Trisvabhāva

trisvabhāva (T. mtshan nyid gsum/rang bzhin gsum མཚན་ཉིད་གསུམ་/རང་བཞིན་སུམ་; C. sanxing 三性), or the three natures, is a key doctrine of the Yogacara school that presents a model of our experiences and phenomena in terms of three natures.

The three natures are:

1. Parikalpita-svabhāva (T. kun brtags mtshan nyid): "imaginary nature," "imagined nature," etc.
2. Paratantra-svabhāva ( T. gzhan dbang mtshan nyid): "dependent nature"
3. Pariniṣpanna-svabhāva (T. yongs grub mtshan nyid): "truly existent nature," "perfected nature," etc.

Andy Karr states:

One way to summarize [the three natures] would be to say that what is imagined by names, thoughts, and so on is the imaginary nature. What is not imagined by names and thoughts but appears due to causes and conditions is the dependent nature. The dependent nature’s emptiness of the imaginary nature is the perfectly existent nature.

Explanations

John W. Pettit

John W. Pettit states:

According to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, the most explicit and definitive understanding of reality is conveyed not only by the dichotomy of “form” and “emptiness,” but also with reference to the “three natures” (trisvabhāva). The three-nature theory is held to be the quintessential teaching of the third turning. The first of the three natures is projection (parikalpita). Projection is the process of imagination that labels and constructs the multifarious deceptions of saṃsāra. What exists in truth is confused with deluded perceptions, as in mistaking a coil of rope for a snake. The second nature is relativity (paratantra). Relativity is what does exist—that is, a rope, in spite of our misperception of a snake. The third nature is perfection (pariniṣpanna), the fact that projection does not exist in relativity. Perfection is realized through meditation that eliminates all forms of projection, resulting in the realization of the fundamental coalescence of subjective perceiver and objective fact. Thus the three natures provide the philosophical basis for Buddhist Mentalism (cittamātra), which holds that relativity exists as mind (citta), while dualistic appearances of subjective mind and objective phenomena are unreal. It is significant that the theory of three natures is also found in a Prajñāpāramitā text, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitāsūtra, in the “Chapter Requested by Maitreya.” This indicates that the philosophical views later considered paradigmatic for the “third turning” were known early in the development of Mahāyāna scriptures, and that Bodhisattva Maitreya was associated with Mentalist trends some time prior to the appearance of Mentalist texts attributed to him and commented on by Asaṅga.

Samdhinirmochana Sutra

The three natures are presented in the sixth chapter of the Samdhinirmochana Sutra as follows:

• The imaginary nature “refers to the establishing of names and symbols for all things and the distinguishing of their essences, whereby they come to be expressed in language.”
• The dependent nature refers to “the pattern whereby all things arise co-dependently: for if this exists, then that exists, and if this arises, then that arises. This refers to [the twelvefold conditions…] …”
• The thoroughly established nature refers to “the universally equal suchness of all things. Bodhisattvas penetrate to this suchness because of their resolute zeal, intelligent focusing, and true reflection. By gradually cultivating this penetration, they reach unsurpassed true awakening and actually realize perfection.”

The text also describes the three natures by means of two metaphors:

• Using the metaphor of a cataract, the text describes the imaginary nature as like the defective vision of someone with cataracts, the dependent nature is like the false images that appear to someone with cataracts, and the thoroughly established nature as like the unconfused objects seen through the pure vision of someone without cataracts.
• Using the metaphor of a clear crystal, the texts describes the three natures as follows: when various colors are reflected through the crystal, the imaginary nature is the misapprehension of the clear crystal as being “blue sapphires, rubies, emeralds, or gold”; the dependent nature is the clear crystal itself; and the thoroughly established nature is the lack of inherent reality of the misapprehended images (of sapphires, etc.) that are superimposed on the crystal.

Madhyāntavibhāga

In the Madhyāntavibhāga (Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes), the three natures are presented in the first chapter within the framework of the false imagination (abhūtaparikalpa). The false imagination refers to the superimposition of an object of perception (grāhya) and an agent of perception (grāhaka) onto appearances. This superimposition can be compared to appearances in a dream: in a dream, appearances arise is if they exist, yet all the appearances are imputed by the mind. In the same way, the dualistic perceptions of an object of perception (grāhya) and an agent of perception (grāhaka) are also imputations of the mind.

After explaining the false imagination, the text presents the principle of the three natures in relation to this false imagination as follows:

• the imaginary nature refers to the dualistic appearances of the false imagination;
• the basis for these appearances is the dependent nature; and
• the nature of this false imagination, which is empty, is the thoroughly established nature.

Following this introduction to the three natures in the first chapter, the text presents a detailed investigation into the characteristics of the three natures in the third chapter. This chapter includes an examination of the three natures in relation to impermanence, suffering, emptiness, the four noble truths, and so on. For example, the characteristic of impermanence is applied to the three natures as follows: the imaginary nature is said to impermanent in that it is non-existent. The dependent nature is characterized by arising and ceasing; hence it is by its essence impermanent. The thoroughly established nature is not impermanent on the ultimate level; however, from the perspective of how it appears to ordinary beings, it can be called impermanent.

Alternative translations

• Imaginary, Other-dependent & Perfect (Karl Brunnhölzl)
• Imagined, Other-dependent & Consummate (Jay L. Garfield)
• Imputation, Dependence & the Absolute (Richard Barron)
• Imaginary, Dependent & Thoroughly Established (Dharmachakra Translation Group)

Traditional textual sources

Mahayana sutras

• Samdhinirmochana Sutra
• Lankavatara Sutra

Commentaries

• Treatise on the Three Natures
• Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra
• Madhyantavibhaga

See also

• Three Turnings
• Svabhāva
• Abhutaparikalpa

Sources

• Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2007), Middle Beyond Extremes: Maitreya's Madhyantavibhaga with Commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham, Snow Lion Publications 
• Karr, Andy. Contemplating Reality (Boston: Shambala Publications, 2007), Chapter 9
• Keenan, John. Scripture on the Explication of the Underlying Meaning. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000
• Pettit, John Whitney (1999), Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, Wisdom Publications 

Further reading

• Connelly, Ben. Inside Vasubandhu's Yogacara, Wisdom, 2016
• D'Amato, M. "Three Stages: An Interpretation of the Yogacara Trisvabhava-Theory." Journal of Indian Philosophy. (2005) 33:185-207
• Garfield, Jay L. "Vasubandhu's Treatise on the Three Natures" in Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2002
• Karr, Andy. Contemplating Reality (Boston: Shambala Publications, 2007), Chapter 9
• Siderits, Mark. Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction (Hacket: 2012), "Chapter 8: Yogacara"
• Westerhoff, Jan. The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 182-183

External links

• three natures, Rigpa Shedra Wiki
• Three_Natures, Rangjung Yeshe Wiki