Influence of the Philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism on Mādhyamika and Yogācāra

Influence of the Philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism

Chin Bee Len

This research points out the influence of the philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism on Mādhyamika and Yogācāra in order to show the interrelationship between them. The contributions of the special reference include: the influence of philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism (early Indian Buddhist schools on Mādhyamika and Yogācāra; how Mādhyamika and Yogācāra derived their tenets from the philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism, and further expanded and elaborated them and led to the efflorescence of the principal teachings of the Buddha. It is concluded that the philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism has played a key role to influence the development of the Mādhyamika and Yogācāra, and later, Mādhyamika and Yogācāra further established and led to the efflorescence of the principal teachings of the Buddha

Keywords: Nikāya Buddhism, Mādhyamika, Emptiness, Yogācāra, Consciousness.

The Emergence of Mādhyamika and Yogācāra According to Vasumitra’s treatise, the emergence period of early Buddhist Indian Schools (Nikāya Buddhism) started from about a hundred and odd years to the beginning of the 4th century after the demise of the Buddha. At that time, there was no distinction between Great vehicle (Mahāyāna) and Lesser vehicle (Hīnayāna), because the Mañjuśrī-paripṛccha Sūtra mentions that the followers of all the 20 Schools, could eventually attain Arahantship. Later, the term “Hīnayāna” is used to refer to Early Buddhist schools by the Mahāyānist (Sheng, 1997: 167). Lesser Vehicle is applied to the Śrāvakayāna (vehicle of listeners), the Buddhist path followed by a śrāvaka who wishes to become an Arahant. In contrast, the Mahāyānists who wish to become a Buddha followed the Bodhisattva path. In 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists declared that the term “Hīnayāna” should not be used when referring to any form of Buddhism existing today. According to Williams (2005), the deep-rooted misconception concerning an unfailing, ubiquitous fierce criticism of the Lesser Vehicle by the Mahāyāna is not supported by their texts. He states that while evidence of conflict is present in some cases, there is also substantial evidence demonstrating peaceful coexistence between the two traditions (Williams, 2005: 43).

The pilgrim I-Tsing (671-695 A.C.) states that those practitioners who worshipped the Bodhisattvas and read the Mahāyāna Sūtras were called the Mahāyānists, but those who did not do so were called the Hīnayānists. According to I-Tsing, there are two Buddha systems: one is the Mādhyamika (of Nāgārjuna) and the other is Yogācāra (of Asaṅga). The Mādhyamika professes that what is commonly called existence is in reality non-existence, and every object is but an empty show, like an illusion. In contrast, the Yogācāra affirms that there exist no external things in reality, in inward thoughts, and all things exists only in the mind. He attempts to harmonize the two extreme vehicles (yānas), pointing out some facts common to both, such as adoption of the same discipline (vinaya) and the same prohibitions of the five groups of offences (skandhas) and also practice of the Four Noble Truths.

The Kathāvatthu mentions the proposition of the Mahā-suññavādin or Vetulyakas showing the relation with the Mahāyāna. The philosophy of Mādhyamika is called Emptiness (śūnyatā) and some of the early Mahāyāna scriptures are called Vetulya. Some of the early Indian Buddhist Schools, after coming into contact with Mahāyāna Buddhism, adopted its customs, or at all events, studied its system along with their own. For instance, the Mahābodhi-vihara in Gayā, adheres to the Sthaviravāda School, yet it also belongs to the Mahāyāna; the surrounding circumstances may have occasioned like this (Takakusu, 1982). The Mahāsaṃghika and its subdivisions in South India and Sthaviravāda‟s subdivision of Sarvāstivāda in Northwest India were more liberal. They emphasized on preaching the dharma to the laity; therefore, the dharma was again flourishing, which was called Mahāyāna Buddhism. The Mahāsaṃghikas gradually synthesized with the Mahāyāna. The Sarvāstivāda of Northwest India also had also produced many great Mahāyāna masters (Sheng, 1997: 168).

According to Ven. Yin Shun (1978), Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism is divided into three trends: (1) the early period of Ven. Nāgārjuna “Characteristic emptiness of provisional name concept” - established the Mādhyamika ; (2) the middle period of Ven. Asaṅga “Illusory nature of consciousness” - established the Yogācāra; and (3) the latest stage “True consistency of mind concept”.

Early Indian Buddhist Schools were derived from the principal teachings of the Buddha. Later, early Mahāyāna Buddhism emerged in about the first or second century A.C. Mahāyāna Buddhism continued the philosophy of early Indian Buddhist Schools and they developed and revived the fundamental spirit of the Buddha‟s teaching. Mahāyāna maintains the principal teachings of the Buddha (Three Characteristics of existence) to emphasize the aim of salvation of all sentient beings – the concept of the path of Bodhisattva came to be based on Bodhicitta (Sheng, 1997: 180).

