East Asian Yogācāra

In Chinese Buddhism, the overall Yogācāra tradition is mostly called Wéishí-zōng (, yusik) which is a translation of the Sanskrit ("cognition only", "mere consciousness"). The consciousness-only view is the central philosophical tenet of the school which states that ontologically there are only vijñāna (consciousness, mental events). Yogācāra may also be referred to as Yújiāxíng Pài (瑜伽行派), a direct translation of the Sanskrit term Yogācāra ("Yogic praxis"). The term Fǎxiàng-zōng ("dharma characteristics", ) was first applied to a branch of Yogacara by the Huayan scholar Chengguan, who used it to characterize the teachings of the school of Xuanzang and the Cheng Wei Shi Lun as provisional, dealing with the characteristics of phenomena or dharmas. As such, this name was an outside term used by critics of the school, which eventually was adopted by Weishi nevertheless. Another lesser known name for the school is Yǒu Zōng ( "School of Existence"). Yin Shun also introduced a threefold classification for Buddhist teachings which designates this school as Xūwàng Wéishí Xì ( "False Imagination Mere Consciousness System"). In opposition to the "Dharma characteristics" view, the term Dharma nature school (Fǎxìng zōng, 法性) is used to refer to a form of Yogācāra which blends Yogācāra with buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha) thought, especially with the doctrines of texts like the Awakening of Faith. This term would include schools like Dilun, Shelun, Chan, and Huayan, who affirm basic Yogācāra principles like mind-only, while also promoting metaphysical views which are not strictly compatible with orthodox Yogācāra. ==Characteristics==

Like the Indian parent, the Yogācāra school, the East Asian Yogācāra tradition teaches that reality is only consciousness, and rejects the existence of mind-independent objects or matter. Instead, Weishi holds that all phenomena (dharmas) arise from the mind. In this tradition, deluded minds distort the ultimate truth and project false appearances of independent subjects and objects (termed the imagined nature). In keeping with Indian Yogācāra tradition, Weishi divides the mind into Eight Consciousnesses and the Four Aspects of Cognition, which produce what we view as reality. The analysis of the eighth, the ālayavijñana, or store-consciousness (阿賴耶識), which is at the root of all experience, is a key feature of all forms of Weishi Buddhism. This root consciousness is also held to be the carrier of all karmic seeds (種子). A distinct teaching of the Yogācāra is that of three kinds of cognitive objects innovated by Xuanzang's 唯識三類境 (Wéishí sān lèi jìng). Another central doctrinal schema for the Yogācāra traditions is the schema of the three natures (三性). The central canonical texts of Weishi Buddhism are the classic Indian sutras associated with Yogācāra, such as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the Ten Stages Sutra, as well as the works associated with Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu, including the Yogācārabhūmi-Śāstra, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Viṃśatikā-vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, and the Xianyang shengjiao lun (顯揚聖教論, T 1602.31.480b-583b). Besides these Indic works, the Cheng Weishi Lun (成唯識論, The Demonstration of Consciousness-only) compiled by Xuanzang is considered the central work of the tradition, which is generally studied alongside the three commentaries of Kuiji, Huizhao, and Zhizhou known as the Three Commentaries on Weishi 唯識三個疏 (Wéishí sān gè shū). There are different sub-sects of the East Asian Yogācāra, including the early schools such as Dilun and Shelun, the school of Xuanzang, and the Korean and Japanese branches of Yogācāra. ==History in mainland Asia==

Translations of Indian Yogācāra texts were first introduced to China in the early fifth century. Among these was Guṇabhadra's translation of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in four fascicles, which would also become important in the early history of Chan Buddhism. Another early set of translations where two texts by Dharmakṣema (Ch: Tan Wuchen 曇無讖; 385–433): the Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra (Pusa di chi jing 菩薩地持經; Stages of the Bodhisattva Path), and the Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa (which contains excerpts from the Yogācārabhūmi). Soon following the first traditions of Chinese Yogacara formed, the Dilun (Daśabhūmika) and Shelun (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) schools which flourished during the Northern and Southern Dynasties to the early Tang before being eclipsed by Xuanzang's new translation school. == Old Translation Schools ==

