The Defeat of Vij~naaptimatrataa In China:
Fa-Tsang On Fa-Hsing And Fa-Hsiang
Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Copyright @ 1986 by Dialogue Publishing Company, Honolulu,
The major Yogaachaara school in China was the one introduced
by the pilgrim Hsuan-tsang(a) (ca596-664) from Nalanda to
Ch'ang-an in 645. Being based on his translation of
Dharmapaala's Vijnaaptimaatrataa-siddhi (Ch'eng wei-shih
lun)(b)(1). It was developed into the Wei-shih (Consciousness
Only) school by his student, Kuei-ch'i(c) (632-682), who
wrote the two major works of Fa-yuan-i-lin-chang(d)(2) and the
Although "Wei-shih" should be the title the practitioners
choose to call itself, traditionally the school came down to
us as the Fa-hsiang(f) (Dharma-characteristics) school.(4)
The name "Fa-hsiang" was, however, attributed it by its
critics; it is a derogative term alleging that the school did
not know thoroughly the deeper Fa-hsing(g) (Dharma-essence).
The contrast was intended to bring out the "Hinayaanist
phenomenalism" (sic) inherent in the Wei-shih school(5) and
to highlight the "Mahaayaana essentialism" of its critic. As
recalled by Sung T'ien-t'ai(h) master, Ssu-ming Chih-li
(959-1028)(i), the distinction rose at the time of Fa-tsang's
(643-712)(j) attack on the Weishih school:
At the time [of Hua-yen(k) (Avatamsaka) patriarch,
Fatsang,] there was widely held the theory of chen-ju
sui-yuan (1) (Suchnessor tathataa accompanying the
conditions [the pratyaya that brought phenomenal samsaara
into being])and the theory of a (passive)Suchness that
would not create ('letrise') the various
existents(dharmas). From that is derived the distinction
between a hsing-tsung (m)([Dharmaessence school) and a
hsiang-tsung (n)([Dharma] characteristic school). This
distinction was made by Fa-tsang and was unknown to our
[T'ien-t'ai] master Chih-i.(o)(6)
Our task below is to explicate and make sense of this
Chih-li underscored two points: (i) that, for some
reasons, the hsing-hsiang distinction came into being only at
the time of Fa-tsang, and (ii)that, for some reasons, the
distinction was unknown to-and was unnecessary at the time
of-Chih-i (531-597) in Sui. Concerning how Fa-tsang,
representing the "Dharmataa" tradition, defeated the
"Dharma-lak.sa.na" one, we have the testimony in the section
on "mind and consciousness" in his Wu-chiao-chang(p)where he
exposed the inferiority of the Wei-shih school. This section
is translated below. As to the more difficult question of why
there was no "essence vs. phenomena" distinction in Chih-i
and why that distinction became historically necessary at the
time of Fa-tsang, we will sketch a general outline after
analyzing the first point.
What divided Hua-yen and Wei-shih, the two contending
schools, is the issue whether chen-ju or suchness (tathataa,
a synonym of fa-hsing or dharmataa)is active or passive.
The Hua-yen school has a theory of a "dynamic suchness"
wherein the dharma-essence would actively participate in
the creation of and become fully fused to the phenomenal
dharma-characteristics. Against this, the Wei-shih school
held to insisting that universal dharmataa cannot be confused
with the particularism of dharma-characteristics. In the
controversy, this issue boils down to two metaphors. The
Wei-shih school resorts to the "house and the ground"
analogy;the Hua-yen school to the "water and wave" analogy.
These are introduced briefly below.
The Wei-shih school understood dharmataa or the nature
(the"-ness")of reality according to its classic, etymological
root: dharma is "that which supports" ─ like the ground
supporting the house. All particular phenomena, such as
houses and trees, are distinquished by their particular
characteristics. Those laksanas that went into making
apparent a thing called a "house" are distinct rom those that
contributed to the appearance of a "tree." Both house and
tree, in their essence (svabhaava,self-nature), are empty.
That emptiness (sunnyataa) constitutes the universal
dharmataa. In this logical schema, there is a necessary
discontinuity between phenomena and essence─the ground
supports but is not the same as the house (or the house the
same as the tree).
Fa-tsang opposed this with the "water and wave" metaphor
provided by the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun(q) (Awakening of
Faith in Mahaayaana). Here dharmataa, as the ocean water, is
churned up into the phenomenal beings:
that is, the rising and falling of the waves churned up by
the wind of ignorance. It makes sense, in this metaphor, to
speak of nirvanic suchness participating in the creation of
the samsaric waves ─ and, in such a way, that the latter
(whether it takes the form of a "house" or a "tree")is in
essence (in"wetness")no different from the original body of
water (orfrom one another). This subscribes to a fluidity
between essence and phenomena:
The critique against the Wei-shih (alias Fa-hsiang) school is
that it does not know of this participation of essence in
phenomena. We will see the more specific charges and the
proofs offered for it in the piece below.
