The Root that Nourishes the Branches: The Yogācārabhūmi's Role in 20th Century Chinese Scholastic Buddhism
Eyal AVIV
Introduction This essay discusses the contribution of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra (瑜伽師地論 Yúqié shīdì lùn, T1579.279a-881c, hereafter YBh) to the formation of Buddhist scholasticism in early 20thcentury China and the reasons the YBh became a focus of interest for Chinese Buddhists. I will analyze the place the YBh held in the thought of the two most prominent Yogācārins of the early 20th century, HÁN Qīngjìng (韓清淨, 1884-1949) and OŪYÁNG Jìngwú (歐陽竟無, 1871-1943), why they found the text so important, their main contribution to its study, and how the YBh was assessed after their death. I will begin with a short overview of the fate of Yogācāra studies and the YBh in particular in Chinese Buddhist history and then focus on the role the YBh played in rekindling spiritual and doctrinal interest in Yogācāra in modern China, In doing so, I would like to propose that the YBh served as a key text in defining this movement since it offered a comprehensive vision of the Buddhist path and could serve as an alternative to the Chinese Buddhist orthodoxy. Later, as this scholastic movement was never a cohesive "school," and perhaps because of the text's sheer size and complexity, the YBh ceased to hold the center stage and became one text among the many.
Historical Background
The Early History of the YBh Translation in China The YBh was first introduced to China in the 6th century with a partial translation by Paramārtha (眞諦 Zhēndì, 499-569).1 It was then fully translated by Xuánzàng (玄奘, 602-664) in 647. This was his first translation of such a massive text (100 fascicles in the Taishō canon).2 According to Dan LUSTHAUS (2001:557), acquiring a complete version of this text as a means to settle doctrinal disputes among Chinese Buddhists was the reason for Xuánzàng's trip to India. Xuánzàng also translated a short commentary of one fascicle on the text written by Jinaputra (最勝子 Zuìshèngzǐ), the Yúqiéshīdìlùn shì (瑜伽師地論釋, T1580.883a-888a). After Xuánzàng's death, other commentaries appeared in Chinese, most notable among them being Xuánzàng's major disciple Kuījī's (窺基) commentary, theYúqiéshīdìlùn lüèzuǎn (瑜伽師地論略纂, T1829.1a228b). The second is a collection of commentaries that relied heavily on Kuījī's commentary, written by the Korean monk Doryun's (道倫 Dàolún, ca. 650-730), the Yugaron gi (瑜伽論記 Yúqiélùn jì, T1828.311a-868a).3
Yogācāra Revival during the Late Míng Despite its prominence in India and its contribution to the formation of Chinese Buddhist thought for over two centuries, Yogācāra thought lost primacy in favor of indigenous Chinese schools, such as the Tiāntái (天台) and Huáyán (華嚴). This process reached maturity toward the middle and later Táng Dynasty (618-907). The historical context for this fall from grace or, more accurately, Yogācāra's doctrinal assimilation into the indigenous schools is a complex 1 His translation covers part of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī section (攝決擇分 shè juézé fēn). 2 Xúanzàng later translated even larger texts, such as the Mahāvibhāṣa in 200 fascicles (阿毘達磨 大毘婆沙論 Āpídámó dà pípóshā lùn, T1545.1a-1004a) and the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra (大般若波羅蜜經 Dà bōrě bōluómì jīng, T220.1a-1110b). 3 This work, like many other commentaries on Yogācāra texts, was lost during the Táng Dynasty and was retrieved in the early years of the 20th century by YÁNG Wénhùi (楊文會).
topic that is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice is to say that after the Táng Dynasty, the general interest in the YBh as an authoritative text diminished almost entirely alongside the Yogācāra tradition as a whole.4 It was only in the 20th century that the YBh again assumed a leading role in a rebirth of Yogācāra as a reform movement within the Buddhist modernization in China. Before we elaborate on the YBh's role in the 20th century, another episode in Yogācāra's history in China should be acknowledged, namely an unlikely revival of Yogācāra studies during the Míng dynasty (1368-1644). Prior to this short-lived Míng revival of Yogācāra studies, and after its demise, Buddhists in China continued to study Yogācāra as a part of their general curriculum despite the fact that it was considered by both Huáyán and Tiāntái's doctrinal classifications (判教 pànjiào) a "provisional" teaching, inferior to their own "perfect teaching."5 This provisional status was not always favorable, which can account for the fact that there were few who actually took the arduous task of studying these texts. As Whalen LAI (1977:65-66) commented:
Tiāntái, Huáyán, Jìngtǔ (Pure Land), all accepted the association of mind with the universality of Buddha-nature. This association was so axiomatic that the Fǎxiàng school has the misfortune of being labeled as crypto-Mahāyāna or pro-Hīnayāna for disclaiming the universality of the Buddha-nature and speaking of a deluded ālayavijñāna (storehouse-consciousness). No Indian Buddhists would have thought of calling Yogācāra a Hīnayāna school.6
The fact that the school's genre of writing was Abhidharmic further convinced many Chinese Buddhists that this teaching is related to the Hīnayāna family of doctrines, for which reason the school received the unflattering name of Fǎxiàng (法相) or "the characteristics of dharmas" (dharmalakṣaṇa)7 – a derogatory expression used by opponents of the school. Despite their suspicion of the Yogācāra School, Míng Buddhists found the Yogācāra teaching important enough that it again became a focus of interest. However, most of those who studied Yogācāra during the Míng did so through catechist works such as the Eight Essential [Texts] of the Fǎxiàng School (相宗八要 Xiàngzōng bàyào) listed by Xuéláng Hóngēn (雪浪洪恩, 1545-1608).8 Interestingly, the YBh was not among the texts that formed the catechism of Yogācāra studies in the Míng, a point that 20th-century Buddhists harshly criticized.