The earliest Yogacara traditions were the Dilun (Daśabhūmika) and Shelun (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) schools, which were based on Chinese translations of Indian Yogacara treatises. The Dilun and Shelun schools followed traditional Indian Yogacara teachings along with tathāgatagarbha (i.e. buddha-nature) teachings, and as such were really hybrids of Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha. Dilun school The Dilun or Daśabhūmikā school (Sanskrit. , "School of the Treatise on the Bhūmis") was a tradition that derived from the translators Bodhiruci (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支; d. 527) and Ratnamati (Lenamoti 勒那摩提; d.u.). Both translators worked on Vasubandhu's Shidijing lun (十地經論, Sanskrit: or , "Commentary on the Daśabhūmikasūtra"), producing a translation during the Northern Wei. Bodhiruci and Ratnamati ended up disagreeing on how to interpret Yogacara doctrine and thus, this tradition eventually split into northern and southern schools. During the Northern and Southern Dynasties era this was the most popular Yogacara school. The northern school followed the interpretations and teachings of Bodhiruci (6th century CE) while the southern school followed Ratnamati. Ratnamati also translated the Ratnagotravibhāga (究竟一乘寶性論 Taisho no. 1611), an influential buddha-nature treatise. According to Hans-Rudolf Kantor, one of the most important doctrinal differences and points of contention between the southern and northern Dilun schools was "the question of whether the ālaya-consciousness is constituted of both reality and purity, and is identical with the pure mind (Southern Way), or whether it comprises exclusively falsehood, and is a mind of defilements giving rise to the unreal world of sentient beings (Northern Way)." According to Daochong (道寵), a student of Bodhiruci and the main representative of the northern school, the storehouse consciousness is not ultimately real and buddha-nature is something that one acquires only after attaining Buddhahood (that is, the storehouse consciousness ceases and transforms into the buddha-nature). On the other hand, the southern school of Ratnamatiʼs student Huiguang (慧光) held that the storehouse consciousness was real and synonymous with buddha-nature, which is immanent in all sentient beings like a jewel in a trash heap. Other important figures of the southern school were Huiguangʼs disciple Fashang (法上, 495–580), and Fashangʼs disciple Jingying Huiyuan (淨影慧遠, 523–592). This school's doctrine was later passed on to the Huayan school via Zhiyan. An important founding figure of the southern Dilun, Huiguang (468–537) was the leading disciple of Ratnamati, who composed various commentaries, including: Commentary on the Ten Grounds Sutra (十地論疏 (Shidilun shu), Commentary on the Flower Garland Sutra (華嚴經疏 Huayanjing shu), Commentary on the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經疏 Niepanjing shu) and Commentary on the Sutra of Queen Srimala (人王經疏 Renwangjing shu). Shelun school During the sixth century CE, the Indian monk and translator Paramārtha (Zhendi 真諦; 499–569) widely propagated Yogācāra teachings in China. His translations include the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Madhyāntavibhāga-kārikā, the Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, Dignāga's Ālambana-parīkṣā (Wu xiang si chen lun 無相思塵論), the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī (Juedingzang lun 決定藏論; a part of the a Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra). The most distinctive teaching of this school was the doctrine of the "pure consciousness" or "immaculate consciousness" (amalavijñāna, Ch: amoluoshi 阿摩羅識 or wugou shi 無垢識). Paramārtha taught that there was a pure and permanent (nitya) consciousness that is unaffected by suffering or mental afflictions, is not a basis for the defilements (unlike the ālayavijñāna), but rather is a basis for the noble path (āryamārga). Thus, the immaculate consciousness is the purifying counteragent to all the defilements. According to Paramārtha, at the moment of enlightenment, one experiences a "transformation of the basis" (āśrayaparāvṛtti) which leads to the cessation of the storehouse consciousness, leaving only the immaculate consciousness. Some texts attributed to Paramārtha also state that the perfected nature (pariniṣpannasvabhāva) is equivalent to the amalavijñāna. Furthermore, some sources attributed to Paramārtha also identify the immaculate consciousness with the "innate purity of the mind" (prakṛtiprabhāsvaracitta), which links the idea with the doctrine of Buddha nature. == Xuanzang's New Translation school ==