HUA-YEN I-CH'ENG CHIAO-I FENG-CH'I CHANG(r)(7)
Second Fascicle: On The Principle Differences
In the Philosophical Bases [the Various Schools](8)
Topic One: Differences in (the Conceptions on)
Mind and Consciousness(9)
In the Hinayaana teaching, there are enumerated only six
consciousnesses.(10) [Of these, the mind] is divided,
according to its functions, into hsin, i,shih(s) (citta,
manas, vij~naana). So says a Hinayaana 'saastra.(11) It knows
na, but only by name, as the Ekottara AAgama has it.(12)
If we follow the Elementary Teaching [of Mahaayaana, i.e.
Yogaacaara], (13) there is an understanding of the
aalayavij~naana [superior to Hinayaana in that it has
dissociated this consciousness from the manas](14) that is
[still] biased in that it recognizes only that aspect of [the
one mind which pertains to] birth and death (samsaara). It
fails as yet in acknowledgeing fully [that other aspect of
the one mind that is one with] the true principle, chen-li(t)
[i.e. of suchness, tathataa].(15) Therefore it considers
[suchness] to be quiescent(16) and as not productive of
(ch'i:(u) giving rise to] the various dharmas. That is to
say, it establishes (the nature of) the aalayavij~naana with
reference to the samsaric aspect [alone], seeing its
substance as being generated out of the different natures o
the karmic bijas and other [i.e. the nominal] bijas
(seeds).(17) The delayed germination of the seeds [ripening
at a time other than when they were first planted] producer
the consciousness [stream] on which the myriad dharmas
(phenomenal realities) rely.(18)
Only through the [slow] exercise of skillful means would
(this mind) advance toward the true principle. For this
reason, (this school) considers the perfumations (vaasanaa) et
cetera as ultimately not real (empty) [not endowed with true
suchness]. Thus the Samdhinirmocana suutra says:
If the bodhisattva no longer bear witness to, both within
and without, (the activities) of the store-base, seeing
no more the perfumations or the aalayavij~naana itself
[as object] or the aalayavij~naana itself [as subject],
and if he sees withing of the aadaanavij~naana [as
object] nor the adanavijnana [as subject],(thereupon)
knowing all dharmas such as they are, then he is called
the bodhisattva [skillful in means]. By this, the
Tathaagata establishes the doctrine of hsin, i, shih
(citta, manas, vij~naana) as the secret teaching of
This teaching we find also in the Yogaacara school.(19)
Explanation: Since this school (Wei-shih) establishes its
doctrine of mind (hsin, i, shih et cetera), on the basis of
this non-perception [of the psychic elements et cetera), this
(teaching) constitutes only [an unreal] expediency [i.e. not
dwelling on the real].(20) That is why (the doctrine of) the
samsaric forms of the aalayavij~naana et cetera are being
offered as the
secret teaching.(21) (The instructed) is not to take the
verbal discussion ("speech and names") as real, but rather,
he should, by understanding [the innate emptiness of the
components], revert to the true (kuei-chen).(v)
However if we follow the Final Teaching (of Mahaayaana),
then this [same] aalayavij~naana [read in light of this
teaching] would have realized the twofold meaning of [the one
mind as suchness and as birth-and-death, in] perfect fusion
of principle and fact (noumena and phenomena; li shih t'ung
yung).(w22) Therefore, the [Awakening of Faith in Mahayana]
'saastra (repre- senting this final teaching) says:
The aalayavij~naana is that in which that which is
"beyond birth and death" (i.e. nirvaana) fuses with
"birth and death" (samsaara) so harmoniously that they
are neither the same nor different.(23)
Because this view allows suchness (tathataa) [as the water,
not to stay quiescent, but] following the perfumation [by the
wind of ignorance, avidyaa], to become fused [with the wave,
i.e. the phenomenal forms of birth and death], this
understanding of the core consciousness is different from the
previous [Yogaacaara] one [which sees only a samsaric
consciousness rooted inp the karmic and [nominal] seeds
arising [in delayed germination].
