Yogācāra Influence on the Northern School of Chan Buddhism

Nobuyoshi Yamabe

Abstract In East Asian contexts, Yogacara Buddhism is often seen as a theoretical system rather than a collection of practical instructions. In particular, many people seem to have the stereotypic image that the Faxiang Sffl tradition (based on the Yogacara texts brought to China by Xuanzang S^) was a highly scholastic system, while Chan (Zen) W Buddhism emphasized intuitive penetration into the essence of Buddhism. Thus, these two traditions are thought to have stood at the opposite ends of a spectrum. If one actually looks into early Chan texts belonging to the Northern School XS (or its forerunner, East Mountain Teaching SSSX), however, one realizes that the matter is not so simple. Yuanming lun 'dl'-'lm and Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun for example, clearly display traces of the strong influence of Xuanzang's Yogacara texts. Daofan qusheng xinjue SXffiSXiS indicates that even the meditative practice of Chan Buddhism was influenced by Xuanzang's Yogacara. Apparently the relationship between Faxiang and Chan was much closer than is commonly believed

Keywords

Yogacara; Xuanzang; Faxiang tradition; Northern School; East Mountain Teaching; asallaksananupravesopayalaksana

I. Introduction

In this paper I would like to discuss Chan in conjunction with Yogacara, especially the Faxiang tradition. Needless to say, Chan is a tradition very closely associated with meditation. In contrast, the Faxiang tradition, the version of Yogacara Buddhism brought to China by Xuanzang (602-64), is commonly seen as a very scholastic tradition. The textbook view of this tradition is something like the following (Kenneth Ch'en 1972, 325):1 For a time during the middle of the T'ang Dynasty the [Faxiang/Fa-hsiang] school flourished in China, but after Hsuan-tsang and K'uei-chi had gone, the school rapidly declined. . . . Moreover, the philosophy of the school, with its hairsplitting analysis and abstruse terminology, was too difficult and abstract for the practical-minded Chinese, who preferred the direct and simple teachings of the Ch'an and Pure Land Schools. Hence these schools flourished while the Wei-shih declined.

According to this view, the system of the Faxiang School was cumbersome and scholastic, while the Chan tradition emphasized intuitive penetration into the essence of Buddhism. Thus these two traditions stood at the opposite ends of the spectrum. The Chinese religious mentality favored the more practical approach of Chan, and thus Xuanzang's school lost its influence after a short period of prosperity. However, in the light of more recent research, this understanding seems highly questionable. First, Chan was not simply a practical movement entirely divorced from doctrinal elements. Specialists of Chan Buddhism, such as Tanaka Ryosho (1980, 229-30; 1983, 397), Tanaka and Okimoto Katsumi (1989, 464), Okabe Kazuo (1980, 346), Yanagida Seizan (1999, 48), John R. McRae (1986, 209-10, 245), and Robert Buswell (1989, 8-9), have noted ties between early Chan and the doctrinal traditions of Chinese Buddhism.

On the Faxiang side, the textbook view is questionable with regard to two points. First, it is not entirely correct to say that the Faxiang School was a purely scholastic tradition. Second, the Faxiang School apparently exerted wider-ranging and longer-lasting influences over Chinese Buddhism than was formerly believed. On the first point, since Paul Demieville's epoch-making work, “La Yogacarabhumi de Sangharaksa” (1954), it has been suggested that the Yogacara School in India was preceded by practical traditions of meditators. It has also been argued that even the doctrinal system of the full-fledged Yogacara School emerged from a systematic reflection on meditative experiences. It is true that, in India, the Yogacara School eventually developed a complex doctrinal system, something that might give the impression of being less practical. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that, as an offshoot of the Indian Yogacara School in China, the Faxiang tradition would have completely lost its practical elements.

If we take into consideration the prehistory of Yogacara described above, we notice that the Indian meditative traditions, which may well have paved the way for the later Yogacara School, had a strong influence on the practice of Chinese Buddhism from its very early stages. For example, elsewhere I have argued that An Shigao (second century), who first translated Buddhist scriptures (including meditation texts) into Chinese, may have been close to the early precursors of the Yogacara School (Yamabe 1997). In addition, Kumarajiva's (350?-409?) Zuochan sanmei jing BXW (T No. 614), which had a lasting influence on the subsequent Chinese Buddhist practice, was partly based on Asvaghosa's Saundarananda. The Saundarananda, if I am correct, shares many similar elements with the Sravakabhumi, probably the oldest portion of the Yogacarabhumi (Yamabe, Fujitani Takayuki, Harada Yasunori 2002; Yamabe 2003).

Even the doctrines of the Yogacara School were not irrelevant to the practice of Chinese Buddhists. This point will immediately become clear if we think of the two texts that are most closely associated with the early Chan tradition, namely the Lankavatara-sutra (Lengqie abaduoluo bao jing T No.670) and the Awakening

of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun XSXSsffl, T No.1666). Both of these texts have many elements deriving from Yogacara, so it would not be too controversial to claim that Yogacara concepts heavily influenced early Chan through these two texts. If we look into some texts of the Northern School (Beizong XS), as we will see below, we notice that even Xuanzang's Faxiang tradition had a strong influence not only on its theory, but also on its practice. This leads us to the second point mentioned above. It seems to me that Faxiang Buddhism exerted influence over Chinese Buddhism more widely and for a longer period than was previously believed. On this matter, Tsukamoto Zenryu (1975, 129-58) points out the existence of numerous Faxiang texts in the Jin edition of Buddhist Canon kept in the Guangshengsi AA (Shanxi [JjH Province) and thus demonstrates that the Faxiang tradition was active in north China through the Liao ® and Jin periods (10th-13th cent.). Chikusa Masaaki (2000, 3-57) makes it clear that Faxiang Buddhism continued to be studied until the Song and Yuan x periods (10th-14th cent.), not only in northern China but also in some parts of the south.

Furthermore, we should note that many texts belonging to the Faxiang Tradition are found in the Dunhuang manuscripts. According to Ueyama Daishun (1990, 39-74), in addition to the cardinal treatise of this school, the Cheng weishi lun AAAA (CWSL, T No. 1585), numerous texts of this tradition (especially those composed by masters of the Ximingsi lineage, see ibid., 70) are found in Dunhuang manuscripts.

Ueyama (ibid.) further points out that an eminent scholar-monk Tankuang (latter eighth century), who studied at Ximingsi in Chang’an and was active in Dunhuang, composed texts based on the Faxiang doctrine, including the Dasheng baifa mingmenlun kaizong yiji the Dasheng baifa mingmenlun kaizongyijue the Dasheng rudao cidi kaijue ASAfflA^l^iA, and the Weishi sanshilun yaoshi

Another significant scholar-monk, Facheng AA (ninth century), also active in Dunhuang (and Ganzhou W'I'I), translated Woncheuk’s HWJ (613-96) commentary on the Samdhinirmocana-sutra, Jie shenmi jing shu into Tibetan (ibid., 117-19). He also gave extensive lectures on the Yogacarabhumi, which are recorded in numerous notes entitled, Yuqielun shouji or Yuqielun fenmenji (ibid., 219-46).

Thus, monks in Dunhuang did not just passively accept Faxiang texts from central China, but actively composed their own texts. Some more Faxiang texts not included in the standard Chinese Buddhist Canons are also found in Dunhuang mingmen lun, namely, an anonymous commentary on the Dasheng baifa mingmen lun (T No. 1614); the Dasheng baifalun yizhang Y-Y-TJirmS' by a certain “Venerable Yan” §S®; and an anonymous commentary on Xuanzang's Bian zhongbian lun '/sYi (T No. 1600; see Ueyama 1990, 378-401). It is also significant that many manuscripts of Ci'en's (632-82) commentary on the Lotus Sutra (Miaofa lianhua jing ^?£S^W, T No.262), Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan (T No. 1723),

are found in Dunhuang (Ueyama 1990, 366-71). According to Ueyama (1990, 369), from the mid-eighth century onwards, this is virtually the only commentary on the Lotus Sutra seen in the Dunhuang manuscripts. Hirano Kensho (1984, 322-24) points out that the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan influenced popular lectures on the Lotus Sutra in Dunhuang, as we can observe in the Miaofa lianhua jing jiangjing wen (Pelliot chinois 2305). He further points out that other commentaries by Ci'en, the Guan Mile shangsheng doushuaitian jing zan (T No. 1772), the Amituo jing shu H®KWK (T No. 1757), the Shuo wugoucheng jing shu (T No. 1782), and the Jin'gang bore jing zanshu