's travel routes throughout the subcontinent By the time of Xuanzang (602–664), Yogācāra teachings had already been propagated widely in China, but there were many conflicting interpretations among the different schools. At the age of 33, Xuanzang made a dangerous journey to India in order to study Buddhism there and to procure Buddhist texts for translation into Chinese. He sought to put an end to the various debates in Chinese consciousness-only Buddhism by obtaining all the key Indian sources and receiving direct instruction from Indian masters. Xuanzang's journey was later the subject of legend and eventually fictionalized as the classic Chinese novel Journey to the West, a major component of East Asian popular culture from Chinese opera to Japanese television (Monkey Magic). Xuanzang spent over ten years in India traveling and studying under various Buddhist masters. These masters included Śīlabhadra, the abbot of the Nālandā Mahāvihāra, who was then 106 years old. Xuanzang was tutored in the Yogācāra teachings by Śīlabhadra for several years at Nālandā. Upon his return from India, Xuanzang brought with him a wagon-load of Buddhist texts, including important Yogācāra works such as the Yogācārabhūmi-śastra. In total, Xuanzang had procured 657 Buddhist texts from India. Upon his return to China, he was given government support and many assistants for the purpose of translating these texts into Chinese. As an important contribution to East Asian Yogācāra, Xuanzang composed the treatise Cheng Weishi Lun, or "Discourse on the Establishment of Consciousness Only." This work is framed around Vasubandhu's Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā ("Thirty Verses on Consciousness Only") but it draws on numerous other sources and Indian commentaries to Vasubandhu's verses to create a doctrinal summa of Indian consciousness only thought. This work was composed at the behest of Xuanzang's disciple Kuiji, and became a central representation of East Asian Yogācāra. Xuanzang also promoted devotional meditative practices toward Maitreya Bodhisattva. Xuanzang's disciple Kuiji wrote a number of important commentaries on the Yogācāra texts and further developed the influence of this doctrine in China, and was recognized as the second ancestor of the school, who closely guarded the teachings of Xuanzang from deviation. His Cheng weishi lun shuji (成唯識 論述記; Taishō no. 1830, vol. 43, 229a-606c) is a particularly important text for the Weishi school. After Kuiji, the second patriarch of the Weishi school was Hui Zhao. According to A.C. Muller "Hui Zhao 惠沼 (650–714), the second patriarch, and Zhi Zhou 智周 (668–723), the third patriarch, wrote commentaries on the Fayuan yulin chang, the Lotus Sūtra, and the Madhyāntavibhāga; they also wrote treatises on Buddhist logic and commentaries on the Cheng weishi lun." Wŏnch'ŭk's school and Korean Yogācāra While the lineage of Kuiji and Hui Zhao was traditionally considered the "orthodox" tradition of Xuanzang's school, there were also other lineages of this tradition which differed in their interpretations from Kuiji's sect. Perhaps the most influential heterodox group was a group of Yogācāra (Korean: Beopsang) scholars from the Korean Silla kingdom, mainly: Wŏnch'ŭk, Tojŭng, and Taehyŏn (大賢). He composed various texts, including Haesimmilgyǔng so (C. Jieshenmi jing shu), an influential commentary to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra which was even translated to Tibetan and is known as the "Great Chinese Commentary" to Tibetans. This work later influenced Tibetan scholars like Tsongkhapa. Wŏnch'ŭk's tradition came to be known as the Ximing tradition (since he resided at Ximingsi monastery), and it was contrasted with Kuiji's tradition, also called the Ci'en tradition after Kuiji's monastery at Da Ci'ensi. His work was influential on later Chinese figures like Fazang. Sinitic schools like Huayan were influenced by the buddha-nature and ekayana (one vehicle) teachings, especially the doctrines of the Awakening of Faith. They were thus connected with the teachings of the Dilun and Shelun schools. The Huayan school sees the Dharma nature as dynamic and responding to conditions (of sentient beings), it also sees the Dharma nature (the buddha-nature, original enlightenment) as the basis and source of samsara and nirvana. After the fourth patriarch, the influence of the school of Xuanzang declined, though it continued to be studied at certain key centers, such as Chang'an, Mt. Wutai, Zhendingfu (now) Shijiazhuang), and Hangzhou. The Weishi (consciousness-only) school survived into the Song and Yuan dynasties, but as a minor school with little influence. Other Yogācāra teachings remained popular in Chinese Buddhism, such as devotion to the bodhisattva Maitreya (who was associated with the tradition and is seen as the founder of Yogācāra). Various later Chinese figures promoted Maitreya devotion as a Pure Land practice and as a way to receive teachings in visions. Hanshan Deqing (1546–1623) was one figure who describes a vision of Maitreya. == Ming Dynasty Yogacara Revival ==