The Influence of the Philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism on Mādhyamika The influence of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Perfection of Wisdom) on Mādhyamika developed the foundation of the dependent origination and intrinsic nature (svabhāva) philosophy of Mādhyamika. It can be referred to as the Middle way because it does not hold any extreme views, especially those of externalism or annihilationism. This School of philosophy and its subdivisions are called "Madhyamaka"; those who follow it are called “Mādhyamikas”. However, a member of the Sanskrit Commission set up by the Indian government in 1959, advocated the use of "Madhyamika " on all occasions.

The philosophy of prajñāpāramitā implicitly contains the roots leading to the emergence of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The prajñāpāramitā derived the concept from Mahāsaṃghika “Present has the substance”, and from this is derived the basic concept of dependent origination. According to the Kathāvatthu 19.2, the Andhaka School suggests that “emptiness” is included in the aggregates of mental co-efficient, which is the theory that shows the relationship between dependent origination and emptiness. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way of Mādhyamika School, is the best known work of master Nāgārjuna. According to Kalupahana (1994), MMK is not only a grand commentary on the Buddha's discourse to Kaccāyana, the only discourse cited by name, but also a detailed and careful analysis of most of the important discourses included in the Nikāyas and the Āgamas, especially those of the Aṭṭhakavagga of the Sutta-nipāta.

Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu quotes some of the Theravāda Suttas from the Nikāyas showing the three perspective approach of emptiness. (1) As a meditative dwelling, Cūlasuññata Sutta M.N 121, the Buddha says that by not attending to any themes and by releasing all mental fermentation, the Buddha enters and remains in internal emptiness, liberation of the void (Suññatā-vihāra).7 (2) As an attribute of objects, Kaccānagotta Sutta S.N 12.15 points out, when one no longer latches into any idea of "self", one sees phenomena within and without simply as examples of stress arising and passing away. The right discernment on existence and non-existence is related to the origination and cessation of the world. (3) As a type of awareness-release, Āneñjasappāya Sutta M.N 106 further adds that if one frequently abides in the emptiness awareness-release, one may either attain the dimension of nothingness – one of the formless states – or be committed to the discernment that will lead to Awakening. It is important to remember that in the course of practice, all three meanings are related and all will inevitably play a role in awakening.

Ven. Nāgārjuna wrote the MMK to view the five aggregates (pañcaskandhāḥ) and eighteen elements, showing the relationship between Dependent origination and the Middle Path. With that dependent origination is the characteristic and emptiness could be found through the observing four noble truths. This means impermanence and non-self of causal conditions (hetu pratyaya). We can trace this theory the SaṃyuktaĀgama. The Buddha said, “The noble disciples viewed form (rūpa) as nonself, as not distinct from the self, non-existence of appearance, which is called the real contemplation of reality. Likewise, sensation (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), mental formations (saṃskāra), and consciousness (vijñāna) show emptiness.” It is the meaning of middle path.

The content of MMK shows its relationship to the principal teachings of early Buddhism such as the Four Noble Truths, five aggregates, elements, etc. The concepts in the content of MMK are related to the notions of early Indian Buddhist Schools.

The Content of the MMK text of Mādhyamika

Verse15:10 explains Svabhāvaparīkṣā: analysis of being or essence ऄस्तीतत शाश्वतग्राहो नास्तीत्युच्चेददशशनं astīti śāśvatagrāho nāstītyuccedadarśanaṁ

To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism.

तस्माद् ऄतस्तत्वनातस्तत्वे नाश्रीयेत तवचक्षणः।

tasmād astitvanāstitve nāśrīyeta vicakṣaṇaḥ

Therefore, a wise person does not say "exists" or "does not exist" (Garfield, 1995: 40).

As Kalupahana (1992:120) says, Master Nāgārjuna applied the Buddha's theory of "dependent arising" (pratītya-samutpada), and demonstrated the futility of metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" (madhyama pratipad) to avoid the substantialism of the Sarvāstivādins as well as the nominalism of the Sautrāntikas. In MKK, Nāgārjuna insisted that all experienced phenomena are empty. This did not mean that they are not experienced… only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhāva). Since they are experienced, they are mere names (prajñāpti) (Kalupahana, 1992:120).

According to Nakamura (2002), the Sarvāstivāda focuses on the center of all the Abhidharma of early Buddhist schools in various investigations and considerations. MMK has the aim of refuting these doctrines, such as the metaphysical entity called dharma, postulation of 5 parts of 75 dharmas, existence of dharmas in all three times and that the dharma entity is eternal etc. The concept of eternal existence view is the opposite view of annihilation or nihilistic view which overlaps with the execution and it has a contradictory point that departs from the true meaning of the teaching of the Buddha.

The Philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism related to śūnyatā of Mādhyamika Some scholars believe that the following concepts of early Buddhist schools influence the concept of emptiness (śūnyatā) of master Nāgārjuna. We assume that these concepts provide a link to further development that ‒ all phenomena of existence are characterized by emptiness (sarvadharmāḥ śūnyatālakṣaṇā, 无相皆空论) ‒ concept of Nāgārjuna.

1. The concept of root consciousness (mūlavijñāna) of Mahāsaṃghika (生起六識的根本識): It is the original consciousness or the root consciousness. The root consciousness causes the emergence of the six consciousnesses. (ṣaḍ-vijñānāni).

2. The Mahāsaṃghika‟s concept of Temporary nature of material dharma: The present has substantial form, but the past and the future do not have substances. They believe at this moment (kṣaṇika) of the present, is authentic existence, but as for the past it has already gone by and the future has not come into being yet (Sheng, 1997, 208:124-5).

3. The Lokottaravāda‟s concept of the supermundane: According to Tan Kuang, they believe that since the mundane phenomena are distorted; therefore, there are unreal. In contrast, the supermundane dharmas are real. The supermundane dharma is attained through the Four Noble Truths, by following the path; eventually, one can achieve the fruition, which is also called Nibbāna.

4. The Ekavyavahārika‟s concept of unreal or illusory dharma: All phenomena have no substance or are illusions. They believed all dharma is illusion, without real substance. It is unreal dharma. Some of the modern scholars consider this sect has some similarities with the theory of Mahāprajñapāramitā, “signless or non-appearance (animitta) are all empty phenomena” and the theory advocated by Nāgārjuna “All the phenomena of thusness dharma” (sarva-dharma-tathatā, 诸法实相论).

5. The Bahuśrutīya‟s concept of the supermundane: The five sounds are supermundane because it leads to emancipation; the others are mundane dharma (laukikaśāsana). The teaching of the Buddha on the following five themes or five sounds is supermundane teaching (lokottara-sāsana) because these five lead to the path of emancipation (nihsaraṇamārga): (1) transitoriness (anityata), (2) suffering (duḥkha), (3) void (śūnya), (4) non-ego (anātman), (5) Nirvāṇa, the quietude (śānta).

6. The Prajñāptivāda‟s concept of unreality: Both Mundane and supramundane dharmas have certain amount of unreality. If one side of phenomena is real, the other side is unreal (Pachow, 1992:287).

7. The Sarvāstivāda‟s concept of śūnyatā (voidness) and non-desire (apraṇhita). Man can enter the samyaktva-niyāma (the first stage of darśana-mārga) through (practicing) the two (kinds of) meditation (samādhi), voidness (śunyatā) and non-desire (apraṇihita); one gets into the samyaktva-niyāma through meditation on desire (kāma-loka) (in four different ways). 8. The Theravāda‟s concept of three kinds of meditation: on emptiness (suññatā), signless (animitta) and desireless (appaṇihita).

The above phenomenological concepts of Nikāya Buddhism show the diverse interpretations which are related to the mundane and supermundane dharma. It is assumed that these concepts might have influenced Ven. Nāgārjuna to advocate the concept of Mādhyamika.

The Philosophy of Dependent Origination (śūnyatā) of Mādhyamika According to Mādhyamik, all phenomena (dharmas) are empty (śūnyatā) of "nature”, a "substance" (svabhāva) which gives them solid and independent existence, because they are dependently co-arisen. This "emptiness" itself is also "empty": it does not have an existence on its own, nor does it refer to a transcendental reality beyond or above phenomenal reality (Garfield, 1994).

Ven. Nāgārjuna may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in the Āgamas. He considers that the Buddha was not only a forerunner, but also the founder of the Mādhyamika system (Lindtner,1997:324). Kalupahana (2005) sees Nāgārjuna as a successor to Moggaliputta-tissa in being a champion of the middle-way and a reviver of the original philosophical ideals of the Buddha.

The Eight Negatives

The principal philosophy of Nāgārjuna is in the 8 negatives and with the Two Truths. After the comprehension of these concepts, those who are interested can study the “analysis of action and its fruition” till the “analysis of wrong view” of MKK.

Master Nāgārjuna describes the dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) by means of 8 negatives which are presented by four groups of eight negatives:

(1) neither origination nor cessation,

(2) neither permanence nor impermanence,

(3) neither unity nor diversity, and,

(4) neither coming in nor going out, which is the law of dependent origination.

The expounding of the 8 negatives concept was based on the nature of dependent origination of dharma, which is emptiness. Emptiness means middle path which has no hindrances and does not even have emptiness. In brief, the middle path for the non-acceptance of the two views is related to the concept of neither reality nor non-reality of the world, but only relatively. In common, people observe the conditions of the world and apply it to concepts of origination and cessation, permanence and impermanence, unity and diversity, coming and going. They use these as fixed concepts; therefore, the ordinary person has the concept of selfpersistence, likewise the heretical practitioners‟ view as permanence or impermanence. However, from the perspective of dependent origination in observing the reality of the world, there is neither origination nor cessation, neither permanence nor impermanence. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is unity or diversity, or coming or going (Sheng, 1997).

