Different views of the Buddha-nature and Tathagata-garbha

To what extent are Japanese 'critical Buddhism' thinkers right to see Buddha-nature thought as not being valid Buddhism?

The Tathagata-garbha thinking so important in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism builds mainly on a few texts; the Tathagata-garbha Sutra, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Srimala Devi Sutra, the Instruction on Non-Decrease, Non-Increase Sutra, The Awakening of faith in the Mahayana and the Ratnagotravibhaga. All these writings present, each in their own way, the idea of a matrix, a germ, a potential or an inherently pure quality within sentient beings; the Tathagata-garbha, or the Buddha-nature. Whether or not this Tathagata-garbha is in reality a Self of the kind that the historical Buddha Sakyamuni denied in his teachings has been discussed repeatedly, most recently by the Japanese 'Critical Buddhism' thinkers.

In this essay I will add to the discussion. I will look at some of the traditional texts, and what they say about the Tathagata-garbha, and then present the interpretations of the Tathagata-garbha doctrine by Chih-i and Dogen, and briefly describe the Self-empty / Other-empty debate in Tibet.

Finally I will offer my own interpretation of the Tathagata-garbha texts, and assess whether or not Tathagata-garbha thought can be said to be valid Buddhism.

The main claims made by Critical Buddhism

The writers of 'Critical Buddhism' raises a number of issues regarding what they term 'dhatu-vada' Buddhism, i.e. Buddhist thought based on Tathagata-garbha or 'Hongaku' thinking - the concept that all beings are inherently enlightened. The main claims are that 'dhatu-vada' Buddhism is violating the concepts of Conditioned Arising (the teaching of causation) and Not-Self (the teaching that there is no fixed, eternal Self) and contributing to social injustice by posing an ultimate common ground from where all phenomenons arise.

The traditional texts

The Tathagata-garbha Sutra

The Tathagata-garbha Sutra is a short text that uses eight similes to describe the Tathagata-garbha. These similes shows rather incompatible views; two of them arguing that the Tathagata-garba is in different stages of purity in different people, and the other six that it is not affected by either defilement or purification:

The pit of a mango has the potential to grow into large trees, and the foetus of a great king can grow within the womb of a vile woman - but the seed of the mango is not exactly like the tree, and the king in the womb is not 'perfect' as he is, he needs to grow and mature.

This is not the case with the rest of the similes that all point to intrinsic valuables, in need of nothing further, besides discovering.

The Buddha of the Tathagata-garba Sutra says: Just as I have a tathagata nature, so do all beings. When they develop it and purify it, they quickly attain the highest path"(Grosnick p.98), indicating that the tathagata-garbha is a seed to be nurtured, a latent Buddhahood that needs to be developed and purified. On the other hand, he also says: 'when I regard all beings with my Buddha eye, I see that hidden within the klesas of greed, desire, anger, and stupidity there is seated augustly and unmovingly the tathagata's wisdom, the tathagata's vision, and the tathagata's body.' (Grosnick, p.96), indicating that the Tathagata-garba is eternal, perfect enlightenment, a hidden Buddhahood that doesn't need any developing or purification - it only needs to be discovered.

The Mahaparinirvana sutra

The Buddha presented in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is uncreated, eternal, unchanging, beyond conditioning, deathless, omniscient, and omnipresent, and the producer of all life. The sutra describes not only the Buddha's eternal lifespan, but also how he can bestow such eternal life upon his followers Find the Mahaparinirvana Sutra here http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf)

In chapter 18 of the sutra, the Tathagata is described as a great saviour who, by shining his light on beings, save them from the sufferings of other realms and cause them all to be reborn in the worlds of human and gods. This Tathagata is thus not only himself beyond conditioning, but can also remove karmic seeds from others through his saving grace, and this is done only by proclaiming that all beings possess the Tathagata-garbha.