The Yogācāra Movement of the Early 20th Century During the early decades of the 20th century, after centuries of dormancy, Buddhist scholasticism with its focus on the systematic study of texts resumed once again the center stage of Chinese and Chinese Buddhist intellectual life. The intellectual interest in Buddhism
Even in the East Asian Yogācāra tradition other works such as the Chéng wéishì lùn (成唯識論, T1585.1a-59a) became the authoritative texts of the tradition. 5 For the doctrinal classification of the Huáyán tradition, see GREGORY (1991:115-135); for the Tiántái doctrinal classification, see HURVITZ (1959:252-301, especially his treatment of Yogācāra as a separate teaching on pp. 291-297). 6 For the Fǎxiàng School's rejection of the universality of the Buddha-nature and the reactions of Chinese Buddhists during the Táng Dynasty, see the article by Makoto YOSHIMURA in the present volume. 7 For more details about the term Fǎxiàng, see the brief discussion in AVIV (2008:170-171). 8 X899.471c1-c19. The eight are: (1) Vasubandhu's *Mahāyāna-śatadharma-prakāśamukha-śāstra (百 法明門論 Bǎifǎ míngmén lùn, T1614.855b11-855c22); (2) Vasubandhu's Triṃśikā (唯識三十論 Wéishì sānshí lùn, T1586.60a16-61b24); (3) Dignāga's Ālaṃbanaparīkṣā (觀所緣緣論 Guān suǒyuányuán lùn, T1624.888b3889a11); (4) Dharmapāla's commentary on the Ālaṃbanaparīkṣā (觀所緣緣論釋 Guān suǒyuányuán lùn shì, T1625.88916-892a11); (5) Chéngguān's (澄觀, 738-839) System of the Six Kinds of [[[Sanskrit]]] Compound (六離合 釋法式 liù líhé shì fǎshì) from the Huáyán jīng suíshū yǎnyì chāolù (華嚴經隨疏演義鈔錄, T1736.1a3-701a24); (6) Śaṃkarasvāmin's *Nyāyapraveśaśāstra (因明入正理論 Yīnmíng rùzhènglǐ lùn, T1840.91b7-143a20); (7) Xuánzàng's Three Parts of Syllogism (三支比量 sānzhī bǐliáng, X861.953c6-960b19); and (8) Xuánzàng's Verses on the Structure of the Eight Consciousnesses (八識規矩頌 Bāshì guījǔ sòng, root text found in Pǔtaì's (普泰) Bāshì guījǔ bǔzhù (八識規矩補註, T1865.467c16-476b29).
was sparked during the 19th century. LIÁNG Qǐchāo (梁啟超), one of the leading intellectuals of late 19th- and early 20th- century China, remarked, "among the late Qīng 'Scholars of New Learning,' there were almost none who did not have some connection with Buddhism, and true believers in general clustered about Yáng Wénhùi (楊文會, 1837-1911)" (LIÁNG, 1959:116). The main vehicle for this revival was the teaching of Yogācāra. How did it happen that after more than a millennium, the Yogācāra tradition experienced a renaissance by leading figures of the Chinese intelligentsia and Buddhist thinkers alike? While a full answer is complex and must wait for another occasion, the
simple answer is that we cannot detach the revival of scholasticism from China's growing contacts with other countries, especially with the Western powers in the modern period. YÁNG Wénhùi is a good example of such transformation. For much of his life he was a leading scholar and practitioner who advocated mainstream East Asian Buddhism. Like other Buddhists in late Imperial China, throughout most of his career, YÁNG based his teaching on texts such as the Awakening of Faith9 and the *Śūraṃgamasūtra.10 His mainstream views began to change when he served as a diplomat in England and toured other European countries. In 1881, he befriended the Japanese Buddhist monk, NANJIO Bunyiu (南条文雄 NANJŌ Bunyū, 1849-1926) who studied Sanskrit under Max MÜLLER (1823-1900) in Oxford in order to better understand the origins of Buddhism. The philological and historical methods that were used by the Orientalists in England were somewhat of a revelation for YÁNG. Through his interaction with NANJŌ, YÁNG learned that some long-held views among
his contemporaries could easily be refuted when consulting Sanskrit manuscripts. For example, YÁNG was disappointed to hear that the Awakening of Faith is not mentioned in Sanskrit manuscripts at all. NANJŌ also told him that it is futile to publish a critical edition of a text using the Chinese translation alone when there is a Sanskrit text available. After his six years in Europe, YÁNG returned to China determined to promote global Buddhism and correct misconceptions that were held by Chinese Buddhists. One very
helpful gesture was NANJŌ's offer when they parted ways to send back manuscripts that were lost in China from Japan. With the help of his kinsman who was stationed in the Chinese embassy in Japan, 200-300 volumes of texts were retrieved. 11 As commentaries on Yogācāra texts were among the important texts that were recovered to China, it seems that YÁNG gradually turned the Yogācāra teaching into the focus of his teaching and material printing.12 YÁNG was not alone; following his footsteps a host of Chinese intellectuals began to study those texts.
