THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF YOGĀCĀRA BUDDHISM
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF YOGACARA BUDDHISM
The main focus of this chapter is to provide the general survey of the Origin and development of Yogacara Buddhism. Before Yogacara Buddhism, there were some Buddhist schools in India. Yog?c?ra Buddhism is the last school of Mahayana Buddhist Schools in India. Therefore the historical development of the prior Buddhist philosophical schools will be presented before explaining the back ground of Yogacara School. While discussing about Yog?c?ra School, who is the founder of this school; who develop this school and what is Yogacara doctrine are essential parts of the study of the present chapter. Therefore this chapter is going to mention the early Yogacara masters and their works. Moreover Yogacara commentators and their views will be expressed in a final part of this chapter because they have developed Yogacara Buddhism well.
Consciousness is very important for all human beings because their actions are motivated by their individual consciousness. Their good or bad results depend on their good or bad actions. Of the Buddhist schools, Yogacara Buddhist School mainly explores the doctrine of consciousness. After the enlightenment, the Buddha went around and expounded many kinds of dharma for forty five years; most of His teachings are concerned with the nature and function of consciousness. All His teachings are recorded in not only Nikaya accepted by Theravada tradition but also agamas accepted by Mah?y?na tradition. Before 1824, the Buddhist scholars did not know the existence of the Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts. It was discovered by Brian 1 In Buddhism, there are three actions: bodily action, verbal action and mental action.
Houghten Hodgson. This discovery proves that Buddhist cannons are preserved not only in Pali language but also in Sanskrit language.1 It is important to be aware that the idea of Mere-Consciousness has its origin not only in the Nikayas and the agamas but also in the commentaries of many previous schools. The Yog?c?ra simply helps that the Buddha Himself established this classical doctrine.2 The Sutta Nipata says: “Everything depends on consciousness that stands”3 and the Digha Nikaya adds: “with the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.”4 The Dhammapada in the opening verse says that “things (dharma) are secondary.”
5 The Samyutta Nikaya asserts that: “By mind (citta) the world is controlled, by mind it is emancipated. By this one element, of the mind alone, are all things secured.”6 And also: “O Bhikkhu, the world is led by mind, by mind is it drawn along. When mind has arisen in it (i.e. the world) goes under its sway.”7 The opening stanza of the Dhammapada also claims that “mind is the base for defilement and purification”; Mind precedes all phenomena, mind matters most, and everything is mind-made.8 This is also confirmed by other sections of the Nik?ya: “By the defilement of the mind are beings defiled; by the purification of the mind are beings purified.”9 And so on.
I.1 Four Buddhist Schools
In the 6th century B.C,10 the Buddha introduced and established Buddhism in India. At the time of the Buddha, Buddhism was unique and
1 A.C Banerjee, The Sarvastivada School of Buddhist Thought: The Sarvastivada and Its Tradition, Delhi: Department of Buddhist Studies, University of Delhi;,1994, p.3. 2 MB, p.89. 3 Dines Andersen and Helmer Smisth, eds., Sutta-Nip?ta, H. Saddhatissa trans., PTS,,UK: Curzon Press, 1994, verse number here. (v.1,23…) 4 The Digha-Nikaya, trans. T.W Rhys Davids, Dialogues of The Buddha, vol.I, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000, pp.272-284. 5 Ian Charles Harris, The continuity of Madhyamaka and Yogacara in Indian Mahayana Buddhism, Leiden: E.J Brill, 1991, p.152. 6 SN, vol.I, p.39. 7 AN, vol.I, p.185. 8 Dhp,v.1. 9 SN,vol.III, p.128. 10 Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, England: Golden Fraser, 2nd edn., 1967, p.xv.
harmonized but a century after the demise of the Buddha, the religious movement brought about the various Buddhist schools. This may be because of the passage of time, different environments, and different cultural traditions. About 100 or 110 years after Mahaparinirvana of the Buddha, significant disputes arose, primarily in the areas of monastic discipline. To deal with these disputes, a Second Council was convened at Vaisali or Vaishali (Pali: Vesali) in which the first schism happened in the Buddhist community.1 This schism divided the early Buddhist Sangha (Pali: Sangha) into two primitive schools: Theravada and Mahasanghika (or Mahasamghika or Mahasanghika). The orthodox monks belong to Therav?da but the other group belongs to Mahasanghika. Theravada was split up into
eleven sub-sects, while the Mahasanghika divided into seven sub-sects. These branches appeared one after another in close succession. Thus the Buddhist sects increased from the major two schools to the 18 schools of Buddhism in India and most of them could not maintain their individual existence for long. But E. Conze has stated that “the first five centuries of Buddhist history saw the development of a number of schools or sects which are traditionally counted as eighteen. The historical traditions about them are uncertain, contradictory and confused”2 In P??i language, the word Therav?da literally means “Way of the Elders” or “Doctrine of the Elders.” They consider themselves that they were in keeping with the original spirit of the Buddha’s teachings. The other group, the Great Community (Mahasanghika in Sanskrit), interpreted Buddha’s teachings more liberally, but in a way that they felt was more true to His intentions. These two groups would eventually evolve into Therav?da and Mah?y?na Buddhism. Thus they become major traditions of Buddhism. At the present, the two major traditions of Buddhism are considered Therav?da Buddhism and Mah?y?na Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism is considered the orthodox school. 1 P.V. Bapat, 2500 Year of Buddhism, New Delhi: Publication Division, 7th edn., 2009, p.36-39. 2 E. Conze, Buddhist Thought in India, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2002, p.119.
Its scriptures are in P??i, the language that Buddha taught in. Mah?y?na Buddhism is the heterodox school of Buddhist philosophy. Its scriptures are in Sanskrit, the language of Indian scholasticism. Although there are different movements in the various Buddhist sects and schools, they all hold the same admiration for the figure of the Buddha and the same goal of ending suffering and the cycle of rebirth. Both focus on the monastic life and meditation as means to liberation.
In the Buddhist history of India, there are four distinct Buddhist philosophical schools: Sarv?stiv?da, Sautr?ntika, M?dhyamika and Yog?c?ra. The first two schools: Vaibh??ika and Sautr?ntika schools are reckoned as Therav?da Buddhist schools and the second two main philosophical schools developed by Mah?y?na Buddhism are M?dhyamika School and later the Yog?c?ra School. They influence on Northern and Eastern Buddhism.1 Each of these four schools represents a way of interpreting the original teachings of the Buddha. In Buddhism, these schools are taken as four logical steps in the process of thought from common sense to the highest wisdom.
I.1.1 The Sarvastivada School
The Sarv?stiv?da School was most widely spread and influential school in India. According to the D?pava?sa, the Sarvastivada is a branch of the Mah?s?saka, a branch of orthodox group, the Therav?da. Nalinaksha Dutta seems to agree with it. According to him, the origin of Sarv?stiv?da appeared some time after Mahis?sakas and it did not come from the Therav?das as stated by Vasumitra and other writers of later days.2 The term ‘Sarvastivada’ indicates its philosophical standpoint, the doctrine that “everything exists”, sarva (everything), asti (exists), and vada (school). In other word, it is a 1 Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, England: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p.114.
2 N. Dutta, Buddhist Sects in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998, p.136. 14 doctrine which advocates that all things external and internal are real. This school holds realistic view. The Sarv?stiv?dins admitted the permanent reality of all things, even though they believed the absence of any permanent substance in an individual. They believed with the Therav?dins in the plurality of elements, in the universe.
