Deconstructing and Reconstructing Yogācāra: Ten Levels of Consciousness-only/ One-mind in Huayan Buddhism

by IMRE HAMAR

Introduction

Huayan tradition is regarded as an heir to the Yogācāra teachings, or more precisely the form Yogācāra took when it was first introduced and interpreted in China by the Dilun 地論 and Shelun 攝論 schools.1 These schools transmitted not only the Yogācāra teachings, but also the tathāgatagarbha teachings, thus they had to face the problem of solving some philosophical problems inherent in the synthesis of these two teachings. The Dilun and Shelun schools agreed that the final reality behind the world of phenomena is the entirely pure tathāgatagarbha, as identified with the Buddha-nature, while the tainted ālayavijñāna, which includes both pure and impure karmic seeds, plays only a secondary

role in the process of phenomenal evolution.2 This view was challenged by Xuanzang 玄奘 (600–664) who mastered not only the Sanskrit language in India, but also the Yogācāra philosophy as it was taught at Nālanda university, the center of Buddhist learning at the time. Xuanzang propounded that the final reality is the tainted ālayavijñāna, which “turns around” (āśraya-parāvṛtti), or transforms, in the state of enlightenment.3 The Huayan master, Zhiyan 智儼 (602–668), who later was revered as the second patriarch of the Huayan 華嚴 school, was a disciple of Dilun and Shelun masters, thus it is no wonder that he became a defender of his predecessors’ faith, refuting Xuanzang’s new theories.4

The most efficient way to accomplish his aim was to subordinate Xuanzang’s teaching to the tathāgatagarbha teachings in his doctrinal classification (taxonomy of doctrines) (Ch. panjiao 判教). He claimed that these new Yogācāra teachings represented only the elementary teachings of Mahāyāna, while the tenets of the old schools are the final

1 Elsewhere I studied the way Huayan monks used Yogācāra teaching in their exegetical works. See Hamar 2009. 2 For the famous Dilun master Jingying Huiyuan’s 淨影慧遠 (523–592) interpretation of Yogācāra, see Liu 1985. For the Shelun master, Paramārtha’s (499–569) view on consciousness, see Paul 1981. 3 For the meaning of “turns around”, see Hattori 1985. 4 Gimello showed that Zhiyan started to write extensively to reach this aim. See Gimello 1976.

teachings of Mahāyāna.5 Later Huayan masters all accepted this pattern, highlighting the importance of the tathāgatagarbha as an existing pure entity or one-mind, which establishes the world of phenomena. However, the way they treated Xuanzang’s school, which was called the Faxiang 法相 school by Fazang 法藏 (643–712), the third patriarch, was different.6 Fazang inherited his master’s detestation of this school, but Chengguan 澄觀 (738–839?) and Zongmi 宗密 (780–841), probably due to their personal interest, and, mostly, the influence of Chan 禪 Buddhism, were much more favorably inclined toward it, often citing the scriptures of this new Yogācāra in their works.7 In this article, we

will discuss the ten levels of consciousness-only as propounded by Fazang, and the ten levels of mind-only which is a modification of Fazang’s tenets by Chengguan and Zongmi. Similarly to the well-known fivefold doctrinal classification of Buddhist teachings of the Huayan school (Hīnayāna, elementary, final, sudden, perfect), this is also a paradigm for interpreting Buddhist teachings from the most basic one to the most advanced one, however, this time from the perspective of Yogācāra. As we might expect, we find

Xuanzang’s teachings at the basic level, the old schools in the middle, and, of course, the Huayan teachings on the top of the list. It is important to note that this description of the levels of consciousness-only is not limited to the old school and new school of Yogācāra, but also includes the teachings of the Huayan school. It sheds light on the way Huayan masters valued their own school in the multiplicity of the Buddhist teachings. We will show that, as mentioned above, we find significant differences between Fazang’s and Chengguan’s classification. In addition, Zongmi, who elaborates further his master’s system, clearly identifies the place of the Chan school in this doctrinal classification.

The Original Concept Propounded by Fazang

It was Fazang’s innovation to formulate the ten levels of consciousness-only; however, he was indebted to Xuanzang’s disciple, Kuiji 窺基 (632–682) who, based on his understanding of the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (Treatise on the Demonstration of Consciousness-Only), advocated the five levels of consciousness-only.8 These are: (1) consciousness[-only] of rejecting nonexistence and retaining reality (qianxu cunshi shi 遣虚存實識)

5 For the Huayan way of classification of the teachings, see Liu 1981. 6 For a new, challenging view on Fazang and his Buddhist career, see Chen Jinhua’s new book, Chen 2007. 7 For Chengguan, see Hamar 2002; for Zongmi, see Gregory 1991. For Chengguan’s application of Yogācāra, see Hamar 2003, 2007. 8 Kuiji explains this in the section, “The Forest of Definition of Consciousness-only” (weishi yilin 唯識義林), in his work, Dasheng fayuan zhang 大乘法苑義林章. T 1861, 45: 258b21–260b10.

(2) consciousness[-only] of abandoning the overflowing and keeping the pure (shelan liuchun shi 捨濫留純識) (3) consciousness[-only] of the return of branch to root (shemo guiben shi 攝末歸本 識), (4) consciousness[-only] of concealing the inferior and revealing the superior (yinlie xiansheng shi 隱劣顯勝識) (5) consciousness[-only] of rejecting the characteristics and realizing the nature (qianxiang zhengxing shi 遣相證性識) These five levels represent a more and more profound understanding of the teaching of consciousness-only. At the beginning level, one must understand that there are no external objects apart from consciousness. Next, after the rejection of external objects,

objects are described as internal objects in order to encourage living beings to contemplate mind to attain liberation. Here, Kuiji cites the concept “the three realms are mind-only” from the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. At the third step, one realizes that the subject and object of perception rely on consciousness, thus internal objects are also excluded, and the existence of consciousness is underlined. Next, one must see that mental associates are inferior to consciousness, while at the final level one realizes the real nature of the mind. As the teaching of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra was degraded to the second level, Fazang was probably not satisfied with Kuiji’s scheme, and felt prompted to put forward his own interpretation of the levels of Yogācāra. His presentation, which arranges the various views from the perspective of Huayan Buddhism, is as follows:9 (1) the

proposition of consciousness-only with respect to existence of both object and subject of perception (xiangjian jucun gu shuo weishi 相見倶存故説唯識), (2) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the object of perception to the subject of perception (shexiang guijian gu shuo weishi 攝相歸見 故說唯識), (3) the proposition of

consciousness-only with respect to return of the mental associates to the mind (sheshu guiwang gu shuo weishi 攝數歸王故說唯識), (4) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the branches to the root (yi mo guiben gu shuo weishi 以末歸本故說唯識), (5) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the characteristics to [[[Buddha]]-]nature (shexiang guixing gu shuo weishi 攝相歸性故說唯識), (6) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to establishment of phenomena through transformation of the Absolute (zhuanzhen chengshi gu shuo weishi 轉真成事故說唯識), (7) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to perfect interfusion of principle and phenomena (lishi jurong gu shuo weishi 理事倶融故説唯識),

