(New York, 1987). For examples of early Buddhist and
Therava ̄da ritualization of the Buddha’s nirva ̄n:a as presence
and power within sam:sa ̄ra, see John Strong, The Legend of
King A ́soka (Princeton, N.J., 1983), and Kevin Trainor, Rel-
ics, Ritual, and Representation in Buddhism (New York,
1997). For Asian Buddhist practices mediating the power of
tatha ̄gatas and bodhisattvas, see Alan Sponberg, “Meditation
in Fa-hsiang Buddhism,” Daniel Stevenson, “Four Kinds of
Samadhi in Early T’ien-t’ai Buddhism,” and David Chappel,
“From Dispute to Dual Cultivation: Pure Land Responses
to Ch’an Critics,” in Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Bud-
dhism, edited by Peter Gregory (Honolulu, 1986); Raoul
Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha (Boston, 1989); Glenn Wal-
lis, Mediating the Power of Buddhas (Albany, N.Y., 2002);
David McMahan, Empty Vision (New York, 2002); and
Richard Payne and Kenneth Tanaka, eds., Approaching the
Land of Bliss (Honolulu, 2003). On this subject see also the
Princeton University series: Buddhism in Practice (Princeton,
N.J., 1995), Religions of India in Practice (Princeton, N.J.,
1995), Religions of China in Practice (Princeton, N.J., 1996),
edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., and Religions of Japan in
Practice (Princeton, N.J., 1999), edited by George J. Tabane,
Jr. For systematic perspectives on tatha ̄gata, especially within
Maha ̄ya ̄na traditions, see Edward Conze, Buddhist Thought
in India (Ann Arbor. Mich., 1973); Paul Griffiths, On Being
Buddha (Albany, N.Y., 1994); John Makransky, Buddhahood
Embodied (Albany, N.Y., 1997); and Paul Williams,
Maha ̄ya ̄na Buddhism (New York, 1989).JOHN MAKRANSKY (2005)TATHA ̄GATA-GARBHA. Early monastic Buddhism
emphasized the reality of “selflessness” (ana ̄tmata ̄) as the es-
sential nature of all beings. The “ignorance” (avidya ̄) at the
root of suffering in the samsaric life cycle was said to be the
misperception of a fixed and independent “self” (a ̄tman)
within a selfless, wholly relative person. The overcoming of
the delusion of self was called “wisdom” (prajña ̄), and it was
commonly explained as the “wisdom of selflessness.” Howev-
er, the earliest sermons of the Buddha are replete with such
expressions as “mastery of the self is the real mastery,” “he
who conquers his own self is the supreme warrior,” and so
forth. Self-control was a prime goal of the early Buddhist
monk or nun. Thus, the term self had two distinct connota-
tions. In one, it referred to a fixed, independent, self-
substance, and in the other, it referred to the living, empiri-
cal, continuum of the person; the former was denied and the
latter, clearly presupposed.
With the rise of the messianic Buddhism of the “univer-
sal vehicle” (Maha ̄ya ̄na), both sides of this ambiguity were
developed in various ways. The “self” that was thought not
to exist was equated with “intrinsic reality” (svabha ̄va), “in-
trinsic identity” (svalaks:an:a), and “intrinsic objectivity”
(svaru ̄pa). Its systematic denial was expanded beyond “sub-
jective selflessness” (pudgala-nairatmya) to encompass “ob-
jective selflessness” (dharma naira ̄tmya ̄), which was under-
stood as equivalent to “emptiness” ( ́su ̄nyata ̄). Notions
concerning the other “self,” the living, empirical personality
that was acknowledged to exist, developed into two major
concepts, “enlightenment-spirit” (bodhicitta), and “Buddha
essence” (tatha ̄gata- or sugata-garbha). The “spirit of enlight-
enment” concept dates from the earliest Maha ̄ya ̄na scriptures
(first century BCE); its systematization was begun by the
scholastic master Na ̄ga ̄rjuna (c. second century CE). The
second dates from the second and third centuries CE), with
the emergence of the later Maha ̄ya ̄na scriptures such as the
Lan:ka ̄vata ̄ra Su ̄tra, the Sam:dhi-nirmocana Su ̄tra, the
Tatha ̄gatagarbha Su ̄tra, the Sr ̄ı-ma ̄ladev ̄ı Su ̄tra and the
Maha ̄parinirva ̄n:a Su ̄tra. It was systematized by the Yoga ̄ca ̄ra
masters Maitreyana ̄tha, Asan ̇ ga, and Vasubandhu during the
fourth and fifth centuries CE.The enlightenment-spirit (bodhicitta) theory eventually
began to reflect the original ambiguity of the Buddha’s use
of self, by employing the scheme of “two realities” (satya-
dvaya), the absolute and the relative. The absolute spirit was
equated with the wisdom of selflessness, and the relative spir-
it with the loving mind seeking the welfare of all beings. The
perfection of the absolute spirit was thought to result in the
achievement of the dharmaka ̄ya (“truth body”) of Buddha-
hood, and the perfection of the relative spirit in the achieve-
ment of the ru ̄paka ̄ya (“form body”) of Buddhahood, with
its heavenly sam:bhoga (“beatific”) and earthly nirma ̄n:a
(“emanation”) bodies. An important point is that the duality
between the two spirits, as between the two realities, only ob-
tains from the relative perspective. In the enlightened view,
the two are ultimately the same: wisdom and compassion are
one, the absolute is no different from the relative, and truth
is equivalent to form. This is summarized in Na ̄ga ̄rjuna’s fa-
mous statement, “Emptiness [is] the essence of compassion”
(“S ́u ̄ nyata ̄-karun:a ̄-garbham”).
Against this background, we can understand the emer-
gence of the Buddha-essence doctrine. The Absolute Truth
Body (dharmaka ̄ya) of the Buddha is transcendent and eter-
nal, yet omnipresent and immanent in every atom of infini-
ty. Thus, from a Buddha’s perspective, all beings are already
immersed in the “truth-body realm” (dharmaka ̄yadha ̄tu) and
persist in suffering only because they do not know their own
actual situation. Each being’s presence in the truth-realm is
the essence of each; it is each one’s essential participation in
Buddhahood. Thus, each has an essence of Buddhahood,
that is, a Buddha essence within him or her that is one’s very
selflessness or “natural ultimate freedom” (prakr:ti-
parinirva ̄n:a). One’s critique, through prajña ̄, of the mis-
knowledge of self and the resultant realization of selflessness
amounts to the removal of the obscurations of the Buddha
essence and the revelation of the natural luminosity of the
Buddha realm.
To refer to the useful compendium of sources written
by the Tibetan scholar Bu ston (1290–1364), the
Tatha ̄gatagarbha Su ̄tra gives nine similes of the Buddha es-
sence: like a Buddha in a closed lotus, like the honey in the
comb, like the grain in the husk, like gold in ore, like treasureTATHA ̄GATA-GARBHA 9017