[ In contrast to the Yogacara position, ] the Leng-chia
ching (x) (Lanka-vataara suutra) has said,
The [pure] tathaagatagarbha, womb of the Buddha, when
tainted by beginningless, unwholesome habituations, is
(then) known as the storehouse consciousness, aalayavij~n-
Elsewhere, it also says;
The tathaagatagarbha suffers pain and pleasure, [only
when] accompanying those [samsaric] causes, it seems to
undergo (likewise) birth and death.(25)
It also says:
The tathaagatagarbha is called the aalayavij~naana and
the seven consciousnesses of ignorance.(26)
And the A wakening of Faith says:
The innately pure mind becomes the polluted mind, (only)
as it was aroused by the wind of ignorance.(27)
And so on. We have more than one (scripture) stating this point.
Question: But if suchness is already said to be a
permanent dharma, how can it is said to have followed the
conditions (sui-yuan) (as) [of ignorance] to become
involved in birth and death? If it is said to have done
so, how can it still be said to be quiescent and changeless?
Answer: Suchness, said to be "permanent, " has a
permanence different from (ournormal idea)of permanence. Why
is this so? It is because when the Sage said that it is
quiescent, [he is referring to] its never once losing its
essence, even as (suchness)accompanies the condition [of
ignorance] to bring about the various (phenomenal) dharmas. In
that sense, it was said to be permanent. This is "permanence
that is not different from impermanence" or "inconceivable
permanence." It is never saying that suchness cannot give
rise to the various dharmas, as (vulgar)sentiments might
predispose some to take "quiescence" (to mean).
Therefore the 'Sriimaalaadevi (sinhanaanda) suutra notes[
how the tathaagatagarbha is paradoxically polluted and
unpolluted].(28)[The statement that] "(it is)unpolluted yet
polluted" refers to how [the one mind, which, being pure,]
nevertheless [allows itself] to accompany the condition that
gives rise to the various dharmas. [The statement that] "(it
is)polluted and yet unpolluted" refers to how, [even though a
partner to change, the mind in fact] never once loses its
essence. Because (itcan be so polluted), the mundane truth
(samv.rti-satya) is established; because (itstays unpolluted),
the highest truth (paramaartha)
is reaffirmed. Thus although the mundane and the highest
truths refer to two meaning (complexes), they do not
pertain to two (different) realities. (Rather, the two)
are totally harmonized, [wherein fact and principle] no
longer obstruct, free from all sentient attachments (to
contrary views). Thus the [Samgraha] 'saastra says: "The
hindrance due to the lack of the proper insight is dark
and blind indeed."(29) That is describing well [the deep
folly of those who] cling on to [the idea of] different
substances for the two truths.
Concerning the two aspects of suchness [as permanent and as
changeable], the aforesaid Elementary (Mahaayaana) Teaching
knows only that aspect of [suchness that is] quiescent. This
is because it follows the practice of only differentiating
the dharma-characteristics (fa-hsiang) . But the Final
Teaching, by following the insight into the [necessary]
fusion of hsing and hsiang (dharma-essence and -form), speak
now of the nondual nature of the two aspects. This, generally
speaking, is the import of the Awakening of Faith.
The Shih-ti ching(y) (Da'sabhumika suutra) has likewise
said,"The three realms are false, being only the doing of the
one mind."(30) [Apropos that,] the Sa.mgraha following the
Elementary Teaching, has taken that (mind) to mean the
alayavij~naana. (On the other hand,) the Ti-lun (Da'sabhuumika
'saastra), following the Final Teaching, has understood it to
be referring to the paramaartha true mind (ti-i-i chen-hsin) .
(z) Or, over a gaatha in the Abhidharma (Mahaayaana) suutra,
The Element is without a beginning in time,
It is the common foundation of all dharmas.
Because it exists therefore there all exist
All places of rebirth and the full attainment of Nirvaana.(31)
the Sa.mgraha has taken the "element" (dhaatu) to describe
"cause" and to mean the "seed consciousness" and so on.(32)
But the Pao-shing-lun(aa) (Ratngagotra vibhaaga) , (33)
faithful to the Final Teaching, took it to be the tathaagatagarbha.
(34) These (different readings) are behind the difference in
opinions.[The ambivalence we see] in the `Sriimaala suutra
Reliant on the tathaagatagarbha,
there is birth and death;
reliant on the tathaagatagarbha,
there is nirvaana. (35)
And other general statement to the same effect. From such, we
should indeed recognize the differences in the two teachings
[the Elementary and the Final Mahaayaana].