9 Quotation from Huayanjing tanxuanji 華嚴經探玄記, T 1733, 35: 346c26–347b28. For a detailed explanation of Fazang’s text, see Nakamura 1991.

1(8) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to mutual inclusion of phenomena (rongshi xiangru gu shuo weishi 融事相入故說唯識), 1(9) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to mutual identity of all phenomena (quanshi xiangji gu shuo weishi 全事相即故說唯識), (10) the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to non-obstruction of Indra’s Net (diwang wuai gu shuo weishi 帝網無礙故說唯識). The first level admits the existence of the object and the subject of perception. However, objects are not external objects outside the consciousness, but they evolve out of consciousness and are only images resembling objects. The division of perception into two parts, or aspects, was suggested by Nanda, a Yogācāra master of Northern India in the 6th century. In addition to the subject, or seeing part (darśana-bhāga, Ch. jianfen 見分), and the

object, or seen part (nimitta-bhāga, Ch. xiangfen 相分), a third part, the self-authenticating part (svasaṃvitti-bhāga, Ch. zizheng fen 自證分), was added by Dignāga, and a fourth part that authenticates the self-authentication (svasaṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga, Ch. zheng zizheng fen 證自證分) was added by Dharmapāla.10 Here, Fazang does not refer to the division into three or four parts. He writes: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to existence of both the subject of perception and the object of perception means that [[[consciousness-only]]] includes the eight consciousnesses, the mental associates and objects of perception evolved [out of consciousness] as original forms (bimba, Ch. benzhi 本質) and reflections (pratibimba, yingxiang 影像) completely. Due to the perfuming (vāsanā, Ch. xunxi 薰習) power of the members of existence, etc. the direct, the

circumstantial and other retributions are manifested in the three realms. This is discussed extensively, for example, in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha,11 Vijñaptimātrasiddhi-śāstra,12 and other treatises.13 一相見倶存故説唯識。 謂通八識及諸心所并所變相分本影具足。 由有支等薫習力故 變現三界依正等報。如攝大乘及唯識等諸論廣説。 Fazang divides the objects into two parts, the original forms and the reflections. The original form is the seed of a resembling object in the ālayavijñāna, and the reflection, the resembling object, relies on this original form.14 Chengguan explains that at this level of Yogācāra both mind and mental associates can be divided into a seeing part and a seen part, and the seeing part is the essential (Ch. dangti 當體). He concludes that this level represents the correct definition (Ch. zhengyi 正義) of consciousness-only.15 This first position of Yogācāra is deconstructed on the second level, as it is shown that the objects, or, more precisely, the images resembling objects, cannot be sepa

10 See sifen 四分 in Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, Cook 1999: 60–64. 11 T 1592, 1593. 1594 (Vol. 31). 12 T 1585 (Vol. 31 ). 13 T 1733, 35: 347a2–5. 14 See Nakamura 1975: 1264c. 15 Dafangguang fo huayan jing suishu yanyichao 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔, T 1736, 36: 525c18–23.

rated from mind. In other words, the existence of the seen part must be attributed to the seeing part. Fazang writes: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the object of perception to the subject of perception means that [[[consciousness-only]]] includes the mind and mental associates, but the objects of perception evolved out of consciousness are not born from different seeds.16 When the subjectively viewing mind is born, it brings about the arising of reflections. It is explained completely in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra,17 Vimśatikā,18 and Ālambana parikṣa.19.20 二攝相歸見故説唯識。 謂亦通八識王數差別所變相分無別種生。 能見識生帶彼影 起。如解深密經二十唯識觀所縁論具説斯義。

The third level is the deconstruction of the previous stage, revealing that not only objects rely on mind, but also mental associates, and consequently, consciousnessonly includes only mind. Fifty-one out of the one hundred dharmas of Yogācāra are regarded as mental associates. There are six groups of mental associates: alwaysactive (sarvatraga, Ch. bianxing 遍行), specific (viniyata, Ch. biejing 別境), advantageous (kuśala, Ch. shan 善), mental disturbances (kleśa, Ch. fannao 煩惱), secondary mental disturbances (upakleśa, Ch. sui fannao 隨煩惱), and indeterminate (aniyata, Ch. buding 不定).21 Fazang argues that all of them are dependent on the eight consciousnesses: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the mental associates to the mind means that [[[consciousness-only]]] includes the eight consciousnesses. As the mental associates rely on consciousness, they do not have self-essence. They are also manifested by mind. It is discussed in the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra.22.23 三攝數歸王故説唯識。 謂亦通具八識心王。 以

彼心所依於心王無自體故。 許彼亦 是心所變故。如莊嚴論説。 As all the seeds are contained in the ālayavijñāna, and all the seven consciousnesses evolve out of it, with further deconstruction we arrive at the root-consciousness, the ālayavijñāna. Fazang says: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the branches to the root means that the seven evolving consciousnesses are the different functions of root-consciousness, as they do not have distinct essence. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: “The ocean of storehouse-consciousness is ever abiding, but the wind of objects is moving, causing the various waves of consciousness to arise.”24 It also says: “Just like the great waves of ocean do not

16 Here I translate Chengguan’s version, which is different. 亦通王數。但所變相分無別種生。 17 T 675, 676 (Vol. 16 ). 18 T 1590 (Vol. 31). 19 This is Dignāga’s work, see T 1624, T 1733, 35: 347a5–8. 20 T 1733, 35: 347a5–8. 21 See Lusthaus 2002: 542–543. 22 T 1604 (Vol. 31). 23 T 1733, 35: 347a8–11. 24 T 672, 16: 594c13–14; T 670, 16: 484b11–12.