Dependent Origination and Non-origination (anutpāda)

Throughout the MMK, Nāgārjuna emphasizes the notion of dependent origination (pratītya-samutpāda) by observing the fact that things originate in dependence on causes (hetu) and conditions (pratyaya). MMK 24-18 verse states: “What dependent origination is, that we call emptiness (śūnyatā).” That is dependent designation (prajñaptir upādāya); precisely that is the middle way.” It is commonly known that Dependent origination is a fundamental doctrine in early Buddhism. For instance, in the Mahānidāna Sutta of the D.N, the Buddha says, “Ānanda, this dependent origination is profound and looks profound.” Similary, Mahāhatthinpadopama Sutta of M.N 28 mentions, “He who sees dependent origination sees the dharma; he who sees the dharma sees dependent origination.”

Master Nāgārjuna not only mentions dependent origination but also mentions non-origination (anutpāda). He states that dependent origination is characterized by non-origination. According to William (2005), this seems to be a flat contradiction. If so, it is a contradiction which Nāgārjuna as a Mahāyānist cannot escape, for the Mahāyāna Sūtras, especially those of the prajñāpāramitā class are full of references to the non-origination of all dharmas (William, 2005). In Buddhism the term “anutpāda” refers to the absence of an origin (śūnyatā). Besides, it also means that the dharmas, the constituting elements of reality, do not come into existence (King, 1995).

Ven. Buddhapālita deals with the apparent contradiction between dependent origination and non-origination. He mentions that the supremely profound ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) is called “dependent origination”, “One who sees the unreal is bound; one who sees the real is liberated.” A thing that has originated in dependence on causes and conditions implies that it has no intrinsic nature (svabhāva). As its existence depends on things other than itself, it is nothing in itself when it is considered in isolation from everything else.

The Two Truths

MMK deals with two kinds of truth: conventional (saṃvṛti-satya) and transcendental or ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). The former refers to ignorance or delusion which envelops reality and gives a false impression, while the latter is the realization that worldly things are non-existent like an illusion. Viewing from the relative standpoint (saṃvṛti), dependent origination explains worldly phenomena, but looked from the absolute standpoint (paramārtha); it means non-origination (anutpāda) at all times and is equated with śūnyatā or Nirvāṇa (Bapat, 1996).

The Two Truths explains that dependent origination dharma is void. It is just as a false name for the purposes of convenience. The meaning of the Middle path is based on the dependent origination of “ultimate truth” to penetrate the truth of the world which is empty and no self-nature can be obtained. In contrast, conventional truth is still dependent origination of existence. Buddhapālita states that the reality of things is the absence of essence.

According to Nakamura (2004:255), the Buddhist term “paramārthasatya” ultimate truth is identified with anutpāda (non-origination). The term “paramārtha” is a synonym for tattva, tathatā, śūnyatā, animitta, bhūtakoṭi, and dharmadhātu. If one understands emptiness (śūnyatā), nonorigination and dependent arising, he or she could realize the ultimate truth and gain Nirvāṇa, liberation.

The Genealogy of Mādhyamika School

The Early period of Mādhyamika‟s philosophy was established by master Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. Ven. Nāgārjuna (150 - 250 A.C.) is the founder of the Mādhyamika . The master Nāgārjuna, born in Vidarbha (Berar), was ordained at Nālanda and learnt under Sāraha Brahmin and Rahulabhadra. He obtained the One Hundred thousand of prajñāpāramitākārikā from the dragon (Nāgā) region. It is said that master Nāgārjuna was influenced by the Andhaka School; he was ordained in the Sarvāstivāda School. Because of the influence of the prajñāpāramitā and Avataṃsaka Sūtra, he preached the Mahāyāna.

The philosophy of Nāgārjuna was derived from the early Mahāyāna‟s prajñā concept and further developed. He considers that all the worldly things as nature of void (ultimate truth) existed as the provisional name (conventional truth). Nāgārjuna wrote many Buddhist texts, and the most significant are:

1. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) which describes the profound concept of the dependent origination nature of emptiness which indicates salvation from saṃsāra. It is the same way of three vehicles: Śrāvakayāna (vehicle of listeners), Pratyeka-Buddha, Bodhisattavayāna.

2. Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra, “The Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom”, is based on the middle path showing the unique nature of wisdom (prajñā).

3. Daśabhūmika-Vibhāsā-Śāstra (十住毗婆沙論) “Ten stages of VibhāsāŚāstra” applies the profound view to explain the great actions (practice) of Bodhisattva.