The Tathagata-garbha is described as the essence or Self of all beings, including both the Buddha and the common mortals. It is immortal, unchanging, and the cause of Buddhahood. It is said in the sutra that; 'The true self of the Buddha Nature is like the diamond which cannot be crushed out.' (http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/books/NirvanaSutra12.html)

The Buddha explains how both the worldly and the world-renouncer has the blissful, the eternal, Self and the pure, because the blissful - Nirvana - arise from suffering, the eternal - the essential body - arise from impermanence, the Self - the Buddha - arise from selflessness, and the pure - the Dharma - arise from impurity ( August 30th 2005, http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf)

Certain parts of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra deals with the concept of Emptiness in ways that is in obvious tension with traditional Buddhist thought. Traditionally, Emptiness describes our phenomenal world as constantly arising and decaying, neither existing in a definitive way, nor not existing. As we experience our world in everyday life we can see that phenomena do indeed have a temporary existence based upon causes and conditions, but also that the experienced phenomena will change as their causes and conditions change - that our world exist through Conditioned Arising, or in other words; the world exist as empty phenomena. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha explains how Kashyapa must not 'state that cessation is the essential nature. The essential nature is without cessation' ( http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf) thus indicating that there is an eternal essence, which is the nature of reality. The Buddha also, in praising Cunda, proclaims that Cunda's name shall be 'established to be a non-empty utterance' (ibid), again pointing to an unchanging and non-empty nature supporting all phenomena. This non-empty nature or essence even seems to be able to impregnate otherwise empty phenomena, like Cunda's name, with this unchanging, non-empty essence.

On the other hand, the Buddha also refers to himself as 'the void'; 'The void does not do anything [...] There is nothing of the kind as going or coming, to be born or die [...] or to be emancipated or to be bound up.' (http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/books/NirvanaSutra18.html). Also, there are parts of the sutra which seem to indicate that the Tathagata-garbha is a seed to be cultivated, a potential to be realized at some point in the future; 'Suppose someone declares that he has already attained the most perfect enlightenment. When asked for the reason, [he replies,] 'it is because [the tathagata teaches that all sentient beings] have the Buddha-nature. [...] Since they still have no vision [of the Buddha-nature] they have not attained the most perfect enlightenment.' (Liu pp. 71-72)

The Srimala Devi Sutra

In the epilogue the Buddha says to keep this discourse as 'Teaching the hidden purport of the meaning of voidness' and as 'Teaching the hidden purport that the mind is intrinsically pure', thus underlining the main message of the sutra; that living beings have an intrinsic purity, the Tathagata-garbha, which is non-empty, unchanging and eternal.

In 'The Buddha Nature', Brown argues (pp. 247-8) that since this sutra describes the Tathagata-garbha as a dynamic collection of qualities based on absolute knowledge, moving towards complete self-awareness as it becomes manifest as the Dharma-kaya (the embodiment of the Buddha Dharma) and also emphasizes the different levels of purity in the Disciples, the Self-Enlightened ones and the perfectly enlightened Buddhas, it is pointing to a gradual purification, a 'self-expressive development from potential to actual Tathagatahood', rather than to an innate enlightenment. I don't find much support for his assertion in the sutra. While it indeed warns about conceiving the Tathagata-garbha as a Self, soul or personality, it still maintains that the Tathagata-garbha is the Dharma-kaya covered by defilements. I think the process described in the Srimala Devi Sutra is a process of uncovering an already pre-existent Buddhahood, rather than a development towards enlightenment.

The Instruction on Non-Decrease, Non-Increase Sutra

The Ratnagotravibhaga

It deals with the Tathagata-garbha sutras, and seems to be leaning more towards the view of the Tathagata-garbha as empty of defilements, but not empty of the 'Buddha natures': 'Empty is the Element of the adventitious properties which are distinct from it. It is not empty of the supreme dharmas, which are properties indistinct from it.' (Conze p.184) and 'Nothing should be taken from it, and nothing added on to it; The Real must be seen in its reality, and one who sees the Truth is emancipated' (Conze p.183).