The YBh in the Thoughts of OŪYÁNG Jìngwú and HÁN Qīngjìng As a result of these newly available commentaries, the YBh began to attract the attention of Chinese intellectuals. Notable among them was ZHĀNG Bǐnglín (章炳麟), the famous Chinese intellectual, revolutionary, and Buddhist, who dedicated three years of his life to the study of this śāstra, alongside other Yogācāra texts while serving his term in the Manchu prison. Yet, the most prominent Buddhist thinkers among those who studied the text were OŪYÁNG Jìngwú and HÁN Qīngjìng. The two were the most famous lay Buddhist scholars among the Chinese intelligentsia of the early 20th century. A popular saying of the day captures the spirit of seekers Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn ( 大乘起信論, T1666.575a3-583b17). 10 Shǒulèngyán jīng (首楞嚴經, T945.106b8-155b4). 11 Among them were copies of Yogācāra texts such as 1) Kuījī's commentary on the Chéng wéishì lùn (Chéng wéishì lùn shùjì, 成唯識論述記 T1830.229a-606c), completed in 651 and considered to be the most authoritative commentary on the Chéng wéishì lùn ; 2) Yúqié shīdì lùn jì, Doryun's commentary on the Yogācārabhūmiśastra (瑜伽師地論記, T1828.311a-868b); 3) Dàshèng fǎyuàn yìlín zhāng (大乘法苑義林章, T1861.245a3-374c11), a work by Kuījī wherein he discusses the principles of Yogācāra; and 4) works of Buddhist logic, such as the Yīnmíng rù zhènglǐ lùn shū (因明入正理論疏, T1840.91b7-143a20), a commentary on the *Nyāyapraveśa also written by Kuījī. 12 See WELCH (1966:9, 295 n. 21).
who wanted a high quality Buddhist training in those days, "Oūyáng is in the south, Hán is in the North" (南歐北韓).13
HÁN Qīngjìng (韓清淨, 1884-1949) HÁN was born as HÁN Kèdìng (韓克定) in 1884. Thus far, he has received much less academic attention than OŪYÁNG, perhaps because his institute attracted less prominent "celebrity" intellectuals than that of OŪYÁNG and because he did not have OŪYÁNG's charisma. Another reason is the destruction of many of his institute's materials during the Cultural Revolution (CHÉNG, 2001:2). He was from Héjiān (河間), in Héběi province. In his early years, he received a traditional Confucian education and passed the first stage of the examination but soon after lost interest in bureaucracy and focused instead on the study of Buddhism. While reading a variety of Buddhist literature, HÁN found the Yogācāra texts especially challenging and resolved to understand their meaning. Consequently, he dedicated the following years to study the
Yogācāra system. In 1921, he and other like-minded intellectuals formed the Yogācāra Studies Association (法相研究會 Fǎxiàng yánjiūhuì) in Běijīng, which served as the center for his teaching and research for the rest of his career. HÁN commented once that the core of the Chéng wéishì lùn, which negates external objects, is not sufficient to encompass the entire great function of the Mahāyāna. It was only through the YBh that the fine meaning of Mahāyāna could be revealed (GUŌ, 1989:191). HÁN lamented the fact that despite its importance none of the existing commentaries, including those by Kuījī and Doryun, were satisfactory, and it was this fact that led him to focus on the study of the YBh itself. HÁN left home and together with ZHŪ Fèihuáng (朱芾煌, 1877-1955), who later wrote a Yogācāra dictionary, moved to Yúnjū Temple in Fángshān county (房山). There they made a vow to study thoroughly the YBh. The results were three years of intensive study and writing that yielded one of the most remarkable works of the Republican Period, a
comprehensive kēpàn (科判) division of the text, (瑜伽師地論科句 Yúqiéshīdìlùn kējù) together with his own commentary on the text, the Pīxúnjì (瑜伽師地論披尋記 Yúqiéshīdìlùn pīxúnjì), a work of about 70,000 characters. In 1927, HÁN established his research institute and named it the "Tri-Phase Institute" (三時學會 Sānshí xuéhuì), based on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra's division of the Buddhist teaching into three "turnings of the wheel": the Śrāvaka, the Prajñāparamitā, and the Yogācāra phases.14 The main goal of the
institute was to introduce the orthodox Indian Buddhist thought to China, with HÁN lecturing on Yogācāra thought at the institute and surrounding universities. HÁN's work demonstrates a critical approach to the YBh, rare among late Imperial and early Republican Buddhists. His work criticized translation problems, textual transmission problems, and the way the text was organized when it was first translated. He noted in the introduction to his commentary, "I further discovered that the text contains many errors regarding the words and sentences, and there are also mistakes in the text's arrangement of chapters and sections."15 This, said HÁN, was "not only the error of those who copied the text, but also involved faults on part of the original translators."16 Moreover,
According to the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇi, at the stage of wisdom attained by thinking (思所 成慧地 sīsuǒ chéng huì), when the text differentiates between different dharmas, the dharmas which are known and which are cognized ought be placed before the dharmas that are conditioned. However, the text does not do so… and the former mistakenly appears as part of the stage of the hearers (Śrāvakabhūmi) in the Viniścayasaṃgrahanī. This is an error in the order of the text not in explaining its meaning... At first I thought See http://www.yinshun.org.tw/books/22/yinshun22-15.html. Accessed on July 19, 2009. 14 See T676.697a23-b9. 15 HÁN (1996, vol. 1, p. 3): 乃復發見文句舛誤者固多，章節錯簡者亦有。 16 Ibid.: 非唯傳寫之訛，亦乃原譯之失。
at it is a copying mistake, but then I realized that there is a mistake in [translating] the Sanskrit.17 Further, HÁN noted,
On the 20th page of the 100th fascicle, [the YBh says], 'And further there are ten kinds of knowledge that encompass all knowable objects. These are the knowledge of dharma, the subsequent knowledge (anvayajñāna, 類智 lèizhì), the knowledge of the mundane world (世俗智 shìsú zhì), knowledge of others' minds, knowledge of suffering etc, knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna 盡智 jìnzhì), and knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna, 無生智 wúshēng zhì). The detailed discussion of the distinction among them (i.e., between the ten knowledges) has been put forth in the stage of the hearers.