If we follow the Sudden Teaching, then all myriad dharmas
are nothing but the one suchness mind. This (mind)is beyond
differentiations, beyond words and beyond thought. It cannot
be spoken of. This is the nondual Dharma taught by the
thirty-two bodhisattvas in the Vimalakiirti nirde'sa. It is
the same as the perfect harmony and nonduality of the
unpolluted and the polluted recognized by the Final Teaching
mentioned earlier. The nondual Dharma that Vimalakiirti
revealed by his silence pertains to this (Sudden)Teaching.
[The difference from the Final Teaching] is that, since it
denies all forms of pollution and purity (fromthe start), one
cannot even postulate two realities that are to be then
harmonized. (Forthat reason,)even the "two" [in the "not
two"] is not admissible as a datum (inthis schoo1).(36)
If we follow the Perfect Teaching, then (werealize further
that) the ocean of essence (hsing hai) (ab) (37) is perfect and
all-illuminating; and that (byvirtue of the nature of)
Dharmadhaatu Causation (fa-chiehyuan-ch'i),(ac)(38) nothing
can ever obstruct anything else. Everything is as it should
be [i.e. perfect such-as-is]. The one is the all; the all is
the one. Master and client fuse perfectly. Therefore it
speaks of "ten minds"(39)to manifest the infinite. This we
find discussed in the Lokoottara (Transcendingthe World)
chapter[ in the Avata.msaka suutra],(40)or in the ninth
bodhisattva stage [in the Daasabhuumika].(41)There is nothing
but the one Dharmadhaatu in [continual self-willed]
essence-arousal(hsing-ch'1) , (ad)with the [suchness] mind
being replete [willed] essence-arousal (hsing-ch'i),((from the
start)with all ten (perfect)virtues, as described in the
(Ju-lai, (aw) Buddha) "Essence-arousal"
(Tathaagatatpattisambhava) chapter [of the same suutra].(42)
The above [delineation of the Five Teachings on how they
differ] is based on the differentiating teaching. But if one
follows the unifying teaching,(43) then there is away to
subsume all the previous listed doctrines of
mind and consciousness (under one rubic). Why should (the one
teaching with so many manifestations) be so? It is in order
that upaya be realized. From that flow all (the teachings).
And we can grade it accordingly.
Question: How is it that, based on the one mind,
there are nevertheless all these different teachings?
Answer: There are two aspects to this. By recourse to
the (one) Dharma, all teachings may be penetrated and
subsumed. With reference to the recipients' capacity, all
teachings can be divided and reunited.
Concerning the former, the meaning is profound
indeed. By just the one mind, the five meanings are
replete. The Sage made use of this one teaching to
instruct all sentient beings.
[Of the five teachings subsumed under the one gate:]
(1) The first is to comprehend the meaning following the
names; this is the Hinayaana teaching.
(2) The second is to comprehend the principle following
the facts; this is the Elementary Teaching (of
(3) The third is to realize that neither principle nor
fact obstructs one another;this is the Final
(4) The fourth is to exhaust all facts to manifest the
principle; this is the Sudden Teaching.
(5) The fifth is the way of the essence-sea replete with
all the virtues;this is the Perfect Teaching.
In this way, one may, without disturbing the origin,
be informed of all the subsequents; likewise, too,
one may, without harming the end-results, abide
forever with the basis. Thus are the five meanings
harmonious, the consequence of the transformations of
the one mind.
[Concerning the second of the two aspects,] this
other way is to differentiate the teachings according
to the capacity of the recipient, [according to
which, the five are now:]
(1) There are those who gain the name but not the
meaning; this is the Hinayaana teaching.
(2) There are those who gain the name and a part of the
meaning; this is the Elementary Teaching.
(3) There are those who gain the name and the full
(3) There are those who gain the name and the full
meaning; this is the Final Teaching.
(4) There are those who, gaining the meaning, are able to
forsake the names; this is the Sudden Teaching.
(5) There are also those who realize that both names and
meanings are infinite; this is the Perfect Teaching.