(T No. 1700) were also influential on local lectures on the respective sutras (Hirano 1984, 325-31). Ci'en's commentaries thus seem to have exerted a strong influence on Buddhism in Dunhuang. Numerous Faxiang manuscripts are found also in Turfan, such as the fundamental text of this school, the CWSL and its standard commentary by Ci'en, the Cheng weishi lun shuji (T

No. 1830); other classical Yogacara texts, like the Yuqieshi di lun Wifeffl and the Bian zhongbian lun; sutra commentaries, including the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan, its subcommentary by Quanming (a Faxiang monk of the Liao Dynasty, 10th-11th cent.),8 Fahua jing xuanzan huigu tongjin xinchao Quanming's

Shangsheng jing shu kewen and Mile shangsheng jing

shu huigu tongjin xinchao MIAAA®A#ASAOA, an otherwise unknown commentary on the Jie shenmi jing MAA®, and the Yuzhu jin’gang bore jing shu xuanyan ffl'AAWIMASAfiM. We also find Faxiang treatises by Chinese masters like Zhizhou's WA (668-723) Dasheng rudao cidi ASA®AA (T No. 1864), and Tankuang’s Dasheng baifa mingmen lun kaizong yiji and Dasheng baifa mingmen lun kaizong yijue. Manuscripts of these texts are all found in Turfan. Thus, Faxiang scholarship appears to have reached this remote oasis city via Dunhuang. In addition, significantly the existence of exchanges between the Liao state and Turfan is suggested by the discovery of the works of the Liao scholar, Quanming, in Turfan.

Still more noteworthy is that many of these Faxiang texts were translated into Old Uighur (Old Turkish). Peter Zieme (2012, 149ff.) mentions Uighur translations of Ci'en's Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan,11 “Unknown Commentary of the Vijnaptimatra School,” and Zhizhou's Dasheng rudao cidi. In addition, Ci'en's Dasheng fayuan yilinzhang (T No. 1861), and several other

Faxiang texts were also translated into Uighur or at least known to Uighur Buddhists. It is highly suggestive of his eminence in Uighur Buddhism that in a colophon to the Old Uighur translation of the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan, Ci'en is even called “God” (Zieme 2012, 150). Zieme (ibid., 151) further mentions a commentary on the Vimalakirti-nirdesa, which, according to Kasai Yukiyo (2012, 106), was translated from Chinese and has significant Faxiang elements. We shall come back to this text later.

Considering these points, we have good reasons to reconsider the distance between Yogacara (especially Faxiang) and Chan. It is not at all unlikely that such a widely spread tradition as Faxiang exerted some influence over the emerging Chan tradition. This is the point I would like to establish in this paper. Research in the West on the Northern School has been greatly facilitated by McRae's important contribution, The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch'an Buddhism (1986). In this book he edits, translates, and analyzes two important early Chan texts, namely, the Fanqu shengwu jietuo zong Xiuxin yao lun (hereafter Xiuxin yao lun), attributed to the “fifth patriarch” Hongren (601-74), and the Yuanming lun Hlsm. The former text preserves the doctrine of the East Mountain Teaching (Dongshan Famen ®W£|^), and the latter, that of the Northern School.

For the present purpose, what is directly relevant is the latter text, which contains many Yogacara elements. McRae (1986, 210) is, of course, aware that the Yuanming lun contains Yogacara elements. However, since his main interest lies in clarifying the background of the famous “mind verses” attributed to Shenxiu W^ (?-706) and Huineng St (638-713) in the Platform Sutra (Nanzong dunjiao zuishang dasheng mohe bore boluomi jing liuzu Huineng dashi yu Shaozhou Dafansi shifa tan jing

T No. 2 0 0 7), he does not exhaustively identify the Yogacara elements in the Yuanming lun, nor does he trace those elements to their sources. Yogacara influence on this text from various sources is far more extensive than McRae seems to believe. In this regard, the Yuanming lun is in contrast to the other text that McRae studies, the Xiuxin yao lun, which contains few unambiguous Yogacara elements. Apparently, the early Chan tradition received a great deal of Yogacara influence in the period between the Xiuxin yao lun and the Yuanming lun. Therefore, a careful study of the Yogacara elements of the Yuanming lun may well shed new light on an important aspect of early Chan history.

Another significant text for my present purpose is the Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun (T No.2835, hereafter Zhenzong lun), which is attributed to Master Dazhao W® and a lay practitioner Huiguang and contains extensive discussions of the fourfold wisdom of the Yogacara tradition.

Even more important are the instructions on meditation found in the Daofan qusheng xinjue , a copy of which is found just after the Xiuxin yao lun in an anthology of East Mountain/ Northern School materials (Pelliot chinois 2657, 3018, 3559, 3664). The meditation method described here has a structure typical of the Yogacara School, and this suggests that Yogacara Buddhism affected not only the theory but also the practice of the Northern School.

If we can establish these points, it will significantly change our view of the role that Yogacara Buddhism played in China. It was not just an impractical scholasticism. Thus, studying Yogacara elements in early Chan texts can be important for both Yogacara and Chan studies. With this possibility in mind, in this paper I shall reexamine a few of the early Chan texts mentioned above.

II. The Yuanming lun

The Yuanming lun is a text available in several Dunhuang manuscripts. One manuscript attributes the authorship to Asvaghosa, but McRae considers this text to be a record of a lecture or lectures given by an eminent Northern School master, possibly Shenxiu (?-706) himself (1986, 149; 210-11). Its date of composition is uncertain, but based on the date of the secular document written on the recto of the Pelliot chinois 3559 and 3664 (c.751), Ueyama (1990, 403-4) considers the Chan manuscripts in question to have been copied around 760-70. Tanaka (1983, 398) argues that it must have been composed in the latter half of the eighth century.

This text abounds in doctrinal elements traceable to various Buddhist doctrinal traditions. Yanagida (1963, 47) and Tanaka (1983, 397) maintain that the Yuanming lun was composed under the influence of Tathagatagarbha thought as found in the Lankavatara-sutra and the Awakening of Faith. On the other hand, Okabe (1980, 346) notes Huayan and Faxiang terms in this text, though he also emphasizes its close ties to the Awaken ing of Faith. McRae (1986, 210), too, observes “traces of Hua-yen, Madhyamika, and Yogacara doctrines” there. None of them, however, attempts to identify the sources of individual Yogacara elements in this text. This is what I would like to do here. We can observe many Yogacara elements from a few different groups of texts in the Yuanming lun. Here I examine three groups of Yogacara texts (the Lankavatara-sutra, Paramartha's text, and Xuanzang's texts) that influenced the Yuanming lun.

II.1 Lankavatara-sutra

Early Chan was traditionally associated with the four-fascicle version of the Lankavatara-sutra (LAS), as shown in such texts as the Xu gaoseng zhuan SMWW (T No. 2060) and the Lengqie shizi ji

WHG (T No. 2 8 3 7). Therefore, it might seem to be a matter of course that the LAS is one of the major sources of the Yuanming lun (YML). In fact, the historicity of the legend that Bodhidharma bestowed this sutra on Huike SM is quite dubious (McRae 1986, 27¬28), and very few quotations from the LAS have been found in early Chan texts (Suzuki Daisetz 2000, 304; see also Ui Hakuju 1939, 370¬73). Therefore, clear examples of the influence of the LAS on the YML are well worth pointing out. Though not necessarily a mainstream Yogacara text, the LAS has many Yogacara elements. Thus, the close ties between the LAS and the YML are significant for the purpose of this paper.

One example of a statement that seems directly traceable to the LAS is the following line from the YML (p.19):

[The image of the body] arises first from the beginningless impregnation of false thoughts, and second from the conditions of present scent and taste. . . . [Aided by these conditions, the body?] arises from the impregnation.

Though this might seem to be a rather commonplace statement in Yogacara texts, the phrase wushi wangxiang xunxi “the beginningless impregnation of false thoughts,” is reminiscent of the following line from the LAS (T16:483a20-21):

Mahamati, grasping various objects and the beginningless impregnation of false thoughts are the causes of the consciousness that discriminates objects. Further, see the following passage from the YML (p.33). [AJlaya is essentially without substance, but the body consisting of various sense organs has substance. Deluded people nowadays do not understand that alaya is the root [of human body] and think [rather] that it is parents who give birth to [the body of their child]. For this reason, they wrongly practice meditation on the physical body. They analyze it into motes of dust, up to [the point they look like] space (akasa), and [thereby] erroneously attain the fruit of arhatship. If one [simply] knows that the body has originally arisen depending on alaya, then [one knows that] there is no eye, ear, nose, or tongue [that constitute the body].