However, this distinction between the ten kinds of knowledge should, in fact, be a part of the "stage of wisdom attained by thinking" in theViniścayasaṃgrahanī because it refers to the distinction among the dharmas that are knowable (所知法 suǒzhī fǎ). Hence [the distinctions among the ten knowledges] should not be a part of the stage of the hearers.
One could assume that this mistake in the textual arrangement in the translated text is based on the Sanskrit original. If not, how come there are similar mistakes both in the earlier and later texts? [It is obvious that] the past worthies did not proofread their text and that the masters of translation also did not investigate the text thoroughly. We can see that there are not so many among the ancients and the contemporaries, Chinese or non-Chinese, who devote themselves to study of the big śāstra, elucidate the text, and search for its meaning.18
The last example he gives in his Pīxúnjì is,
The Stage of the Bodhisattva (Bodhisattvabhūmi) in the Basic Section (Maulī Bhūmi) of the Great Treatise is divided into [different] sections. The first support (ādhāra, 持 chí), i.e., the Yoga-abode (Yogasthāna); the second support, i.e., the Yoga-abode of conforming to the Dharma; the third support, the Yoga-abode of culmination; the fourth support, the Yoga-abode of sequence; etc. [However,] do we know what the basis for this [[[division]]] of sections (品 pǐn) is? The opening verse (uddāna) of the Stage of the Bodhisattva says, 'The first is support, then signs, factors, superior thoughts, abode, arising, the acceptance [of the Buddha's teaching], stages, deeds, and establishment is
the last one.' The prose explains, 'there are three different kinds of supports: the first is the support of effectiveness [in bearing fruits] (bhavyatā), next is the support of practicing the preliminary practices (prayoga), and the last is the support that fulfills the great Bodhi.' All [three] belong to the first category, [upholding, in the opening uddāna]; those that come after are not called 'supports'. So why is there a mark of division to the second, third, and fourth 'supports'? The translation [of Xuánzàng] should have based itself on the Sanskrit text, but this is definitely not what the Bodhisattva Maitreya expounded! [This is because the division into the second, third, and fourth supports] is not compatible with the [original] text. This must have been the interpolation of the translation masters, for is it not an explanation based on one's own ideas? Is it not contradicting the treatise?19 Ibid.: 如〈攝決擇分〉中〈思所成慧地〉所舉差別各法內，有所知、所識法，應置所緣法 前，而竟漏略不及…至所漏略所知、所緣諸法，發見妄列〈抉擇分．聲聞地〉中。此則章節錯簡， 毫無疑義者也…初則以為傳刻之訛，繼乃知為梵文之誤。 18 Ibid.:《大論》卷一百，二十頁云：「復有十智，能覺一切所知境界，謂法智、類智、世 俗智、他心智、苦等智、盡、無生智。此廣分別，如聲聞地。」然此十智分別應屬〈抉擇分．思所 成慧地〉，皆是所知法差別，不應列入〈聲聞地〉中。當知譯本錯簡根據梵文。不然，何故前後同 一訛誤？古昔諸德皆未校正，翻譯諸師亦未深察，可知從事研究《大論》而能披文尋義者，古今中 外不易多覯矣！ 19 HÁN (1996, vol. 1, p. 4):《大論》〈本地分．菩薩地〉中，分列「初持瑜伽處」、「第二隨 法瑜伽處」、「第三持究竟瑜伽處」、「第四持次第瑜伽處」諸品，不知何所依據？〈菩薩地〉初 嗢柁南曰：「初持次相分，增上意樂住，生攝受地行，建立最為後。」長行釋云：「持有三種。一 為堪任性持，次為行加行持，後為圓滿大菩提持。」皆為初持所攝，次後皆不名「持」，何可分為
As it is evident from the above excerpts, HÁN's contribution to the formation of Yogācāra studies in Republican China lay in his critical reading of the foundational text YBh and in providing an updated commentary on the text, the first to be written in China since more than a millennium. In his book on the history of modern Chinese Buddhism, SHÌ Dōngchū (1974:671) compared HÁN and OŪYÁNG as follows:
[Hán Qīngjìng's] method of scholarship is entirely different from that of Oūyáng. When Oūyáng studied the Yogācāra texts he did not pursue the origin of each and every character, but [instead] tried to grasp the general message of the text (大意 dàyi). This is why he began with the Yogācāra corpus, then [studied] the Prajñāparamitā and toward the end studied the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra while always connecting it to the core of his teaching. Hán, on the other hand, chose the path of in-depth study.20 His goal in studying the Yogācāra teaching was to study thoroughly the YBh, and then to relate it to the other ten branches [of study].21 [As he focused only on] the so-called "one root and ten branches," his studies never went beyond the boundaries of this single area [of Buddhist learning].
In many regards SHÌ Dōngchū is right. Still, this is not to say that OŪYÁNG did not pursue philological methods of investigation, for – as will be argued below – he was as committed to philological and historical research like his Northern counterpart, but, he was also more hermeneutically daring in his approach. For both, however, Yogācāra was the foundation and peak of the Buddhist tradition; it was the cipher of authenticity and the benchmark by which East Asian Buddhism ought to be critically evaluated.22 If Yogācāra was the foundation of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the YBh was for OŪYÁNG and HÁN the underpinning of Yogācāra.