Master Āryadeva (170 - 270 A.C.) was one of the most diligent disciples of Nāgārjuna. According to Bu-ston (1986), master Āryadeva was a Sinhalese, who studied from Nāgārjuna and taught in Nālanda University. He wrote some texts aiming at refuting the doctrines of other heterodox practitioners and early Buddhist schools. Later, the disciples inherited this doctrinal standpoint as a guarding principle to form the Madhymika School. During the early period of the Mādhyamika, the emptiness theory had declined for sometime after the passing away of the great masters Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. The middle period of Mādhyamika

theory again was revealing and prosperous. In c.320-400 A.C. Saṃgharaksita, the disciple of Nāgamitra, propagated the theory of Nāgārjuna, but only preached the Mādhyamika Śāstra and the Śataka-śāstra (Hundred treatises). Later, the three scholars Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka and Vimuktisena came to South India to learn under the master Saṃgharaksita. Buddhapālita and Bhāvaviveka (Bhavya) were prominent and they set up a new sect respectively, even though both of them believed in the emptiness concept of Nāgārjuna. During Nāgārjuna‟s time, it still had not set up any name for the Mādhyamika School.

Against the concept of Nāgārjuna‟s original meaning of three non-natures, Buddhapālita and Bhāvaviveka advocated the debate method. Buddhapālita‟s method of debate was from the opponent‟s concept of discourse to find out its contradictory character. It criticizes the opponent‟s self- contradictory concept in different ways in order to prove that the theory would not be tenable and thus was able to defeat the heretical views. It represented

the authentic concept but it did not mention what his avocation was; therefore, this sect is called “Prāsaṇgikāḥ”. As for Ven. Bhavya set up his own theory to refute the opponent; therefore, it is called “Svātantrika” style.

The late period of Mādhyamika, the Svātantrika is divided into two schools:

1. Svātantrika Mādhyamika style, to which the master and Jñānagarbha belong;

2. Yogācāra Mādhyamika Svātantrika style, to which the master Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaṣīla, Vimuktisena, Haribhadra and Buddhaṣrījñāna belong.

They propagated the practical theory of Yogācāra and in their treatises had a colorful style of Buddhism and are connected with various kinds of external philosophies as well as a result, this method is very creative and active. Later, both Śāntarakṣita (700-760 A.C.) and Kamalaşīla (730-800 A.C.) propagated Buddhism in Tibet very successfully (Sheng, 1997: 219223). Moreover, (about 6th and 7th century A.C) the Tian Tai School (天台宗) of China accepted the Middle Path philosophy of Nāgārjuna and considered him as the first patriarch. The Sanron School (三論宗) in China (Jizang) and Japan are mainly based on the three treatises: MMK, Śatakaśāstra‟s Aryadeva and Twelve Doors Treatise; therefore, it is called “Three Treatises School (Sanron)” (Fang, 2001: 140,147).

The Influence of Philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism on Yogācāra

The Yogācāra is the second trend of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism emerging around the 4th century A.C. The Yogācāra can be referred to those who practice the yoga (method or exertion). It is also called “Vijñāna-vāda”. Yogācāra, an influential school of Buddhist philosophy, relates everything to be the mind. The discourse of Yogācāra explains how human experience is constructed by mind.

It attaches to the religious practices as an important method for attaining final emancipation from the bondage of the phenomenal world. The masters Maitreya, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu developed the fundamental philosophy of Yogācāra. The orientation of the Yogācāra School is largely consistent with the concepts of the Pāli Nikāyas. It always deals with the later developments in a way that repositions them with earlier version of Buddhist doctrines. One of the aims of this school was to change the direction of the complicated assumptions of later refinements in Buddhist philosophy to harmonize with early Buddhist doctrines.

According to Keenan (2000), the Yogācāra masters borrowed the mystical approach of the Prajñāpāramitā texts. However, they did not reject the authenticity of theoretical Abhidharma. Preferably they attempted to establish a critical understanding of the consciousness that underlies all meaning, both mystical and theoretical. The doctrine was projected as focusing on the practice of yoga, rather than as a conceptual comprehension.

Some of the Early Indian Buddhist schools have mentioned the concept of consciousness which is related to Yogācāra. Some of them are:

1. The original or root consciousness (mūlavijñāna) concept of the Mahāsaṃghika: The root consciousness causes the emergence of the six consciousnesses (ṣaḍ-vijñānāni).

2. The mind permeates (penetrates) the whole body according to the Mahāsaṃghika: The commentary of Vasumitra states that the subtle mind consciousness (manovijñāna) permeates the body in which it depends and abides (in it). Therefore we know that the subtle mindconsciousness is everywhere present in the body (Vasumitra‟s treatise, 1925: 34, 68).

3. Revolution of the seeds (ālaya-vijñāna-paravṛtti or bīja-paravṛtti) seeds' of defilements (samklesika-dharma-bīja) are concepts found in Theravāda.