The Ratnagotravibhaga makes a complete equation of the Tathagata-garbha and the Dharma-kaya, with the only difference between the two being that one is tainted by defilements: '"The Reality mingled with pollution" is a term for 'the Essence, unreleased from the sheath of defilements," i.e., the Embryo of Tathagata. 'The Reality apart from pollution" is a term for the same Essence, when it is characterized as the Perfect Manifestation of Basis in the Stage of Buddha, i.e., the Absolute Body of the Tathagata'(Brown p.55). While considering both the Tathagata-garbha and the Dharma-kaya to be manifestations of one and the same essence, the Tathagata-garbha is also said to be the cause for Buddhist practice (Conze p.181), and the cause for attaining enlightenment: 'Tathagatahood consists in the manifestation of the three bodies of a Buddha. The element of the Tathagata is therefore the cause of their attainment. 'Element" has here the meaning of cause.' (Conze p.217)

However, the Ratnagotravibhaga also support the idea of the Tathagata-garbha as a potential to be matured, developed or nurtured before it will unfold as the Buddha's enlightenment: 'Therefore all animate beings have the germ of Buddha-hood in them' (Conze p.181).

The Awakening of faith in the Mahayana

It does however contain passages that could be interpreted as pointing to the Tathagata-garbha as a positive expression of Emptiness: 'in order to be completely free from erroneous attachments, one should know that both the defiled and the pure states are relative and have no particular marks of their own-being that can be discussed' (ibid).

Lankavatara Sutra

The interpretations

Chih-i

This changing, interdependent nature of all phenomena is exactly the reason why it is possible for all things to express, or actualize, the meritorious qualities of the Tathagata-garbha. Chih-i describes it in terms of the Threefold Buddha-nature; an active process which is a synergy of the way things really are, the wisdom to see this for ourselves, and the practice required to attain this wisdom (Swanson p.172). This is also the reading that Saicho (767-822) incorporated in his Japanese version of T'ien-t'ai; the Tendai-shu.

The dynamic here described does not pose any kind of unchanging essence, and cannot be said to violate either of the concepts of Conditioned Arising or Not-Self.

Dogen

He was aware that people could misunderstand the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha, and interpret it as an immutable Self. In 'Bussh' he makes it very clear that this is not what is meant, that the Tathagata-garbha is nothing like either the traditional Self or a core of spiritual awareness (Waddel & Abe p.63ff). He even explicitly says; 'the Buddha-nature itself is neither enlightenment nor awakening' (Waddel & Abe p.64)

In Dogen's thought, the Tathagata-garbha is not a 'thing' to become manifest, but reality in itself as witnessed by a Buddha; the essence-less and interdependent nature of things, transcending all dualities of 'realizer' and 'the realized', 'enlightened' and 'unenlightened'.

When Dogen reads; Just seeing the causal relation of time and occasion" (Masao, p.65), it is very different from the traditional reading; 'One should contemplate the causal relation of time and occasion". The traditional reading builds on the idea of the Tathagata-garbha as a seed or potentiality to be nurtured, so it, in time, will manifest as the Dharma-kaya, while Dogen's reading rejects all ideas about expectations for some future point of time. To Dogen, the Tathagata-garbha is not a 'thing' or a seed inherent in living beings to be nurtured. There is no reason to expect anything for the future that isn't here right now, since 'right now' IS the Tathagata-garbha, IS the empty flow of all phenomena, and as such perfect. The Tathagata-garbha is not a hidden essence behind reality, but rather reality in itself.

I regard his reading an elaboration on the positive expression of Emptiness, and as such congruent with the teachings of Conditioned Arising and Not-Self.

The Tibetan Gzhan Stong / Rang Stong debate

Hookham, in her article 'The Practical Implications of the Doctrine of Buddha-nature' suggest that the Self-empty view is an attempt to reconcile traditional Mahayana Emptiness-thought with the Tathagata-garbha texts, whereas the Other-empty view builds on a more literal reading of the texts. However, since the texts dealing with the Tathagata-garba are so ambiguous in themselves, this is not necessarily the case.

A statement like; There is a great treasure in their bodies, that is eternal and unchanging" (Grosnick p.99) and a simile from the Ratnagotravibhaga about how gold, 'indestructible by nature", fallen into dirt would stay there, (implying that it will not change or become in any way affected) can either can be taken quite literally (which is what adherents of the Other-empty doctrine would do) or be interpreted as nothing but an expedient means pointing to ultimate emptiness, because the Tathagata-garbha is what makes it possible for us to attain enlightenment - it is our potential to change, it is Emptiness (as the Self-empty proponents would argue).