For the literary expression, the Sanskrit language is used in this school but it may be probably mixed Sanskrit. Unfortunately, the original Sanskrit text of the Sarv?stiv?dins is lost. But some are available in Chinese translations. According to Chinese and Tibetan translations, the manuscript fragments discovered in Central Asia, Nepal and Gilgit (Pakistan), and quotations in Buddhist Sanskrit texts like the Mahavastu, Divy?vad?na, Lalitavistara and Abhidharmakosa, it appears that Sarv?stiv?da School had its own canon in Sanskrit, which divided into three groups: Sutra, Vinaya and Abhidharma like Theravada School.
The development of the Sarvastivada is the development of the Abhidharma literary system. “The Sarvastivada abhidharma consists of seven works: the Jñ?naprasth?na and six supplementary works, including the aforementioned Mah?vibh???”.1 Although it has seven texts of Abhidharma literature as its own, the seven books are entirely different from the Therav?da’s. But this school had a fair agreement with the Therav?da in regard to the doctrinal matters. “The Sarv?stiv?dins denied the existence of soul (?tman) and admitted the reality of dharmas (object) in their noumenal state”.2 According to this school, there are 75
dharmas in abhidharma: 72 Dharmas are the conditioned dharmas and 3 dharmas are the unconditioned dharmas. The well known commentaries of this school are Vibh??? and Mah?vibh???. Because of the Mah?vibh??? (“Great Elucidation”), it is also known as the 1 Richard king, Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 1999, p.87. 2 N. Dutta, Buddhist Sects in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998, p.75.
Vaibh??ika. Yamakami Sogen stated in his book “System of Buddhistic Thought”, that “in later time, the so-called Vaibh??ika came to be identified with the Sarv?stiv?dins and the two names become mutually interchangeable”. There is, however, a tradition that the Sarv?stiv?da School was divided into seven sects: M?lasarv?stiv?da, K??yap?ya, Mah???saka, Dharmagupta, Bahu?rut?ya, T?mra??t?ya and Vibhajyav?da. The principle tenets of the M?lasarv?stiv?da canon were translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by I-tsing in 700-712 C.E.
The Sarv?stiv?dins hold that the first moment of mind which arises upon emergence from the attainment is directly conditioned by the last moment of mind immediately preceding that meditative attainment, regardless of its duration, since for them all past dharmas currently exist insofar as their ‘possession’ (pr?pti) currently exists. Consequently, it is the citta prior to the meditative attainment,
that is, the citta that enters into that state, which serves as the homogeneous and immediately antecedent condition for the citta that emerges from that state. For the Sarv?stiv?da although dharmas are momentary in the present they have a real, durable essence (svabh?va) that persists through the three realms of time. Clearly, the Sarv?stiv?da saw problems in establishing
causal and karmic continuity between past, present and future times unless there was some sense in which dharmas continued to be real even if not currently associated or manifested to consciousness (cittaviprayukta). As a result, the school posited dharmas such as ‘possession’ (pr?pti) – a kind of impersonal force which holds some characteristic or property within a given stream of consciousness. Such dharmas were deemed necessary by the school not only as a means of establishing causal and karmic continuity both within and between lives, but also to provide a criterion for distinguishing between enlightened and unenlightened beings in terms of the qualities that they possessed.
The Sarv?stiv?da affirmed the existence of five asa?sk?ta dharmas: Past, present, future, as well as ?k??a and nirv??a. However, according to the Abhidharmako?a, not only is nirv??a referred to as dharma in the ultimate sense, but the wisdom that arises along with the understanding of the dharmas such as pure wisdom is called Abhidharma. The wisdom that realizes nirv??a is one with nirv??a because it is the wisdom of enlightenment. The wisdom of enlightenment and the various physical or mental dharmas that function in concert with that wisdom are called abhidharma as absolute truth. Thus, the dharma that refers to the
superior or incomparable dharma is called abhidharma as absolute truth; the dharma that refers to the inferior or lower dharma, which is still influenced by defilements, corresponds to the conventional truth.1 Although the Sarv?stiv?dins asserted the real existence of dharmas, they also said that dharmas were constantly changing and, therefore, were not necessarily eternal existences. Only Nirv??a is recognized by the Sarv?stiv?dins as being the supreme dharma. Therefore, in the Abhidharmako?a, only Nirv??a is referred to as a dharma in the ultimate sense.
This school accepts the existence of all the tree times: present, past and future.3 In this regard, the argument of the Sarv?stiv?da is that if past and future do not exist, present does not exist. This is because the present is understood as having the relation to the past and future. The non-existence of three time period means the conditioned dharmas do not
exist. The nonexistence of the conditioned dharmas means the unconditioned dharmas likewise do not exist since the latter are based on the former. If the conditioned-dharmas and the unconditioned dharmas too did not exist, then 1 H. Akira, A History of Indian Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banaridass, 1998, pp.145-6. 2 Ibid., p.145. 3 T.R. Sharma, An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy (Vijnavada and Maddhamika), Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 1993, p.8.
there would be no any dharma whatsoever, which entail that there would be no enlightenment, and that would be a completely false point of view.1 The teaching of this school seems to be very close to the Theravada’s. The Sarv?stiv?dins asserted that the entire Tripi?aka in a broad sense was the Buddha’s teaching.2 Thus, the Sarv?stiv?dins believed that the Abhidharmako?a (treasury of Higher Knowledge) is the true teaching of the Buddha. Its extensive Abhidharma
literatures lost during the reign of Kani?ka (125 A.D). At the present, there is only one available book named Abhidharmako?a written by Vasubandu, prior to his conversion to the Mah?y?na tradition of Buddhism. The elements of the Sarv?stiv?da School came to influence Mah?y?na thought. The first seat of the Sarv?stiv?dins seems to be Mathura (Mathur?), (now U.P. India) which later spread its influence over Northern India, particularly in Gandh?ra, (now Pashawar, Pakistan) and Kashmir. Thus, this school became most influential in Gandh?ra and Kashmir.3
I.1.2 The Sautrantika School
The Sautr?ntika School is one of the most prominent Buddhist philosophical Schools in India. Having emerged as a criticism of the orthodox Sarv?stiv?da and the Vaibh??ika, the Sautr?ntikas do not accept texts of Abhidharma as the authentic words of the Buddha and they hold a view that because of regarding the Abhidharma literature as the work of later authors, the exponents of Abhidharma have deviated from the original teachings of the Buddha as expressed in the Sutras. Therefore the Sautr?ntika may be described
1 Bhikkhu K.L. Dhammajoti, Sarv?stiv?da Abhidharma, Hongkong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, University of Hongkong, 3rd edn., 2007, p.70.