The topic here is the meditative analysis of matter into atoms (paramanu), found in Yogacara sources (for example, the CWSL, T31:4b29-c4). The word laiye $1® (abbreviated phonetic transcription of alaya) is clearly Xuanzang's terminology, so the main source here must have been Xuanzang's texts. Nevertheless, the word weichen ® W as an equivalent ofparamanu catches our eyes. This word is clear¬ly different from Xuanzang's jiwei ffi® or Paramartha's linxu R^, and suggests a tie to the following line of the LAS (T16:508c17-18):

“The end” means that, analyzing [the four elements and their composite matter] into motes of dust, [the practitioner] observes the destruction of the four elements and their composite matter.

In the last chapter of the YML (p. 40), the text explicitly quotes from the LAS:

According to the Lankavatara-sutra, the teaching of self¬realizing noble wisdom presents the thesis that all dharmas are manifestations of one's own mind. If one understands [this principle, the statement that] mountains, rivers, ground, and one's own body are all [manifestations of] one's mind is not false. The key concepts of this chapter, namely zijue shengzhi BKSW and zixin xianliang BBSS, appear frequently in the LAS, and so obviously the content of this chapter is closely linked to the LAS. See, for example, the following passage from the LAS (T16:491b14-24):

[Concerning] the self-realizing noble wisdom at the stage of Tathagata, practitioners should not consider it to be either substantial or insubstantial. . . . When a reflected image of a tree appears on water, it is not an image, nor is it not an image; it is not the form of a tree, nor is it not the form of a tree. In the same way, non-Buddhists are attached to erroneous thoughts impregnated with [wrong] habitual views and, relying on the notions of “one,” “other,” “together,” “separate,” “existing,” “not existing,” “non-existent,” “not non-existent,” “not impermanent,” and “impermanent,” cannot understand the manifestations of their own minds.

Thus, the discussion in the seventh chapter of the YML seems to have been very closely linked to the LAS. Let us look at one more example. See the following passage from the YML (p.40):

Commentary: Indeed, [the four elements] are manifestations of our own mind; [this] is not wrong. Therefore, we know that [the four elements] are manifestations of our mind. Regarding the four elements of the body, because there are four types of wrong thoughts inside, we acquire the four elements constituting the body. For this reason, there are no five elements [beyond these four].” Why [not]? Since there is a false thought of heaviness inside, we acquire the earth element constituting the body. Since there is a false thought of moisture inside, we acquire the water element constituting the body. Since there is a false thought of heated anger inside, we acquire the fire element constituting the body. Since we have a false thought of movement inside, we acquire the wind element constituting the body. For these reasons, we know that everything is a manifestation of our own mind.

This argument is clearly tied to the following portion of the LAS (T16:495c18-22).

Mahamati, how do those four elements create composite matter? I say that the element of the false thought of moisture creates the water element inside and outside. The element of the false thought of agility creates the fire element inside and outside. The element of the false thought of movement creates the wind element inside and outside. The element of the false thought of cutting matter (?) creates the earth element inside and outside. Though the agreement is not perfect, the Chinese expressions for “the false thought of moisture” (for the water element) and “false thought of movement” (for the wind element) agree exactly. There thus seems to be a clear connection between the YML and the LAS. Since, as we have seen, scholars have rarely observed any actual influence of the LAS on early Chan, this close relationship is quite significant.

II.2 Paramartha's Text

At one place in the text, the YML is clearly based on Paramartha's translation. See the following passage from the YML (pp.33-34):

How can one know that consciousness originally has no substance and only has four semblances? What are the four semblances? The semblances of sense organs, external objects, Self, and consciousness. These are the four semblances. Even if one searches in each semblance, [one finds that] there is originally no consciousness, sense organ, and so forth; they are just images in the alaya.

Here again, the word laiye $1® suggests a connection to Xuanzang's texts. On the basis of the overall wording and the content, however, the main source here must have been Paramartha's translation of the Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya (Zhongbian fenbie lun X®^ XXffl, T31:451b7-13 [No.1599], corresponding to verse I.3 and its commentary in the Sanskrit text).

External objects, sense organs, Self, and consciousness; the fundamental consciousness arises and resembles these [four]. Only the consciousness exists, while these [semblances] do not. Since they do not exist, the consciousness does not exist [either]. “The semblance of external objects” means that the fundamental consciousness appears like matter and so forth. “The semblance of sense organs” means that the consciousness appears like the five sense organs in the [personal] continuities of oneself and others. “The semblance of Self” means that the consciousness of manas is associated with the view of Self, ignorance, and so forth. “The semblance of consciousness” means the six types of consciousness. “The fundamental consciousness” means alayavijnana. “Arises and resembles these [four]” means that it resembles the four items such as external objects. “Only the consciousness exists” means that only disturbed consciousness exists. “They do not exist” means that the four items do not exist. The agreement of the four characteristic terms, sigen ©ffi, “the semblance of sense organs,” sichen ‘the semblance of external objects,” siwo ©8, “the semblance of Self,” and sishi ©^, “the semblance of consciousness,” clearly indicates that Paramartha's, not Xuanzang's, version of the Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya was the source of the YML. Further, the YML states that these four items are images of alayavijnana, an understanding that agrees with Paramartha's version, but not with Xuanzang's. Therefore, in spite of the use of Xuanzang's [a]laiye [H]S® instead of Paramartha’s aliye H ^®, it is clear that here the YML was drawing from Paramartha’s Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya.

II.3 Xuanzang’s Texts The foregoing arguments notwithstanding, the main source of Yogacara elements in the YML is no doubt Xuanzang’s texts. I hope this point is clear from the many correspondences shown in the table in the appendix. Here, I discuss only a few examples.

In Chapter 4 of the YML, entitled Bianming sansheng nishun guan W “Explanation of the Meditation in Forward and Reverse Order of the Three Vehicles,” the text discusses the conversion of sravakas to the bodhisattva path. See, for example, the following line (p.31):

Conversion of sravaka people to the bodhisattva path becomes possible based on the eighth consciousness, which contains vasanas. Thus, [they] can give rise to the bodhisattva path and also practice the six paramitas. According to the Faxiang doctrine, certain people have undetermined gotra in their alayavijnana, and thus they can convert from one vehicle to another. The passage quoted above seems to presuppose such a system. See, for example, the following passage from the CWSL (T31:55c1-3):

The statement that they have no [nirvana] without remainder was made with regard to [the practitioners of] the two vehicles who have undetermined gotras. The moment they The eye, ear, nose, and tongue that we see now are all vasanas in the [a]layavijnana. Here qi M must be an abbreviated form of xiqi WM, namely, vasana. This line is actually a little ambiguous. Considering the preceding passage, we might read this line as simply meaning that vasanas held in the alayavijnana give rise to the sense organs. However, if we consider another line that appears a little after this line in the YML (p. 34, quoted below), it seems also possible that the sense organs themselves were equated with vasanas in the alayavijnana. If we accept the latter interpretation, this line may presuppose the following argument in the CWSL (T31:19c21-24):

It is reasonable to call the potential of matter in the consciousness “five sense organs.” Potential and material objects have caused each other from time immemorial. The meaning of this verse is as follows: “Potential of matter” refers to the bijas in the vipakavijnana that can give rise to the consciousness [appearing as] matter, such as the eye, and [these bijas] are called the five sense organs. There are no sense organs and so forth apart from [the bijas]. This is a variant theory based on the Vimsika Vijnaptimatratasiddhih (Weishi ershi lun T31:75b17-23 [No. 1590], corresponding to verse 9 and its commentary in the Sanskrit text) but not adopted by the CWSL. Here the “potential” is synonymous with bija and vasana, so the position of this passage agrees with that of the YML quoted above. It seems highly possible that the YML presupposed this argument. In the same context, the YML further states as follows (p.34):

If one merely sees that [a]laya essentially has no arising and perishing, one abandons the view that the sense organs [indeed exist]. Why? It is because there originally are no sense organs, and all [the sense organs] are bijas that are the image-portion of the fundamental consciousness. “The image-portion of the fundamental consciousness” indicates that there are no sense organs of eye, ear, nose, or tongue.