all consciousnesses and mind are the same.”25 The reality of [[[forms]]] cannot be grasped. It explains that there is no distinct wave apart from water. It elucidates that there are no six and seventh consciousnesses apart from root-consciousness. It is extensively discussed above.26 四以末歸本故説唯識。 謂七轉識皆是本識差別功能。 無別體故。 楞伽云。 藏識海 常住。 境界風所動。 種種諸識浪。 騰躍而轉生。 又云。 譬如巨海浪無有若干相。 諸識心如是。實亦不可得。解云既離水無別有浪。明離本識無別六七。廣如彼説。 The next stage is the last step in the process of deconstruction, when even ālayavijñāna dissolves, as, finally, it turns out not to have self-essence either, since it is the manifestation of the Buddha-nature, as

identified with the tathāgatagarbha. Here, we find the position of the old Yogācāra school in China, which advocates the purity of the final reality. Fazang explains: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the characteristics to [[[Buddha]]-]nature means that the eight consciousnesses do not have self-essence, they are only equally manifested by the tathāgatagarbha, and all other characteristics are extinguished. The [[[Vimalakīrti]]]-sūtra says: “All living beings are endowed with the features of nirvāṇa, they do not extinguish [the afflictions] more.”27 The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: “The eight [[[consciousnesses]]] have the indestructible feature; it has no features,28 thus

they also do not have features.” Similar texts that can become proofs of this are not only one.29 五攝相歸性故説唯識。 謂此八識皆無自體。 唯是如來藏平等顯現。 餘相皆盡。 經 云一切衆生即涅槃相。 不復更滅等楞伽云不壞相有八。 無相亦無相。 如是等文成 證非一。 Fazang cites from the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, but, originally, this stanza referred to the relationship between the seven consciousnesses and the ālayavijñāna. Here is the whole stanza in Suzuki’s translation: “The Citta, Manas, and Vijñānas are discriminated as regards their form; [but

in substance] the eight are not to be separated one from another, for there is neither qualified nor qualifying.”30 They cannot be separated, just like waves cannot be separated from the ocean. However, Chinese commentators explained that this text describes the relationship between the eight consciousnesses and the tathāgatagarbha.31 As the eight consciousnesses rely on tathāgatagarbha, they do not have their own self-essence, thus they do not have

25 The correct citation is: Like wave of the ocean, there is no distinction, all consciousnesses and mind are similar, there is no difference. 譬如海波浪，是則無差別；識心如是，異亦不可得。 T 670, 16: 484b22–23; 譬如海水波 是則無差別 諸識心如是 異亦不可得 T 671, 16: 523c2–3; 譬如海波浪 是則無差別 諸識心如是 異亦不可得 T 672, 16: 594c23–24. 26 T 1733, 35: 347a11–16. 27 It is not cited precisely. The text says: 諸佛知一切眾生畢竟寂滅， 即涅槃相， 不復更滅。 T 475, 14: 542b18–19. 28 T 670, 16: 484b21. 29 T 1733, 35: 347a16–20. 30 See Suzuki 1932: 42. 31 Lengqie abaduoluo baojing zhujie 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 T 1789, 39: 354c11–20; Lenqjiejing tongyi 楞伽經通義 T 323, 17: 145c6–10.

characteristics just like the tathāgatagarbha. Fazang also understood this stanza this way, thus it could serve as canonical proof for his statement. The sixth level starts a new process in establishing Yogācāra views, that is, the reconstruction of perception. After finding the final source, Fazang emphasizes that this source is not like the tathatā described by the new Yogācāra school. In contrast to the new school which propounds that tathatā is not touched by the world of phenomena, Fazang teaches that tathāgatagarbha plays an active role in establishing the realm of perception, the world of phenomena.32 He refers to those scriptures that reveal the tathāgatagarbha teachings.

He explains: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to the establishment of phenomena through the transformation of the Absolute means that the tahāgatagarbha does not preserve its self-nature, but in accordance with conditions it manifests the eight consciousnesses, the mind, the mind associates, the objects of perception, and various appearances. Thus the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: “The tathāgatagarbha, due to the perfuming (vāsanā) of bad habits, is called storehouse-consciousness.”33 The Ghanavyūha-sūtra says: “The Buddha said that ‘the tathāgatagarbha becomes ālayavijñāna.’34 The impaired intelligence is unable to know that the [tahāgata]garbha is the ālayavijñāna.” It

also says: “the pure garbha of the tathāgata and the worldly ālayavijñāna are like the ring made of gold: they are mutually not different.”35 In addition, the Śrīmālā-sūtra, the Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottaratantra-śāstra, and the Awakening of Faith, all teach this doctrine. There is not only one proof for it.36 五攝相歸性故説唯識。 謂此八識皆無自體。 唯是如來藏平等顯現。 餘相皆盡。 經 云一切衆生即涅槃相。 不復更滅等楞伽云不壞相有八。 無相亦無相。 如是等文成 證非一。 The next stage paves the way for the final Huayan view in that it applies the Huayan paradigm of principle and phenomena, and attempts to describe the relationship between the Absolute (the origin of phenomenal world) and the phenomenal world. Fazang says: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to perfect interfusion of principle and phenomena means that the tathāgatagarbha with its whole essence

in accordance with conditions accomplishes all phenomena, but its self-nature originally is not born, and is not annihilated. The principle and phenomena interfuse and are not obstructed, thus one-mind and the two truths are not obstructed. The Awakening of Faith says: “Relying on one-mind, there are two gates; the first is the gate of Absolute, the second is the gate of saṃsāra. These two gates comprise all dharmas.”37 The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: “The mind, which is pure by its self-nature, is not-tainted and tainted. It is difficult to understand. It is tainted and not-tainted. It is also difficult to understand.”38 The explanation is as follows: “It is not

32 The active or passive role of tathatā in the evolution of phenomenal world is an essential difference between Xuanzang’s school and the earlier Yogācāra school. See Lai 1986; Hamar 2007.