OŪYÁNG Jìngwú (歐陽竟無, 1871-1943) OŪYÁNG Jìngwú was born in 1871 in Yíhuáng county (宜黃), Jiāngxī province. His original name was OŪYÁNG Jiàn (歐陽漸) and his courtesy name OŪYÁNG Jìnghú (歐陽鏡湖).23 OŪYÁNG came from an educated background and was given a traditional Confucian education. He was familiar with all traditional branches of knowledge including the critical methods of the Evidential Scholarship movement (Kǎozhèngxúe 考證學), which he would later apply to the study of Buddhist scriptures including the YBh. OŪYÁNG was introduced to Buddhism toward the end of the 19th century, but he only converted when he met his teacher, YÁNG Wénhùi, in 1904. YÁNG convinced OŪYÁNG that there is more to Buddhism than its East Asian representation and encouraged him to study the Yogācāra tradition. Indeed, it was through the study of Yogācāra that he was able to overcome
第二、第三、第四諸所持相？譯本當亦根據梵文，定非彌勒菩薩所說。此則論文中間義不容有者 也！翻譯諸師沿襲增入，豈非隨自意解，與《論》相矛盾耶？ 20 精兵主義 jīngbīng zhǔyì, literally meaning to focus on perfectly training the army under one's command instead of attempting to enlarge it. 21 Referring to the other ten key Yogācāra treatises. The ten branches are: (1) the *Mahāyāna śatadharmā prakāśamukha śāstra by Vasubandhu (百法明門論); (2) the *Pañca-skandha-prakaraṇa by Vasubandhu (五蘊論 T31.1612); (3) the *Ārya śāsana prakaraṇa by Asaṅga (顯揚聖教論 T31.1602); (4) the Mahāyānasaṃgraha śāstra by Asaṅga (攝大乘論 T31.1594, Xuanzang translation); (5) the Abhidharmasamuccaya by Asaṅga (阿毘達磨集論 T31.1605);
(6) the Madhyāntavibhāga bhāsya attributed to Maitreya (辯中邊論 T31.1600); (7) the Vimśatikā śāstra by Vasubandhu (二十唯識論 T31.1590); (8) the Triṃśikā śāstra by Vasubandhu (三十唯識論) (9) Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra śāstra attributed to Asaṅga or Maitreya (大乘莊嚴論 T31.1604), (10) the Fenbie yuqie lun attributed to Maitreaya (分別瑜伽論 did not survive only mentioned in other sources). 22 In that sense, OŪYÁNG foresaw the rise of critical Buddhism in Japan and was responsible for the wave of critical Buddhism in China; see CHU (2006) and LIN (1997). 23 He changed his name to Jìngwú only in his 40s.
his doubts. In 1922, OŪYÁNG officially opened the China Institute of Inner Studies, or Zhīnà nèixúe yuàn (支那內學院), next to YÁNG's printery in Nánjīng,24 where he taught contemporaneous leading Chinese intellectuals Buddhist thought with a focus on Yogācāra. It was there that he – with the help of several disciples – facilitated the revival of Yogācāra in the early 20th century, leaving a crucial impact on modern Chinese intellectual history. For OŪYÁNG, Yogācāra was more than the authentic voice in Buddhism but also, in his words: … an expedient means, the ultimate reasoning. The one who studies this path can comprehend the truth. It can also cure [wrong] thinking and [clear away] the obstacles of vagueness and being unsystematic.25
In other words, Yogācāra was a tool by which Chinese Buddhists could correct their misconceptions and, by acquiring the correct view, enjoy the fruits of Buddhism. As noted before, during the Míng Dynasty Chinese Buddhists had likewise attempted to revive the Yogācāra teaching but that effort did not reach fruition. SHÌ Shèngyán offers this explanation:
Late Míng Yogācāra originated in the treatises translated by Xuánzàng, [but] it had different features from the [[[Yogācāra]]] of Kuījī's period. The old texts were lost, and there was no way to study them. [Additionally,] the demands of Buddhism at that time were different from those of Kuījī's era. Kuījī established Yogācāra as the sole philosophical system, which explains the entirety of the Buddhist teaching, late Ming Buddhist scholars, used the Yogācāra teaching to bridge the [incoherencies] of the Buddhist teaching as a whole, in order to address the [[[Wikipedia:theoretical|theoretical]]] lacuna [in other schools’ teachings] and adapt it to the demands of their time.26 OŪYÁNG was even more critical:
The Míng revivalists tried to [re]build the wall of the [Fǎxiàng] teaching. They worked hard but had no achievements (唐功 tánggōng). Then, over the course of several ce nturies, those who wished to command this teaching did not study carefully any other [[[Yogācāra]]] text than the Eight Essential Texts of the Fǎxiàng School (相宗八要 Xiàngzōng bā yào)27 and The Core Teaching of Vijñaptimātra (唯識心要 Wéishì xīn yào).28 Their discourse was a disunited shambles, and [they achieved only] a narrow sectarian view,29 whereas [the scope of Fǎxiàng] is as broad as heaven and earth they did not know it; it has the excellence of being well-structured but they did not make good use of it. They only cast their eyes over the surface, and then left it at that. Who [among them] bothered with [the challenges of] the Yogācārabhūmi ?30 Thus, according to OŪYÁNG, the Míng revivalists' sectarian and sloppy approach led to "no achievements," and a major reason for the "disunified shambles" of their teaching was their
In 1937, after the Japanese occupation of Nānjìng, the Nèixúe yuàn moved to Jiāngjīn (江津) in Sìchuān province. 25 OŪYÁNG (1976b:1360): 唯識、法相，方便善巧，道理究竟。學者於此研求，既能洞明義理， 又可藥思想儱侗之弊. 26 SHÌ Shèngyán (1987:4): 明末的唯識思想，雖係傳自玄奘所譯諸論，但確已非窺基時代的面 貌，一則古疏失傳，無以為考，再則時代佛教的要求，不同於窺基的思想，窺基建立的是以唯識的 一家之說來闡明全體的佛法，明末的諸家，則是以唯識教義來溝通全體佛教而補時代需求之不足。 27 A one-fascicle work by the late Míng monk Xuéláng Hóngēn (雪浪洪恩). Xuéláng prescribed eight essential texts of the Fǎxiàng School and summarized their contents; X55.899. 28 A ten-fascicles work by Ǒuyì zhìxù (蕅益智旭, 1599-1655) on the Chéng wéishì lùn, also known as Chéng wéishì lùn guānxīn fǎyào ( 成唯識論觀心法要); X51.824. 29 戶牖一孔之見 hùyǒu yīkǒngzhījiàn, literally, "they had a view through a hole in the door or through a window," but by extension the expression implies narrow sectarian views. 30 OŪYÁNG (1976a:352): 明人壁造，勞而唐功。遂使數百余年，治此宗者，舍《相宗八要》、 《唯識心要》以外，無別精研。支離破碎之談，戶牖一孔之見，有天地之大而不能知，有規矩之巧 而弗獲用，惟望此而卻走，誰有事於《瑜伽》.