By the Ming dynasty, through the turbulence of Yuan dynasty and its fall, Yogacara studies had entered an unprecedented period of stagnation. Whilst Xuanzang's lineage had long since ceased to be in the Tang dynasty, the texts and commentaries of his disciples were still in circulation until sometime in the Yuan dynasty. But by the time Ming scholars turned their focus to Yogacara, even these commentaries had been lost and Yogacara came to be seen as an extinct discipline. The Revival's Source The only secondary sources available to Ming Buddhists were Yongming's Record of the Source Mirror (宗镜录) and Chengguan's Commentary to the Avatamsaka Sutra, (华严经疏钞) which both extensively cited the commentaries of Xuanzang's disciples, and Yuanfeng's Questions and Answer on Introducing Vijnaptimatra (唯识开蒙问答), an introductory work from the Yuan that cities Kuiji's commentaries. Putai was a successor of what was possibly one of the few Ming lineages that maintained investigation of Yogacara. Earlier sources record that the teacher of his teacher Huijin 慧進 (1355–1436) was a renowned Huayan master, with expertise on Yogacara. Putai's lineage continued to be immensely productive after him not only producing the three "Dragon Elephants", Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清 (1546–1623), Yunqi Zhuhong 雲棲株宏 (1535–1615), and Zibo Zhenke 紫柏真可 (1543–1603), but also other influential masters such as Xuelang Hongen 雪浪洪恩 (1545–1607). Two Generations Later After Putai, another independent source of the Ming, Yogacara studies was Gaoyuan Mingyu 高原明昱 (1544–1633), whose commentary on the Cheng Weishi Lun finished in 1611 marked a turning point in history. Prior to this, scholars were limited to collating texts or commenting on short, introductory works like the Verses on the Eight Consciousnesses and the Hundred Dharmas, but his was the first commentary on the central text of the Chinese Yogacara school, that opened the tide for a wave of new commentaries on the work. Mingyu's lineage continues to this day and is referred to as the Huayan-Yogacara combined lineage, with prominent monks such as Haiyun Jimeng 海云继梦 (1950年1月23日—). Mingyu, like Putai was a Huayan master, but based in Sichuan, from a distinct Huayan lineage to that of Putai whose tradition centred around Beijing. Despite this both scholars share similar mystical stories on the origin of their knowledge of Yogacara. One scholar categorises commentaries on the Cheng Weishi Lun into two periods: 1. Investigatory. 2. Internalisation. Mingyu, Tongru, and Wang represent the first stage citing extensively of surviving Indic and Chinese Yogacara texts to reconstruct an extinct commentarial tradition. Later works, like those by Ouyi, are building on the basis of this reconstructed tradition, and aim not to as accurately reconstruct an ancient tradition, but rather make accessible what was now a well researched discipline. These later commentaries are marked by a significantly reduced number of citations and shorter lengths. These new publications found a new life in Japan, where they became the subject of much interest and debate, currently 16 individual Japanese commentaries on the Yogacara texts of Mingyu and Zhixu, as well as two on the Hundred Dharmas edited by Putai can be identified. Mingyu's commentary on the Verses of the Eight Consciousnesses received the most attention, having eight sub-commentaries written on it alone. These Japanese commentaries were primarily located in Tendai temples, implying that Tendai monks had a great deal of interest on these Ming writings. However, the reception of the Ming dynasty masters was not universally positive. Native Yogacara experts such as Kiben 基辨 (1722–1791) of the Hosso-Shu and Kaidō 快道 (1751–1810) of the Shingon-Shu were extremely critical of Zhixu and Mingyu, describing their commentaries as contributing nothing more than "extra words" onto the base text. The crux of their criticism originates from the Ming author's lack of Tang dynasty sources and so failed to correctly interpret the texts, mis-identified arguments and opponents, and were unable to move beyond the surface meaning. Even these critics were implicitly influenced by the Ming revival as there was a revitalised interest in commenting on Yogacara texts, especially ones that had received minimal attention in the past, such as Dignāga's Alambana-parīkṣā an essential text to the Ming Yogacara scholars. == Modern Revitalisation ==