tainted and tainted” clarifies that the pure [[[Buddha]]-]nature in accordance with the tainted [[[conditions]]] with its whole essence accomplishes the ordinary world. This is the gate of saṃsāra. “It is tainted and not-tainted” elucidates that the tainted [[[conditions]]] are eternally pure, originally identical with the Absolute truth. This is the gate of the Absolute. This explains that [on one hand] the tainted, which is identical with the pure, does not obstruct the Absolute, but it is eternally ordinary, and [on the other hand] the pure, which is identical with the tainted, does not destroy the ordinary, but it is eternally Absolute. Thus the onemind is not obstructed in having two truths. In

order to understand its meaning you must deeply contemplate it. [The Perfection of Wisdom] Sūtra [for Humane Kings Protecting Their Countries] says: “In terms of truth they are two, in terms of liberation they are one.”39 The [Mahāyāna-saṃgrahôpanibandhana] treatise says: “The cognitive hindrances [[[cause]]] extreme blindness, which is the attachment to the discrimination of Absolute and ordinary.” 40 七理事倶融故説唯識。 謂如來藏擧體隨縁成辨諸事。 而其自性本不生滅。 即此理 事混融無礙。 是故一心二諦皆無障礙。 起信論云。 依一心法有二種門。 一心眞如 門。 二心生滅門。 然此二門皆各總攝一切法。 勝鬘經云。 自性清淨心。 不染而 染。 難可了知。 染而不染。 亦難可了知。 解云。 不染而染。 明性淨隨染擧體成 俗。 即生滅門也。 染而不染。 門即染常淨本來眞諦。 即眞如門也。 此明即淨之染 不礙眞而恒俗。 即染之淨不破俗而恒眞。 是故不礙一心雙存二諦。 此中有味深思 當見。經云於諦常自二。於解常自一。論云智障極盲闇。謂眞俗別執。皆此義

也。 The last three levels of Yogācāra, in fact, are the description of the Huayan insight into the realm of reality. The first aspect of this truth is the mutual inclusion of phenomena, which is the mutual interpenetration of all phenomena. Fazang writes: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to mutual inclusion of phenomena means that because the nature of principle is interpenetrated and unobstructed, and the principle accomplishes phenomena, thus phenomena are also interpenetrated, and are mutually not obstructed. Either “one” can penetrate into “all” [or] “all” can penetrate into “one”, and there is no obstruction. The text of [the Avataṃsaka-sūtra] says: “In one [thing] he

can understand immeasurable [things], in immeasurable [things] he can understand one [thing].”41 “The Vairocana Buddha” chapter says: “In this ocean of Lotus-womb world every tiny particle includes the whole dharma-dhātu.”42 This chapter later says: “In every tiny particle it is manifested that all the three evil destinies, gods, humans, and asuras receive karmic retribution.”43 There are many similar passages in the [[[Avataṃsaka]]]-sūtra.44 八融事相入故説唯識。 謂由理性圓融無礙。 以理成事事亦鎔融。 互不相礙。 或一 入一切。 一切入一。 無所障礙。 上文云一中解無量無量中解一等。 舍那品云於此 蓮華藏世界海之内一一微塵中見一切法界。 又此品下云於一微塵中現有三惡道天人 阿修羅各各受業報。如是等文廣多無量。如上下經説。 As all phenomena rely on the Absolute in their existence, Huayan teaches the mutual identity of all phenomena, which is often described in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Fazang says:

The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to mutual identity of all phenomena means that there is no differentiation among phenomena, which rely on principle. Principle has no differentiation of “this” and “that”. It makes one phenomenon identical with all phenomena. The [[[Avataṃsaka]]]-sūtra says: “If you know one world, you know all the worlds.”45 It also says: “He knows that ‘one’ is identical with ‘many’, and ‘many’ is identical with ‘one’,” etc.46 It is often taught in the sūtra.47 九全事相即故説唯識。 謂依理之事事無別事。 理既無此彼之異。 令事亦一即一 切。 上經云知一世界即是一切世界。 知一切世界即是一世界。 又云知一即多多即 一等。廣如經文説。 The tenth level is the most profound truth of Huayan Buddhism, which is the endless mutual interpenetration of all phenomena. This is described with the metaphor of Indra’s Net in Huayan literature. Fazang writes: The proposition of consciousness-only with respect to nonobstruction of Indra’s Net means that “one” includes the “all”, and that “all” again includes the “all”. Thus in one gate

it is repeated like that uninterruptedly. Every gate is like that. If you contemplate accurately, you can understand. The reason [the jewels] in Indra’s net repeatedly reflect one another is that the dharma-nature of mind, consciousness and tathāgatagarbha are in perfect interfusion, and this causes all phenomena be unobstructed like this. It is often taught in the sūtra.48 廣如經文説。 十帝網無礙故説唯識。 謂一中有一切。 彼一切中復有一切。 既一門 中如是重重不可窮盡。 餘一一門皆各如是。 思準可知。 如因陀羅網重重影現。 皆 是心識如來藏法性圓融故。令彼事相如是無礙。廣如上下文説。 Finally, Fazang explains the ten levels in terms of his well-known panjiao system, the five teachings. The first of the five teachings, the Hīnayāna, of course, cannot be found here, as consciousness-only is a teaching of Mahāyāna. The first three levels belong to the elementary teaching of Mahāyāna, which is the Faxiang school and the Madhyamaka, the next four levels belong to the advanced and sudden teachings of Mahāyāna, and the last three levels represent the perfect teaching, the teaching of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. These are the distinct teaching of the Mahāyāna, while all ten gates belong to the common teaching. Fazang writes: These ten

gates [reveal] the principle of consciousness-only. The first three gates are the doctrines of the elementary teaching of Mahāyāna. The next four gates are the doctrines of the final teaching of Mahāyāna and the sudden teaching. The last three gates are the doctrines of the distinct teaching of the perfect teaching. All the ten gates belong to the common teaching. The explanation above is applied in the whole [[[Avataṃsaka]]]-sūtra, and is not limited to this [sixth] level [of the Daśabhūmika]. In addition, it is explained in terms of teachings, that if we [explain] in terms of meditation and practice, there are also ten gates, just like in the first fascicle of the Avataṃsaka-[[[sūtra]]].49

