Svabhava (Sanskrit:स्वभाव, svabhāva;Pali:सभाव, sabhāva;Chinese:自性;pinyin:zìxìng;Vietnamese:Tự tính;Tibetan:རང་བཞིན,Wylie:rang-bzhin)[1] literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of beings.
The concept and termsvabhāva are frequently encountered in Hindu and Buddhist traditions such asAdvaita Vedanta (e.g. in theAvadhūta Gītā),Mahāyāna Buddhism (e.g. in theRatnagotravibhāga),Vaishnavism (e.g., the writings ofRamanuja) andDzogchen (e.g. in theseventeen tantras).
In the nondual Advaita Vedānta yoga text,Avadhūta Gītā,Brahman (in the Upanishadic denotation) is thesvabhāva.
In the Mahāyāna Buddhadharma tradition(s) it is one of a suite of terms employed to denote theBuddha-nature, such as "gotra".[2]
The term first appears in theShvetashvatara Upanishad, as a possible first cause (jagatkāraṇa).[3] There also seems to have been an Indian philosophical position calledSvabhāvavada which was akin tonaturalism which held that "things are as their nature makes them".[4] It is possible this position was similar to or associated withCarvaka.[3]
In earlysāṃkhya philosophy, svabhāva was a term which was associated withprakṛti.[5] It is the inherent capacity ofprakṛti, which is independent and self caused.[6]
TheBhagavad Gītā (18.41) has nature (svabhāva) as a distinguishing quality differentiating thevarṇā.[7]
Overzee (1992: p. 74) in her work onPierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) andRāmānuja (1017–1137) highlights Rāmānuja's usage ofsvabhāva in relation to Brahman thus:
Let us look more closely at what Rāmānuja means by the Lord's "nature". If you read his writings, you will find that he uses two distinct yet related words when referring to the nature of Brahman:svarūpa andsvabhāva.[8]
| Part ofa series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
In earlyTheravādin texts, the term "svabhāva" did not carry the technical meaning or the soteriological weight of later writings. Much of Mahāyāna Buddhism (as in thePrajñāpāramitā Sūtra) denies outright that such asvabhāva exists within any being; however, while in thetathāgatagarbha sūtras, notably theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Buddha states that the immortal and infinite Buddha-nature - or "true self" of the Buddha - is the indestructiblesvabhāva of beings, this position is clarified in theŚrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, which directly states that "tathāgatagarbha is not a substantial self, nor a living being, nor ‘fate,’ nor a person."[9]
In thePāli Canon,sabhāva is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts. When found in later texts (e.g., theparacanonicalMilindapañha), it generically refers to (state of) mind, character or truth.
In the post-canonicalAbhidhamma literature,sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible,dependent, momentaryphenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a "table"; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as "table" lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).
According to Peter Harvey,sabhāva in theTheravāda Abhidhamma is something conditional and interdependent:
"They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature" (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada.[10]
TheVaibhāṣika school held that dharmas have a constantessence or inherent nature (svabhāva) which persists through past, present and future.[11] The term was also identified as a unique mark or own characteristic (svalaksana) that differentiated a dharma and remained unchangeable throughout its existence. According to Vaibhāṣikas,svabhavas are those things that exist substantially (dravyasat) as opposed to those things which are made up of aggregations of dharmas and thus only have a nominal existence (prajñaptisat).[11]
Robinson (1957: p. 300) in discussing theBuddhist logic ofNāgārjuna, states:
Svabhāva is by definition the subject of contradictory ascriptions. If it exists, it must belong to an existent entity, which means that it must be conditioned, dependent on other entities, and possessed of causes. But asvabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of asvabhāva is impossible.[12]
Dzogchen upholds a view ofniḥsvabhāva, refutingsvabhāva using the same logic employed by Madhyamaka, a freedom from extremes demonstrated succinctly viacatuṣkoṭitetralemma.
As it (rigpa) transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes.[13]
In the context of logical analysis, Dzogchen agrees with the view ofMadhyamaka as elucidated byNāgārjuna, ChögyalNamkhai Norbu explains:
...Madhyamaka explains with the four "beyond concepts," which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although we are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamaka. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna's reasoning is supreme.[14]
TheUnion of the Sun and Moon (Tibetan:ཉི་ཟླ་ཁ་སྦྱོར,Wylie:nyi zla kha sbyor), one of the 'seventeen tantras of the esoteric instruction cycle' (Tibetan:མན་ངག་སྡེའི་རྒྱུད་བཅུ་བདུན,Wylie:man ngag sde'i rgyud bcu bdun) which are a suite of tantras known variously as:nyingtik,upadesha ormenngagde withinDzogchen discourse, states:
Whoever meditates on the absence of nature [svabhāva]
in objects that are objective appearances
this is the non-duality of appearance and emptiness,the relaxed unimpeded group of six.[15]
Svabhāva is very important in thenontheistictheology of theBonpo Great Perfection (Dzogchen) tradition where it is part of a technical language to render macrocosm and microcosm intononduality, as Rossi (1999: p. 58) states:
The View of the Great Perfection further acknowledges the ontological identity of the macrocosmic and microcosmic realities through the threefold axiom of Condition (ngang), Ultimate Nature (rang bzhin) and Identity (bdag nyid). The Condition (ngang) is the Basis of all (kun gzhi) -- primordially pure (ka dag) and not generated by primary and instrumental causes. It is the origin of all phenomena. The Ultimate Nature (rang bzhin) is said to be unaltered (ma bcos pa), because the Basis [gzhi] is spontaneously accomplished (lhun grub) in terms of its innate potential (rtsal) for manifestation (rol pa). The non-duality between the Ultimate Nature (i.e., the unaltered appearance of all phenomena) and the Condition (i.e., the Basis of all) is called the Identity (bdag nyid). Thisunicum of primordial purity (ka dag) and spontaneous accomplishment (lhun grub) is the Way of Being (gnas lugs) of the Pure-and-Perfect-Mind [byang chub (kyi) sems].[16]
The term "svabhāva" is mentioned in six verses of the first chapter of theAvadhūta Gītā:1.5,1.6,1.44,1.54,1.58,1.76.
This extreme nondual yoga text shares a lot of common language with the extreme nondual yoga ofAtiyoga (Dzogchen) and its standard Tibetan analoguerang-bzhin (Wylie) is employed inThe Mirror of the Mind of Samantabhadra, one of theSeventeen Tantras of AtiyogaUpadesha.
Dzogchen strictly refutes the notion of "svabhāva", and soThe Mirror of the Mind of Samantabhadra, states specifically thatdharmakāya is non-arisen and natureless:
...this meaningful supreme wisdom kāya
ultimate, natureless [rang bzhin med], the state of the nonarising dharmakāya,
the lamp of the teachings, the great light of the dharmakāyamanifests to persons who are in accord with the meaning.[17]
The following quotation fromThe Mirror of the Mind of Samantabhadra is drawn from theLungi Terdzö:[a]
You should understand that the nature of all phenomena is that of the five aspects of Samantabhadra.
What are these? you ask
They are Samantabhadra as nature,
Samantabhadra as adornment,
Samantabhadra as teacher,
Samantabhadra as awareness, and
Dzogchen teacherNamkhai Norbu (2001: p. 155) in discussing the view of thepratyekabuddhas states that:
... the Pratyekabuddhas accede to the absence of a self or independent self-nature (bdag med).[19]
.svg)