4. According to the Mahīśāsaka School, the aggregate of consciousness is exhausted with the concomitants of reincarnation, and then only become freed from transmigration (穷生死蕴) (Sheng, 1997: 119).

5. The concept of interaction of Saṅkrāntivāda (transmigration) of Sautrāntika: The aggregates (skandhas) transmigrate from one world to the other, (lit. from the former world to the latter).

6. There are mūlāntikaskandhas (antika or root) and also the ekarasaskandhas (One taste of aggregate is the subtle consciousness.), the concept of Sautrāntika.

7. The Sautrāntika believed that “seed consciousnesses” plants a seed in one‟s consciousness.

Matter or form (rūpa) and mind (citta) are interaction of seed, subtle and unity of consciousness, which advocate the karma transmigration; therefore, it has the seed which continuously retribution of three stages. Human beings due to the karma, in the mind consciousness, plant the seed, and then the seed is transmitted to the future. This seed consciousness theory is quite similar to the ālaya-vijñāna of the Yogācāra. It is possible that Sautrāntika borrowed its doctrine of subtle mind consciousness (manovijñāna) from the Mahāsaṃghikas and lent it to the Yogācāra School. Later, this seed consciousness dharma is further developed by the Yogācāra.

Some of these concepts have already been mentioned as the foundation of the 7th consciousness and seed consciousness of Yogācāra (Sheng, 1997: 208). The above psychological concepts of Nikāya Buddhism indicate that at that time, they wanted to identify the mind process and the teaching function of transmigration. We postulated that the concepts of Nikāya Buddhism had influenced the concept of Yogācāra.

The Philosophy of Vijñāna (consciousness) of Yogācāra

According to Muller (2005), Yogācāra uses various concepts in providing this explanation of (experience): representation-only, the eight consciousnesses, the three natures, and emptiness. Yogācāra has a vast and complex system, all of these different approaches and categories are ultimately tied to each other, and thus starting with any one of them, one can eventually enter all of the rest.

The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda Sūtra had mentioned the Tathāgata-garbha related to the nature of Buddha and Dharmakāya, emergence of which the result is adaption of the ultimate way. However, based on this standpoint, it attempts to describe the complicated and polluted world; even the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Vimalakīrti-Nirdeśa Sūtra mention that everything of the three realms is due to the arising of the mind and that

ignorance appears creating the illusory world whereas due to the purification of the mind, the pure land appears. Nevertheless, this description is too simple; thus, a further explanation is given in one of the most important texts of Yogācāra the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (SNM). It asserts the dwelling state of ignorance and acknowledges the sub-consciousness of basic ignorance whereas pure consciousness acknowledges the Buddha nature and Tathāgata-garbha.

“What is the relationship between ignorance and pure consciousness?” How does it coordinate and establish different kinds of worlds? It is plausible to reach the conclusion that the Yogācāra School was developed later. It is believed that this Sūtra stands as the pioneer of the Yogācāra. The important concepts of SNM are as follows:

1. Ālaya-vijñāna (consciousness) concept: at the time of Nāgārjuna, the concept of 7th consciousness had not been formed. Later, SNM admits that the 6th inner consciousness has the Buddha nature an idea which was used to modify the doctrine of reality. Therefore, SNM specifies the concept of the ‒ Ālayavijñāna‟ or Adānāvijñāna ‒ which refers to the transmigration of human beings but it did not distinguish its name as eighth or seventh consciousnesses.

2. Three natures of appearances (Trilakṣaṇa) and the three absences of natures. Trilakṣaṇa is established because of the adaption of ālayavijñāna. The Yogācārins defined three natural perceptions by which we perceive our world:

1) Fully conceptualized appearance (parikalpita,遍計所執相): herein things are incorrectly comprehended based on conceptual construction, through attachment and erroneous discrimination.

2) Other dependent appearance: (paratantra, 依他起相): the real form of phenomenal existence free from verbal expression; the world of dependent origination (the form arising under certain conditions). 3) Fully accomplished appearance: (pariniṣpanna,圆成实相) all the dharma is equal as suchness of existences or true nature (bhūtatathatā) of real appearance. It means that one comprehends things as they are in themselves, uninfluenced by any conceptualization at all (Sheng, 1997: 232).

Three natures have their corresponding three absences of natures (triniḥsvabhāva, 三無自性) and they are not separated from the mind:

1) Absence of inherent characteristic: to view all the appearance is the mind idea which does not have the special self-nature existence.

2) Absence of inherent arising: The main principal of cause and effect is related to the mind; thus, it does not have the special self- nature. 3) Absence of inherent ultimacy: full accomplishment is due to the pure mind effect separated from the mind and without the selfnature and without itself-nature.

Each of these "absences" is a form of emptiness. Yogācāra values the special significance of the Cūlasuññata Sutta or Lesser Discourse on Emptiness of the Theravāda. It is often quoted in later Yogācāra texts as a true definition of emptiness.