The first line (of the original Chinese text), which states that the alaya has no arising and perishing, seems alien to the Faxiang doctrine. Nevertheless, we should note that this quotation contains the distinctive Faxiang term “image-portion” (xiangfen f|^). In fact, the argument here would be unintelligible without referring to the Faxiang doctrine that subsumes bijas under the image-portion of alayavijnana. See the following (CWSL, T31:10a17-23):

Owing to the power of causes and conditions, when the main portion of alayavijnana arises, it creates bijas and the body with sense organs inside and the receptacle[-world] outside. Namely, the cognitive objects [of alayavijnana] are its own creations. . . . The images that resemble cognitive objects are called the “image-portion.” Judging from these examples, it is nearly certain that the author of the YML referred to Xuanzang’s Yogacara texts. Though the YML’s Yogacara elements are an amalgamation of at least three different traditions (the LAS, Paramartha, Xuanzang), Xuanzang’s texts seem to have been the most important source among these three.

III. The Zhenzong lun

The Zhenzong lun is another text in which we can observe conspicuous Faxiang influence. A transcription of Pelliot chinois 2162 is included in the Taisho Canon, vol. 85 (No. 2835). In addition, Stein 4286 preserves the first part of this text (about 1/3 of the entire text). An edition (together with a Japanese translation), based on these two manuscripts and prior editions, has been published by Tanaka (1989, hereafter “Tanaka ed.”). I primarily use this edition in this paper.

As already mentioned, this text presents itself as a record of questions and answers between a lay practitioner, Huiguang, and Chan Master Dazhao. One strange point here is that, according to the preface to this text, Dazhao is the Dharma name of Huiguang. If this is the case, it follows that this text is a monologue: the questioner and answerer are the same person. On the other hand, Ibuki (1992a, 302) points out that this preface was concocted based on the Dunwu zhenzong

(Yaojue). If he is correct, this preface does not have any independent value. On the basis of a line in the preface that suggests that Dazhao was a disciple of Shenhui (684-758 ; Tanaka ed., 182; T85:1278a29), this text had long been considered to be a Southern-School text. Tanaka (1980, 233-41; 1983, 246-56), however, argued that the Zhenzong lun was closely linked to the Guanxin lun of

Shenxiu and thus belonged to the Northern School. I follow his arguments and treat the Zhenzong lun as a Northern School text. Scholars have noted that the Zhenzong lun was based on the Yaojue and other prior sources (Ibuki 1992a; 1992b; Nishiguchi Yoshio 2000; see also Ueyama 1976). Cheng 2011 argues that the source the Zhenzong lun most heavily relied on was the Dasheng qishi lun ES ERE. Therefore, these earlier sources need to be investigated also. However, if we follow Cheng (2011, 128), no earlier Chan source is known for most of the portions of the Zhenzong lun that discuss Yogacara theories. Thus, for the present purpose, I think we should focus our attention on the Zhenzong lun itself.

It should be obvious from the table found at the end of this paper that the extensive discussion of the eight types of consciousness and their transformation into the four types of wisdom in the Zhenzong lun are based on the Faxiang doctrine. Therefore, I do not compare individual points concerning this text with their possible Faxiang sources. We should note here that the Zhenzong lun at times deviates from the Faxiang orthodoxy. I would like to discuss two cases of such originality (or deviation) below. First, see the following statement of the Zhenzong lun (Tanaka ed., pp. 199-200; T85:1280a5-9):

What is called “consciousness” has the meaning of “cognition.” For example, when the eye and color are associated, the manovijnana makes a judgment about [the object], sometimes as desirable, sometimes as undesirable. Following its judgment, an image appears and impregnates th e seventh consciousness of manas. Due to this impregnation, [the manas] grasps onto [the object] and in turn impregnates the eighth consciousness [alayavijnana]. Clearly the passage presupposes Faxiang doctrine. Here, the understanding that when a sense perceives its object, manovijnana makes a judgment about the object is a standard Yogacara doctrine confirmed in such texts as the Samdhinirmocana-sutra (Jie shenmi jing, T16:692b20-22 [No. 679]), the Yogacarabhumi (Yuqieshi di lun T30:280a22-27 [No. 1579]), and the CWSL (T31:21a13-15). Therefore, the first half of the passage is not a problem. The second half, on the other hand, clearly disagrees with the Faxiang position. The CWSL makes it clear that only alayavijnana can receive impregnation. See below (T31:9c18-19):

Only vipakavijnana (= alayavijnana) satisfies these four conditions [necessary for being impregnated: solidity, neutrality, capacity to be impregnated, and coexistence with what impregnates] and can be impregnated. It is not the case that mental functions and so forth can be [impregnated]. Further, a standard commentary on the CWSL, the Cheng weishi lun shuji (T43:313b25-27), expressly states that the seventh consciousness cannot be impregnated, as follows:

The seventh consciousness of the gotra-less people satisfies these four conditions [for being impregnated]. Why does it not receive impregnation? Since it is defiled-neutral, it is not consistent with good and bad elements. The word “neutral” that appears here [in the four conditions] only refers to undefiled-neutral. In the Faxiang doctrine, the seventh consciousness does not transmit the impregnation from the six types of active consciousness to the eighth consciousness. The six kinds of active consciousness directly deposit their bijas into alayavijnana, and so does the seventh. Therefore, this point clearly disagrees with the Faxiang position.

Another problem is the correspondence between the threefold bodies of the Buddha and his four types of wisdom. See the following statement in the Zhenzong lun (Tanaka ed., p.204; T85:1280b15-23). m ww. asss.

Question: The four types of wisdom are already thus [understood] . What are the three bodies? Answer: Great Mirror Wisdom is the Dharma Body. Equality Wisdom is the Body of Recompense. Action Wisdom and Observation Wisdom are the Body of Transformation. Another Question: How do you know that and make the above statement?

Answer: We say this based on what exists now(?). [Great Mirror Wisdom] is complete with all undefiled merits like a clear mirror that we use in our daily life, which reflects many images but does not make judgments about them. For this reason, this wisdom is the Dharma Body. Deluded mind has already been exhausted, equality has been established, and a myriad practices have been accomplished. For this reason, it is the Body of Recompense. [Action Wisdom:] The six sense organs have no defilements and widely save sentient beings. [Observation Wisdom:] It equally detaches oneself and others, and makes others equally understand the cause of practice. Therefore, [these two types of wisdom are] the Body of Transformation. Therefore, according to this model, the correspondences between the fourfold wisdom and the three bodies are as follows: 

Great Mirror Wisdom The Dharma Body

Equality Wisdom The Body of Recompense

Action Wisdom Observation Wisdom The Body of Transformation

On the other hand, the CWSL gives two theories about this issue. The first theory is as follows (T31:58a6-13): Tathata

Great Mirror Wisdom (adarsa- jnana) The Body of the Essence (svabhava-kaya =Dharma Body) Equality Wisdom (samata-jnana) Observation Wisdom

(pratyaveksana-jnana) The Body of Recompense (sambhoga-kaya) Action Wisdom (krtyanusthana- jnana) The Body of Transformation (nirmana-kaya)

The second theory is as shown in the table below (T31:58a15-25):

Tathat a The Body of the Essence

Great Mirror Wisdom The Body of Recompense for Oneself (svasambhoga-kaya)

Equality Wisdom The Body of Recompense for Others (parasambhoga-kaya) Action Wisdom The Body of Transformation

Thus the model of the Zhenzong lun does not agree with either theory of the CWSL. Sakuma Hidenori (1987, 387-403; 2012, 46) lists these and other models found in Yogacara texts, but none of them agrees with the model in the Zhenzong lun. This theory may have been an invention within the Chan tradition. A notable point here is that, according to Kasai (2012, 108-9), an Old Turkish (Old Uighur) commentary on the Vimalakirtinirdesa has a combination of the fourfold wisdom and the three bodies that exactly agrees with the theory in the Zhenzong lun. See the following comparative table. Fourfold

Wisdom CWSL 1 (T31: 58a6-13) = BBhVy (Nishio ed., §III.5.1.[1]); BBhSS (T26: 325c27-28) CWSL 2 (T31:59a15 -25) SAVBh (Chibetto Bunten Kenkyukai

118.10) MSA, Ch (Prabhakara -mitra, T31:606a3- 607b20 [No. 1604]) Zhenzong lun Old Uighur

Commentary

Tathata/ Dharma- dhatu Svabhava (=Dharma) Svabhava (=Dharma)

Great Mirror Wisdom Svabhava (=Dharma) Svasam- bhoga Svabhava = Dharma (Svasam- bhoga) Dharma Dharma Dharma

Equality

Wisdom Sambhoga Parasam- bhoga Sambhoga Dharma Sambhoga Sambhoga

Obser-vation Wisdom Sambhoga Sambhoga Sambhoga Nirmana Nirmana

Action

Wisdom Nirmana Nirmana Nirmana Nirmana Nirmana Nirmana

It is difficult to explain this agreement between the Zhenzong lun and the Old Uighur commentary. Kasai (2012, 106-7) points out that this Uighur commentary is on the whole close to the Jingming jing jijie guanzhong shu (T No. 2777), but that this particular discussion is not found in the Chinese commentary and was probably added by the Uighur translator. If so, perhaps the Uighur translator was familiar with the Chan interpretation of this matter. Further investigation is needed regarding the agreement between the Zhenzong lun and the Old Uighur commentary. Concerning the *Vajrasamadhi-sutra (Jin'gang sanmei jing

W, T No. 273), Buswell observes as follows (1989, 9):

The relationship the author [Buswell] draws between Ch'an praxis and the seminal doctrinal concepts of the wider sinitic tradition will show that, while Ch'an may “not,” as it claims, “rely on words and letters,” it nevertheless has drawn creatively, and with little real reticence, on the scriptural teachings of the larger Buddhist tradition.

