Eternalism and Mahayana Buddhism

I'm not sure this is true:

Eternalism (sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) was rejected by the Buddha's original teachings on the Middle Path, as described by Ven. Dhammananda Mahathera's article.

... or maybe it's not complete, i.e. the whole truth.

Because a counter-argument to that might be:

• The "range" of a Buddha, and the existence or non-existence of a Buddha after death, are among the unanswered questions
• The Buddha is associated with the Dhamma
• The Dhamma is said to be akaliko (perhaps like, in the Pali canon, Nibanna is not anicca)

The Buddha's being associated with the Dhamma begins in the Pali suttas, and perhaps it's more explicit in the later trikaya doctrine.

I think it's the Dharmakāya that's viewed as eternal (or timeless) -- and I'm not sure it's wrong to say that, no more wrong than any of the other 6 qualities of the Dhamma.

This (above) may not be an orthodox view, it's just what I understand of it at the moment.

Here's what I have learned since asking this question ...

Some Theravadins accuse Mahayana Buddhism of eternalism or introducing God or Soul into Buddhism, where there is none.

Interestingly, some Hindu scholars have tried to use concepts that seem like eternalism in Mahayana Buddhism, to say that Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism is the same, and therefore, Buddhism is just a sect of Hinduism. In his book "Indian Philosophy: A Critical Survey" on page 63, Professor Chandradhar Sharma wrote about Mahayana Buddhism:

Buddha is here transformed into God and worshipped as such. He is identified with transcendental reality and is said to possess the power of reincarnation. The Buddha is the Absolute Self running through all the so-called individual selves. He is the Noumenon behind all phenomena.

On the other hand, another researcher, Indian Studies Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp wrote in "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" that all Buddhist schools without exception uphold Anatta:

In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta, just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has thought something different from that which since more than 2000 years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their doctrine.

If we look at the Wikipedia articles, we find that all major Mahayana concepts do not contain a Self (the definition of which can be found in Glasenapp's essay). The Wikipedia statements below come with citations.

On the Eternal Buddha:

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra presents the Buddha as eternal, and equates him with the Dharmakaya.

Then if we look at Dharmakāya or "Dharma Body":

First, the dharmakaya is the collection of teachings ... Second, it is the collection of pure dharmas possessed by the Buddha, specifically pure mental dharmas cognizing emptiness. And third, it comes to refer to emptiness itself, the true nature of things.

Next on the Ādi Buddha or First Buddha or Primordial Buddha:

Ādi means “primordial,” not referring to a person but to an innate wisdom that is present in all sentient beings.

On Buddha nature or tathāgatagarbha:

The terms refer to the notion that the luminous mind of the Buddhas is inherently present in every sentient being, and will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, c.q. when the nature of mind is recognised for what it is.

The idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is an innately pure luminous mind (prabhasvara citta), "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)" This luminous mind is being mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

Next if we look at Luminous mind or prabhāsvara-citta:

Luminous mind (also, "brightly shining mind," "brightly shining citta") (Sanskrit prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta, Pali pabhassara citta) is a term attributed to the Buddha in the Nikayas. The mind (Citta) is said to be "luminous" whether or not it is tainted by mental defilements.

The statement is given no direct doctrinal explanation in the Pali discourses, but later Buddhist schools explained it using various concepts developed by them. The Theravada school identifies the "luminous mind" with the bhavanga, a concept first proposed in the Theravada Abhidhamma. The later schools of the Mahayana identify it with both the Mahayana concepts of bodhicitta and tathagatagarbha. The idea is also connected with features of Dzogchen thought.

Based on the above, we can see that although superficially, Mahayana Buddhism seems to promote eternalism, but an in-depth analysis shows that all the grandiose literary extrapolations in Mahayana writings ultimately boil down to the simple concepts of the body of teachings (Dharmakāya), mind without defilements (luminous mind) and the potential for all sentient beings to become enlightened (Buddha nature). All these concepts do not have any eternal Self in them.