https://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/ep ... age_47.pdf
I know that Mahayana puts great emphasis on the Buddha nature, but the author of this paper argues that this sutra goes even further and asserts an eternal, non-changing Self common and inherent to all beings. There have been various translations and versions of this sutra (Tibetan, Chinese, ...), but I am going to pick a few quotes from it (as quoted in the essay) that I find, mildly speaking, confusing:
The tathāgata-garbha is the intrinsic nature [svabhāva] of beings.
The tathāgata-garbha is like this, for it cannot be harmed by the sharp weapons of the devas and maras (gods and devils). It only nurtures the person, and anything that can be harmed or damaged is not the tathāgata-dhātu. Hence, you should know that the tathāgata-dhātu cannot be harmed or killed.
By having cultivated non-Self with reference to the tathāgata-dhātu and having continually cultivated Emptiness, suffering will not be eradicated, but one will become like a moth in the flame of a lamp.
Noble son, that which is endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and Purity is stated to be the meaning of the ‘real truth’
To me it sounds like pure brahmanism/advaita. It is the only sutra I can think of that seems to explicitly assert an inherent essence (svabhava), eternal Self, unchanging nature. This is in sharp contrast to all sutras in the Pali canon where Buddha always advocates the anti-eternalist idea of anatman and absence of any eternal self. All other sutras speak of the 5 aggregates, emptiness of all dharmas, lack of inherent essence and the liberating effect of non-fabricating a ficticious self. In Theravada, abandoning of ANY idea of self is seen as a prerequisite for the first stage of enlightenment. And of course even all Mahayana schools accept that there is no svabhava (in spite of different names for it). This sutra goes in the totally opposite direction, which has even soteriological implications ("By having cultivated non-Self with reference to the tathāgata-dhātu and having continually cultivated Emptiness, suffering will not be eradicated, but one will become like a moth in the flame of a lamp").Just as the wrestler had the idea - due to his impaired thinking - that he had lost the diamond, even though it was lodged in his body, similarly worldly beings do not comprehend the Self’s Reality (ātma-tattva); they fall under the sway of unwholesome friends and do not understand the [Tathāgata’s] utterances with underlying meaning; they meditatively cultivate the notion that they lack the Self, even though there is the Self.
Can anyone competent in the Mahayana canon explain how this sutra is reconciled with the teachings of emptiness and anatman? Or is it seen as somewhat "apocryphal"? Whichever way I try to read it, it sounds more like Adi Shankara or something along these lines to me...