oidance of the YBh root-text. This was what OŪYÁNG set out to correct. In 1917, OŪYÁNG concluded five years of intensive study of the YBh, which resulted in the publication of the last 50 fascicles of the text. By publishing those remaining chapters, OŪYÁNG fulfilled his promise to YÁNG Wénhùi. In addition to the 50 later fascicles, OŪYÁNG also published a lengthy preface entitled Introduction to the Yogācārabhūmi (瑜伽師地論敘 Yúqíe shīdì lùn xù), in which he outlined, analyzed, and contextualized the text. This publication positioned OŪYÁNG as a firstrate Buddhist thinker of his day, with the depth and precision of a critical scholar and a unique hermeneutical approach. Given the fact that OŪYÁNG only worked with the Chinese version of the text and used philological and historiographical methods that may seem outdated from a modern perspective,31 it is
sometimes tempting to disregard him as sloppy when compared to later critical Buddhists, such as his disciple LǙ Chéng (呂澂, 1896-1989), HAKAMAYA Noriaki (袴 谷憲昭), or MATSUMOTO Shirō (菽翌喇悍), but we must remember that at his time his work was a substantial step forward in applying critical methods to the study of Buddhist texts. OŪYÁNG's preface to the YBh merits a more comprehensive treatment, but for the purpose of demonstrating the importance Oūyáng attached to the text, I should like to focus merely on one doctrinal innovation he outlined therein. In his preface, OŪYÁNG differentiated between two different Buddhist paradigms, terming them fǎxiàng and wéishì. YBh's unique role is best understood once one has fully grasped these two paradigms in the way OŪYÁNG understood them. According to him, the YBh was the only text that was sufficiently foundational to encompass both paradigms. Historically speaking, both words were synonyms for the Yogācāra School in China. While wéishí (唯識) is the translation of the term "cognition-
only" (vijñāptimātra), the name fǎxiàng has a more ambiguous history. Often translated as "characteristics of dharmas" (dharmalakṣaṇa), the term is often context-dependent. For example, according to HIRAKAWA's index of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the Chinese phrase appears only once in this encyclopedic text with the above corresponding Sanskrit equivalent (T1558.1b10). However, there are other places in the same text, when the Sanskrit original merely has the word dharma, 'phenomenon', where Xuánzàng has translated that Sanskrit word with the Chinese expression fǎxiàng, "characteristics of dharmas."32 After the Táng Dynasty, the term was used for the first time to denote Xuánzàng's Yogācāra School. Ironically, while this is the name commonly used to designate the East Asian Yogācāra School, it was originally a derogatory expression used by the opponents
of the school. Huáyán thinkers such as Fǎzàng (法藏 643-712) and Chéngguān (澄觀 738-83) mocked the Yogācārins who pursue the "characteristics of dharmas" rather than the real nature of dharmas (fǎxìng 法性).33 OŪYÁNG stripped these terms from their historical context and "poured new meaning into the old bottles." For him, the two terms represented two different paradigms (zōng 宗) that could be found throughout Buddhist thought, but especially in the Yogācāra tradition. For him, the fǎxiàng paradigm, on one hand, was Abhidharmic in the sense that it gave a systematic and universal metaphysical framework to the Buddhist doctrine. The wéishì paradigm, on the other hand, focused more on the goal of the path and promoted a novel discourse and a new philosophical framework as found in the Yogācāra tradition. OŪYÁNG (1976a:319) outlined the difference between the two. For example, while wéishì is rooted more in Buddhist practice, fǎxiàng is firmer rooted in reason and theoretical study. Or, wéishì discerns between objects (了
For example, when discussing the Awakening of Faith, Oūyáng, unlike the many in the academia today and in his own days, accepted the traditional account on the authorship of Aśvaghoṣa, despite the fact that he noticed the discrepancies between texts such as the YBh to the Awakening of Faith. His explanation was that the discrepancies are probably due to the fact that Aśvaghoṣa wrote the Awakening of Faith, in his pre-Mahāyāna stage. His evidence was a discussion in the CWSL in which Xuánzàng argued against the Vibhajyavādins theory of originally pure mind (See CWSL T1585.8c20-c22), a theory that Oūyáng argued is reflected in those of the Awakening of Faith. 32 See T1558.1b24 and T1558.10c15-16. 33 See, e.g., Chéngguān's commentary on the Huáyán Sūtra (T1735.511a2) for the differences between fǎxiàng and fǎxìng.