But there are also statements like 'all animate beings have the germ of Buddha-hood in them", 'In each being there exists in embryonic form the element of the Tathagata" (both from the Ratnagotravibhaga), and Just as I have a Tathagata nature, so do all beings. When they develop it and purify it, they quickly attain the highest path"(Grosnick p.98) which, taken literally, support a Self-empty view.

Both the Gzang Stong and the Rang Stong interpretations still exist today in Tibet, represented by respectively the Jo nang pas, the rNying ma pas and the bKa'brgyud pas on the one side and the dGe lugs pas on the other (Hookham p.151 and Williams p.107).

Conclusion

When emphasizing the positive qualities of Emptiness, the writers of the Tathagata-garbha literature are following the earlier Buddhist tradition. In Anguttara Nikaya I.10 it says: 'This citta is brightly shining, but it is defiled by defilements which arrive' (Buddhist Philosophy, session 24:4); a description of the basic purity of the mind that is covered, to various degrees in different people, by defilements. The Ratnagotravibhaga takes up this language when it says that; 'The innate nature of the mind is brilliant [...] it bears however, the impurity by stains of desires, etc., which are of accident and produced by wrong conception.' (Brown p.108). Also, when it says; 'O Noble Youth, such is the essential nature of the dharma [...] whether the 'Tathagatas" appear in the world, or whether they do not' is reminiscent of the Samyutta Nikaya, S.12:20 where the same thing is said about the principle of Conditioned Arising. I see this as an underlining of how the Ratnagotravibhaga considers itself, and by extension all the Tathagata-garbha texts, as elaborating on, and adhering to, the very same tradition as the earlier texts.

When the Tathagata-garbha Sutra says; 'Whether or not buddhas appear in the world, the Tathagata-garbhas of all beings are eternal and unchanging' (Grosnick, p.96), it relates to Udana 80;' There exists, monks, that sphere [...] that, surely, is without support, non-functioning, objectless - just this is the end of dukkha.' (Buddhist Traditions, session 10:6). Both texts indicate that 'something' (the Tathagata-garbha / Nirvana) exists, beyond time, untouched by change, whether people attain it or not. Both point to an inherently exiting absolute that is permanent and unconditioned. However, in the early suttas the unconditioned, Nirvana, is never said to reside within beings, as the Tathagata-garbha in the later tradition.

In the Theravadin Patisambhidamagga, Nirvana is described as unconditioned, permanent and happy, and at the same time as the ultimate empty thing, thus pointing towards the possibility of permanence and happiness within emptiness (Harvey 2.13-16), an idea the Tathagata-garbha tradition draws heavily upon.

Contemporary Japanese schools

My conclusion is that while there in the history of Tendai-shu certainly have been a period, namely the Medieval time, when the doctrines have been inconsistent with core Buddhist teachings, the foundation, as laid down by first Chih-i and later Saicho is valid, and so is today's interpretation of the Tathagata-garbha.

In the late Heian period distinct Hongaku thinking developed in Tendai-shu as an elaboration on the Lotus Sutra's Ekayana teaching (Stone 1995, 1999). Where the Ekayana teaching described how all beings really follow the same path to perfect enlightenment, whether they are aware of it or not, the Hongaku thought maintained that not merely does all beings have the potential to become enlightened, but they are actually, from the outset, originally and inherently enlightened. There is no doubt that this 'Original Enlightenment' came very close to the Self that is denied so explicitly in the teachings of the Pali Canon, and that the concept of causation was set aside in the complex of thought that evolved from the idea.

That present-day Tendai has abandoned medieval Original Enlightenment thought and returned to the core ideals and doctrines of the founders are evident from contemporary quotes like the following: '[...] Tendai practitioners are investigating the constituents of their own Minds, discovering that our highest potential rests inherent within us as a Jewel Seed, a realizable asset with which to bring about our own Awakening and Realization.' (http://www.tendai-lotus.org/) and 'According to the Tendai view, all men, without exception, possess in their innermost being, the Buddha-nature, and are, therefore, capable of attaining to Nirvana. There are none who are doomed, except by themselves. All that is required is sincere practice.' (http://www.tendai-us.org/TendaiBuddhismforAmericans.pdf)

In the case of Soto Zen-shu I must say that regardless of Dogen's original doctrine, which I don't see as inconsistent with any traditional Buddhist doctrine, the later developments in the school makes Hakamaya's somewhat harsh statement that Zen is 'not Buddhist' (Hubbard & Swanson p.13) understandable, when one keeps in mind the parameters he uses for evaluating Buddhist traditions.

