This part continues on from the previous page #2 where a more full explanation of “svabhāva” was outlined.

The link between “svabhāva” and “Buddha-nature”

The relationship between svabhāva and Buddha‑nature is one of the most subtle and beautiful points in Tibetan Buddha Dharma awareness-understanding-philosophy. It’s where emptiness and luminosity meet, and where the traditions diverge in fascinating ways.

The following aims to walk through this subject clearly.

1. Svabhāva = inherent existence (which Buddha Dharma shows to be false)

In Madhyamaka, svabhāva means:

• an intrinsic essence
• something existing from its own side
• independent of causes, parts, or conceptual designation

Tibetan Buddha Dharma understanding and practices illustrates (and realised practitioners of the pure lineages for example) reveal that no conditioned phenomenon has svabhāva. This is the meaning of emptiness (śūnyatā).

~

2. Buddha‑nature = the potential for awakening

Buddha‑nature (tathāgatagarbha) refers to:

• the mind’s luminous clarity
• the capacity to awaken
• the fact that defilements are adventitious, not intrinsic

Every being has Buddha‑nature because the mind is fundamentally workable and open.

~

3. The philosophical tension

If nothing has svabhāva, then:

• Does Buddha‑nature have svabhāva
• Is Buddha‑nature empty
• Is Buddha‑nature something “real”

Different Tibetan schools answer this differently.

~

4. How the Tibetan traditions link svabhāva and Buddha‑nature

A. Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka (Gelug, Sakya)

This view outlines:

• Buddha‑nature is empty of svabhāva, just like everything else.
• Buddha‑nature is not a thing, not a metaphysical essence.
• It is simply the absence of inherent flaws plus the presence of the mind’s potential.

In this view:

Buddha‑nature = emptiness of the mind + its capacity to awaken.

There is no “ultimate essence” hiding inside.

~

B. Shentong (Jonang, some Kagyu/Nyingma)

This view is more affirmative.

They say:

• Conditioned phenomena are empty of svabhāva (rangtong).
• But Buddha‑nature is empty of other (shentong): empty of defilements, but not empty of its own luminous qualities.

In this view:

**Buddha‑nature has a kind of “true nature,”

but not in the sense of a fixed, independent svabhāva.**

It is unconditioned, luminous, and real—but not a “self.”

This is why Shentong texts sometimes sound almost like they’re describing a positive ultimate reality.

~

C. Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā (Nyingma, Kagyu)

These traditions emphasize the unity of emptiness and luminosity:

• Emptiness = lack of svabhāva
• Luminosity = the mind’s knowing clarity

Buddha‑nature is the inseparability of these two.

**Empty in essence,

luminous in nature, unobstructed in compassion.**

They avoid calling this a “svabhāva,” because that would imply inherent existence, but they also avoid reducing it to mere negation.

~

5. The core link between svabhāva and Buddha‑nature

Buddha‑nature is possible because nothing has svabhāva.

If the mind had inherent existence:

• it could not change
• it could not purify
• it could not awaken

Because the mind is empty of svabhāva:

• it can transform
• it can recognize its own nature
• it can become a Buddha (awakened to the nature of reality0

So the absence of svabhāva is not a problem—it’s the very reason enlightenment is possible.

~

6. The experiential insight

When meditators look directly at the mind, they discover:

• It has no fixed essence (no svabhāva).
• Yet it is vividly aware, open, and luminous.

This paradox is the heart of Buddha‑nature.

(the emptiness that is empty of itself)

---

A Structured Comparison

Below is a clear, structured comparison that captures the real philosophical difference between these two Tibetan approaches. Both reject svabhāva (inherent existence), but they relate Buddha‑nature to that rejection in very different ways.

How Prāsaṅgika vs. Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā Understand Svabhāva & Buddha‑Nature

1. Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka (Gelug, Sakya)

Core Attitude Toward Svabhāva

• Svabhāva = completely nonexistent.
• Nothing—Buddha‑nature included—has even a trace of inherent existence.
• Emptiness is a non‑affirming negation: it negates inherent existence and leaves nothing behind that could be mistaken for an essence.