來十門唯識道理。 於中初三門約初教説。次四門約終教頓教説。 後三門約圓教中 別教説。 總具十門約同教説。 上來所明通一部經非局此地。 又是約教就解而説。 若就觀行亦有十重。如一卷華嚴三昧中説。 It is important to note that in terms of dependent arising, the first four levels describe the dependent arising of ālayavijñāna, the next three levels show the dependent arising of tathāgatagarbha, and the final three levels are the revelation of the dependent arising of dharma-dhātu, the central concept of Huayan Buddhism. Consequently, the fourth

level, the return of seven consciousnesses to the ālayavijñāna, should belong to the elementary teaching of Mahāyāna, however, Fazang classifies it as the final teaching of Mahāyāna.50 At the end Fazang concludes that the discussion above elucidated the ten levels of consciousness-only from the perspective of teaching, or theoretical knowledge. However, it can also be treated from the perspective of meditation and practice, which also include ten gates. Here, he refers to a work, The Huayan samādhi in one fascicle, as a source for this elaboration. Which work does he refer to? He probably refers to the work The Treatise on Huayan samādhi (Huayan sanmei zhang 華嚴三 昧章), which was lost in China, but was discovered in Japan. It turned out to be identical with another work, The Treatise on the Huayan Vow of Bodhicitta (Huayanfa putixin zhang 華嚴發菩提心章).51

Kamata Shigeo proposes that the section “Meditation on the Ten Gates” of the chapter of “Form and Emptiness” (sekong zhang shimen zhiguan 色空章十門止觀) is the text Fazang refers to as the meditation on the ten levels of consciousness-only.52 If we attempt to reconstruct how Huayan meditation could be practiced in the light of Fazang’s discussion of the ten levels of consciousness-only, we can surmise that it had two aspects, a deconstruction and a reconstruction. First, the practitioner deconstructs the

ordinary way of perception, thus he/she moves from the distinction of subject and object to the pure tathāgatagarbha. Second, he/she has to reconstruct his/her perception based on the tathāgatagarbha as the final reality which originates all phenomenal existence. Finally, he/she will realize the Huayan perception of the world, the endless interpenetration of all phenomena. Here is the guideline for this practice based on the previous discussion:

A. Deconstruction mind, mental associates, objects mind, mental associates mind (ālayavijñāna, seven evolving consciousnesses) ālayavijñāna tathāgatagarbha

B. Reconstruction creative tathāgatagarbha nonobstruction of tathāgatagarbha nonobstruction of phenomena identity of phenomena Indra’s Net

Chengguan’s Modification

Chengguan, the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school, explaining the meaning of the “three realms are only mind” in his commentary to the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, puts forward his set of the ten levels of Yogācāra:53 1(1) the proposition of nonreal one-mind (jiashuo yixin 假說一心), 1(2) the proposition of one-mind with respect to the existence of both object and subject of perception (xiangjian jucun gu shuo yixin 相見倶存故説一心), 1(3) the proposition of one-mind with respect to the return of the object of perception to the subject of perception (shexiang guijian gu shuo yixin 攝相歸見故說 一心), 1(4) the proposition of one-mind with respect to the return of the mental associates to the mind

(sheshu guiwang gu shuo yixin 攝數歸王故說一心), 1(5) the proposition of one-mind with respect to return of the branches to the root (yi mo guiben gu shuo yixin 以末歸本故說一心), 1(6) the proposition of one-mind with respect to return of the forms to [[[Buddha]]-]nature (shexiang guixing gu shuo yixin 攝相歸性故說一心), 1(7) the proposition of one-mind with respect to interfusion of nature and characteristics (xingxiang jurong gu shuo yixin 性相倶融故説一心), 1(8) the proposition of one-mind with respect to mutual inclusion of

phenomena (rongshi xiangru gu shuo yixin 融事相入故說一心), 1(9) the proposition of one-mind with respect to mutual identity of all phenomena (quanshi xiangji gu shuo yixin 全事相即故說一心), (10) the proposition of one-mind with respect to non-obstruction of Indra’s Net (diwang wuai gu shuo yixin 帝網無礙故說一心). Two changes are very obvious at first sight. First, instead of consciousness-only Chengguan applies the term “one-mind” for Yogācāra. This is the one-mind of the Awakening of Faith, which has absolute and phenomenal aspects, and, of course, reflects the Sinitic understanding of Yogācāra philosophy. This way Chengguan underlined the main doctrine that lies at the kernel of the ten levels of Yogācāra, which paves the way for the Huayan interpretation of reality. Second, the first level of Yo

gācāra, the nonreal one-mind, is actually not of the Yogācāra school, but is Hīnayāna teaching. Chengguan very tersely describes the first level: It says that actually external dharmas exist, but they are moved by the mind. The next nine gates actually [teach] only one-mind.54 謂實有外法但由心變動故。下之九門實唯一心。 The meaning of “moved by mind” is rather obscure, but it may refer to the fact that the perception of external objects is influenced by the mind, that is a proposition of a kind of subjectivity. The next five levels of one-mind are completely identical with Fazang’s levels of consciousness-only from the first to the fifth, and Chengguan repeats Fazang’s definitions almost

word for word. However, the seventh level of one-mind which should correspond to the sixth level of consciousness-only is different. Chengguan excludes the category “establishment of phenomena through the transformation of Absolute”, and he calls the seventh level “interfusion of nature and characteristics”. The definition of this seventh level, is identical with Fazang’s seventh level, although there it is called “interfusion of principle and phenomena”. The remaining three levels correspond to Fazang’s system. Why did Chengguan introduce these alterations? The Japanese Kegon monk, Gyōnen 凝然 (1240–1321), who studied the ten levels of consciousness-only and wrote several works on this topic, concludes that Chengguan wanted to interpret the ten levels of consciousness-only in terms of the four dharma-dhātus (dharma-dhātu of phenomena, dharma-dhātu of

principle, dharma-dhātu of nonobstruction of principle and phenomena and dharma-dhātu of nonobstruction of phenomena), which was his contribution to Huayan philosophy. It seems possible, however, Chengguan never explicitly correlated the four dharma-dhātus with the ten levels of one-mind in his works. The reason why Chengguan included Hīnayāna teachings can be traced back to a very essential feature of his philosophy, that is, its all-inclusiveness. Even if, of course, he maintained the superiority of Huayan thought, he was willing to accept all Buddhist teachings within his system of doctrine. As I showed elsewhere, the main difference between Fazang and Chengguan is their a

ttitude toward Xuanzang’s imported teachings.55 While Fazang was very hostile toward Xuanzang’s school, Chengguan tried to harmonize the old and new schools of Yogācāra. This harmonization is realized while discussing the levels of Yogācāra, as Chengguan emphasized the “interfusion of nature and characteristics” at the seventh level, which is the focus of the ten levels. For Fazang the central concept was the sixth level, “the establishment of phenomena through the transformation of the Absolute”.56 Fazang’s primary concern was to show the interrelated existence of phenomena, which is described in