3. SNM mentions the preaching of the Bodhisattva: all dharma are without self-nature which is neither origination nor cessation, but it is still an implicit discourse (neya-artha). It states that the three nature and three non-natures only had started the way to the explicit discourse (nītaartha) (Sheng, 1997: 232). SNM promises to expound a teaching that is completely explicit and requires no interpretation for understanding.

Another important text of Yogācāra the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (4th century A.C.), of which the Sanskrit version still exists and the Chinese version has three different translations. The main concept of this Sūtra explains the five Dharmas, three self-natures, 8th consciousness, and two self-natures. It always applies these main concepts to illustrate life, universal phenomena and ontology. This Sūtra appeared during the time the trend of the „Buddha nature‟ (Tathāgata-garbha) concept was prominent.

1. The Five Dharmas: This concept is also mentioned in Yogācāra Śāstra, Yogācāra Bhumi Śāstra, and Buddha Nature Śāstra. The Five Dharmas are:

1) Name, the name of the object;

2) appearance, the name and appearance give the judgment;

3) distinguished, from the name and appearance gives the judgment;

4) authentic wisdom, it can be seen through the name and appearance which are not the reality; and

5) True-nature (Bhūta-tathatā,如如), it is similar to wisdom.

These Five Dharmas enumerate that the perplexing world of differentiation and objective (name and appearance) through realizing the subjective (authentic wisdom) and objective (Bhūta-tathatā); can assist to break the perplex world which can enter into the comprehensive world process. (Suzuki,1978:87-95; Sheng,1997: 233).

2. The Three-nature dharma is same with the Trilakṣaṇa of SNM.

3. What are the 8 consciousnesses? They are: Thathāgata-garbha, citta, cetanā, manas consciousness and the five consciousnesses.

Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra applies the 7th consciousness in SNM as the 8th consciousness. The 8th consciousness set up the 7th consciousness, and was included into the early Buddhist concept of six consciousnesses. Appearing of the 8th consciousness activities depends on the 7th distinguishing consciousness. The 8th consciousness does not have the self-nature, everything just like the consciousness like the wave of the sea. A question was asked, “How to stop the consciousness of the sea wave?” The answer is given in the two non-self-natures (Sheng, 1997: 234).

4. Two non-self-natures: (1) the emptiness of self (人空) composed of dharmas: attachment of five aggregates and dependence on causes and conditions; (2) the emptiness of dharma (法空) dependent on cause and condition. The former is the attachment to words as having self-nature, and the latter is the attachment to objects as having self-nature. This text considers that the 8th consciousness has the characteristic of reality, karma, and transformation. Among these

three the real ontology is the 8th consciousness of characteristic of reality. The first to the 8th consciousnesses refer to the characteristic of karma and transformation, and it can, through the power of practice of the above, extinguish it. If one has extinguished the concept of karma and transformation of appearance, at that moment, the consciousness of sea wave will stop. It can be called the Buddha nature, Nirvāṇa or Dharmakāya, which is neither origination nor cessation, pure and without a defilement stage.

This Sūtra reconciles the Tathāgata-garbha and ālaya-vijñāna concept and acknowledges that the 8th consciousness has purity, and impurity two sides or aspects (of mind). Impurity aspect responds to distinguishing and illusory phenomena whereas purity aspect establishes the Bhūta-tathatā as being equal to the real world. This is quite similar to the concept of one mind in two aspects which is mentioned in “Mahāyāna Śraddhotapāda Śāstra”. We can compare the texts of Theravāda related to the two non self-natures: in the Alaggaddūpama Sutta M.N.22, the Buddha makes a raft parable to show the non-attachment to self and dhamma. The raft is for the purpose of crossing over, but not for the purpose of holding to. In Pabhassara Sutta (Luminous) A.N 1.49-52 the mind is inherently luminous; the unwise person cannot even see that it is obscured by defilements.

Ālaya-vijñāna

Ālayavijñāna, the Buddhist term “ālaya” refers to abode, place, rooting, and attachment; the term “vijñāna” means consciousness. Ālaya-vijñāna also can be called store consciousness or 8th consciousness. It is generally believed that ālaya-vijñāna is purely a Mahāyāna doctrine but it is found in Lesser vehicle. However, in the Mahāyānasangraha, Ven. Asaṅga states that in the Śrāvakayāna (Hīnayāna) it is mentioned by synonyms (paryāya) and refers to a passage in the Ekottara Āgama:

“People (prajā) like the ālaya (ālayarata), are fond of the ālaya (ālayarāma), are delighted in the ālaya (ālayasammudita), are attached to the ālaya (ālayābhirata)….”

According to Ven. Rahula (2013), the term “ālaya” in the same sense is found in several other places of the Pāli Canon (Theravāda). The Pāli Commentaries explain this term as “attachment to the five sensepleasures", and do not give a deeper explanation than that. This also is an aspect of the ālayavijñāna.

