Shan Lun School Research (Volume 1 and 2)

Author: Shengkai
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-09-01
Features: This paper employs the "comprehensive research method" and "hermeneutics of liberation" to conduct an overall study of the Yogācāra school, with a focus on the comparison between ancient and modern Yogācāra. We utilized computer searches to examine the Taishō Tripitaka and compiled materials from Japanese Buddhist literature and Dunhuang manuscripts, discovering the works of Lingrun, Daoji, and Zhining, and exploring the historical development of the Yogācāra school. We position the thought of Paramārtha as "the profound meaning from beginning to end," which, at the level of delusion and experience, is the pure Yogācāra "ālayavij?āna conditioned origination," belonging to the "initial teaching." In terms of the resultant state of transformation, Paramārtha advocates "the merging of form and nature" and "the non-duality of wisdom and suchness," which is distinctly different from the "eternal distinction of form and nature" and "the duality of wisdom and suchness" advocated by the Huifa-Zhaozong lineage, thus exhibiting characteristics of the "final teaching." Paramārtha's thought represents a transition from the deluded mind school to the true mind school, a "middle path," but his fundamental stance remains Yogācāra. Paramārtha's "consciousness realm" is not the true and deluded consciousness of the Awakening of Faith, but Paramārtha's Buddhist thought ultimately leads to the Awakening of Faith, which is an inherent and inevitable developmental trend of his thought. In the theory of consciousness, Paramārtha inherits the "one mind with seven manifestations" of the "theory of one mind" and proposes the "theory of one consciousness," asserting that the ā consciousness is the defiled mind. Modern Yogācāra emphasizes the "distinct body and distinct function" of the "various consciousnesses," distinguishing between the ā consciousness and the manas consciousness. Paramārtha, from the perspective of undifferentiated seeds, posits that seeds are unreal and without substance, while the ālayavij?āna is real and has substance; he also asserts that the continuity of seeds is the continuity of the ālayavij?āna, without acknowledging the generation of seeds from seeds. The Huifa lineage, from the perspective of the distinctness of consciousnesses, posits that both seeds and the ālayavij?āna are real, constructing a simultaneous causal relationship between seeds generating seeds and the simultaneous causal relationship between seeds generating and seeds. In the aspect of the "image gate" Yogācāra, ancient Yogācāra, starting from the stance of "formless Yogācāra," advocates for distinct causes and delusion as the result, with delusionary discrimination being applicable to both dependent origination and discrimination, emphasizing the "unity of consciousness and object" as a layered psychological structure. Modern Yogācāra, starting from the stance of "formful Yogācāra," emphasizes the distinctness of delusion and discrimination, with distinct causes as the dependent origination of the cognitive function and delusion as the discrimination of the dual taking, thus requiring a two-layered psychological construction, so "delusionary discrimination" refers only to dependent origination. Ancient Yogācāra explains the "image gate" Yogācāra theory through "the manifestation of delusionary discrimination," while Vasubandhu establishes the entire Yogācāra system based on "consciousness transformation." In epistemology, ancient Yogācāra emphasizes that when consciousness arises, consciousness is meaningless but manifests as meaningful, or "apparent manifestation as meaningful," with manifestation being equivalent to grasping. Modern Yogācāra emphasizes that consciousness and the images it manifests are "gained," and ordinary beings grasp "apparent meaning" as meaning, thus giving rise to discriminatory consciousness. Regarding the "three natures and three non-natures," Paramārtha inherits and synthesizes the "dust consciousness theory" and "stainless and stained theory" of the three natures, while modern Yogācāra inherits the "affection, event, and principle theory," leading to different developments. Paramārtha and ānanda both consider the eight consciousnesses as the cognitive function, while Huifa emphasizes the sixth and seventh consciousnesses as the cognitive function. Moreover, Huifa posits that both visual and conceptual parts belong to dependent origination, while Paramārtha and ānanda do not hold this view. Paramārtha posits that the unity of discrimination and dependent origination, as presented without substance, is reality, so the three natures are one. The Huifa lineage posits that reality is achieved by distancing discrimination from dependent origination, so the three natures are distinct and cannot be conflated. Modern Yogācāra emphasizes the "what is false must depend on what is real" of "other-empty," with discrimination being "non-existent," without denying dependent origination, so discrimination is "empty," and reality is "emptiness," making "emptiness" and "emptiness" fundamentally distinct. Paramārtha, from the stance of "the merging of form and nature," posits that "emptiness" is the negation of the opposition and unity, eliminating both the form of discrimination and the non-generation of dependent origination, so emptiness and emptiness are identical. At the same time, Paramārtha posits that the unity without substance of discrimination and dependent origination is reality, adhering to "all phenomena are one without substance," with the three natures as conventional truth and the three non-natures as ultimate truth, making the three natures also the three non-natures. Meanwhile, modern Yogācāra emphasizes that "the three non-natures are not separate from the three inherent natures," introducing the three non-natures beyond the three natures, which cannot be identical. Ancient Yogācāra advocates for dual truths, while Kuījī advocates for four truths. Paramārtha, beyond the resultant ālayavij?āna and seed ālayavij?āna, proposes "liberating nature ālayavij?āna" and "āmala consciousness,"""，，。 From the perspective of liberation, āmala consciousness is the unity of object and wisdom, the unity of wisdom and suchness, suchness-wisdom, and transformation. From the perspective of practice, it establishes the practice sequence of "conventional Yogācāra" and "true Yogācāra" (or "direct insight Yogācāra"). In the aspect of Buddha-nature, modern Yogācāra advocates "five natures are distinct" and "hidden meaning of one vehicle," proposing "rational Buddha-nature" and "practical Buddha-nature"; Paramārtha advocates "one nature achieves all" and "ultimate one vehicle." In the aspect of transformation, modern Yogācāra emphasizes the epistemological significance of transformation, with the focus on "basis transformation." It emphasizes that both seeds and the ālayavij?āna are real, so the "transformation" of giving up and gaining is precisely the change in the "function" of the ālayavij?āna's substance, while its substance remains unchanged. Paramārtha's "middle path" is reflected in the aspect of transformation, on one hand, he explains the epistemological significance of transformation through hearing and cultivation, that is, reducing defiled habits and increasing hearing and cultivation, which is the transformation of the basis; on the other hand, Paramārtha explains the ontological significance of transformation through liberating nature ālayavij?āna, āmala consciousness, and four virtues seeds, that is, transforming the ālayavij?āna into āmala consciousness, which is a complete change in the base of self-existence. The Yogācāra scholars, influenced by the Dizhuan school, interpret consciousness theory through "one mind with two gates," and understand the three natures through true and delusion, function and basis, and origin and end, giving rise to two forms of the three natures. We believe that the "nine consciousnesses" theory was proposed by northern Yogācāra scholars. The Yogācāra scholars gradually deviated from the Yogācāra stance and converged with the "true and constant" school, emphasizing the centrality of Buddha-nature and interpreting the "ten great characteristics" through Buddha-nature, completely interpreting the Constituent Factors of the Buddha through the arising of the Buddha-nature, which is the core embodiment of the Sinicization of the Yogācāra school. In the end, we point out that Paramārtha's "stainless and stained dependent origination" is a "three-dimensional" understanding, and the transformation between discrimination and reality is non-continuous; while the Awakening of Faith emphasizes the "one mind with two gates" in a "flat" manner, the transformation between the ālayavij?āna and the dharma-body is continuous, which is the difference between the two. At the same time, we find that Buddhist ontology is a "process ontology," where all existence is constructed in "process" and "relation," and the Buddha-nature, ālayavij?āna, dharma-body, and dharma-realm are all dynamic existences, not the unchanging, undifferentiated "basis" as described by "critical Buddhism," which is closely linked to "emptiness." The innovation of this paper lies in organizing and discovering a batch of Yogācāra scholars' works and scattered materials; methodologically, it proposes the "comprehensive research method" and "hermeneutics of liberation" to conduct a comparative study of ancient and modern Yogācāra, centered on the ālayavij?āna conditioned origination, the "image gate" Yogācāra, the three natures and three non-natures, Buddha-nature, one vehicle, and three vehicles. This paper points out that Paramārtha's thought is a transition from the deluded mind school to the true mind school, a "middle path," but his fundamental stance remains Yogācāra; and under the interpretive model that emphasizes empirical introspection and psychological analysis, the development of modern Yogācāra is inevitable. At the same time, this paper employs linguistic philosophy, existential philosophy, and phenomenology to provide a modern interpretation of Yogācāra thought, offering a good response to "critical Buddhism."