As to the rest [of the ten-school classification],it is
is as the chapter on "Consciousness Only" [in the
(End of Section on Mind and Consciousness)
The "Five Teachings" that the above discussion assumes
and which lies at the heart of the Wu-chiao-chang itself is
one constructed by Fa-tsang. They are,from top down:
(1) The Perfect Teaching of Hua-yen
(2) The Sudden Teaching of the Vimalakiiti-nirde'sa(45)
(3) The Final Teaching of the Tathaagatagarbha Tradition
(4) The Elementary Teaching of Emptiness
(a) the Maadhyamika schoo
(b) the Yogaacaara school
(5) The Hinayaana Teaching
Elsewhere, Fa-tsang used a Ten Schools scheme. In that case,
he was taking over a "seven schools" scheme from Kuei-ch'i
(1) Vastiputriya: self and objects real
(2) Sarvastivaada: no self but dharmas of the three times real
(3) Mahaasanghika: no past nor future but only present dharmas are real
(4) Praj~naaptivaada: only some of those present dharmas are real
(5) Lokottaravaada: no mundane but only supramundane dharmas are real
(6) Ekottiya: all dharmas, mundane or transmundane, are unreal
(7) Maadhyamika: universal emptiness
(8) The school faithful to the principle: the Hua-yen and Lotus
suutras and the Wei-shih philosophy of Asanga and Vasubandhu
To construct a full ten-school scheme, Fa-tsang then aligned
(1) to (6) withHinayana, reserving Yogaacaara and Maadhyamika
as (7), the asuunyavaada of the tathaagatagarbha tradition as
(8), theViimaalaakiirti as (9)andthe Avatamsaka as (10).
Eight Schools Ten Schools Five Teachings
(1)-(6) (1)-(6) Hinayana Hinayana
(7) Maadhyamika (7) a. Yogaaacaar Elementary
b. Maadhyamika Mahaayaana
(8) Yogaaacaara (8) Tathagataa- Final
(Lotus) garbha Mahaayaana
(9) Viimaalaakiirti Sudden
(Avatamsaka) (10) Avatamsaka Perfect
In this chapter on mind and consciousness, Fa-tsang dealt the
blow that would henceforth relegate Wei-shih to being no more
than an elementary teaching. He did so by tracing the
changing concepts of the mind. Hinayaana has no idea of an
eighth consciousness; Yogaaacaara has but unfortunately limits
it to being a phenomenal consciousness, ultimately empty or
false; only beginning with the final Mahaayaana teaching of
the not-empty tathaagatagarbha is the critical turn taken to
realizing that this core-consciousness is firmly rooted in
and fused to the suchness mind. Instead of the hsing-hsiang
discontinuity of the "ground and house," the Awakening of
Faith provided the higher continuity of the pair as "water
and wave." The nondual Vimalakirti would not even consider
any a priori pair; and the Avatasmaka finally crowned it by
realizing the perfect, endless, interfusion of parts and
whole and of parts and parts.
The categorization of the five teachings thus serves to
demote Wei-shih for being biased and tired to the analysis of
fa-hsiang, and to promote the
higher interpenetration of essence and phenomena or fa-hsing
(suchness) and fa-hsiang (characteristics) in the Awakening
of Faith. As a presupposition behind it there is a distinction
between "timeless essence" and "mutable phenomena."
Essence (hsing) Phenomena (hsiang)
Mind (suchness mind) Consciousness (aalayavij.)
tied to true principle tied to mere expediency
and to Dharmataa and to Dharma-lak.sa.na
Although Fa-tsang ultimately did not subscribe to their being
two-in fact, he accused Fa-hsiang precisely for such a
perverted idea and associated the higher teachings with their
fusion-still the question is: why did he make this
distinction in the first place? Did not Buddhism preclude,
ever since it denied the existence of the self (aatman), any
consideration of essentialism?
If we look over Kuei-ch'i's classification of the eight
schools, then we see indeed how his sequence of teachings,
ending in Asanga and Vasubandhu, stays faithfully within the
phenomenalism of anaatmavaada, through 'suunyavaada, to
vij~naaptimaatrataa. But that, challenged Fa-tsang, is
precisely the point of its failure: how does it account for
the "not-empty" Buddha- nature of the Tathaagatagarbha corpus
that postulated rather clearly a permanent mahaatman? It is
here that Fa-tsang discovered the ju-lai-tsang tsung(af) or a
Tathaagatagarbha school as a discrete entity in India that no
one before him noticed as a distinct alternative. We are
still indebted to Fa-tsang for uncovering this third
tradition in that sense.
But there are two points at stake here. One can accept
the one without necessarily accepting, the other as a
dogmatic truth. One can recognize the existence of a
Tathagata corpus without thereby adhering to Fa-tsang's
further characterization of it and its opponent as "a
hsing-tsung versus a hsiang-tsung." Tibetan tradition does
not use that mode of evaluation.(46) One can accept the
"incomprehensible permanence" of the tathaagatagarbha and its
a'sunya (not empty) status without casting them into the
formula of chen-ju sui-yuan pu-pien,(ag) a dynamic suchness
generating phenomenal becoming out of its changeless being.
That added interpretation, which the
Tibetan did not have,(47) is provided by Fa-tsang.