別 liàobié), whereas fǎxiàng is Suchness (如如 rúrú).34 Further, for OŪYÁNG, the fǎxiàng paradigm is a comprehensive principle that serves as a vehicle for all Buddhists, whereas the Wéishí paradigm is designed as a vehicle for bodhisattvas and practitioners of the Mahāyāna. These two groups rely on different textual support. For example, the Abhidharmasamuccaya is a fǎxìang text par excellence – in fact OŪYÁNG (1942:2) calls it "the gate of fǎxiàng." Other such texts include the Madhyāntavibhāga or Sthiramati's
Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā. The wéishì paradigm is associated with texts like the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the Vimśatikā, or the Trimśikā. To sum up, we have two paradigms that represent different dimensions in the Buddhist teaching. The main question for our purpose is where the YBh falls between the two? OŪYÁNG's answer is that the 17 stages of the YBh encompass both paradigms and establishes a single foundation [for the Buddhist teaching]. Here, I argue, lies the concise answer to the role of the YBh in the early republic. The YBh, in OŪYÁNG's hermeneutics, was considered the only text that at once incorporated both dimensions of the Buddhist teaching. HÁN as well as OŪYÁNG saw the YBh in this manner. From an East Asian perspective, they approached Buddhism from an unorthodox angle, attempting to revive a teaching that by most Buddhists in China was considered low when compared to what was seen as the perfect teachings of the Tathāgatagarbha tradition. For HÁN and OŪYÁNG, the YBh served as the unifying text – as the systematic and authoritative foundation of the 'authentic' tradition.
The YBh after HÁN and OŪYÁNG Given the importance of the text to the two pioneers of the Yogācāra rebirth in modern China, it is perhaps surprising that the YBh did not retrain its significance among scholastic Buddhists in China. While HÁN Qīngjìng did not have any notable disciples who carried on his teaching, OUYÁNG Jìngwú had many prominent disciples; prime among them being LǙ Chéng. LǙ's collection of writings includes many pieces on Buddhist Logic and Yogācāra, treating texts such as Vasubandhu's Xiǎnyáng shèngjiào lùn (顯揚聖教論) and Sthiramati's commentaries on the Triṃśikā, the Madhyāntavibhāga, and others, but none of his Yogācāra writings treated exclusively or extensively
the YBh. Other well-known scholastics in OŪYÁNG's circle, such as WÁNG Ēnyáng (王恩洋, 1897-1964) studied and lectured on the YBh, but they too did not seem to focus on the text to the extent their teacher had done. Further notable scholastic Buddhists who were not directly associated with OŪYÁNG's school also did not focus on the YBh to the same degree. Why is it that the YBh ceased to be a "root-text"? Reading through the writings of these scholars I did not find any explicit explanation. With no direct evidence, I
can only offer two tentative hypotheses. First, the Yogācāra fever that engulfed many prominent intellectuals in the first three decades of the 20th century did not last long. Chinese monastic Buddhists, unconvinced that the East Asian tradition was in any need of reform, continued – for the most part – to view the East Asian Buddhist tradition as the "perfect teaching." Chinese non-Buddhist intellectuals of the mid-1920s found other more "mundane" concerns and Buddhist philosophy lost its appeal. Once the Yogācāra movement lost its aspiration to reform Buddhism (even OŪYÁNG himself became more interested in a syncretic approach to Buddhism later in his life), the YBh could no longer be perceived as the foundational text and a benchmark for the "correct" Buddhist teaching. It may seem perplexing that Oūyáng equates wéishì with the notion of discernment as wéishì is also associated later on with the principle (lǐ 理), which in Huáyán tradition replaces the notion of emptiness, and would therefore seem to fit better with suchness. There are two possible ways to account for this seeming contradiction. First, Oūyáng later claims that wéishì is associated with ālayavijñāna, which is discriminatory in nature. Fǎxiàng on the other hand, is associated with suchness (ruru 如如), since for Oūyáng all dharmas are suchness in their real nature (and fǎxiàng equals all dharmas). Another interpretation is to understand discernment, or representation (了別), as representation or consciousness only (=唯識), whereas 如如, most often translated as suchness would be taken as “this and that” (Skt. yathā tathā).
Secondly, Buddhist scholastics, in a period of growing global connectedness, became more professionalized and much closer to what in the West is called "Buddhist Studies" than to the more traditional Buddhist scholarship conducted by OŪYÁNG and HÁN. Later scholastics, such as LǙ Cheńg and HÁN Jìngqīng (韓鏡清, 1912-2003), studied other classical languages, including Sanskrit and Tibetan, and gained more exposure to non-Chinese scholarship in the form of Japanese and Western secondary sources. With new philological skills, their work became more focused on shorter texts in which full comparison can be conducted between the existing Sanskrit and Tibetan versions and the Chinese.35
Summary and Conclusion For a brief period in the late Qīng and the early Republic, Chinese Buddhist and non-Buddhists alike found great meaning in the Yogācāra tradition and in Buddhist scholasticism as a whole. The leaders of this "Yogācāra fever," most notably HÁN Qīngjìng and OŪYÁNG Jìngwú, were critical of the traditional East Asian Buddhist schools, such as Tiāntái and Huáyán, and wished to reestablish the "authentic" tradition of Indian Buddhism. Both HÁN and OŪYÁNG attached special importance to the YBh, seeing it as the root-text that summarized the entire Buddhist knowledge and encompassed the teachings designed for practitioners of different capacities and from different "vehicles" (i.e., both the so-called Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna). New commentaries were written on the text, old commentaries were retrieved, and studies of the texts were published in the various Buddhists journals of those days. This phase, while important to the formation of modern Chinese Buddhism, did not last long and the YBh, while still an important text for Chinese Buddhist scholastics today, lost its prestige as the singularly most foundational text. Critical Buddhism is still an important voice in East Asian Buddhism, a voice that can be traced back to the pioneering role of OŪYÁNG and HÁN, who considered the YBh the key text in reestablishing what "authentic" Buddhism should be like.
