my site: https://sites.google.com/view/abhayajana/
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:52 amThe arguments in the Laṅka with regard to TG and a self are not oppositional in my opinion because the MPNS is not positing the kind of self that the Laṅka is refuting.
The Lanka is claiming that the TG is just a palliative for those who are not prepared to accept emptiness, and that functionally, it is the all-basis consciousness. That seems oppositional to me, which is why the Mādhyamikas seized on that definition in the Lanka.
tingdzin
Posts: 1947
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by tingdzin »

One should also take into account that Tathagatagarbha teachings (according to Williams) were much more popular in China than in India, and may be a reflection of doctrinal approaches which began in the early centuries CE rather than indicating a continuity of such an approach from the times of Shakyamuni.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

tingdzin wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:16 pm One should also take into account that Tathagatagarbha teachings (according to Williams) were much more popular in China than in India, and may be a reflection of doctrinal approaches which began in the early centuries CE rather than indicating a continuity of such an approach from the times of Shakyamuni.
Yes, because it played to subitist tendencies in China that were systematically rejected by Indian pañḍitas at the major centers of learning in India from the time of Asanga onwards.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:…that were systematically rejected by Indian pañḍitas at the major centers of learning in India from the time of Asanga onwards.
While you are free to hold up this time and place as the gold standard for doctrinal purity for yourself, please understand that is not universally shared.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:15 pm
Malcolm wrote:…that were systematically rejected by Indian pañḍitas at the major centers of learning in India from the time of Asanga onwards.
While you are free to hold up this time and place as the gold standard for doctrinal purity for yourself, please understand that is not universally shared.
Yes, there are a few people who seem to think that Indian paṇḍitas, both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra, really have no authority in their own teachings in their native language. Isn't strange that both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra systematically rejected subitism? One wonders why this would be the case. Could it possible be that it is because India is the source of Buddhadharma?
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:24 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:15 pm
Malcolm wrote:…that were systematically rejected by Indian pañḍitas at the major centers of learning in India from the time of Asanga onwards.
While you are free to hold up this time and place as the gold standard for doctrinal purity for yourself, please understand that is not universally shared.
Yes, there are a few strange people who seem to think that Indian paṇḍitas, both Madhyamaka and Yogacāra, really have no authority in their own teachings in their native language. Isn't strange that they both systematically rejected subitism? One wonders why this would be the case.
If my teacher is enlightened, all I care about is whatever teachings and practices he had to get that way. That’s my gold standard. What they did 1,000 years ago in India is of some intellectual interest, but it’s not all that relevant to me or my practice.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:30 pm If my teacher is enlightened, all I care about is whatever teachings and practices he had to get that way. That’s my gold standard.
And how would you know he or she was "enlightened?" Because that is a big IF.
What they did 1,000 years ago in India is of some intellectual interest, but it’s not all that relevant to me or my practice.
I disagree, it has a huge impact on how your practice today is shaped. The debates and controversies at Nalanda and Vikramashila had a huge impact on what was transmitted to Tibet, by whom, and when. Those impacts continue to resound today even here on Dharmawheel. But this little diversion is :offtopic:

What I am referring to is that fact that subitist* tendencies are quite pronounced in Chinese Buddhism, because of the embrace of TG; whereas they are quite suppressed and reigned in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, where the TG has, with difficulty, been absorbed. The reason for this clearly is the absence of Indian influence on the one hand, and its presence on the other. Even the schools that embrace wholeheartedly the TG doctrine in Tibet are still gradualist in orientation. And most Tibetan Buddhist scholars (but not all), historically, have not paid much attention to the TG doctrine, other than polemically, and as at best a provisional teaching. And this again has everything to do with what some Indian dudes thought.