The distinction between hsing-tsung and hsiang-tsung was,
however, unknown to Chih-i in Sui, even though Chih-i knew
and approved of the Buddha-nature doctrine. The proof that
the T'ien-t'ai school avoided that dichotomization lies in
(a) its staying within the bounds of Maadhyamika, and (b) its
being characterized traditionally as the Shih-hsiang school.
Essentially, Chih-i adhered to the dictum that "the various
dharmas are none other than pratiitya-samutpaada; are of
'sunyataa; and are of the middle way."
Essence of Conditioned
Reality = Arisen etc.
Though admitting the permanence of the Dharmakaaya and the
Buddha-nature, Chih-i still kept the dialectical tension alive
so that what constitutes the unchanging is but the principle
of change; and the principle is the whole and not some essense
substratum aside from the phenomenal.
Thus the T'ien-t'ai school is never a (fa) hsing school,
but always the shih-hsiang(ah) ("real form") school.
Shih-hsiang is short for Kumaarajiiva's oft-used rendition
for dharmataa (dharma essence) or equivalent as "chu-fa
shih-hsiang," the real characteristics (hsiang) of the myriad
realities. (The "real" [shih](ai) is the one dharma-mark [
i-fa-yin] (aj) of the empty, the provisional and the middle.)
The expression therefore covers what in Fa-tsang would be
hsing and hsiang.
As Dharmataa,hsing As Laksana,hsiong
This is the reason why Chih-li in Sung could look back and
say that the hsin-ghsiang distinction was unknown to Chih-i.
What necessitated Fa-tsang's bifurcation of essence and
phenomena and then his resynthesis of the pair in a dynamic
Dharmadhatu causation was the challenge of the Yogaaacaara
philosophy that came in the period in between. The Wei-shih
school was emphasizing some new "core being"──the
aalayavijaana (storehouse consciousness) ──from which all
phenomenal realities supposedly rose. That transformed the
previous "horizontal equation" into a "vertical series":
Manifested Phenomena ︿ Phenomenal = hsiang
or Samsaara: │ Realities
───────── │ ─────
Base Consciousness │ Some basic = hsing
or Alayavij~naana Essence
It was in response to this Yogaaacaara challenge that Fa-tsang
mapped the hsing-hsiang distinction. So just as T'ien-t'ai
may be said to represent sinicized Maadhyamika, Hua-yen would
be sinicized Yogaaacaara. Relying on the doctrine of the one
mind as the suchness mind (citta tathataa), Fa-tsang
disassociated his understanding of mind as Wei-hsin from the
inferior phenomenal consciousness he saw in Wei-shih. He also
contrasted the latter's passive suchness with his own
endorsement of a dynamic suchness.
Fa-tsang succeeded in his campaign. Wei-shih came down in
history as the Fa-hsiang school that missed the fuller import
of the suchness hsing (essence). The hsing versus hsiang
distinction stuck. Even as Chih-li fought against the
encroachment of Hua-yen-esque dynamic causationism into
ortho- dox T'ien-t'ai shih-hsiang dialectics, he was not
totally successful. He, how- ever, left that problem of
harmonizing the two traditions-hsing hsiang yung ho(ak)-to
the syncretic Ming-Ch'ing Buddhist masters to come.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
1. T.31, no.1585. Translated in French by L. de la Vallee
Poussin, La Siddhi du Hiuen-tsang in 2 vol. (Paris: 1928).
2. T.45, no.1861.
3. T.43, no.1830. His fellow student Dosho (620-700)
introduced it to Japan. Headquartered at Nara's Gangoji,
Hosso claimed Gyogi (667-718) as its first disciple.
4. Hosso in Japanese. Takakusu Junjiro re-rendered that back
into Sanskrit as Dharma-laksana, even though Yogaaacaara
was never so designated in India or in Tibet. See his The
Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy (Honolulu: University
of Hawaii, 1947) p. 85. Mochizuki Shinko's Bukkyo
daijiten also goes by this name; it even cited texts to
show how the term might be derived (pp. 4625C-46268B).
Though the school indeed exemplified an abhidharmic
interest in analyzing dharma-characteristics, i.e. hsing-
hsiang-hsueh, I have not coma across Kuei-ch'i ever calling
his school the Fa-hsiang school.
5. The Wei-shih school war indeed so considered as
"quasi-Mahayana" or "pro-Hinayaana"; see Takakusu's modern
rationalization of this judgment Ibid. pp. 82, 93-94.
"Hinayaana" is being used as a blanket term depreciating
the opponent's position. No one in Indian Buddhism would
consider Yogaacaara Hina-yanist.