Here the keyword should be “creatively.” In fact, when we look at the YML and the Zhenzong lun, we get similar impressions. They certainly draw heavily on doctrinal texts, in this case Yogacara, but they do not hesitate to depart from the orthodox doctrines found in their source texts, often without stating clear reason. Thus, their way of argument looks quite different from that found in the doctrinal Yogacara (especially Faxiang) texts. When diverging opinions are presented in the Faxiang texts, their proponents try to justify their views on a textual or doctrinal basis. Such justification is often missing in the relevant Chan texts, and they frequently state their views without presenting a clear theoretical basis. In some cases, the departures might have been simply the result of misunderstanding. But more importantly, I think those Chan authors were fundamentally practitioners and not textual scholars. Their primary interest, I suspect, was to express their own spiritual attainments making use of words found in mainstream Buddhist texts rather than to convey faithfully the doctrines found in those texts. That is probably also the reason why they do not hesitate to mix up elements found in different strains of texts. However heavily dependent on doctrinal texts they may appear, after all, I think, they were Chan practitioners.

IV. Daofan qusheng xinjue

In the foregoing examination, we have observed that the Northern School was influenced by Faxiang doctrine. In this section, I would like to point out that early Chan was also influenced by Yogacara practices. The aforementioned Daofan qusheng xinjue, a set of instructions on meditation of the East Mountain Teaching/Northern School, is highly significant in this regard. Therefore, though it is rather long, I quote a large portion of this text:

If one wishes to practice meditation, one should definitely begin with the meditation on the external. The reason why this is necessary is that external objects are the causes and conditions for giving rise to the mind and they are the locus where defilements arise. Further, ordinary people

have shallow aspirations. So, if they are immediately made to enter the profound and unfathomable realm, they will probably have difficulty in progressing. Therefore, one who first meditates on the external should know that dharmas are originally equal in their essence and have no distinct characteristics. Now all dharmas merely arise like illusion, caused by beginningless impregnation, and they have no substance. These dharmas equally [follow] the principle of arising like illusion by causes and conditions. [The dharmas] originally neither exist nor do not exist, neither arise nor perish; nor are they long or short. Simply deluded by the beginningless ignorance and delusion, one does not realize this principle, and one wrongly sees persons and dharmas where there is no person or dharma. One [further] wrongly sees existence and non-existence and wrongly develops attachment to them, where there is no arising or perishing, and no existence or non-existence. One [thus] comes to be attached to persons and dharmas, performs various karmas, and transmigrates through the six destinies. Now persons and dharmas, arising and perishing, existence and non-existence, and so forth are merely what the deluded mind considers to be outside the mind, [but in reality] there is nothing to be apprehended [outside]. Understanding this principle, one merely needs to follow individual objects of mind, observe them as stated above, and know that they are no other than the mind without any external objects. for] the future mind, the future mind has not come yet. If [one searches for] the present mind, the present mind does not abide. Further, two minds do not coexist. When awakened mind arises, unawakened mind has already perished. [If one] talks of the arising of mind, it must depend on causes and conditions. If causes and conditions were accumulated, mind would have the means by which to arise. [In reality,] causes and conditions themselves have not been accumulated before. [So] how can there be arising? If there is no arising, there is no perishing. Also, one needs to reflectively observe this mind.

Question: This mind is already the mind of wisdom and awakening. Why need one further observe it? Answer: Though this mind is the mind of wisdom and awakening, it is still a member of the mind-family. Accordingly, it has arising and perishing, and the images of objects have not been eradicated. Question: When one practices this observation, are there subject and object of observation?

Answer: What we call “reflective observation” here is just that one is mindful of the observing mind that is reflectively observing itself. There is no subject or object. A knife cannot cut itself, a finger cannot point at itself, and the mind cannot observe itself. When the mind is at [the stage of] the observation of nothingness, there are subject and object of observation. At the stage of reflective observation, there is no subject or object of observation. At that time, [the practice] transcends words and eradicates images. [It is now] completely inexpressible, and the locus of mental activity perishes. The basic message here is as follows: Since it is difficult for beginners to meditate on the profound principle, one should proceed step by step. Thus, one should first meditate on the insubstantiality of external objects and understand that there are no objects outside the mind. Then one should conversely observe the mind itself and realize that the mind also cannot be apprehended.

The general structure of the observations described here (first external objects, then internal mind) is none other than the sequence of standard Yogacara meditation, usually referred to as asallaksananupravesopayala- ksana, “the aspect of the means of entering the aspect of non-existence,” an expression found in the Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya.

Below is Xuanzang's translation of the relevant portion of the Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya (Bian zhongbian lun, T31:465a3-9, corresponding to verse I.6 and its commentary of the Sanskrit text):

should explain the aspect of the means of entering the aspect of non-existence of the false discrimination. The verse says: Owing to the apprehension of consciousness, the non¬apprehension of its objects arises. Owing to the non¬apprehension of its objects, the non-apprehension of consciousness arises.

Commentary: “Owing to the apprehension of” only “consciousness,” first “the non-apprehension of its objects arises.” Further, “owing to the non-apprehension of its objects, the non-apprehension of the consciousness arises” afterwards. By this method, one can enter the aspect of non¬existence of the object and subject of apprehension.

As an example of the same structure, see the following verses quoted in the CWSL (T31:49b29-c3): In concentration, a bodhisattva observes that [cognitive] images are just mind. When thoughts of objects are removed, he closely observes only his own thoughts. Thus, he resides in the inner mind and knows that the objects of apprehension do not exist. Then the subject of apprehension does not exist either. After that, he attains non-apprehension.

Judging from the presence of some typical Yogacara expressions in the quoted portion of the Daofan qusheng xinjue, the similarities with the Yogacara methods of meditation do not seem coincidental. Also noteworthy is the following line found in the last part of the quotation: A knife cannot cut itself, a finger cannot point at itself, and the mind cannot observe itself.

This is a characteristic expression found in discussions in the Abhidharma and Yogacara literature concerning whether or not mind can perceive itself. Considering the general affinity of these meditative instructions with Yogacara literature, the source of this line may have been the following passage from the

The Pramanasamuccaya says: All types of mind and mental functions perceive themselves, and [this perception] is called “direct perception” (pratyaksa). Otherwise, as if one cannot recall what one has not experienced[, one would not recall one's own mental experiences]. Therefore, each of the groups of mental elements associated with the fourfold wisdom can perceive itself. How does it not contradict our daily experiences, because a knife does not cut itself, and the tip of a finger cannot touch itself? Do you not see that lamps and so forth can illuminate themselves?

The positions of the Daofan qusheng xinjue and the *Buddhabhumisutra- sastra are not exactly the same, and thus one might also consider an Abhidharma text like the *Abhidharma-Mahavibhdsa (Apidamo dapiposha lun [No. 1545]) to be a possible source. See the following passage (T27:43a26-28):

Someone maintains: In the world, one experiences that the tip of a finger cannot touch itself, the edge of a sword cannot cut itself, the pupil cannot see itself, or a fighter cannot beat himself. Therefore, something cannot cognize itself. On the other hand, we should recall here that these early Chan texts not infrequently deviate from their conclusions when referring to Yogacara texts. Therefore, some difference in the arguments does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the Daofan qusheng xinjue was referring to the *Buddhabhumisutra-sastra here. In any case, it is beyond doubt that the expression in question was based on Indian Abhidharma/Yogacara literature. Therefore, it is highly likely that the meditative method described above was not the original contribution of the Northern School but was based on an Indian Buddhist (probably Yogacara) tradition. Somewhat problematic in the Daofan qusheng xinjue is the following line: If [one searches for] the past mind, the past mind has already perished. If [one searches for] the future mind, the future mind has not come yet. If [one searches for] the present mind, the present mind does not abide.