2 H. Akira, Op.cit.p.127. 3 Bibhuti Baruah, Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism, Delhi: Sarup & Sons, 2000, p.51.
as an anti-Abhidharma movement, based on a study of scripture. The sources put it in the fourth century after the demise of the Buddha.1 The Sautr?ntikas accept only the sutras of the Buddha as authentic teachings. According to Yasomitra2, a person who accepts only the sutra of the Buddha, not the commentarial literature is called Sautr?ntika. In accordance with the definition of the name of the school, the Sautr?ntika emphasizes the authority of the sutra of the ?gamapi?aka.3 Both ?gamas and Vinayas shows that the Sautr?ntika, M?la-Sarv?stiv?da and Gandh?ri Sarv?stiv?da are identical, and the D?r???ntika is an earlier alternative name.4 While the Sarv?stiv?dins assert the existence of things in the three times: past, present, and future, the Sautr?ntikas do not accept the
existence of past and future, but only the present moment. The Sautr?ntika argued that if the element in the past and in the future exists just in the same sense as in the present, future and past do not exist. The concept of the existence of past and future lead absurd consequences: The remote future of an unattained nirv??a would exist when they are thought of.5 This is because the Sautr?ntika accepted that only the present is real and exists ultimately; the past and the future do not exist.6Unfortunately, the Sautr?ntika literatures cannot be available now but some concepts of this school are available in the literatures of other schools like Abhidharmakosa and so on.7
The historical importance of the Sautr?ntika School is very great, as it is this metaphysics which paved the way for the later Mahayanistic developments in the history of Buddhism. The Sautr?ntika prepared the way of the 1 C. Wililemen, B. Dessein & Collett Cox, Sarvastiv?da Buddhism Scholosticism, New York: Brill, 1997, p.106.
2 Yasomitra is a follower of Sautrantika doctrines. He composed Abhidharmakosavyakhya sputartha. 3 This is a Sarv?stiv?din, the Sanskrit version of Tipi?aka. Sarv?sativ?dins have their own five ?gamas. 4 D.Keown, A Dictionary of Buddhism, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, p.256. 5 Harold G. Coward, ed., Studies in Indian Thought: The Collected Papers of Professor T.R.V. Murti, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983, pp.274-5.
6 N. Dutt, Buddhist Sects in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998, p.176. 7 Acarya Narendradeva, Bauddha Dharma Darsana, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1956, p.373.
Madhyamaka (or M?dhyamika) on the one hand and the Yog?c?ra on the other, and is, in a sense, the parting of the ways. The Sautr?ntika had established a kind of nominalism. The unifying categories like identity, permanence, universality, wholeness, substantiality, these were all shown to be merely conceptual, lacking an objective basis. The Sautr?ntika had refuted the reality of the pudgala, but had maintained that of the dharmas. The pudgala (person) was a thought-construct projected upon the real dharmas which alone existed objectively. A dharma was the ultimate existent and was a unique particular. The list of dharmas included 75 in the Sarv?stiv?da, but was cut down to 43 by the Sautr?ntika.
I.1.3 The Madhyamika School
The M?dhyamika School is one of the two principal schools of Mah?y?na Buddhism in India, while the other school is the Yog?c?ra School. M?dhyamika in Sanskrit means “one who follows the middle path”. In the Dhammacakkapavuttana Sutta2, the concept of “The Middle path” as a way to enlightenment means being freed from two extremes: self-mortification and an indulging in worldly pleasures. But the concept of
Middle path in M?dhyamika School is not quite the same. Its middle path refers to a view of denying both existence and non-existence.3 The M?dhyamika was so called because it took a middle course between the uncompromising realism of the Sarv?stiv?dins and the idealism of the Yog?c?ra. The M?dhyamika K?rik?, which is the basic text of the M?dhyamika School, was authored by N?g?rjuna, who was a contemporary of Kani?hka. Existence refers to a concept that phenomena truly exist. Non-existence means a view that phenomena don’t have any kind of existence at all.
1 YI, pp.6-7. 2 Dhammacakkapavutta sutta is the first sermon taught by The Buddha at Sarnah. It was recorded in Pali Nik?ya. 3 P.V. Bapat, Op.cit.p.106.
The time from the second century A.D. to eleventh century A.D witness the continuous history of development of the M?dhyamika School.1 In the second century AD, the system of the M?dhyamika School was mainly developed by N?g?rjuna in the south of India. N?g?rjuna was however, not a founder of this school because before him, there were many thinkers who developed similar idea. Thus, N?g?rjuna was only considered the first systematic expounder of the school.2 He composed many treatises in response to the criticism of the schools that he considered to be unfaithful to the true spirit of the
Buddha’s teachings. The most excellent work of N?g?rjuna is the M?la-madhyamaka-k?rik?. Majorities of Treatises directly expound the doctrine of emptiness of inherent natures. The concept of Emptiness in this school refers to the ultimate nature of all things. According to M?dhyamika School, the lack of understanding of emptiness is the ignorance
that keeps all beings trapped in the cycle of birth and death called “samsara” in P??i. To dispel this ignorance is the fundamental goal of Buddhism. The doctrine of Emptiness is a central doctrine in this school. In the later period, his followers developed this school based on his writings. A few of M?dhyamika texts were translated into Chinese and majorities were eventually translated into Tibetan. For the M?dhyamika, there is nothing-in-itself, he accepts the second proposition as well. But he thinks that the creative knowledge also is only appearance, it is the denial of all metaphysics, including idealism. In the
Advaita Vedanta, the reality of the given, which is not known but is the implicate of all knowledge, is scrupulously maintained as such as, it is not idealism.3 The Yog?c?ra is just the illustration of a great pattern of metaphysics, but it is no better than other possible patterns. The only solution of the Antinomies of Reason appears to be the M?dhyamika dialectic. Speculation is not the correct method of metaphysics and must be superseded 1 Jaideva Singh, An Introduction to Madhyamaka Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1976, p.11. 2 CSIP, p.86. 3 CSIP, p.86.
by criticism. The Yog?c?ra system, as a speculative metaphysics, is dogmatic. Its redeeming feature is however that it is not merely idealism, it is essentially absolutism. It represents one of the alternative approaches to the Absolute, conforming to the form of absolutism set once for all by the Madhyamika.
I.1.4 The Yogacara School
Yog?c?ra School is one of the most interesting phenomena of the philosophical trends of traditional India. Yog?c?ra School originated about 3rd century A.D, 1 focuses on a critical and reflective understanding of mind, both deluded and awakened. One of the main features of Yog?c?ra philosophy is the concept of Vijñaptim?tra. It attempts to make explicit the structure of consciousness and to sketch the dynamic progression toward conversion and awakening. This school is a major school of Mah?y?na Buddhism. The early teachers of this school are Maitreyan?tha and Asa?ga. After the conversion to Mah?y?na Buddhism, Vasubandhu developed Yog?c?ra Buddhism which holds mere-consciousness as its central doctrine.
Yog?c?ra seems to be the oldest name of this school. The word Yog?c?ra in Sanskrit composes of yoga and ?c?ra. Yoga means ‘meditation’ and ?c?ra means ‘practice.’ Thus Yog?c?ra literally means “yoga practice”, “one whose practice is yoga”2 The term originally referred to those who dedicate themselves to the practices of yoga or meditation. In Yog?c?ra Buddhism, there are several important new doctrines,3 but all these doctrines are summarized in the concept of Vijñaptim?tra, “nothing-but-cognition” which often rendered “consciousness-only” “The expression Cittam?tra, together with Vijñaptim?tra and sometimes Vijñanavada, which are also used
1 Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana, A History of Indian Logic: Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Schools, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1921, p.249.