7. "Treatise Distinguishing and Harmonizing the Import of
the Teachings in [the Spirit of] the Ekayaana of the
Avata.msaka," otherwise known as the Wu-chiao chang
("Treatise on the Five Teachihgs"), the most systematic
review of the Buddhist tradition and probably the major
philosophical summa by Fa-tsang, written however at a
relatively early date (probably before 684).
8. The first of ten topics. The second one is on
Buddha-nature; a draft of that section has been
completed. This section is not translated in the first
English study of this text by Francis H. Cook in his
"Fa-tsang's Treatise on the Five Doctrines: An Annotated
Translation" (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, 1970), though the pioneering effort
is much appreciated; see Cook's Hua-yen Buddhism: The
Jewel Net of Indra (University Park: Pennsylvania State
University, 1977) for his interpretation of this school.
9. In T.45, pp.484c-485b.
I am following closely the annotated study of Yusuki
Ryuei, (al) Kegon gokyosho kogi(am) (Kyoto: Ryukoku
university, 1927; reissued by Hakke'en, 1975) , pp.
10. The five senses (consciousnesses) and the mind, manas.
11. The Abhidharma-kosa says, "That which arouses karma is
called citta; the which thinks is called manas; that
which discerns, and differentiates is called vij~naana"
(T. 29, p. 12); cannot be found); as cited by Yusuki, (p.
228.) The three terms in
Sanskrit are often interchangeable.
12. This attribution, made by the Mnhaayaana samgraha and the
Vij~naaptimaatrataa siddhi, is not confirmed by the
13. On this and other subcategories of Mahaayaana, see brief
explanation in the concluding portions of this essay.
14. Positing this eighth consciousness above and beyond the
15. The formula is from the Awakening of Faith: "The one mind
has two aspecfs: the aspect of suchness ... and the
aspect of birth and death." See Yoshito Hakeda trans.,
Awakening of Faith (New York: Columbia University, 1967),
16. See the "house and ground" metaphor supra.
17. Yushiki, pp. 230-231; the bija theory went back to
Sautranika. The karmic seeds are stronger, being the
result of perfumation by actual deeds; the nominal seeds
are weaker, being the result of trusting the nominal
18. See Yusuki,p.231.
19. The Paramaartha-translated She-lun(an) (Sa.mgraha), in
its first fascicle, cites the Hsin-chieh mi ching(ao)
(Samdhinir.mocana): "If the bodhisattva, within (the six
senses or consciousnesses) and without (in the six fields
of consciousness), seeing nothing of what is perfumated
by the eight consciousnesses and nothing of the seven
evolved consciousnesses that so perfumate; if he can see
nothing of (the twofold nature-the object and the
seeing─of the grasped aspect of) the aalayavij~naana, or
of (the self-knowing aspect of the grasping aspect of)
the aalayavij~naana; if he can see nothing of (the
grasped aspect of) the adaanavij~naana nor of (the
grasping aspect on the adaanavij~naana; and if he, while
seeing nothing, realizes them all as selfsame and
formless, and that being so they are all empty,─he is
then called the bodhisattva, skillful in means. It is
only to the extent that the Tathagata himself realizes
the provisional reality of all phenomena that he may set
up, as the secret expediency, all the teachings
concerning citta. manas, mamo-vij~naana. " Yusuhi,p.232.
20. Since Chih-i of the T'ien-t'ai school established the
contrast between the falsehood of expediency (applied to
his analysis of the Triyaana) and the reality of the one
vehicle (i-ch'eng chen-shih) (ap), what is "expedient"
(in the Elementary Teaching here) is taken to be falling
short of realizing the true suchness (chen-ju).
21. Hua-yen trusted that the exoteric teaching
(hsien-chiao)(aq) is superior to the esoteric; here the
target might be to the title of the Sa.mdhinirmocana and
its claim to a teaching about the odaana-vijn~naana
(egoclinging consciousness), hitherto hidden from view.
22. Li ("principle", a native synonym to Tao, signifying what
is universal) and shih ("fact", or "the particular") are
preferred vocabularies of Hua-yen.
23. My translation; see another rendition in Hakeda trans.,
Awakening of Faith, p.36.
24. A gloss of a passage in the fourth fascicle in the
four-fascicle Chinese translation of this suutra by
Gunabhadra (T.16, p.510C) gives the following information:
"The tathaagatagarbha has been perfumated by beginningless,
unwholesome habituations (klesa, defilments) -that is to
say, by the fundamental ignorance (ken-pen wu-ming)(ar),
or the failure in recognizing suchness as suchness and
the absolute as the absolute─being so aroused, it is
(now) the aalayavij~naana."