This line resonates with the famous passage from the Diamond Sutra (Jin'gang bore boluomi jing [T No. 235]). However, we should note that an even closer parallel is found in Zhiyi’s W® (538-98) Lueming kaimeng chuxue zuochan zhiguan yaomen (hereafter Kaimeng chuxue, Sekiguchi 1974, 340):

If one thinks that the mind exists, does one believe it to be in the past, future, or present? If in the past, the past [mind] has already perished. How can there be mind? If in the future, the future [mind] has not yet come. How can there be mind? If it is the present [mind], the present does not abide. Therefore it cannot be apprehended.

Although similar expressions are found in other texts as well, the Lueming kaimeng chuxue zuochan zhiguan yaomen contains a closest parallel to the Daofan quesheng xiujue on this matter. Thus we have to consider the possibility that the Daofan quesheng xiujue was partly dependent on a pre-Faxiang meditation text as well. Nevertheless, both from the overall structure and from the characteristic expressions, it is clear that the Daofan quesheng xiujue was heavily dependent on the Yogacara and Abhidharma texts brought to China by Xuanzang.

V. Conclusion

We have observed numerous Yogacara elements in the Northern School texts. Concerning the elements borrowed from mainstream Buddhist texts in Northern Chan texts, McRae observes as follows (1986, 198):

...much of the energy of early Ch'an seems to have been directed at convincing other Buddhists (or at least those with some knowledge of Buddhism) that the Northern School approach to the religion was the most, or even the only, authentic one. This task required that the Northern School trace its doctrine back to the scriptures and prove that it was the highest teaching of the Buddha.

In short, according to McRae, the Northern School made use of doctrinal elements found in mainstream Buddhist texts to justify the claims of the Chan tradition. This was probably part of the story, but the extent of Yogacara influence seems to be too extensive to be only a means of justification. We should note that even the meditative method of the Yogacara School, the asallaksananupravesopayalaksana, exerted an influence on the Northern School. Although the meditative method described in the Daofan qusheng xinjue may have been partly influenced by pre-Faxiang texts, the main sources on this matter are definitely Xuanzang's Yogacara and Abhidharma texts.

Whether or not the asallaksananupravesopayalaksana was accepted in China before Xuanzang is a problem that requires further examination, but it seems certain that Xuanzang's Yogacara texts reintroduced this important Yogacara method to the Chinese Buddhist world, and at that time it did catch the attention of Chinese Buddhists. Admittedly in this paper I have presented only one clear example of such influence, and I certainly do not claim that the entirety of the practice of the Northern School was under the influence of the Faxiang School. Nevertheless, given the stereotypic image of Faxiang as a dry and impractical scholasticism, it is quite significant that not only the theory but also the practice of one of the supposedly most practical Buddhist traditions in China, Chan, were influenced by the Faxiang School. This suggests, I believe, that the highly developed Yogacara doctrine brought back to China by Xuanzang was accepted not only as theory but also, at least to some extent, as practical guidance by Chinese Buddhist practitioners.

An examination of Yogacara elements in these Northern School texts is also important for the study of early Chan history. The Northern School was a direct descendent of Daoxin and Hunren's “East Mountain Teaching.” The Xiuxin yao lun, which propounds the East Mountain Teaching, has hardly any distinctively Yogacara elements. It is noteworthy that not even the Lankavatara-sutra, which is supposed to have been the most important sutra for the early Chan tradition, is expressly mentioned. For either chronological or geographical reasons, the early Chan tradition does not seem to have been exposed to the Yogacara Buddhism at this stage. In the *Vajrasamadhi-sutra, on the other hand, we can observe the clear influence of both the Lankavatara-sutra and Xuanzang’s Yogacara (including the asallaksananupravesopayalaksana, see n. 66). It is also noteworthy that in the late seventh century, the Northern School advanced to Chinese metropolitan areas in the Central Plains and probably had easier access to Xuanzang’s Yogacara texts.

Ueyama (1990, 428-30) points out that, later in Dunhuang, the Northern School was even identified with the Faxiang School. See the following threefold classification of Mahayana Buddhism found in Dunhuang manuscripts (after ibid., 429). The Teaching That Maintains That Everything is Empty in the Supreme Truth The Round Teaching That Accords with the Principle The Teaching of the Harmony with the Dharma-Nature The Teaching of Removing Characteristics The Teaching of Dharma-Characteristics (Faxiang School) The Teaching of Dharma-Nature  

The Middle Teaching [Based on] Sutras The Teaching of Consciousness-Only

The Middle Teaching [Based on] Treatises

The Sudden Teaching of [Hui]- neng in the South WS

The Gradual Teaching

The Teaching of [Shen] xiu in the North

According to Ueyama (ibid., 428), Stein 2583 is a sub-commentary on the Baifalun shu of Tankuang (the latter half of the eighth century [ibid., 17]), copied on the verso of a document written around 866-71. “The Round Teaching That Accords with the Principle” and “The Teaching of Consciousness-Only” are epithets of the Faxiang School, so this model clearly identifies the Faxiang School with the Northern School. In the face of the heavy Yogacara influence ob¬served in Northern School texts, this identification does not seem entirely groundless. This paper is obviously not the place to draw an overall picture of early Chan history. Nevertheless, I think that consideration of Yogacara elements in these early Chan texts does help clarify a very important aspect of early Chan. 

Abbreviations and Short Titles

AF See Awakening of Faith.

AKBh Abhidharmakosa-bhasya (Apidamo jushe lun IMl.tjS WM#i), T No. 1958.

AMV *Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa (Apidamo dapiposha lun T No. 1545.

ASBh Abhidharmasamucchaya-bhasya (Dasheng apidamo zaji lun T No. 1606.

Awakening of Faith Dasheng qixin lun XSEtti, T No. 1666.

BBhSS Buddhabhumi-vyakhya.

• Buddhabhumisutra-sastra (Fodi jing lun WfiKi),

T No. 1530. CWSL Cheng weishi lun T No, 1585. Kaimeng chuxue Lueming kaimeng chuxue zuochan zhiguan yaomen LAS Lankavatara-sutra (Lengqie abaduoluo bao jing W^WS), T No. 670. MAVBh Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya (Zhongbian fenbie lun Ol), T No.1599.

MSA Mahayanasutralamkara (Dasheng zhuangyanjing lun ±®ffiKKi), T No. 1604. MSgBh Mahayanasamgraha-bhasya (She dasheng lun shi ±®iW), T No. 1597. MSgUp Mahayanasamgrahopanibandhana (She dasheng lun shi S±^iW), T No. 1598. Platform Sutra Nanzong dunjiao zuishang dasheng mohe bore boluomi jing liuzu Huineng dashi yu Shaozhou Dafansi shifa tan jing T No. 2007.

SAVBh Sutralamkdravrttibhasya. Shuji Cheng weishi lun shuji T No. 1830.   SNS Samdhinirmocana-sutra (Jie shenmi jing T No. 676.

Tanaka ed. See Tanaka 1989. Vajrasamadhi *Vajrasamadhi-sUtra (Jin'gang sanmei jing T No. 273. Vimalakirtinirdesa Vimalakirtinirdesa-sUtra (Weimojie suoshuo jing T No. 475.

Vims Vimsika Vijnaptimatratasiddhih (Weishi ershi lun B^+«), T No. 1590. Xiao zhiguan Xiuxi zhiguan Tiantai xiao zhiguan HnAxiffi. Xiuxi zhiguan zuochan fayao T No. 1915.

Xiuxin yao lun Fanqu shengwu jietuo zongXiuxin yao lun H>l®llAI'['ifA YML Yuanming lun H^rn. YBh YogacarabhUmi (Yuqieshi di lun M®®), T No. 1597. Yaojue Dunwu zhenzong jin'gang bore xiuxing da bi'an famen yaojue Zhenzong lun Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun AHUiJ ®®AI®J®H/iU®AiiiA T No. 2835. ZZ Dainihon zokuzokyo Al MAniHl.

References

Buswell, Robert E., Jr. 1989. The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea: The “Vajrasamadhi-Sutra,” a Buddhist Apocryphon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ch'en, Kenneth K. S. 1972. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (1964) Cheng Zheng 2002. Tongo shinshu kongo hannya shugyo tatsuhigan homon yoketsu to Daijo kaishin kensho tongo shinshuron t FXXIWXffittig^KXXJ (Dunwu zhen zong jin gang panruo xiu xing da bianfamen yaojue and Da cheng kai xin xian xing dunwu zhen zonglun). Komazawa Daigaku Daigakuin Bukkyogaku Kenkyukai nenpo WHXXXXIXX^XCT (Annual of Graduate Research in Buddhist Studies) 35:171¬80.