2 Jones Lindsay (ed. in Chief), Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.XIV, USA: Macmillan Reference, 2nd ed., p.9897. 3 Vijñaptim?tra (nothing but cognition), three self-natures, three turnings of the Dharma-wheel, and a system of eight consciousnesses.
for the tradition, all refer to its principal classical doctrine, which is that of Mind (citta) or Consciousness (vijñ?na) Only (m?tra)”.1 Thus, Yog?c?ra has three alternative names: the Cittam?tra (mind-only) Vijñaptim?tra (mereconsciousness or representation-only) Vijñ?nav?da (consciousness-only) school. Yog?c?ra Buddhism is not only a philosophical system but also a school of practice as well. Yog?c?ra uses the practice of yoga as a means for attaining final emancipation from the bondage of the phenomenal world. The stages of yoga are systematically set forth in the treatises of this school. This school was developed by two half brothers, Asa?ga and Vasubandhu. Yog?c?ra school has some principle theories: consciousness only (Cittam?tra, Vijñaptim?tra); the mental,
illusory, unreal character of the empirical world; the structure of mind; the subconscious (?layavijñ?na) and the subliminal impressions (v?san?s), both of which have an important function in the theory of cognition; the three natures (svabh? va); the two truths; the Tath?gatagarbha or Buddha-Nature which exists in all living beings; the Absolute; the Pure Mind (Amalavijñ?na). Yog?c?ra really is not a practical method of meditation special, which is a means of expression used to learn the internal state of the practitioner’s actions and thoughts practitioner when making action. The goal is to change the consciousness become
super wisdom. Yog?c?ra philosophy is the development of the Buddhist thought. It did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real but did it as conventionally real. As conventional truth, Yog?c?ra does not deny the existence of objects such as chairs, colors, and trees. Although such objects are accepted as conventionalisms, there is no a chair or tree etc. in ultimate sense if precisely speaking; there is nothing but words and concepts of nouns. These words and concepts are accepted as mental projections in this school. Thus, Consciousness is regarded as the essence of all dharmas in the universe. If this
is not consciousness, the fundamental fulcrum cannot be born into certainly and cannot exist independently. The object is unreal because it is different from its appearance and the object is only a mode of consciousness. The appearance of the object is considered the transcendental illusion; this is because consciousness is bifurcated into the subject-object duality. The Transcendental Illusion of objectivity causes the evolution of consciousness.1 In favor of the inner reality of consciousness, the objective reality of the external world is negated though reducing all things to conscious constructs or ideas (vijñapti). But Asa?ga did not consider phenomena world belonging to the conventional truth. And he claimed that the phenomena are the reflection of the absolute. Vasubandhu tries to avoid either realism or idealism.
The conception of the unreality of all things for the Vijñ?nav?da is abh?taparikalpa which is like ??nyat?, but applied to both phenomenon and phenomena. When applied to the absolute, it means the real transcendent ground of all superimposed phenomena and when applied to phenomena, means “the phenomenal world of subject-object duality manifested by the selfcreative energy of the ?laya, the Constructive Consciousness. Abh?taparikalpa is normally used for ?layavijñ?na. It is this Constructive Consciousness that it manifests itself through the power of beginningless and transcendental ignorance, as the phenomenal world of this duality.
According to the Vijñ?nav?da, consciousness is regarded as Reality. This school claimed that consciousness is the only absolute reality. Nevertheless, the school also says that it is far better to entertain an idea of existence from the empirical point of view than to understand by ??nyat? as ‘mere nothing’.4 It is important to note that there is a special role assigned to
1 YI,p.24. 2 Kalupahana, David J., A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities, USA, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, 1992.p.189. 3 CSIP, p.120. 4 CSIP, p.96.
consciousness; vijñ?na must not be taken for the self, since it is so variable.1 Although the Yog?c?ras held that vijñ?na is the only absolute reality, they also held that vijñ?na is of twofold: defilement and purification, empirical and transcendental or non-enlightenment and enlightenment. The empirical is identified with ignorance or sa?s?ra and the transcendental is identified with Nirv??a.2 In such cases, vijñ?na is not viewed as the ultimate reality, but rather the root problem. This problem emerges in ordinary mental operations, leads to birth and death, and it can only be solved by bringing those operations to an end. Moreover, vijñ?na is not considered to exist in the highest sense because it is always running and changing. Vijñ?na is of the nature of paratantra: hence, it is not ultimately real. It is empirical consciousness. By admitting the reality of the consciousness, the Yog?c?ra classified the foundations of our daily experience.
It is due to the importance of consciousness that the system of eight consciousnesses was developed. Consciousness is basically divided into two, ‘consciousness-in-activity’ (Prav?ttivijñ?na) and ‘store-consciousness’ (?layavijñ?na). Prav?ttivijñ?na consist of the other seven consciousnesses; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touch and mental-perception (Mano-vijñ?na) plus ego-consciousness (Manas) and it is said to be the manifestation of the ?laya-consciousness. It is neither identical with nor different from the ?laya. While ?laya is compared to the ocean, Prav?ttiVijñ?na is the waves.3 The ?layavijñ?na
is also called the Tath?gata-garbha (the womb of the Tath?gata) for it is beyond all categories of intellect.4 It is the pure element within us that assures our eventual enlightenment. ?layavijñ?na is most important because it is considered to contain all the seeds (b?jas) and impressions (v?san?s) in itself; it involves all the various potential seeds of 1 Govin Chandra Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2006, p.494. 2 Surendranath Dasgupta, A history of Indian Philosophy, Vol.I, London: Cambridge, 1922, p.131. 3 T.R. Sharma, Op.cit. p. 23. 4 CSIP, pp.110-1.
both delusion and enlightenment. alayavijñana, therefore, is known as storehouse-consciousness or ?laya consciousness as conveyer of all its seeds. It is in this store-consciousness that the experience of our other seven vijñ?nas is deposited there. alayavijñana is really working with a series of continuous consciousness associated with it, known as stream of consciousness in modern psychology. It is the sole substratum of the transmigration in sa?s?ra. The psychological and metaphysical implications of the doctrine of Mind-only were worked
out primarily through the theory of the store-house consciousness. Thus, the theory of the alayavijñana occupies the most important place in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy, as this vijñana is the source of our rebirth and Nirvana, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth.1 The most famous innovation of the Vijñ?nav?da is the doctrine of eight consciousnesses though the other school admitted only six consciousnesses.
The purpose of Yogacara philosophy is beyond a structure of the mind and a Buddhist psychology. As the case with basic Buddhist teachings, the purpose of Yog?c?ra philosophy is to bring about liberation from suffering, and achieve peace of mind. To this end, the first necessary thing is to search for the root or origin of suffering. Within this soteriological inquiry as the main point of its orientation, Yogacara tries to provide a clear and detailed explanation of the structure of our mind, its dynamic internal and external
relationships, as well as its distinct mental functions. The Manas is always functioning subliminally. Contributing to the progress and enhancement of society is unmistakably a wonderful and wholesome thing, and naturally, it will be highly evaluated by society. However, inside the person who is striving to cultivate wholesome attitudes and behavior, regardless to the situation, all such activities are defiled by our selfish mind.
1 Yamakami Sogen, System of Buddhist Thought, New Delhi: Cosmo Publication, 2002, p.237.
Phenomena are the transformation of the basis of consciousness; they are the defiled aspect of the absolute. On account of the powerful influence of ignorance and sa?sk?ra, consciousness becomes defiled and transforms itself into phenomenal world. The process of subject-object duality of phenomena is the result of this conditioned suchness. All phenomena arise from the false notions of the mind. Only by realizing pure consciousness, which is free from subject-object duality, this impurity can be removed. Ultimate reality is nothing that the
world from which subject-object distinction is removed. The pure consciousness can be achieved by the insight meditation. Herein, consciousness can be illustrated with the example of pure water and muddy water. Just as a hand which is dirty by muddy water, can be cleaned by pure water, impurity mind caused by unwholesome, can be purified by pure mind.
