2.2. The Buddha-nature and Yogācāra

[Full title: The Buddha-nature in Mahāyāna Buddhism (Introduction), (2): The Buddha-nature and Yogācāra]

Yogācāra (yujiaxingzong; the Yoga Practical School) also known as Vijñānavāda (weishizong; Consciousness-only school) is an important philosophical and psychological school of Mahāyāna Buddhism. This school was founded by Asaṅga and his half-brother Vasubandhu in about the fourth century CE. The Yogācāra philosophy emphasizes on the phenomenology through the central view of Consciousness-only. Yogācāra asserted that all phenomenal external objects are unreal and are simply constructions of the mind. In this understanding of Yogācāra, only the mind is ultimately real and truly existent.^[1]

The view of Yogācāra’s Consciousness-only is referred to as Idealism by some scholars, as Janice Willis’s notes:

Assessments which claim to characterize the whole of Yogācāra thought as being uniformly “idealistic” takes little notice of the fact that historically, and according to the texts themselves there existed at least two varying streams of Yogācāra thought, viz., (1) what may be called an “original” thread propounded by Maitreya, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and Sthiramati; and (2) a “later” thread, which found expression notably through such scholars as Dharmapāla, and Hsuan-tsang. Both “streams” were introduced into China, the earlier by Paramartha and the later by Hsuan-tsang, and afterwards transmitted also to Japan. Moreover, while there is clear evidence that the later stream of thought, as expounded by Dharmapāla and others is “idealistic” in character, the same cannot and should not be assumed for the earlier “thread,” though, in fact, this has generally been the case.^[2]

It is said that Asaṅga was disciple of the very vague quasihistorical Maitreyanātha, or the divine Maitreya, who took him to Tuṣita heaven to teach him there five Yogācāra texts,^[3] they are:

(i) Abhisamayālaṃkāra (The Ornament for the Realizations),

(ii) Madhyāntavibhāga (The Discrimination of Middle from Extremes),

(iii) Dharmadharmatāvibhāga (The Discrimination of dharmas from their True Nature),

(iv) Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (The Ornament of the Mahāyāna Sūtras),

(v) Ratnagotravibhāga also known as Uttaratantra (The Ultimate Doctrine)—a famous treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha or the Buddhanature doctrine.

The first three of these scriptures contain the foundational doctrines of Yogācāra and represent pre-Asaṅga Yogācāra thought, in which the Abhisamayālaṃkāra is concerned with Prajñāpāramitā ideas; while the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra and Ratnagotravibhāga belong to the Tathāgatagarbha literature.^[4] However, the earliest and most important scriptures of this school are the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and Yogācārabhūmiśāstra, ascribed to Maitreyanātha.^[5]

The Yogācārabhūmiśāstra (The Discourse on the Stages of Yoga Practice) presents the meditative and yogic practices of Yogācāra; therefore, the name Yogācāra of this school is closely connected with this text. The text was translated entirely into Chinese (Yujiashidilun, T30n1579, p. 279-882) by Xuanzang. Some parts have been preserved in the Tibetan version. The Sanskrit original was found recently and was published partly by several scholars such as Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya (1957), Alex Wayman (1961), and so on.^[6] The Yogācārabhūmiśāstra enumerates, classifies, and explains all elements that relate to the practice of each of the seventeen spiritual stages leading to Buddhahood. The text also explores deeply the fundamental Yogācāra concepts such as the Ālayavijñāna, three natures (trisvabhāva; sanzixing) and three nonnatures (triniḥsvabhāva; sanwuzixing), seeds (bījā; zhonzi), perfumation (vāsanā; xunxi), the two hindrances (āvaraṇa; erzhang) and mind only (vijñaptimātra, vijñānamātra; weishi).^[7]

The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (Sūtra of the Explanation of the Profound Secrets), which is today extant only in Chinese and Tibetan versions,^[8] was adopted by the Yogācārins as the earliest text expounding the philosophy of Consciousness-only.^[9] The major contribution of this Sūtra to Yogācāra is its creation of the concept of the three “characteristics” (trilakṣaṇa) of entities: the imaginary character (parikalpita-lakṣaṇa), the dependent character (paratantra-lakṣaṇa) and the perfected character (pariniṣpanna-lakṣaṇa). The first four chapters of the text focus on a discussion of the ultimate truth (paramārtha). The fifth contains a seminal description of the Storehouse Consciousness (Ālayavijñāna), and the sixth explains the notion of the three characteristics of phenomena. The seventh chapter is mainly concerned with outlining principles of Buddhist hermeneutics, and the eighth focuses on meditation theory and practice. The ninth chapter describes the Bodhisattva path, and the final chapter is concerned with the characteristics of Buddhahood, the culmination of the practices the text describes.^[10]

For the concept of Consciousness-only of this school, it is possible to look at the explanation in the of Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgrāha (sheda-cheng-lun):

若依他起自性實唯有顯現之所依止.云何成依他起.何因緣故名依他起.從自熏習種子所生.依他緣起故名依他起.生剎那後無有功能.自然住故名依他起.