25. This is a free paraphrase from Ibid. (T.16, p. 512)(ab).
The notation that it "seems to undergo" is perhaps
important, because the tathaagatagarbha is also often
said, by this text as well as others, to be "above pain
and pleasure." The tathaagata being nirvanic, his essence
should be above suffering.
26. This is from fascicle seven of the ten-fascicle version
of this suutra translated by Bodhiruci (T. 16,p. 556bc).
27. From T. 32, p. 576c: "The body of water that is the
innately pure mind, alias, the tathagatagarbha, is
aroused to become the form of the waves that is the
polluted mind, by virtue of th condition that is the wind
of ignorance.": Hakeda p.41.
28. A free paraphrase of T. 12,p.222.
29. The hindrance due to knowledge ? (wrong views) is more
damaging than the lesser hindrance due to unwholesome
practices. T.31, p. 153, the opening line.
30. The word translated as "doing" in tso; it is not needed
in the original Sanskrit. In Chinese, it can be read
still more actively as the "one mind creating the three
realms." See T.9, p. 558c. This is the reading preferred
in the Hue-yen school.
31. Following Edward Conze's translation in his Buddhist
Texts Through the Ages (Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1954), p. 217.
32. T. 31,p. 383a.
33. Basic to the southern branch of the Ti-lun school led by
34. T.31,p.839a. See Conze,ibid.
35. See Alex and Hideko wayman trans. The Lion's Roor of
Queen Srimala (New Yark Columbia Uni, 1974) p. 97.
36. My reading here is different from Yushiki's in his op.
cit., p. 239; I emend the "not two" into "two."
37. A favorite metaphor in Hua-yen, because of the use of it
in the Awakening of Faith and because the Hua-yen
teaching was supposed to be delivered during the
38. A yuan-ch'i (interdependent causation; pratiityasamutpaada)
theory unique to the Hua-yen school; in essence, it celebrates
the universe's own perpetual regeneration, par em toto and
39. Ten is the perfect, the full number, repeatedly used by
the Avata.msaka suutra. Here it is also the symbol for the
41. Now part of the Avata.msaka; T. 9, pp. 567b-571a.
42. The chapter deals with the arousal of the bodhicitta and
the appearance of the Buddha in the world. Glossing there
two together and building on the term hsing-ch'i in the
chapter title, the Hua-yen school justifies its
hsing-ch'i theory; that all phenomena are generated from
the essence of this Buddha-mind, through
self-will and without any reliance on even the yuan (the
pratyaya of condition). T. 9, p. 611b.
43. These are two principles in understanding the various
teachings, by bie(at) (seeing the dissimilarity) or by
t'ung(au) (stressing what is common). This method is
basic to the fen-ch'i(av) "differentiation and
harmonization" goal of the treatise.
44. See note 9 above.
45. On the rationale─and the problems─involved in this
category and in the scheme as a whole, see Peter N.
Gregory, "The place of the Sudden Teaching within the
Hua-Yen Tradition: An Investigation of the Process of
Doctrinal Change, " Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 6.1 (1983), pp. 31-60.
46. The departure is clearer over the distinction Fa-tsang
made between the pair Wei-shih (Consciousness Only) and
Wei-hsin (Mind Only); in Tibetan, Vij~naaptimaatrataa is
Cittamaatrataa. On this, see my "The Meaning of
Mind-Only: An Analysis of a Sinitic Mahayana
Phenomenonon, " Philosophy East and West 27.1
47. By staying close to praj~naa as `suunya without hypostatizing
the a`suunya aspect into a separate, higher, ontologi source.
a 玄奘 z 第一義真ト
b 成唯識論 aa 寶性論
c 窺基 ab 性海
d 法苑義林章 ac 法界緣起
e 唯識述記 ad 性起
f 法相 ae 孔目章
g 法性 af 如來藏宗
h 天台 ag 真如隨緣不變
i 四明知禮 ah 實相
j 法藏 ai 實
k 華嚴 aj 一法印
l 真如隨緣 ak 性相融和
m 性宗 al 湯次了榮
n 相宗 am 華嚴五教章講義
o 智顗 an 攝論
p 五教章 ao 深解密經
q 大乘起信論 ap 一乘真實
r 華嚴一乘教義分齊章 aq 顯教
s 心意識 ar 根本無明
t 真理 as 隨緣
u 起 at 別
v 歸真 au 同
w 理事通融 av 分齊
x 楞伽經 aw 如來