The Yog?c?ra philosophy pays a great stress on the role of consciousness in the fabrication of the universe. According to Asa?ga, the experience of the object depends on the condition of mind. In the concept of Vasubandhu, the reality was mere consciousness: he then pointed that the external object do not exist outside of thought and he refused the objects of the opponents.1 In this sense, the Yog?c?rins assume that mind projects all thoughts and external objects by all its seeds and impressions that are
accumulated there. Vasubandhu only meant if there is anything that is denied, then this is only through an implication, a mysterious agent, which is objects that never perceived, exists behind consciousness and not becoming part of that evolution of consciousness.2 He spoke of the evolution of consciousness in a threefold process of transformation and asserted that prevalence occurring in the transformation of consciousness does not entail the denial of a human body in which consciousness occurs, nor does it imply that there is no external object. For the Yog?c?ra, if there were no external objects, then mind would
1 CSIP, p.114. 2 David J, Kalupahana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discotinuities, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994, p.189.
become blind; but if there were no mind, then the external objects would become empty. Though in Yog?c?ra, there is no objection of the existence of sense objects; Yog?c?ra denied the occurrence of sense object outside of cognition. “Yog?c?ra does not speak about subjects and objects; instead it analyzes perception in terms of graspers (gr?haka) and what is grasped (gr?hya).”
According to Yog?c?ra, mind does not create the physical world, but rather it produces the interpretative categories through which we know and classify the physical world and it does it so seamlessly that we mistake our interpretations for the world itself. Those interpretations become obstructions (?vara?as) preventing us from seeing what is actually the case. It is this narcissism of consciousness that makes the way consciousness operates as Vijñaptim?tra, “nothing but mental constructs”.
According to the Vijñanavada, the ultimate truth as Pure consciousness (vijñaptim?trat?) was described by many Buddhist masters such as Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu. In the Vijñaptim?trat?siddhi-Vimsatika, Vasubandhu prove that Reality is Pure-Consciousness. This doctrine was fully developed by Vasubandhu in his famous doctrine the Vijñaptimatrat?siddhi-trimsatika. By the sixth century A.D., many great
masters very prominent, well-known for Yog?c?ra Buddhism have appeared in India. Gunam?ta, Sthiram?ta, Candra Gupta, Dharma pala, and Silabhadra..etc. Such great masters play an important role in Yog?c?ra Buddhism. Of them, the most famous great masters of Yogacara School are Asanga and Vasubandhu. So the biography of the early Yog?c?ra great masters and their works are necessarily needed to mention here. 1 Subodh Kapoor, ed., The Buddhist Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol.V,. Delhi: Cosmo Publication,2000, p.1509b. 2 Ibid., p.1509b.
I.2 Early Yogacara Masters and Their Works
As the essential nature of the Buddhist path, Yogacara masters emphasizes on the “practitioners of yoga” thus, it is also known as the Consciousness Only School for their central teaching that all reality is a display of consciousness. These teachings were united with the meditative and devotional traditions of Mah?y?na by a brilliant set of teachers from Gandhara. This school became the leading philosophical
school in India during the 3rd to 5th centuries and the teachings of this school still form the philosophical core of the great Buddhist contemplative lineages not only in India but also outside India. The early great masters of Yogacara School are Asanga and Vasubandhu, whose works are the culmination of the early Mah?y?na movement; in some historical sources, Maitreya is also considered as the founder of Yogacara School. Mainly, half-bother: Asanga and Vasubandhu developed Yogacara philosophy.
I.2.1 Asanga: His Life and Work
Asa?ga meaning “without attachment” is Mah?y?na Buddhist monk and scholar of the Yogacara School known as Vijñanavada. He was the eldest of three brothers who were the sons of a Brahman, a court priest at Puru?apura (Peshawar) in North West India (now in Pakistan) which at that time was part of the ancient kingdom of Gandh?ra.1 Although all three received the same name of Vasubandhu, the oldest was known
by that of Asa?ga, the youngest by that of Virincivatsa, and the second got the name of Vasubandhu. Traditionally, Asanga and his half-brother Vasubandhu are regarded as the founders of this school. The two half-brothers were also major exponents of Abhidharma teachings, which were highly technical and sophisticated hermeneutics as well. 1 William M. Johnston, ed., Encyclopedia of Monasticism, London: Routledge, 2013, p.87b.
At the enough age of childhood for learning, eighteen sciences were taught by his mother; he mastered easily. In order to serve the whole world, Asa?ga and his brother became monks and joined monastery by their mother’s suggestion. Both initially joined Sarv?stiv?da School because this school had a strong influence all over the kingdom of Gandh?ra. Although Asa?ga studied some teaching there, he was not fully satisfied with the teaching of it,1 and he could not penetrated it deeply and reach its realization. But he continued a serious meditation for many years and freed himself from desire or defilement. Eventually, he went to
Tushita Heaven (Tu?itabhavana) to meet Maitreya and to learn a teaching on the Emptiness from Him by mean of super natural power (jh?na) learned from Sarv?stiv?da School. When he came back to Jambhudipa (India), he examined and observed the teaching on the Emptiness taught by Maitreya in Tu?ita Heaven. According to traditional sources, at night he often visited Tu?ita Heaven to receive teachings from Maitreya Bodhisattva; in the daytime, he lectured on the marvelous
principles to a great audience. Thus, Maitreya (275–350) became Asa?ga’s teacher. Some scholars considered Maitreya (ca. 270-350 CE) as a historical person in India and considered him as one of the three founders of the Yog?c?ra school, along with Asa?ga and Vasubandhu,2 but the Buddhist traditional accounts( eg: the accounts of Buston, Taranatha, Param?rtha and Hsiian-tsang), explored that Maitreya was a Bodhisattva or the future Buddha. Maitreya, Sanskrit name of a Bodhisattva or future Buddha,3 refers to love and benevolence.
According to the narrative, Asa?ga was very much inspired by the qualities of Maitreya Buddha and it last for twelve years that he took a serious meditation in order to have a vision of Maitreya. Although he was in a serious meditation, he felt 1 Le Manh That, The Philosophy of Vasubhandhu, HCM City: Viet Nam Buddhist University, 2006, p.60.