2005. Gazo Tonko bunkenchu ni hakken sareta zenseki ni tsuite XX (Chan Texts found in Dunhuang Manuscripts of the Russian Collections). Zengaku kenkyu WSCT^ (Studies in Zen Buddhism) 83:17-45.

2011. Daijo kaishin kensho tongo sinshuron no eko bunken ni tsuite: Tokuni Daijo kiseron tono kanren o chushin ni XXXi.' : Wt" XXXIXX' (The Documents on Which the Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun Was Based). Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyo Gakubu kenkyu kiyo (Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of Komazawa University) 69:121-41.

Chibetto Bunten Kenkyukai BMXMCTXX, ed. and trans. 1981. Chibetto bunkenn ni yoru Bukkyo shiso kenkyu (*Studies in Buddhist Thought by Tibetan Materials), vol. 2, Anne zo “Daijo shogon kyoron shakusho” Bodaibon

IXXII'I (* Sthiramati’s Sutralamkaravrttibhasya: Bodhyadhikara), part. 2. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin XSXfcWtt.

Chikusa Masaaki XXSX. 2000. So-Gen Bukkyo bunkashi kenkyu XftXCTX (*Study in the History of Buddhist Culture in the Song¬Yuan Periods). Tokyo: Kyuko Shoin  Deleanu Florin. 2006. The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamarga) in the “SravakabhUmi”: A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Translation, and Introductory Study. 2 vols. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series, 20. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. Demievi'e^faul 1954. La Yogacarabhumi de Sangharaksa. Bulletin de l’Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme-Orient 44(2): 339-436. Elverskog, Johan. 1997. Uygur Buddhist Literature. Silk Road Studies I. Turnhaut: Brepols.

Fang Guangchang ^W^. 1997. Zangwai Fojiao wenxian ® (*Extra-Canonical Buddhist Texts), vol. 3. Beijing: Zongjiao Wenhua Chubanshe Fukaura Seibun 1972. Yuishikigaku kenkyU (*Study in Yogacara), vol. 1. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshodo. (1954) Fukihara Shoshin 1944. Nihon Yuishiki shisoshi

(*History of Yogacara Thought in Japan). Kyoto: Taigado Hirakawa Akira W1^, et al. 1973. Kusharon sakuin 1 (Index to the Abhidharmakosabhasya [P Pradhan Edition]), pt. 1, Sansukuritto go, Chibetto go, Kanyaku taisho iMWW (Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese). Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan

Hirano Kensho ^1?!®^. 1984. Kokyomon no soshiki naiyo (*The Structures and Content of Popular Lectures on Sutras in Dunhuang). In Koza Tonko (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 7, Tonko to ChUgoku Bukkyo (*Dunhuang and Chinese Buddhism), 321-58. Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha

Hotori Risho 1992. Indo shoki yuishiki to Daijo kishin ron NNYffl (The Early Vijnaptimatravada in India and the Mahay anadhimuktyutpada). Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyU EH® (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 40(2): 53-57. Huang Yongwu §^K, ed. 1986. Dunhuang yishu zuixin mulu (*A Latest Catalogue of Dunhuang Manuscripts). Taipei: Xinwenfeng ^i§.

Ibuki Atsushi ^^^. 1991. Honyo-ha ni tsuite (On Faru and His Followers). Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyU (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 40(1): 110-13. 

1992a. Tongo shinshu kongo hannya shugyo tatsuhigan homon yoketsu to Kataku Jinne t (*Dunwu zhenzong jin'gang bore xiuxing dabi'an famen yaojue and Heze Shenhui). In Nihon, Chugoku Bukkyo shiso to sono tenkai (*Buddhist Thought in Japan and China and Its Development), 291-325. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin I .

1992b. Daijo kaishin kensho tongo shinshuron no eyo bunken ni tsuite ©WittfcOK (The Works on Which the Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun Was Based). Indogaku bukkydgaku kenkyu (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 41(1): 97-100.

2001. Zen no rekishi (*History of Chan). Kyoto: Hozokan Kasai Yukiyo 2012. The Outline of the Old Turkish Commentary on the Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra. In Dunhuang Studies: Prospects and Problems for the Coming Second Century of Research, 106-111. St. Petersburg: Slavia. Kitsudo Koichi . 2012. The Four Kinds of Wisdom in Old Uyghur Buddhist Terminology. Conference paper presented at Xiyu- Zhongya yu wenxue guoji xueshu yantaohui (International Symposium on Central Asian Philology). Zhongguo Zhongyang Minzu Daxue (Minzu University of China). November 23-25, 2012. Retitled as "A Chan School Text in Old Uyghur: Mainz 340" and is forthcoming in the proceedings of the same conference.

Kudara Kogi 1980. Uiguru yaku Myoho renge kyo gensan (Uigur Translation of the Miao-fa-lian-hua- jing Xuan-zan), part 1. Bukkyogaku kenkyu (The Studies in Buddhism) 36:49-65.

1983. Myoho renge kyo gensan no Uiguru yaku danpen (*Fragments of a Uighur Translation of the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan). In Nairiku Ajia, Nishi Ajia no shakai to bunka rt^Z^Z(*Societies and Cultures of Inner and West Asia), 185-207. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha JllfflJStt.

1990. Gime Bijutsukan shozo Myoho rengekyo gensan Uiguru yaku danpen (Uigur Fragments of the Miao-fa-lian-hua-jing Xuan-zan Preserved in the Musee Guimet). Ryukoku kiyo FWSHHSJ (The Ryukoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences) 12(1): 1-30.

McRae, John R. 1986. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch'an Buddhism. Studies in East Asian Buddhism, no.3. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Nishiguchi Yoshio BDAS. 2000. Shanto 138V Bukkyo mondo to Tongo shinshuron ±0—AAV (A Study of the Dunwu zhenzong lun and the Shanghai Library Ms. 138 verso). Zen Bunka Kenkyujo kiyo (Annual Report of the Institute for Zen Studies) 25:57-105.

Nishiwaki Tsuneki 2009. Chugoku koten shakai ni okeru Bukkyo no shoso (*Various Aspects of

Buddhism in the Classical Chinese Society). Tokyo: Chisen Shokan Ogawa Takashi /J\H||W. 2007. Jinne: Tonko bunken to shoki no zenshushi W A:(*Shenhui: Dunhuang Manuscripts and Early Chan History). Todai no zenso WKOW® (*Chan Monks of the Tang Period), vol. 2. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten |®JI|W^.

Okabe Kazuo HSKft®. 1980. Zenso no chusho to gigi kyoten

(*Commentaries by Zen Monks and Apocryphal Sutras). In Koza Tonko (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 8, Tonko Butten to Zen (*Dunhuang Buddhist Texts and Chan), 335-76. Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha

Saito Tomohiro 2012. Hossoshu no Zenshu hihan to Shindai sanzo: Tonko monjo Sutain 2546 Myoho rengekyo gensan sho (gi) to Shindai shamon gyoki (») J t FMBO'BOSJ (The

Trepit aka Paramartha and Faxiang Criticism of the Chan School: The Miaofa lianhua jing xuan zan chao (Dunhuang, Stein no. 2546) and the Zhendi shamen xing ji. In Shindai sanzo kenkyu ronshu M (Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramartha), 303-44. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyujo AAA'AA Sakuma Hidenori 1987. “Sanshin” to “goho”: Ryosha no ketsugo kankei to sono seiritsu katei

(*The ‘Three Bodies’ and the ‘Five Elements’: Their Correspondences and Formative Process). In Indogaku bukkyogaku ronshu: Takasaki Jikido hakusi kanreki kinen ronshu K'yV^Lffl. (*Papers on Indian and Buddhist Studies: Festschrift for Dr. Takasaki Jikido on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Tokyo: Shunjusha #^±±.