*Subitism: The application of the term "subitism" to Buddhism is derived from the French illumination subite (sudden awakening), contrasting with 'illumination graduelle' (gradual awakening). It gained currency in this use in English from the work of sinologist Paul Demiéville. His 1947 work 'Mirror of the Mind' was widely read in the U.S. It inaugurated a series by him on subitism and gradualism.[web 1][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subitism
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »


I disagree, it has a huge impact on how your practice today is shaped. The debates and controversies at Nalanda and Vikramashila had a huge impact on what was transmitted to Tibet, by whom, and when. Those impacts continue to resound today even here on Dharmawheel.
I’m a Shentongpa. That didn’t exist in India.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:56 pm

I disagree, it has a huge impact on how your practice today is shaped. The debates and controversies at Nalanda and Vikramashila had a huge impact on what was transmitted to Tibet, by whom, and when. Those impacts continue to resound today even here on Dharmawheel.
I’m a Shentongpa. That didn’t exist in India.
Yes, actually it did, in the work of Ratnakāraśanti, a paṇḍita of Vikramaśila. Apart from tathāgatagarbha, which he ignored, his arguments about the ultimate existence of gnosis are taken directly from his works by such gzhan stong scholars as Shakya Chogden, Taranatha, etc. There is also his attempt to reconcile Nāgārjuna with the Maitreyan corpus, which also inspired these gzhan stong scholars. One of his works was translated by his student, the Nepali paṇdita, Śantibhadra, complete with a colophon complaining bitterly of the annihilationism of Candrakīrti. Someone recently did a paper on this text which you can find on Academia edu.

Incidentally, you contradict your own tradition, which asserts that gzhan stong entered Tibetan through the Kashmiri Paṇḍita Sajjana, so again, an Indian paṇḍita...
Nicholas2727
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Nicholas2727 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:18 pm
tingdzin wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:16 pm One should also take into account that Tathagatagarbha teachings (according to Williams) were much more popular in China than in India, and may be a reflection of doctrinal approaches which began in the early centuries CE rather than indicating a continuity of such an approach from the times of Shakyamuni.
Yes, because it played to subitist tendencies in China that were systematically rejected by Indian pañḍitas at the major centers of learning in India from the time of Asanga onwards.
Don't mean to take this more off topic but is gradual enlightenment accepted by any major figures in Chinese Buddhism? And what about masters today? I know most East Asian schools here in the west are in the Chan/Zen lineage, but there seems to be a difference between traditional Zen and some of the East Asian Mahayana schools today. I have heard a few Chinese and Vietnamese teachers who don't sound very "zen" in their presentation, but I am not sure if sudden enlightenment is accepted due to the transmission of these schools and their history.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Zhen Li »

Javierfv1212 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:36 pm General question: is Tathāgataguhyaka Sūtra available in english translation somewhere?
I completed a translation from Chinese and am still editing it, but I should finish it very soon.

84000 is translating from Tibetan, but its page says "Current version v 0.0.1 (2019)", so I am unsure where it is currently.

I heard of around 3 or 4 people who, for the past decade, have been translating or doing critical editions of it. So, there's definitely a lot of interest, but maybe a lack of concentration or motivation.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:49 pm
Javierfv1212 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:36 pm General question: is Tathāgataguhyaka Sūtra available in english translation somewhere?
I completed a translation from Chinese and am still editing it, but I should finish it very soon.

84000 is translating from Tibetan, but its page says "Current version v 0.0.1 (2019)", so I am unsure where it is currently.

I heard of around 3 or 4 people who, for the past decade, have been translating or doing critical editions of it. So, there's definitely a lot of interest, but maybe a lack of concentration or motivation.
Text critical scholarship moves slowly. Frankly, we don't have time. Someone can always come along later and improve our translations.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: CV Jones - The Buddhist Self: On Tathāgatagarbha and Ātman

Post by Zhen Li »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:18 pm Text critical scholarship moves slowly. Frankly, we don't have time. Someone can always come along later and improve our translations.
Translation simply isn't the priority I think. In the west, it doesn't usually count for tenure review or hiring considerations, so academics, if they do it, do it in their spare time. This seems to gradually be changing, but the situation is still not ideal.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”