2 Fernando Tola & Carmen Dragonetti, Being as Consciousness: Yog?c?ra Philosophy of Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004, p.xv. 3 Monier Williams, A Sanskrit- English Dictionary, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1899, p.834. 4 Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, Vol.II, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004, p.439b.
disappointed with his slow progress and left his cave. While walking on the outskirt of city, he found that a dog was infested with maggots and she was in serious pain; with full of compassion, he stopped to help a suffering dog by the road-side. The image of the dog suddenly disappeared and became Maitreya.1 Maitreya had always been near Asa?ga and he could be seen through the eye of compassion. Thereafter, Maitreya took Asa?ga to Tu?ita Heaven and there taught him five new texts:2 (i) Abhisamay?la?k?ra- the ornament for the Realization’, the treatise on perfection of wisdom practice. (ii) Madhy?ntavibh?ga- the Discrimination of Middle from Extremes’,(iii) Dharmadharmt?vibh?ga- The Discrimination of dharmas from their True Nature’, (iv) Mah?y?nas?tr?la?k?ra- The
Ornament of the Mah?y?na S?tras’, and (v) Ratanagotravibh?ga- it is known as the Uttaratantra, a treatise on the Tath?gatagarbha or Buddha-nature doctrines.3 Later, Asa?ga composed many treatises and commentaries on the Mahayana teachings; most of which still exist in Chinese and Tibetan versions.4 But there are differences between the Chinese and Tibetan traditions concerning which works are attributed to him and which to Maitreya. His great contribution was his development of Maitreyan?tha’s teaching. Of his major works, a commentary on such as treaties: the
Sandhinirmocana Sutra, the Abhidharmasamuccaya, Madhy?nta-vibh?ga-k?rik?, Dharma-dharmat?-vibh?ga, Mah?y?nasamgraha and Yog?c?rabh?mi-??stra are probably authentic compositions of Asa?ga. Due to unknown earlier writer, Mah?y?na-s?tr?lamk?ra is considerable as doubt about it.5 Except Mah?y?na-s?tr?lamk?ra-k?rik?, the rests are not available as Sanskrit originals but all are available for the readers who have access to Tibetan and Chinese manuscript.
1 SWV, 2008, p.13. 2 William M. Johnston, Op.cit, 2013, p.88a. 3 MB, 2009, p.87.
4 A. P. Mishra & N. K. Singh, Encyclopaedia of Oriental Philosophy and Religion: A Continuing Series... Global Vision Publish House.New Delhi,2007p.56b. 5 Anthony Kennedy Warder, A Course in Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998, p.161. 6 Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.I, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992, p.128.
I.2.2 Vasubandhu: His life and Work
Vasubandhu was a prominent Buddhist teacher and one of the most important figures in the development of Mah?y?na Buddhism in India.1 The later Buddhists considered him as co-founder of the Yog?c?ra School along with his half brother Asa?ga. However, some scholars consider Vasubandhu to be two distinct people. He wrote commentaries on many Mah?y?na texts, works on logic, devotional poetry, works on Abhidharma
classifications, as well as original and innovative philosophical treatises. Some of his writings have survived in their original Sanskrit form, but many others, particularly his commentaries, are extant only in their Chinesa in verse and his autocommentary (Abhidharmakoaa-bhasya), which summarized and critiqued the Mahavibhasa from the Sautr?ntika viewpoint.
Vasubandhu was born at Purusapura (modern Peshawar) North-West India (Pakistan) in the kingdom of Gandh?ra, around the year 316 CE. According to Taranatha, Vasubandhu was born one year after his older brother Asa?ga became a Buddhist monk. According to Param?rtha, His father was a brahmana of the Kaushikagotra and his mother’s name was Virinci. But according to Taranatha, the name of the mother of Asa?ga and Vasubandhu was Prasannashila. This family had three sons with
the same name called ‘Vasubandhu’. In the Tibetan sources, they were stated as half-brothers; they had same mother and different father. Asa?ga’s father was a kshatriya, and Vasubandhu’s was a brahmana, a court priest.2 Their youngest brother was Virincivatsa. According to Param?rtha, Virincivatsa became a priest in S?rvastiv?da School and attained the Arahatship. During the formative years of childhood, Vasubandhu may have been introduced by his father not only to the 1 SWV, 2008, p.1. 2 T?ran?tha, History of Buddhism in Indian, tran., Anton Sciefner, Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, p.118.
Brahmanical tradition but also to the postulates of classical Ny?ya and Vai?e?ika, both of which had influence on his logical thought.1 At the meantime, S?rvastiv?da School was a Buddhist school as the strong hold of Gandh?ra region. Thus, he entered the Sarv?stiv?da order, and studied primarily the scholastic system of the Vaibh??ikas. Vasubandhu is said to have trained in the Vaibh??ika-Sarv?stiv?din when he initially studied Vaibh??ika-Sarv?stiv?din Abhidharma, as presented in the Mah?vibh???. As a young student, he amazed his teachers with his brilliance and ready wit.
Buddhamitra seems to have been his teacher.2 But the Xiyuji never mentions Buddhamitra and names Manoratha as the teacher of Vasubandhu. Initially, he was quite impressed with the Mah?vibh??? but later having doubts about the validity and relevance of Vaibh??ika metaphysics, he came into contact with the theories of the Sautr?ntikas, probably by the help of the brilliant teacher Manoratha. While being a strong Sautr?ntika tradition in Purusapura, Vaibh??ika-Sarv?stiv?din was weak in Gandh?ra compared with in Kashmir.
Thus, according to Xuanzang’s pupil Pu Kuang, Vasubandhu went to Kashmir in order to investigate the Vaibh??ika teachings more deeply and studied there with different teachers for four years and then came back to Purusapura. After having returned to his native place, Vasubandhu did not contact any particular orders; he lived in a small private house in the middle of Purusapura; through reexamining Buddhist teachings learned from various teachers; he made his knowledge progressive.3 According to tradition, during the day he would lecture on Vaibh??ika doctrine and in the evening distill the day’s lectures into a verse. The composition of his day’s lectures into a verse became Abhidharmako?a (Treasury of Abhidharma) which consists of six 1 SWV, 2008, p.3. 2SWV, p.14. 3SWV, p.16.
hundred verses. This text was widely respected and used by schools of Mahayana Buddhism. After completing the verses, he sent them along with fifty pounds of gold to Kashmir, where the Vibh??? masters were residing. The Kashmiri Sarv?stiv?dins are reported to have rejoiced to see in it all their doctrines so well propounded. Vasubandhu’s writing, however, was so abstruse that even the masters could not
understand some of the verses. They therefore sent back Vasubandhu’s fifty pounds of gold, along with an additional fifty, and requested Vasubandhu to write a prose commentary on it. Thereupon Vasubandhu composed a prose commentary upon the Abhidharmako?a. This commentary, although ostensibly written from the viewpoint of the Sarv?stiv?da, often ended up revealing shortcomings in the doctrines of this school, and promoting Sautr?ntika interpretations instead.
Vasubandhu sent the completed prose commentary on the Abhidharmako?a to the Kashmiri Sarv?stiv?dins, But as it contained a thoroughgoing critique of Vaibh??ika dogmatic from a Sautr?ntika viewpoint, the Kashmiri Sarv?stiv?dins soon realized, to their great disappointment, that the Abhidharmakoshabhashya in fact refuted many Sarv?stiv?da theories and upheld the doctrines of the Sautr?ntika school.1 According to Param?rtha, Abhidharmako?a was composed at Ayodhya, but according to Xuanzang, it was composed in the suburbs of Purusapura. In the Abhidharmako?a, Vasubandhu analyzed seventy-five dharmas, the basic factors of experience, for the purposes of attaining Bodhi. The Vaibh??ika system, in Vasubandhu’s version, had seventy-five dharmas divided into five major categories:
(1) Eleven types of material form,2 (2) Mind (citta),3 (3) Forty-six Mental Associates, 4(4) Fourteen 1 SWV, p.17.
2 The material forms consist the five sense organs, their corresponding objects, and avijñapti which was considered to be a material counterpart to any intention that didn't disclose itself through verbal or bodily gestures.
3 Here, Mind is only one though eighty nine or one hundred and twenty one are numerated in Therav?da Abhidhamma.
4 Mental Associates consist attitudes, forms of attention, and emotional states, etc., which accompany moments of cognition.
conditions disassociated from mind,1 and (5) Three Unconditioned dharmas.