2002. Chugoku, Nihon Hosso kyogaku ni okeru shiki to chi no ketsugo kankei: Fuin sareta dairokusiki joshosachi, go genshiki myokanzacchi no seitosei

(*The Correspondences between the Consciousness and Wisdom in Sino-Japanese Faxiang Scholarship: The Legitimacy of the Concealed Model of manovijnana > krtyanusthanajnana, pancavijnana > pratyaveksanajnana). In Kimura Kiyotaka hakushi kanreki kinen ronshu Higashi Ajia Bukkyo: Sono seiritsu to tenkai (*Festschrift for Dr. Kimura Kiyotaka on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, East Asian Buddhism: Its Establishment and Developments), 65-86. — 2012. Yugagyo Yuishiki shiso towa nanika (*What is Yogacara-Vijnanavada Thought?). In Shirizu Daijo Bukkyo , vol. 7, Yuishiki to yugagyo (*Vijnanavada and Yogacara), 19-72. Tokyo: Shunjusha #^±±. Schmithausen, Lambert. 1973. Spirituelle Praxis und philosophische Theorie im Buddhismus. Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 3 (73): 161-86.

1976. On the Problem of the Relation of Spiritual Practice and Philosophical Theory in Buddhsm. In German Scholars on India, 235-50. Bombay: Nachiketa Publications. Sekiguchi Shindai MDMX. 1974. Tendai shoshikan no kenkyu (A Study of the T‘ient‘ai Siao-Chihkuan). Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin (1954)

1964. Zenshu shisoshi (A History of Thoughts of the Zen Sect). Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin [ilWM'fLWtt.

1967. Daruma no kenkyu (A Study on Daruma). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 7 7'X 7li'i. Shinohara Hisao 1980. Hokushu-zen to Nanshu-zen (*The Northern School and the Southern School). In Koza Tonko (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 8, Tonko Butten to Zen MtW (*Dunhuang Buddhist Texts and Chan), 165-98. Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha Shogaito Masahiro ,SfaXE5A. 2003. Roshia shozo Uigurugo bunken no kenkyu: Uiguru moji hyoki kanbun to Uigurugo butten tekisuto U MEXX b (Uighur Manuscripts in St. Petersburg: Chinese Texts in Uighur Script and Buddhist Uighur Texts). Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Daigakuin Bungaku Kenkyuka (Graduate

School of Letters, Kyoto University).

Suzuki Daisetz ^XXf®. 2000. Zen shisoshi kenkyu (*Study in the History of Chan Thought), no.3. In Suzuki Daisetz zenshu 3:1-335. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten CX7. (1968) Tanaka Ryosho HXM®. 1969. Tonkobon Enmyoron ni tsuite IAEA TH (The Yuan-ming-lun from Tun-huang). Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 18(1): 204-7.

1980. Nenbutsu-zen to koki Hokushu-zen (*Nianfo Chan and the Late Northern School of Chan). In Koza Tonko iW,S^E (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 8, Tonko Butten to Zen ^EXMtW (*Dunhuang Buddhist Texts and Chan), 221-42. Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha

1983. Tonko Zenshu bunken no kenkyu ^EWXXK©W^ (A Study of Tun-huang Zen Manuscripts). Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha

1989. Kochu wayaku Daijo kaishin kensho tongo shinshuron (A Revision with Note and Translation of the Ta-ch ‘eng K‘ai-sin hsien-sing tun-wu chen-tsung lun into Japanese). Zaidan hojin Matsugaoka Bunko kenkyu nenpo (The Annual Report of Researches of Matsugaoka Bunko) 3:173-215. Tanaka Ryosho and Cheng Zheng 2009. Tonko Zenshu bunken bunrui mokuroku : II Goroku rui (The Classified Catalogue of Dunhuang Chan Manuscripts: II “Recorded Sayings” of Chan), pt. 1. Komazawa Daigaku Zen KenkyUjo nenpo (Annual Report of the Zen Institute) 21:280-304.

2010. Tonko Zenshu bunken bunrui mokuroku ®:II. Goroku rui (The Classified Catalogue of Dunhuang Chan Manuscripts: II. “Recorded Sayings” of Chan), pt. 2. Komazawa Daigaku Zen KenkyUjo nenpo (Annual Report of the Zen Institute) 22:350-16.

2011. Tonko Zenshu bunken bunrui mokuroku ®:II. Goroku rui (The Classified Catalogue of Dunhuang Chan Manuscripts: II. “Recorded Sayings” of Chan), pt. 3. Komazawa Daigaku Zen KenkyUjo nenpo (Annual Report of the Zen Institute) 23:252-74. Tanaka Ryosho, and Okimoto Katsumi trans. 1989. Daijo butten,

ChUgoku Nihon hen ("Mahayana Texts from China and Japan), vol. 11. Tonko (*Dunhuang), pt.2. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha ll|ld>'[imitt. Tsukamoto Zenryu 1975. Bukkyo shiryo to shiteno Kinkoku

Daizokyo: Tokuni Hokuso Shakkyo mokuroku to To, Ryo no Yuishiki-shu kankei shosho ni tsuite : W (*The Jin Edition of Buddhist Canon as Buddhist Historical Material: Focusing on the Catalogues of Buddhist Texts from the Northern Song and Yogacara- Related Commentaries from the Tang and Liao Periods). Reprint in Tsukamoto ZenryU chosakushU (“"Collected Works of Tsukamoto Zenryu) 5:93-164. Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha tt. (1936)

Ueyama Daishun ^[1|AK. 1976. Chibetto yaku Tongo shinshU yoketsu no kenkyu (A Study on the Tibetan Version of Tunwu chen tsung yao chueh). Zen Bunka KenkyUjo kiyo (Annual Report from the Institute for Zen Studies) 8:33-103.

1990. Tonko Bukkyo no kenkyU ^@W^©W^ (*Study in Dunhuang Buddhism). Kyoto: Hozokan Ui Hakuju T#f0W. 1939. Zenshushi kenkyu WX^CT^ (*Study in the History of Chan Traditions). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Wang Ding IT. 2007. Tulufan chutu de Tangdai weishixue wenxian xiaokao (*An Examination of the Yogacara Texts from the Tang Period Excavated in Turfan). Tonko shahon kenkyu nenpo (*Annual Memoir of Dunhuang

Manuscript Studies) 1: 145-63.

Yamabe Nobuyoshi [±|SKte®. 1997. An Shigao as a Precursor of the Yogacara Tradition: A Preliminary Study. In Watanabe Takao kyoju kanreki kinen Bukkyo shiso bunkashi ronso

®TI£XS (Buddhist Thought and History of Buddhist Culture: A Collection of Papers in Honor of Professor Watanabe Takao on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday), 785-826. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshodo .1111 IT.

2001. Gakkai hokoku: “Chugoku ni okeru Yuishiki Bukkyo” shinpojiumu ni sanka shite TTUr • T (Conference Report: Yogacara Buddhism in China, Leiden, June 8-9, 2000). Bukkyo bunka (Buddhist Culture) 11: 67-73.

2003. On the School Affiliation of Asvaghosa: “Sautrantika” or “Yogacara”? Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26(2): 225-54.

2006. Hokushu Zen bunken ni mirareru Yuishiki kyogi no eikyo 4t (*Yogacara Elements Found in Some Texts of the Northern School of Chan Buddhism). In Chugokugaku no jujiro: Kaji Nobuyuki hakushi koki kinen ronshu (*Crossroads of Chinese Studies: Festschrift for Dr. Kaji Nobuyuki on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday), 571-91. Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan CTTI®.

Yamabe Nobuyoshi, Fujitani Takayuki MSIWT, Harada Yasunori 2002. Memyo no gakuha shozoku ni tsuite: Saundarananda to Shomonji no hikaku kenkyu

Saundaranandat" Obt^CT^ (On the School-Affiliation of Asvaghosa: A Comparative Study of the Saundarananda and the Sravakabhumi), part 1. Bukkyo bunka (Buddhist Culture) 12: 1-65.

Yanagida Seizan WfflSUl. 1963. Den hobo ki to sono sakusha: Perio 3559 go monjo o meguru Hokushu Zen kenkyu shiryo no sakki, sono ichi f©— (On the Ch'uan-fa-Pao-chi and Its Compiler: One of the Earliest of the So-Called “Transmission of the Lamp” Histories of Chiense Zen School). Zengaku kenkyu (Studies in Zen Buddhism) 53:45-71.

1999. Zen Bukkyo no kenkyu Wfe^©W^ (*Study in Chan Buddhism). Kyoto: Hozokan ?£KM. Zieme, Peter. 2012. Some Notes on Old Uigur Translations of Buddhist Commentaries. Soka Daigaku Kokusai Bukkyogaku Koto Kenkyujo nenpo nHfllli,©?’- ■ (Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University) 15:147-60.

Appendix

Comparative Tables of Relevant Texts

(Note that these tables only indicate that the passages in the right column are somehow relevant to those in the left. I do not necessarily mean that those in the right are the sources of the corresponding items in the left. Nor do I mean that the content of the corresponding items always match exactly.)

{{R}