What Buddha‑nature Means

• Buddha‑nature is not a thing, not a metaphysical core, not a luminous ground.
• It is simply:
  • the emptiness of the mind, and
  • the mind’s potential to awaken (because it is not inherently flawed).
    
    

---

Below is a clear, structured comparison of how Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā understand svabhāva and buddha‑nature, contrasted with the Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka view summarized.

The difference is not that Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā reify something Prāsaṅgika denies, but that they describe the experiential mode of awareness in a different register—often affirming what Prāsaṅgika leaves as a pure negation.

2. Dzogchen & Mahāmudrā

How They Understand Svabhāva & Buddha‑Nature

A. Core Attitude Toward Svabhāva

Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā agree with Prāsaṅgika that:

• Nothing has inherent existence (svabhāva).
• All phenomena are empty of any intrinsic nature.

But they add something Prāsaṅgika refuses to assert: the empty nature is inseparable from luminous, cognizant awareness.

Key point

• Emptiness is not a mere negation (as in Gelug Prāsaṅgika).
• Emptiness is inseparable from clarity, knowing, and spontaneous presence.

This is why Dzogchen texts speak of the rang bzhin (nature), ngo bo (essence), and thugs rje (compassion) of mind—not as inherent essences, but as experiential qualities of the empty mind.

~

B. Buddha‑Nature in Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā

Buddha‑nature = the mind’s empty‑yet‑luminous nature

It is:

• empty (like Prāsaṅgika says)
• luminous / cognizant (what Prāsaṅgika refuses to assert)
• spontaneously present (lhun grub)
• beyond conceptual elaboration

Dzogchen calls this the Ground (gzhi):

• empty in essence
• luminous in nature
• unimpeded in compassionate energy

Mahāmudrā uses similar language:

• mind’s nature is empty
• mind’s appearance is clarity
• mind’s dynamic is unobstructed compassion

Crucially

This is not an inherently existing essence. It is the mode of being of emptiness itself, described experientially.

~

C. Why Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā Sound “More Affirming”

Prāsaṅgika outlines:

Emptiness is a non‑affirming negation. Nothing positive can be asserted on the side of the ultimate.

Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā outlines:

When emptiness is directly realized, it is experienced as radiant, aware, self‑knowing.

They are not contradicting Prāsaṅgika’s ontology. They are describing the phenomenology of awakening.

Two ways of talking about the same thing

• Prāsaṅgika: What emptiness is not.
• Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā: What emptiness is like when realized.

~

D. How They Understand Svabhāva

Prāsaṅgika

• Svabhāva = totally nonexistent.
• Emptiness = non‑affirming negation.

Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā

• Svabhāva = nonexistent in the sense of inherent existence.
• But the mind’s nature (its “own‑nature”) is described as:
  • empty (ngo bo stong pa)
  • luminous (rang bzhin gsal ba)
  • compassionate energy (thugs rje)

This “own‑nature” is not an essence. It is the inseparability of emptiness and clarity.

~

E. The Real Difference

Prāsaṅgika

• Focus: philosophical analysis
• Ultimate truth: emptiness as negation
• Buddha‑nature: just emptiness (no positive qualities)

Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā

• Focus: direct experience of awareness
• Ultimate truth: emptiness inseparable from clarity
• Buddha‑nature: empty‑luminous awareness (not inherently existent)

~

F. A Simple Analogy

Prāsaṅgika:

A mirror has no inherent existence. Its nature is emptiness.

Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā:

A mirror has no inherent existence, and its empty nature is inseparable from its capacity to reflect.

The “reflective capacity” is not an essence—it is how emptiness functions.

~

G. Are They Contradictory?

Not really. They emphasize different aspects:

• Prāsaṅgika: ontological precision
• Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā: experiential immediacy

Both deny inherent existence. Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā simply refuse to stop at negation—they describe the living quality of emptiness.

(to be continued…)