2 The Abhidharmako?abh?sya is the result of his compliance with the request of Vaibh??ikas. Although Vasubandhu composed the texts from the stand point of Vaibh??ika, Both seem to have been composed using the mixed form of two schools:
After completing the composition of the Abhidharmako?abh?shya, Vasubandhu seems to travel from place to place. Finally, after having spent some time at Shakala/ Shagala (modern Sialkot in Pakistan), he shifted along with his teachers Buddhamitra and Manoratha to Ayodhya (now located in Uttar Pradesh, northern India), a city far removed from Kashmir. According to Posou pandou fashi zhuan, Vasubandhu, now proud of the fame he had acquired, clung faithfully to the H?nay?na doctrine in which he was wellversed and, having no faith in the Mah?y?na, denied that it was the teaching of the Buddha. Vasubandhu had up to this time but little regarded for the Yog?c?ra treatises of his elder brother. He had perhaps seen the voluminous Yogacarabhumi compiled by Asa?ga, which may have simply repelled him by its bulk.
According to Bu-ston, he is reported to have said, “Alas, Asa?ga, residing in the forest, has practiced meditation for twelve years. Without having attained anything by this meditation, he has founded a system, so difficult and burdensome, that it can be carried only by an elephant.” Asa?ga heard about this attitude of his brother and feared that Vasubandhu would use his great intellectual gifts to undermine the Mah?y?na. Because Asa?ga knew his brother's great skill and learning, he greatly feared that he would compose a treatise against the Mah?y?na. At that time, Asa?ga was living in Purusapura.
1 It includes linguistic, conceptual, meditational, and moral categories, e.g., grammatical entities, continuity and impermanence, attaining temporary cessation of mental activities [nirodha-sam?patti], accruing or divesting karma, etc.
2 Three unconditioned dharmas: 1. Spatiality (?k??a), 2. Disjunction from impure dharmas by deliberate awareness, and 3. Non-arising of impure dharmas due to the absence of their productive conditions.
He sent a messenger to Ayodhya to tell Vasubandhu that, he was in serious illness and needed to be attended too quickly. Vasubandhu immediately followed the messenger back to Purusapura to meet his brother. Upon seeing Asa?ga in apparently good health, Vasubandhu asked him what the matter was. Asa?ga replied that he was indeed ill, and that the illness was due to his fear that Vasubandhu’s wickedness in attacking the Mah?y?na would result in Vasubandhu’s terrible rebirth.
Vasubandhu was alarmed at his brother’s words, and asked him for a concise explanation of the essential principles of the Mah?y?na, whereupon he immediately realized the supremacy of Mah?y?na thought. After further study, the depth of his realization came to equal that of his brother. Deeply ashamed of his former abuse of the Mah?y?na, Vasubandhu wanted to cut out his tongue. Hearing this, Asa?ga told his brother that even if he cut out his tongue a thousand times, he could not wipe out his crime. He told Vasubandhu that the way to atone for his offense was to propound the Mah?y?na as skillfully and effectively as he had
once attacked it. Vasubandhu took note of his brother’s advice. After his conversion to Mah?y?na Buddhism, he devoted the rest of his life to propagating the Mah?y?na. He died at the age of eighty.2 Since then, the two brothers became central figures of the “Consciousness Only” school. The date of Vasubandhu is a controversy for historians. According to Param?rtha, Vasubandhu lived 900 years after the Mah?parinirv??a of the Buddha; at another place, he also mentions the
figure of 1100. According to Xuanzang and his disciples, Vasubandhu lived 1000 and 900 years after the Mah?parinirv??a of the Buddha. According to Noul Pari and Shio Benkyoo, Vasubandhu lived 270 to 350 CE. According to Steven Anacker, Vasubandhu lived at 316-396 CE. According to Ui Hakuju, his date was in the fourth 1 Xuanzang differs with some of these details and the place provided by Param?rtha regarding Vasubandhu’s conversion. According to the Xiyuji the conversion of Vasubandhu took place at Ayodhya.
2 Le Manh That, Op.cit., p.60.
century (320-400 CE). Takakusu Junjiroo and Kimura Taiken gave 420 to 500, Wogihara Unrai gives 390 to 470 CE, and Hikata Ryushoo gives 400 to 480 CE. Erich Frauwallner suggests that there were two Vasubandhus and hence two different dates. According to him, Vasubandhu the elder lived between about 320 and 380 CE and Vasubandhu the younger between around 400 and 480 CE. However, this hypothesis of two Vasubandhus is no longer tenable in current scholarship as many of the early Chinese documents used by Frauwallner are of spurious nature and thus, their testimony cannot be accepted.
It is said that Vasubandhu have been the author of one thousand works, 500 in the H?nay?na tradition and 500 Mah?y?na treatises. But only fortyseven works of Vasubandhu are extant, nine of which survive in the Sanskrit original, twenty-seven in Chinese translation, and thirty-three in Tibetan translation. Most influential in the East Asian Buddhist tradition have been Vimsatika-vijñapti-m?trat?-siddhi: the Vi??atik?-vijñapti-m?trat? (Twenty Verses on Representation
Only), and Trimsika-vijñapti-matrata (Thirty Verses on Representation-only), and as well most influential in Yogacara School of Mahayana Buddhism. Of the two texts, the Vi??atik? is philosophically interesting and important treatise of Vasubandhu. In this text, Vasubandhu has explained in dealing with the Realist objections against Yogacara Buddhism. This is the fundamental treatise of Yog?c?ra School.
I.3. Yogacara Commentators and Their Views
The scriptural tradition is represented primarily by the Sandhinirmocana sutra, by portions of the Avatamsaka sutra, and finally by the Lankavatara sutra which appears to include a good deal of relatively later Yog?c?ra thought. As one stream of the Mah?y?na transformation of the older Abhihdharma tradition in India, the earliest strata of Yog?c?ra thought are
found in works of several disparate classes, the historical inter-relationships of which are yet to be resolved.
When Yogacara was reaching its peak in India, the Fa-hsiang2 school of Hsuan-Tsang and Kuei-Chi3 was founded in China in the early 7th century. The Fa-hsiang school was not the first transmission of Yog?c?ra to China, but it was the most comprehensive introduction of this Classical of Yog?c?ra. Vasubandhu wrote three foundational texts of the Yog?c?ra: the “Treatise on the Three Natures”, the “Treatise in Twenty Stanzas” and the “Treatise in Thirty Stanzas”. Other important commentaries on various Yog?c?ra texts were written by Sthiramati (6th century) and Dharmap?la (7th century) and so on.
I.3.1. Sthiramati’s View
Sthiramati, a scholar of the Consciousness-Only school in southern India, lived during sixth century. He is one of the ten great scholars of the Consciousness-Only school and one of the famous disciples of Vasubandu. He was a 6th century Indian Buddhist scholar-monk. He was based primarily in Val?bhi (present-day Gujarat), although he is thought to have spent some time at N?land?.
Sthiramati wrote commentaries on Vasubandhu’s Thirty-Stanza Treatise on the Consciousness-Only Doctrine. Among all the commentaries written on the treatise, Sthiramati’s is the only one still extant in Sanskrit. He was renowned for his numerous and detailed commentaries on Yog?c?ra and Abhidharma works by Vasubandhu and others, as well as for a commentary on the Kasyapa-parivarta.
1 Jacques May (La Philosopie bouddhique idealiste) provides a review of recent scholarship on these historical questions.