Huayan as the dependent arising of the dharma-dhātu. The interrelatedness could be claimed on the premise that all phenomena originate from the same source, i.e. the Absolute. Chengguan, in contrast, was much more concerned to show that all phenomena, all characteristics, can be traced back to a pure entity, tathāgatagarbha as identified with the Buddha-nature and the one-mind. On the seventh level, instead of using categories of principle and phenomena, he had recourse to the terms nature and characteristics, e

mphasizing the harmonious interfusion of Faxingzong and Faxiangzong, which include all conflicting views.57 This interfusion lays the ground for the Huayan interpretation of interrelated existence. We saw above that Fazang related the ten levels of consciousness-only to the five teachings. Chengguan applied different headings for this purpose: he called the first level Hīnayāna, he used the term “provisional teaching” for the next three levels, and the term “actual teaching” for the next three levels. Similarly to Fazang, he regarded the Huayan teaching, the last three levels, as the perfect teaching.

Zongmi’s Modification

Chengguan’s disciple, Zo

ngmi, who is regarded as the fifth patriarch, is at the same time the patriarch of the Heze Shenhui Chan 神會荷澤禪 lineage. The main agenda of his teaching is the harmonization of doctrine and meditation (jiaochan yizhi 教禪 一致). In his philosophy he is greatly indebted to his Huayan master, but he modified the classical or orthodox Huayan doctrines formulated by Fazang and Chengguan in many ways. First of all, he dropped Fazang’s five teachings, and included the non-Buddhist teachings in his classification of teachings,

and did not name the highest teaching as perfect teaching. He calls it the teaching that reveals the nature.58 Following Chengguan, he also emphasized the origin of all phenomena in order to lay the ground for Buddhist practice. In his interpretation of the ten levels of one-mind he also underlines the source of all phenomena, the pure, absolute, onemind. Instead of dividing the one-mind into ten aspects, he first divides it into five aspects according to five teachings. Following Chengguan, he includes Hīnayāna as the first level, and does not use the terms elementary and final, but, instead, applies the terms provisional and actual. It is interesting to note that here Zongmi uses the term perfect teaching. The five categories are as follows:59

57 Sometimes Faxingzong is regarded as the Chinese Yogācāra, while Faxiangzong is regarded as Xuanzang’s school. In fact, the meaning of Faxingzong is more complicated. See Hamar 2007. 58 Gregory 1991: 165. 59 Zongmi explains the ten levels of one-mind in two of his works: (1) his subcommentary on Chengguan’s commentary on the forty-fascicle Huayan jing, Huayan jing xingyuanpin shuchao 華嚴經行願品疏鈔, XZJ 7: 843b16–846a1; and (2) his Great commentary on the Scripture of Perfect Enlightenment, Yuanjue jing dashu 圓覺經大疏 XZJ 14: 276a2–277a4.

(1) the śrāvakas, who are ignorant about [the emptiness of] dharmas, teach nonreal one-mind (yufa shengwen jiao jiashuo yixin 愚法聲聞教假說一心), (2) the provisional teaching of Mahāyāna clarifies that the differential maturing (vipāka) ālayavijñāna is called one-mind (dasheng quanjiao ming yishu laiye ming wei yixin 大乘權教明異熟賴耶名為一心), (3) the actual teaching of Mahāyāna clarifies that tathāgatagarbha and ālayavijñāna are the only one-mind (dasheng shijiao ming rulaizang zangshi wei shi yixin 大乘 實教明如來藏藏識唯是一心), (4) the sudden teaching of Mahāyāna teaches one-mind because it transcends purity and impurity (dasheng dunjiao minjue ranjing gu shuo yixin 大乘頓教泯絕染淨 故說一心), (5) the perfect teaching teaches that all existent things are one mind (yisheng yuanjiao zonggai wanyou ji shi yixin 一乘圓教總該萬有即是一心). The provisional teaching includes

the second, third and fourth levels of Chengguan, while the actual teaching corresponds to the fifth and sixth levels of Chengguan. However, the seventh level, the tathāgatagarbha doctrine, which is the highest teaching of the actual teaching in Chengguan’s classification, is called the sudden teaching by Zongmi. It is important to note that Chengguan and Zongmi identified the sudden teaching with Chan Buddhism, while earlier Huayan masters, Zhiyan and Fazang, described it as the silence of Vimalakīrti, the right attitude in the face of the ineffable truth.60 As a patriarch of Chan Buddhism, Zongmi secured a high position for Chan Buddhism in his scheme. In addition, he was much

more concerned with the dichotomy of purity and impurity, which plays an important role from the perspective of Buddhist practice. At the second level of actual teaching we see that purity and impurity return to the tathāgatagarbha (zongshe ranjing gui rulaizang 總攝染淨 歸如來藏), which is to say that the tathāgatagarbha is the source for all pure and impure deeds, while at the level of sudden teaching this dichotomy is transcended. Zongmi says: The sudden teaching of Mahāyāna teaches one-mind because it transcends purity and impurity. It means that the pure root-mind originally does not have the dichotomy of purity and impurity. Due to the defilement of deluded conceptualization it is provisionally explained as purity. If the delusion is originally empty, purity as a characteristic ceases, and only the purity of originally enlightened mind becomes manifested.61 大乘頓教泯。 絕染淨故。 說一心。 謂清淨本心本無染淨。 對妄想垢。 假說為淨。 妄既本空淨相亦盡。唯本覺心清淨顯現 In this passage, the Chan teaching is very obvious: the mind is originally pure, and only due to delusion is its purity not seen. As soon as the delusion comes to an

end, the enlightened nature of mind becomes manifested. Next, the perfect teaching advocates that all existing things are mind-only. At this level, the practitioner realizes enlightenment, and consequently, sees that mind is beyond characteristics, and eventually all phenomena are mind-only; then they all can be traced back to the final source, the absolute mind. Due to their dependence on the absolute mind, the three aspects of Huayan insight, mutual inclusion, mutual identity, and limitless interpenetration, are revealed. Zongmi says: The fifth is the Perfect teaching [according to which] all existent things are one mind. This means that he/she does not know that mind transcends all