Differentiating the Pearl from the Fish Eye: Ouyang Jingwu (1871-1943) and the Revival of Scholastic Buddhism, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. CHÉN, Jìdōng (2004): "A New Horizon in Reconstructing East Asian Buddhism: The Exchanges between Yang Wenhui and Nanjio Bunjiu in the Late 19th Century," unpublished paper delivered at the conference "Global Flows and Reconstructing Asian Buddhism in an Age of Empires," Duke University. CHÉNG, Gōngràng (程恭讓) (2001): "Hán Qīngjìng jūshì fójiào sīxiǎng zhī tèzhí xīlùn"(韓清淨居士佛教思 想之特質析論) ["An Analysis of the Features of Lay-Practitioner HÁN Qīngjìng's Buddhist Thought"], in Pǔmén xuébào (普門學報), vol. 1, pp. 1-13. CHU, William (2006):
A Buddha-Shaped Hole: Yinshun's Critical Buddhology and the Theological Crisis in Modern Chinese Buddhism, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. GUŌ, Péng (郭朋) (1989): "Hán Qīngjìng de fójiào sīxiǎng" (韓清淨的佛學思想) ["The Buddhist Thought of HÁN Qīngjìng"], in Zhōngguó jìndài fójiào sīxiǎng shǐgǎo (中國近代佛學思想史稿) [The Intellectual History of Modern Chinese Buddhism], edited by GUŌ Péng, Chéngdū: Bāshú shūshè [巴蜀 書社]. HÁN, Qīngjìng (韓清淨) (1996): Yúqié shīdì lùn kējù pīxúnjì huìbiān (瑜伽師地論科句披尋記彙編) [Text Division and Auto-Commentary of the Yogācārabhūmi], Táiběi: Xīnwénfēng chūbǎnshè [新文豐 出版]. HURVITZ, Leon (1959): Chih-I (538-597) – An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk, Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. LAI, Whalen (1977): "The Meaning of 'Mind-Only' (Wei-Hsin): An Analysis of a Sinitic Mahayana Phenomenon" in Philosophy East and West 27.1, pp. 65-83. LIÁNG, Qǐchāo (1958): Intellectual Trends in the Ch'ing Period, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LIN, Chen-kuo (1997): "Metaphysics, Suffering, and Liberation: The Debate Between Two Buddhisms" in Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism, edited by Jamie HUBBARD & Paul SWANSON, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 298-313. LUSTHAUS, Dan (2001): Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih lun, New York: RoutledgeCurzon Press. OŪYÁNG, Jìngwú (歐陽竟無) (1942): "Zájí lùn xùnjì xù" (雜集論述記敘) [Preface to KUĪ Jī’s commentary on Sthiramati’s Mahāyānâbhidharasamuccaya vyākhyā], in Jìngwú nèiwài xué (竟無内外學) [OŪYÁNG, Jìngwú’s Internal and External Studies], Jiāngjīn: Zhīnà neìxúe yuàn [[[支那內學院]]]. _________________________ (1976a): "Yúqié shīdì lùn xù" (瑜伽師地論敘) ["Introduction to the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra"], in Oūyáng dàshī yíjí (歐陽大師遺集) [[[Master]] OŪYÁNG’S anthology], Táiběi: Xīnwénfēng chūbǎnshè [新文豐出版], pp. 305-354. _________________________ (1976b): "Wéishì juézé tán (唯識抉擇談) [[[Expositions]] and Discussions of
Vijñāptimātra], in Oūyáng dàshī yíjí (歐陽大師遺集) [[[Master]] OŪYÁNG’S anthology], Táiběi: Xīnwénfēng chūbǎnshè [新文豐出版], pp. 1337-1402. SHÌ, Dōngchū (釋東初) (1974): Zhōngguó fójiào jìndài shǐ (中國佛教近代史) [A Modern History of Chinese Buddhism], Táiběi: Zhōnghuā fójiào wénhuàguǎn yìnxíng [中華佛教文化館印行]. SHÌ, Shèngyán (釋聖嚴) (1987): "Míngmò de wéishìxuézhě jí qí sīxiǎng" (明末的唯識學者及其思想) ["The Vijñaptimātra (Wéishì) Scholars of the Late Míng and their Thought"], Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 2, pp. 1-41. SHÌ, Yìnshùn (釋印順) (1972): "Yǐ fófǎ yánjìu fófǎ" (以佛法研究佛法) [Studying the Buddha-Dharma by means of Buddha-Dharma], Miàoyúnjí [The Collection of Wonderous Clouds] .
http://www.yinshun.org.tw/books/22/yinshun22-15.html Accessed on July 19, 2009. SHIMADA, Kenji (1990): Pioneer of the Chinese Revolution: Zhang Binglin and Confucianism, Stanford: Stanford University Press. WELCH, Holmes (1968): The Buddhist Revival of China, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. YÁO, Zhìhuá (2009): "Tibetan Learning in the Contemporary Chinese Yogācāra School" in Buddhism Between Tibet and China, edited by Matthew KAPSTEIN, Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, pp. 281-294. YÚ, Língbō (于凌波) (1995): Zhōngguó jìnxiàndài fójiào rénwù zhì (中國近現代佛教人物志) [Record of the Figures of Modern Chinese Buddhism], Běijīng: Zōngjiào wénhuà chūbǎnshè [宗教文化出版社].