若遍計所執自性.依依他起實無所有似義顯現.云何成遍計所執. 何因緣故名遍計所執.無量行相意識遍計顛倒生相故.名遍計所執.自相實無唯有遍計所執可得. 是故說名遍計所執.

若圓成實自性.是遍計所執永無有相.云何成圓成實.何因緣故名圓成實.由無變異性故.名圓成實.又由清淨所緣性故.一切善法最勝性故. 由最勝義名圓成實^[11]

If the dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva) is the consciousnessonly (vijñaptimātra) basis of the object, how is it dependent and why is it called dependent? -Because it stems from its own propensity seeds (vāsanābīja), it is dependent on conditions. Because it is incapable of lasting by itself for a single moment after its arising, it is called dependent.

If the imaginary nature (parikalpitasvabhāva) is this manifestation of non-object as object that is based on the dependent nature, how is it imaginary and why is it called imaginary? -Because it is the generating cause of errors of the mental consciousness of innumerable aspects or imagination, it is imaginary. Because it has no nature of its own and is present as a pure imagination, it is called imaginary.

If the absolute nature (pariniṣpannasvabhāva) is the complete absence in the dependent nature of this imaginary nature, how is it absolute and why is it called absolute? -Because it is immutable, it is absolute. Because it is the object of the purified mind and the quintessence of all good dharmas, it is rightly called absolute.^[12]

Asaṅga skillfully used the above theory of Three Nature, i.e., the dependent nature, imaginary nature and absolute nature, to explain the concept of consciousness-only. This theory is very significant in understanding the relationship of mind and object, nature and phenomena.

The correspondence of the Buddha-nature and doctrines of Yogācāra is presented in several texts which belong to both Yogācāra and the Buddha-nature literature such as Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (The Ornament of the Mahāyāna Sūtras), Ratnagotravibhāga (Buddha-nature Treatise), and so on.

The doctrine of Three-natures (trisvabhāva) as presented above in the Mahāyānasaṃgrāha corresponds with the doctrine of three no-natures (triniḥsvabhāva) of the Buddha-nature as expounded in the Buddha Nature Treatise:

“The three no-natures are: the no-mark nature, the no-birth nature and the no-reality nature. These three natures together exhaust the Buddha-nature. In what sense together they constitute its essence. What is meant by the no-mark nature is the fact that all dharmas are just names and words; their own-nature lacks marks and form. The no-birth nature means that all dharmas are brought into being by causes and conditions; they cannot produce themselves. Since neither self nor other completes [production], it is called the nobirth nature. The no-reality nature means that because all things lack the mark of reality, there is no other possessor of reality from which [reality] can be attained.”^[13]

According to this doctrine, a thing has no-nature because their real nature lacks mark or form. Mark or form derives from its own tendentious powers or mental powerful seeds (vāsanā-bīja). Bīja (zhongzi), literally “seed”, is used as a metaphor for the origin or cause of things. Mental seeds are created by individual’s bad or good volitional action, speech and thought; these volitional powers of action, speech and thought can inversely cause people to miscomprehend the real nature of things. All bad and good mental seeds are stored in the ālayavijñāna, one of the most important doctrines of Yogācāra.

The Sanskrit term Ālayavijñāna was translated into Chinese as cang-shi or a-lai-ye-shi.^[14] Consciousness, according to this school, manifests itself in three main kinds: Ālayavijñāna, manas and pravṛttivijñāna. The first one is called the eighth consciousness or storehouse consciousness. The second is the seventh consciousness that is able to deliberate (manana). The third kind is the consciousnesses that discriminate the sphere of objects which include the five first senseconsciousnesses (of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body) and the sixth sensecenter consciousness (manovijñāna).^[15]

In Chinese Buddhism, the concept of Ālayavijñāna and its association with the Buddha-nature is fairly different in different schools. The Dilun School (this school was later absorbed into the Huayan School) which is based on the Daśabhūmikasūtraśāstra advocates that Ālayavijñāna is the pure consciousness in its nature. The Shelun School which relies on the Mahāyānasaṃgrāha maintains that Ālayavijñāna is both pure and defiled. The Faxiang School holds that Ālayavijñāna is the defiled consciousness.^[16] These different opinions depend on their stand point of view on the various aspects of the only Ālayavijñāna.

The relation between Buddha-nature and Ālayavijñāna presented in the Tathāgatagarbha literature is also different. While scriptures of the early period of the literature such as the Śrīmālāsūtra and Ratnagotravibhāga maintain an embedded complementarity of the Ālayavijñāna into Tathāgatagarbha, scripture of the later period obviously declared that they are identical.

The following quotations from in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra identify the Tathāgatagarbha with the Ālayavijñāna.