The 20th century saw a flourishing of Weishi studies in China. Important figures in this revival include Yang Wenhui (1837–1911), Taixu, Liang Shuming, Ouyang Jingwu (1870–1943), Wang Xiaoxu (1875–1948), and Lu Cheng. Weishi studies was also revived among Japanese philosophers like Inoue Enryō. In his 1929 book on the history of Chinese Buddhism, Jiang Weiqiao wrote: Ouyang Jian founded the Chinese Institute of Inner Studies (), which provided education in Yogācāra teachings and the Prajñāparamita sūtras, given to both monastics and laypeople. Many modern Ccommentariesist scholars are second-generation descendants of this school or have been influenced by it indirectly. New Confucian thinkers also participated in the revival of Weishi studies. The work of Xiong Shili was particularly influential in the establishment of what is now called New Confucianism. His A New Treatise on Vijñaptimātra (新唯識論, Xin Weishi Lun) draws on Yogacara and Confucian thought to construct a new philosophical system. ==History in Japan==

Early period The Consciousness-Only teachings were transmitted to Japan as "Hossō-shū" (法相宗, Japanese for "Faxiang School"), and they made considerable impact. There were various key figures who established early Hossō in Japan. One of them was Dōshō 道昭 (629–700), a student of Xuanzang from 653 to 660. Dōshō and his students Gyōki and Dōga followed the "orthodox" texts and teachings of Xuanzang's school and transmitted these to Japan at Gangōji Temple. Other important figures who also studied under Xuanzang were Chitsu and Chitatsu. Together with Dōshō they defended the orthodox interpretations of Kuiji. This tradition was known to follow the teachings of the school of the Korean monk Wŏnch'ŭk in contrast to the "southern temple" tradition of Gangōji. These debates can be found in various later Hossō doctrinal sources, including: by Zen'an, by Ryōsan 良算 (1202–?) and by Gomyō (750–834). The reformed doctrines can be found in key sources like Jō yuishiki ron dōgaku shō (A Collaborative Study of the Treatise on Consciousness-only), Jōkei's Hossōshū shoshin ryakuō and Ryōhen's Kanjin kakumushō (Summation on Contemplating the Mind and Awakening from a Dream). A key element of Jōkei's teachings is the idea that even though the five classes of beings and the one vehicle teaching are relatively true, they are not ultimately so (since all phenomena are ultimately empty, non-dual and "neither the same nor different"). He also affirms that even icchantikas can attain enlightenment, since they will never be abandoned by the Buddhas and their compassionate power (which is not bound by causal laws). Jōkei was among Hōnen's toughest critics. Jōkei is also known for popularizing the devotional aspects of Hossō, and for working to make it accessible to a wider audience. Jōkei promoted devotion to various figures, like Shakyamuni, Kannon, Jizo, and Maitreya, as well as numerous practices, like various nembutsu seeking birth in a pure land, dharani, precepts, liturgy (koshiki), rituals, lectures, worship of relics, etc. His pluralist and eclectic teachings thus offer a contrast to the more exclusive Kamakura schools who focused on one Buddha (Amitabha) or one practice (nembutsu etc.). For Jōkei, difference and diversity matters and people are not all the same (on the relative level), and thus it is not true that one practice or one Buddha is suitable for everyone. However, like the Pure Land schools, Jōkei stressed the importance of relying on the "other power" (of a Buddha or bodhisattva) and of birth in a pure land (Jōkei stressed the pure land of Maitreya), as well as practices that were accessible to less elite practitioners. Jōkei is also a leading figure in the efforts to revive monastic discipline at places like Tōshōdai-ji, Kōfuku-ji and counted other notable monks among his disciples, including Eison, who founded the Shingon Risshu sect. Although a relatively small Hossō sect exists in Japan to this day, its influence diminished due to competition from newer Japanese Buddhist schools like Zen and Pure Land. During the Meiji period, as tourism became more common, the Hossō sect was the owner of several famous temples, notably Hōryū-ji and Kiyomizu-dera. However, as the Hossō sect had ceased Buddhist study centuries prior, the head priests were not content with giving part of their tourism income to the sect's organization. Following the end of World War II, the owners of these popular temples broke away from the Hossō sect, in 1950 and 1965, respectively. The sect still maintains Kōfuku-ji and Yakushi-ji. ==Notes==