characteristics, but after enlightenment characteristics disappear, and this way mind-only becomes manifested. All phenomena perceived are mind. This is the apprehension of the ultimate mind-nature. As the Avataṃsaka[-sūtra] says, for exactly this reason everything is absolute mind. This is the reason why the three aspects [below] can be established.62 第五一乘圓教總該萬有即是一心。 謂未知心絕諸相。 令悟相盡。 唯心然見。 觸事 皆心方了究竟心性。如華嚴說。良由皆即真心。故成三義。 In his description of the three aspects of Huayan insight, he keeps on underscoring the dependence of phenomena on the absolute mind. He continues: The first aspect is the mutual inclusion [of phenomena]. It means

that all phenomena and dharmas are the absolute mind, and become manifested. One phenomenon of the whole mind can pervade all [[[phenomena]]] in accord with mind. All [[[phenomena]]] of the whole mind can penetrate into one phenomenon in accord with mind. In accord with mind, the mutual inclusion of phenomena is unobstructed. The second aspect is the mutual identity [of phenomena]. It means that one phenomenon is completely identical with the absolute mind, and as mind is identical with all [[[phenomena]]], this one phenomenon is identical with all [[[phenomena]]], and, this way, all [[[phenomena]]] are identical with one [[[phenomenon]]]. The third aspect is the limitless interdependence [of phenomena]. It means

that given that all [[[phenomena]]] are completely mind, [one phenomenon] includes what the all [[[phenomena]]] include, as all [[[phenomena]]] are mind-only. Again [the other phenomena] include all phenomena, it is limitless and limitless. Every [[[phenomenon]]] is endowed with the absolute mind, and in accord with mind [[[phenomena]]] are unobstructed.63 一融事相入義。 謂一切事法既全是真心而現故。 全心之一事隨心徧一切中。 全心 之一切隨心入一事中。 隨心迴轉相入無礙。 二融事相即義。 謂以一事即真心故。 心即一切時。 此一事隨心亦一即一切。 一切即一亦然。 三重重無盡義。 謂一切全 是心故。 能含一切所含。 一切亦唯心故。 復含一切。 無盡無盡也。 皆由一一全具 真心。隨心無礙故。 From this passage above, it is very clear that Zongmi gives priority to the absolute mind, as even in his explanation of the central Huayan tenets he keeps on emphasizing the absolute mind as a clue for understanding the ultimate truth of Huayan Buddhism, the interrelated existence of all phenomena.

62 XZJ 14: 276b13–15. The other version is slightly different, see XZJ 7: 845a17–b3. 63 XZJ 14: 276b15–277a4; XZJ 7: 845b3–10.

Conclusion

As we saw above, the scheme of the ten levels of consciousness-only was formulated by the third patriarch of the Huayan school, Fazang. His innovation was a kind of response to the levels of consciousness-only put forward by Kuiji, the master of the rival Faxiang school. Kuiji cited “the three realms are mind-only” from the Avataṃsaka-sūtra in his elaboration of this topic, which might have been the reason why Fazang connected his discussion of the ten levels of consciousness-only to the exegetical explanation of this

famous slogan in his commentary to the Avataṃskasūtra. When Fazang explained this section of the scripture, he must have borne in mind how his predecessors commented on it. The first three levels of consciousness-only, which are the views of the Faxiang school, confirm that mind is tainted, while the next four levels, which reflect the opinion of the old Yogācāra school, maintain that mind is ultimately pure. In fact, the fourth level can be regarded as a transitional stage, since the ālayavijñāna as the final reality is stated, but its nature is not determined. What Fazang added to the explanation of the “three realms are mind-only” is the last three levels of consciousness-only, which describe the stance of the perfect teaching, Fazang’s own school. For him, the famous slogan is not only a justification of Yogācāra philosophy, or the tathāgatagarbha

teaching, but also a central concept which lays the foundation for the truth revealed in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, that is, the interrelated existence of all phenomena. Fazang’s scheme of the ten levels of consciousness-only was significantly refashioned in the hands of his successors, Chengguan and Zongmi. Chengguan was in favor of including all teachings, thus he did not exclude even the Hīnayāna from this classification of teachings. In addition, at the seventh level, he emphasized the interfusion of nature and characteristics, which is in fact a harmonization of various conflicting views. For Zongmi, being also a patriarch of Chan Buddhism, it was essential to show the clear and prestigious position of Chan Buddhism in the context of mind-only. Thus he rearranged the previous chart, and located the sudden teaching before the perfect teaching. Being concerned with Buddhist practice, he underlined the importance of the absolute mind as a prerequisite for the interrelatedness of phenomena.

Bibliography

Chen Jinhua: Philosopher, Practitioner, Politician: The Many Lives of Fazang (643–712). Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fujimaru, Kaname 藤丸要: “Kegon jūjū yuishiki setsu ni kan suru ichi kōsatsu” 華厳十重唯 識説 に関する一考察 in Nakanishi Chikai sensei kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Shinran no bukkyō 中 西智海先生還暦記念論文集：親鸞の仏教. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō, 1994, pp. 679–698. Gimello, Robert M.: “Chih-yen and the Foundation of Hua-yen Buddhism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1976.

Gregory, Peter N.: Tsung-mi and the Signification of Buddhism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991. Hamar, Imre: “Theory of Four Dharma-dhātus”. Acta Orientalia Hung. (1998) 51, 1–2: pp. 1–19. Hamar, Imre: A Religious Leader in the Tang: Chengguan’s Biography (Studia Philologica Buddhica Occasional Paper Series XII). Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of The International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 2002. Hamar, Imre: “A Huayan Paradigm for Classification of Mahāyāna Teachings: The Origin and Meaning of Faxiangzong and Faxingzong” in Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. Heidelberg: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007, pp.