Mahāmati, the Tathāgatagarbha holds within it the cause for both good and evil, and by it all the forms of existence are produced. Because of the influence of habit-energy that has been accumulating variously by false reasoning since beginningless time, what here goes under the name of Ālayavijñāna is accompanied by the seven vijñānas which give birth to a state known as the abode of ignorance. It is like a great ocean in which the waves roll on permanently but the deeps remain unmoved; that is, the Ālayavijñāna body itself subsists uninterruptedly, quite free from fault of impermanence, unconcerned with the doctrine of egosubstance, and thoroughly pure in its essential nature.^[17]

Thus, like Ālayavijñāna, the Buddha-nature is presented here as a store house that holds within it the cause for good and evil and by it all the forms of existence are produced;however, both Ālayavijñāna and Tathāgatagarbha are innately the pure consciousnesses in its essential nature.

In brief, in its individual dimension, the Buddha-nature is understood as an innate pure mind hidden in all living beings and covered by unreal defilements, and also known as Tathāgatagarbha. When the Buddha-nature is freed from all defilements including both good and evil mental seeds, it is called Dharmakāya -a full exposed state of Buddhanature in an enlightened One, a Buddha. This doctrinet of Buddha-nature is presented in Mahāyāna scriptures of the so called Tathāgatagarbha literature.

However, traces of the Buddha-nature thought can also be found in Early Buddhism. The characteristics of the Buddha’s Enlightenment such as the three kinds of transcendent wisdom (tivijjā) are also included within the natures of the Buddha-nature; the concept of “luminous mind” (pabhāssara cittaṃ) as presented in the Aṅguttara-nikāya is similar the innate pure mind of Buddha-nature. The concept of Middle-path which avoids two extremes as depicted in the Saṃyutta-nikāya’s Kaccāyanagotta Sutta corresponds to the non-duality of the Buddhanature. The concept of supra-mundane dharmas of the Lokottaravādins reflects the universality of the Buddha-nature. It is notable that the fundamental doctrine of anattā (no-self) as presented in the Pāli literature also does not contradict the concept of true-self of the Buddha-nature. Thus, it is possible to say that the thought of Buddha-nature is definitely Buddhist because it has its origin in Early Buddhism.

Rooted in Early Buddhism, the Buddha-nature thought grew in parallel with Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The Mādhyamaka’s doctrines such as pratītyasamutpāda (Dependent arising), Śūnyatā (Emptiness), Majjhimā paṭipadā (Middle path) respectively correspond to the undefiled nature, no-self and nonduality of the Buddha-nature. In Yogācāra, although there is still controversy of the identity of the Ālayavijñāna and Tathāgatagarbha, some later scriptures of the Tathāgatagarbha literature such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra asserts that they are identical. Another concept of Yogācāra such as the Three Natures (trisvabhāva) is also parallel to the Buddha-nature.

It is a major shortcoming if the doctrine of Buddha-nature is not studied in its own literature. So the next chapter will present the Tathāgatagarbha literature from which the thought of Buddha-nature will be understood more fully.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sallie B. King, Buddha Nature, p. 7.

[2]:

Janice Dean Willis, On Knowing Reality: The Tattvārtha Chapter of Asaṅga’s Bodhisattvabhūmi, p. 21.

[3]:

Paul William, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, pp. 86-7

[4]:

Sallie B. King, Buddha Nature, p. 6.

[5]:

Lindsay Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. XIV, p. 9898.

[6]:

Hajime Nakamura, Indian Buddhism: Aṅguttaranikāya Survey with Bibliographical Notes, p. 257.

[7]:

Taisho Tripiṭaka (CBETA 2011) [T30n1579], pp. 279-882.

[8]:

Chinese translations include complete versions by Bodhiruci (深密解脱經, 5 chapters, Taisho Tripiṭaka (CBETA 2011) [T16n675], pp. 668-687) and Xuanzang (解深密經, 5 chapters, Taisho Tripiṭaka (CBETA 2011) [T16n676], pp. 688b-711b), and partial versions by Gunabhadra (相續解脱地波羅蜜了義經 1 chapters, T16n678, pp. 711-719) and Paramārtha (佛説解節經, 1 chapters, T16n677, pp. 711-713). The Sanskrit edition is not available, but there is a Tibetan translation, which is translated into English by John Powers in 1995 (Wisdom of Buddha: The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Berkeley, CA: Dharma, 1995).

[9]:

Jr. Buswell, E. Robert, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. II, pp. 737–738.

[10]:

Ibid., p. 738.

[11]:

Taisho Tripiṭaka (CBETA 2011) [T34n1954], pp. 139a26-b09.

[12]:

Mahāyānasaṃgraha: La Somme du Grand Véhicule d’Asaṅga, ed. & tr. Étienne Lamotte, tr. Gelongma K.Majjhimanikāya. Chodron (French into English), Vol. II, p. 107.

[13]:

Sallie B. King, Buddha Nature, p. 42.

[14]:

G.P. Malalasekera (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol. I, p. 382.

[15]:

Swati Ganguly, Treatise In Thirty Verse On Mere-consciousness, p. 39.

[16]:

G.P. Malalasekera, Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, p. 387.

[17]:

Laṅkāvatāra-Sūtra, p. 190.