Quotes from Dharma talks given by Soto Zen Masters seem to point to the idea of an inherent, unchanging, perfect Buddha in all existence; 'One of the fundamental teachings in Soto Zen, or the starting point for the Soto teachings, is that we are all Buddha, we are already Buddha.' (http://www.intrex.net/chzg/Pat2.htm) and 'All beings already have the same enlightened nature as the Buddha but we obscure it through believing we are separate and isolated beings.' (http://www.throssel.org.uk/mainarea.htm)

Such statements leads me to believe that today, members of Soto Zen-shu lean towards an interpretation of the Tathagata-garbha as a fully developed, eternal Buddha inherent in all beings rather than an expression of the empty flow of all the phenomena that makes up reality as we know it, and Hakamaya is thus right in pointing out that certain current Soto Zen-shu teachings are inconsistent with some basic concepts of mainstream Buddhism. Whether or not this then makes it 'not Buddhism' depends on the criteria one sets for judging what Buddhism is, and what it is not.

The Tibetan schools

According to the Pali Canon (Harvey p.46), a Self must be permanent, free of suffering, unconstructed, unconditioned, and have self-awareness. Following these criteria, the Tathagata-garbha, as Other-empty, is not easily differentiated from a Self. The Tathagata-garbha is the Dharma-kaya of the Buddha when it is 'not free from the store of defilement' (Williams p.101). The Dharma-kaya of the Buddha is described as permanent, free from death, calm, intrinsically pure and eternal (ibid). It is also said in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra; 'Self" is the meaning of 'Tathagata-garbha"' (Williams pp. 98-99).

The Tathagata-garbha interpreted as Self-empty on the other hand, is different from a Self, since it in this case is merely a description of a potential within all beings; a seed, subject to change through causation, that can be developed into perfect enlightenment, but not any kind of inherent, eternal perfection that only needs to be uncovered. The Self-empty Tathagata-garbha can be seen as a positive expression of Emptiness, itself empty of even Emptiness. Since Emptiness is an expression of Conditioned Arising, I cannot see how this interpretation of the Tathagata-garbha could be said to violate the very concept it points to; Conditioned Arising.

Evaluating the premises of Critical Buddhism

There is really no reason to expect such an unalterable substance of Buddhism. The Buddha himself made it very clear that his teachings, the 'Good Dhamma', would gradually change, be forgotten and eventually disappear (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 16:13), that the admittance of women into the sangha would speed up the process (Anguttara Nikaya.8:51 as quoted in Bhikkhu Nanamoli p.106), and that the Buddha Metteyya would then arise in the world (Walshe, sutta 26).

It also seems peculiar that the Critical Buddhists restrict themselves to the doctrine of Conditioned Arising taught in the Mahavagga, since even the Pali Canon has records of the Buddha teaching Conditioned Arising in a number of ways, from the very general teaching of 'when this exists, that comes to be' in Samyutta Nikaya, nidana samyutta, (Bhikkhu Bodhi, Sutta 41) to the more specific twelve-linked or nine-linked chains of causation in respectively 'The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' (Nanamoli & Bodhi, sutta 38) and 'The Great Discourse on Origination' (Walshe, sutta 15). If the Buddha taught causation in a number of ways, perhaps this could be an indication that it's the principle in itself that is important, rather than the exact formulation?

In regards to the claim that Buddhism based on Tathagata-garbha thinking is problematic because it contributes to social injustice, I'm not at all convinced that social concern is a positively Buddhist value.

Tathagata-garbha thinking has led to two, mutually constructing, social implications. On the one hand, it naturally follows from the knowledge of the presence of a sacred Buddha-nature within each being that all beings should be treated with respect, but on the other hand it also inspired acceptance of social injustices, repression and negligence of e.g. women's rights, because of the values implicit in the concept of 'wa', social harmony, and universal equality.