195–220. Hamar, Imre: “Interpretation of Yogācāra Philosophy in Huayan Buddhism”. Journal of Chinese Philosophy (2010), 37, 2: pp. 181–197. Hattori, Masaaki: “The Transformation of the Basis (āśraya-parāvṛtti) in the Yogācāra System of Philosophy” in Heinrich, Dietrich, ed.: Wege eines Gedankens in Ost und West. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985, pp. 100–108. Jin, Young-you 陳永裕: “Kegon jūjū yuishiki no chūshaku ni mirareru Gyōnen kyōgaku no tokusho” 華厳十重唯識の注釈にみられる凝然教学の特色. Komazawa daigaku bukkyō gakubu ronshū 駒沢大学仏教学部論集 (1989a) 20: pp. 287–297. Jin, Young-you 陳永裕: “Kegon jūjū yuishiki ni okeru tenshin jōji no ichi kōsatsu” 華厳十重 唯識における転真成事の一考察. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 (1989b) 75 (38-1): pp. 241–243. Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄: Chūgoku kegon shisōshi no kenkyū 中国華厳思想史の研究. Tōkyo: Tōkyō

daigaku shuppankai, 1965. Lai, Whalen: “The Defeat of Vijñāptimatratā in China: Fa-tsang on Fa-hsing and Fa-hsiang”. Journal of Chinese Philosophy (1986) 13: pp. 1–19. Liu Ming-Wood: “The ‘P’an-chiao System’ of the Hua-yen School in Chinese Buddhism”. T’oungpao (1981) 67: pp. 10–47. Liu Ming-Wood: “The Mind-only Teaching of Ching-ying Hui-yuan: An Early Interpretation of Yogācāra Thought in China”. Philosophy East and West (1985) 35: p. 4. Lusthaus, Dan: Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih lun. London: Routledge Curzon, 2002. Murakami, Takashi 村上俊: “Jūjū yuishiki setsu ni tsuiteî 十重唯識説について”. Ryūkoku daigaku daigakuin kiyō 龍谷大学大学院紀要 (1995) 16: pp. 1–16. Nakamura, Hajime 中村元: Bukkyōgo daijiten 仏教語大辞典. 3 vols. Tokyo: Tōkyō shoseki, 1975. Nakamura, Kaoru 中村薫: “Kenju daishi Hōzō no ‘jūjū yuishiki setsu’ ni tsuite” 賢首大師 法蔵 の「十重唯識説」について. Dōhō daigaku ronsō 同朋大学論叢 (1991) 64/65: pp. 101–124. Paul, Diana Y.: “The Structure of Consciousness in Paramārtha’s Purported Trilogy”. Philosophy East and West (1981) 31: 3, 297–319. Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro, ed.: The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra: A Mahāyāna Text. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999.

Fazang 《華嚴經探玄記》

Chengguan 《大方廣佛華嚴經疏》

Zongmi 《華嚴經行願品疏鈔》 《圓覺經大疏》

1. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to existence of both object and subject of perception 一相見俱存故說唯識
 
→ elementary
1. the proposition of nonreal one-mind 一門假說一心
 
→ Hīnayāna
1. the śrāvakas, who are ignorant about [the emptiness of] dharmas, teach nonreal one-mind 第一愚法聲聞教假說一心
2. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the object of perception to the subject of perception 二攝相歸見故說唯識
 
→ elementary
2. the proposition of onemind with respect to existence of both object and subject of perception 二相見俱存故說一心
 
→ provisional
 
2. the provisional teaching of Mahāyāna clarifies that the differential maturing ālayavijñāna is called onemind 第二大乘權教明異熟賴耶名為一心
 
2.a. the proposition of one-mind with respect to existence of both object and subject of perception 一相見俱存故說一心
3. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the mind associates to the mind 三攝數歸王故說唯識
 
→ elementary
3. the proposition of onemind with respect to return of the object of perception to the subject of perception 三攝相歸見故說一心
 
→ provisional
2.b. the proposition of one-mind with respect to return of the object of perception to the subject of perception 二攝相歸見故說一心
 
4. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the branches to the root 四以末歸本故說唯識
 
→ advanced, sudden
4. the proposition of onemind with respect to return of the mind associates to the mind 四攝數歸王故說一心
 
→ provisional
2.c. the proposition of one-mind with respect to return of the mind associates to the mind 三攝所歸王說一心
5. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to return of the characteristics to [[[Buddha]]]nature 五攝相歸性故說唯識
 
→ advanced, sudden
5. the proposition of onemind with respect to return of the branches to the root 五以末歸本故說一心
 
 
→ actual
3. the actual teaching of Mahāyāna clarifies that tathāgatagarbha and ālayavijñāna are the only one-mind 第三大乘實教明如來藏藏識唯是一心
 
3.a. the proposition of one-mind with respect to the return of seven consciousness to the ālayavijñāna 一攝前七識歸於藏故說一心
   
 DECONSTRUCTING AND RECONSTRUCTING YOGĀCĀRA 71
6. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to establishment of phenomena through transformation of Absolute 六轉真成事故說唯識
 
→ advanced, sudden
6. the proposition of one-mind with respect to return of the characteristics to [[[Buddha]]-]nature 六攝相歸性故說一心
 
→ actual
3.b. the proposition of one-mind with respect to return of purity and impurity to the tathāgatagarbha 二總攝染淨歸如來藏故說一心
7. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to perfect interfusion of principle and phenomena 七理事俱融故說唯識
 
→ advanced, sudden
7. the proposition of onemind with respect to interfusion of nature and characteristics 七性相俱融故說一心
 
→ actual
4. the sudden teaching of Mahāyāna teaches one-mind because it transcends the pure and impure 第四大乘頓教泯絕染淨故說一心
 
8. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to mutual inclusion of phenomena 八融事相入故說唯識
 
→ perfect
 
8. the proposition of onemind with respect to mutual inclusion of phenomena 八融事相入故說一心
 
→ perfect
5. the perfect teaching of one-vehicle teaches that all existent things are onemind 第五一乘圓教總該萬有即是一心
 
5.a. the proposition of one-mind with respect to mutual inclusion of phenomena 一融事相入故說一心
9. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to mutual identity of all phenomen 九全事相即故說唯識
 
→ perfect
9. the proposition of onemind with respect to mutual identity of all phenomena 九令事相即故說一心
 
→ perfect
5.b. the proposition of one-mind with respect to mutual identity of all phenomena 二融事相即故說一心
10. the proposition of consciousness-only with respect to non-obstruction of Indra’s net 十帝網無礙故說唯識
 
→ perfect
10. the proposition of one-mind with respect to non-obstruction of Indra’s net 十帝網無礙故說一心
 
→ perfect
5.c. the proposition of one-mind with respect to non-obstruction of Indra’s net

Source

[[Category:]Buddhism]