2 This school formerly sets up by Hsuan-Tsang but strongly spread out by Kuei-Chi. 3Takakasu, J., “K’uei-Chi’s Version of a Controversy between the Buddhist and Sankhya Philosophers: An Appendix to the Translation of Paramartha’s Life of Vasubandhu’,”T’ oung Pao, Serie II, vol.V, 1904.
Vasubandhu wrote the Tri??atik? for those who misunderstood or made nothing of the Doctrine of the two ??nyat?s or Voids1, in order that they might acquire a correct understanding of it2. A correct understanding of this doctrine is essential if one is to eliminate the two heavy ?vara?as or barriers: (1) Kle??vara?a: The barrier of vexing passions which obstructs one’s way to Nirv??a or true deliverance.
(2) Jñey?varana: The barrier which impedes Mahabodhi or supreme enlightenment.
Both these ?vara?as are due to a belief in the subjective existence of the Atman or individual ego and to a belief in the objective existence of dharmas or phenomenal entities.
If the two ??nyat?s are realized, both barriers will be removed. The sundering of the two barriers has as its excellent fruits the attainments of true deliverance or Nirv??a and of supreme enlightenment. The former is the result of eliminating the barrier of vexing passions which cause rebirth, while the latter is the result of eliminating the barrier which hinders Absolute Knowledge.
I.3.2. Dharmapala’s View
Dharmapala(530-561)3 is son of a minister of Kancïpura in South India. The name means “Dharma-defender” in Sanskrit, and the dharmapala is also known as the Defender of the Law (Dharma), or the Protector of the Law, in English. After becoming a Buddhist monk, he went to N?land?. Due to his good reputation and quality, he became the head of the Nalanda University. As 1 The two sunyatas are Pudgala??nyat?, voidness of ?tman or ego and Dharma??nyat?, voidness of all dharmas or external things.
2 This corresponds to the first two of the five stages of the Path leading to Vijñaptimatrata, namely the stage of moral provisioning and the stage of intensified effort.
a famous scholar, he had many excellent disciples. One of them was Silabhadra who was Hiuan-tsang's teacher.
Dharmapala is considered as one of the great masters of the Yog?c?ra School. He wrote many commentaries including the Vi??atik? and the Tri??atik? of Vasubandhu. On the Trimsatika of Vasubandhu, his commentary was not preserved in Sanskrit but extracts of this commentary were incorporated by Hiuan Tsang in his Teh' eng wei ehe louen (Taishö1585).The commentary on the Vimsatika of Vasubandhu is known only in its Chinese translation (Taishö159).
As much as there were certain classes of scholars who misunderstood or were ignorant of the principles of Vijñaptimatra, there are some certain scholars who considered that external object existed in the same way consciousness were co-existent as did the Sarvastivadins. And those who considered that internal consciousness was non-existent in the same way as external objects were non-existent in other words, that inner consciousness and outer objects were both non-existent as did Master Bhavaviveka and others. Moreover, scholars who considered that various consciousness were all of one and the same substance despite the
variety of their activities as did a certain class of Mahayana Bodhisattvas. And those who considered that, apart from mind and three of its mental properties, sensation, conception, and volition, no other associated mental properties existed as did the Sautrantikas. The work was composed to refute their erroneous views in other to enable them to reach a true understanding of those profound and wonderful principles. To see clearly requires rectifying the way we experience and to rectify the way we experience. To see things as they are actually becoming (yathabhutam) is to be enlightened or awakened (bodhi). Buddha is the 1 Ibid.p.xxi.
Enlightened One or Awakened One, a human sentient being who achieved the ability to see clearly, and thus he became an exemplar for other sentient beings to emulate. Through insight (jñana), our deepest incessant misinterpretations (prapañca) are extinguished, put to rest and experience becomes peaceful. Buddhism is a method for rectifying our cognitive activities.1 The Tri??satik? was composed to instruct those who had erroneously admitted the reality of Atman and dharmas, misunderstood the Doctrine of Vijñaptim?trat?, or had been unable to assimilate the truth that “nothing exists apart from consciousness”, and thus enable them to pierce the two Voids and know the true principles of Vijñaptimatra.
The scriptural and logical support for this position is to be found everywhere in the Yog?c?ra corpus, once we realize what we should be looking for. Our conscious process, wholly infected by the afflictive and cognitive hindrances, can only apprehend the world through the discriminations of language, and through the mediated signals of the sensory circuit, and thus do nothing but continue to close itself off. When used in combination with other terms, the etymological connotations of sa?s?ra as “closure,” and the term m?tra, is invariably invoked to denote a limited type of singularity, again, a closure. Thus,
the most accurate way to understand Vijñaptim?tra in English is as something like psychosophic closure. This clarification is vitally important for the proper orientation of present and future students of Yog?c?ra. One potential for misunderstanding here is that it seems possible to read this section and get the sense that some scholars are the first one to have articulated this point about the negative connotations meaning of Vijñaptim?tra. While it is true that many scholars of Buddhism who do not specialize in Yog?c?ra may not be sensitive to this point, it is something that is
Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun, London: Routledge,2002, P.4.
well understood by most Yog?c?ra specialists. One can find this clarified in Yog?c?ra studies going back as far as a generation, and this point is not mentioned. Nonetheless, general characterizations of Yog?c?ra in survey and reference works do almost invariably offer the idealistic description, and thus they are certainly justified in raising that this is as a major issue. The treatise (??stra) tradition is represented in the first place by the voluminous Yog?c?rabh?mi which includes the Bodhisattvabh?mi, an encyclopedic work attributed to Asa?ga but very likely comprising much earlier material representing the transition. There were also other early treatises, the Ratnagotravibh?ga (or Uttaratantra) and the Abhisamay?la?k?ra, for example, that represent the different streams feeding into what gradually became a recognizable school.
To sum up, Buddhism has focused on issues of cognition, psychology, epistemology, soterics and ethics. Dharmas are factors of experience or the phenomena which constitute experience. Therefore the investigation of dharmas can be called Buddhist phenomenology. The affinities between Buddhist phenomenologist and Western
phenomenologist are at times striking. Buddhist phenomenology reached its peak in the Yog?c?ra School.1Yog?c?rins examined the structure and function of cognition from epistemological, logical, psychological, ethical and esoteric perspectives, and problematic diagnosed Buddhist thoughts was situated. That problematic is the karmic economy driven by appropriational habits.
The beginning of a second period of Yog?c?ra development is marked by the treatises of Asa?ga and Vasubandhu, two brotheres of the 4th century who formulated what we can think of as classical Yog?c?ra. This period of Yog?c?ra thought is characterized by a more carefully integrated systematic 1 Masaaki Hattori, “Yog?cara”, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.XV, New York: Macmillan,
soteriology epitomized by the Vijñaptim?trat?1 doctrine introduced in Asa?ga’s Mah?y?na s?trala?k?ra and Mah?y?nasa?graha, and later elaborated in the Vi??atik? (Twenty Verses) and Tri??atik? (Thirty Verses), attributed to Vasubandhu. In the next chapter, we are going to explain a general overview on the Vijñaptim?trat? in Yog?c?ra Buddhism.
1 The meaning of Vijñapti as a technical term in Yog?c?ra is discussed in detail previous (where in the previous). The reader should be noted that there are two forms of the term, Vijñapti-?tra and Vijñaptim?trat?. The “ta” ending in the second term corresponds to our suffix “ness”.