Sometimes an acceptance of the way things are will lead to a lack of moral action, or at least any sense of urgency in moral action. This is not particular to Tathagata-garbha inspired Buddhism though. Also Mainstream Buddhism have been used to support social injustice, e.g. in Sri Lanka where a common, uneducated view on the very poor or handicapped is that they have brought this upon themselves through unwholesome actions in their past, and that others should avoid helping them because they need to expiate their bad karma on their own.

The Brahmajala Sutta (Walshe, sutta 1) has a 'large section on morality', telling in details what kinds of base arts and wrong livelihood the Buddha refrains from. Among the many elements on the list, we find quite a few distinct features of Japanese Buddhism; divining, making predictions about warfare, the weather, the harvest, the courses of planets and stars, bringing good or bad luck, conducting weddings, engaging in philosophizing or writing poetry.

When Buddhism came to China it was not easily accepted, because the monastic sangha was perceived as a threat to the Confucian social values. The three main objections to the monastic sangha was: monastic life rejected family values, the monk's life was deemed unproductive since he didn't contribute to society in any traditional way, and the sangha's self-government was politically unacceptable and potentially dangerous because monasteries could turn into independent, wealthy refuges for criminals. But Buddhism, and the Buddhist values, made their way into China, and it turned out that the Mahayana ideal of the selfless, caring Bodhisattva supported indigenous Chinese ideas about charity, and together these gave birth to a new range of public welfare activities in a Buddhist setting (Z�rcher (chapter 8) and Heinemann (chapter 9) in Beckert & Gombrich).

In Japanese Buddhism the sangha is involved in welfare work: ...the willingness of religious practitioners to engage in such activities [agriculture, engineering works and political involvement] stands in stark contrast with traditional Indian attitudes and is another important feature of Japanese Buddhism." (Williams p.158). This has been the case right from the introduction of Buddhism into Japan by Prince Sh�toku in the 7th century. The Shitenn�ji temple, dating from Prince Shot�ku's days, shows a collection of four institutions; a Buddhist temple used for worship, training and learning, a sort of pharmacy or centre for collecting and distributing medical herbs, an asylum and a hospital.

The beginning of this trend probably came from China, perhaps starting on a small scale with the Ch'an school's incorporation of manual labour in a monk's daily life - in obvious discrepancy with the traditional Vinaya; monastic code.

Social concerns are, in whatever potentially dysfunctional ways, now an integral part of the Buddhism that is particular to Japan - but does it necessarily follow that we can use the degree of social responsibility a certain doctrine inspires to judge whether or not it is genuinely Buddhist?

My own reading of the Tathagata-garbha texts

So I see the Tathagata-garbha as

1. a positive expression of Emptiness - that which enables all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood and
2. a description of the basic purity of the mind - that which mainstream Buddhism refers to as 'the brightly shining mind'; the wisdom potential in us that will allow us to see the true nature of reality and
3. a teaching pointing to the experience of Nirvana as a form of consciousness that is without support.

Basically I agree with Critical Buddhism that the core of Buddhism is the concept of Conditioned Arising, but I would add 'Nirvana' as a basic teaching. The teaching that constitute the explanation of suffering and its cessation, Conditioned Arising, cannot stand alone - we need to include the teaching of what is realized by the cessation of suffering as well, in order to form a coherent body of beliefs. I believe that the 'ultimate' that is pointed towards in the Tathagata-garbha literature is the same as the 'ultimate' pointed to in the Pali Canon, i.e. Nirvana.

I take the teaching of the Tathagata-garbha as residing within beings as skilful means, an effort to make it easier for us to relate to our overwhelming possibilities by personalizing our potential, giving it name and form. This could also be the rationale behind Sally B. King's argument that the whole Tathagata-garbha tradition could be viewed as a purely soteriological device (King in Hubbard & Swanson p.188). When viewed as a skilful means, the Tathagata-garbha becomes a way to convince practitioners that each and every one of all sentient (and insentient, according to some traditions) beings has the exact same possibility as �akyamuni Buddha; that awakening is a real possibility, not just a remote abstraction, but truly within reach. The teaching of the Tathagata-garbha is thus simply a means to empower people, to inspire them to take responsibility for their own spiritual growth instead of just relying on the monastic sangha to be their field of merit.