“Ālaya-vijñāna is one of the most important doctrines further developed by Ven. Asaṅga (310-390 A.C.) of the Yogācāra School. He divides the vijñāna-skandhā (aggregate) the fifth of the five skandhas, into three different aspects, namely, citta, manas and vijñāna. These three terms citta, manas, and vijñāna - are also treated as synonyms by the Theravāda Tipitaka and Pāli Commentaries, Sarvāstivāda, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and Vimśatikāvijñapti-mātratāsiddhi of Vasubandhu (Rahula, 2013: 131)”

Ven. Rahula (2013: 131) mentions that all the elements of the Yogācāra storehouse-consciousness are already found in the Pāli Canon. He points out that the three layers of the mind as presented by Asaṅga are also mentioned in the Pāli Canon as follows:

1. “What is the definition of the aggregate of consciousness (vijñānaskandhā)?” It is mind (citta), mental organ (manas) and also consciousness (vijñāna).

2. “What is mind (citta)?” It is ālaya-vijñāna (store-consciousness) containing all seeds (sarvabījaka), impregnated (pervade) with the traces (impressions) (vāsanā-paribhāvita) of aggregates (skandha), elements (dhātu) and spheres (āyatana).

3. “What is mental organ (manas)?” It is the object of ālaya-vijñāna always having the nature of self-notion associated with four defilements, viz., the self-ignorance, self-view, self -conceit, and self- love. (Cf. manas-vijñāna of Vasubandhu)

4. “What is consciousness (vijñāna)?” It consists of the six types of consciousness (ṣaḍ-vijñāna-kāyā), viz. visual consciousness (cakşurvijñāna), auditory (śrotra), olfactory (ghrāṇa), gustatory (jihvā), tactile (kāya), and mental consciousness (manovijñāna).

As we can see consciousness (vijñāna) represents the simple reaction or response of the sense-organs when they come into contact with external objects. This is the superficial aspect or layer of the aggregate of consciousness (vijñāna-skhandhā). Manas-vijñāna, represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta, which is here called ālaya-vijñāna, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the aggregate of consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future potentialities. SNM also says that ālaya-vijñāna is called citta.

The Master Asaṅga interprets five definitions of ālayavijñāna, according to the Yogācāra Bhumi Śāstra as follows:

1. Ālaya-vijñāna is dependent on two factors to act. The former, it distinguishes the internal persistent mind (internal body activities); the latter is the undistinguished external world.

. Ālaya-vijñāna is associated with the five universal mental factors (caitasika): attention (manasikāra,作意), contact (sparśa,觸), sensation (vedanā,受), perception (saṃjñā,想), and volition (cetanā, 思).

3. Ālaya-vijñāna with all dharma have the mutual relationship of the cause and effect (因果). It is also called seed consciousness, the storing of seed, the seed of present behaviour, appears in all dharma; the so called seeds “appear in present behaviours”. This function uses as an instant moment of appearing; simultaneously it responds with the cause and effect; consequently, ālaya-vijñāna is the cause and all the dharma is the fruition. Beginning from the present behavior all dharma again influences the ālaya-vijñāna; therefore, it becomes the collection of seed, referred to as „present behaviors plant the seeds‟. The function of present behavior stage is the cause, and the collection of seed is the effect. Nevertheless, the seed of ālaya-vijñāna can appear in any present behavior, and it also can associate with the other seeds in an instance continuously influencing one another, and then it appears again as a new seed, which is self-category continuity called “seed produces seed”.

4. Ālaya-vijñāna with all the consciousnesses rotates entirely, among other consciousness. Whenever it arises the first consciousness or the second consciousness activity, and simultaneously the internal of ālaya-vijñāna also follows them to rotate entirely.

5. Ālaya-vijñāna has two kinds of aspect as mixed impurity and fair cessation. In the cycle of rotating transmigration (saṃsāra), it is entirely mixed impurity whereas when attaining enlightenment, it depends on fair cessation. It applies the concept of Thathāgatagarbha (如来藏) (Sheng, 1997: 241-2).

The masters Maitreya and Asaṅga established the theory of Yogācāra that applied the seed as the root, and seed consciousness appears as the transformation. Later, the master Vasubandhu applied the three kinds of transformation as the root which transforms the consciousness. The master Asaṅga utilized the concept on the main stages division (bahubhūmika,本地分) of Yogācāra Bhūmi Śāstra. In the theory of seed consciousness of non-unity or non-diversification, he applied

non-diversification as the ground. The master Vasubandhu traced back to the same text, utilizing the second section compendium of exegesis (viniścaya, 摄抉择分) and applied the seed consciousness of non-unity as the ground. Both concepts are in the same text of Yogācāra, but it divided itself into two great streams. The scholars of later period expounded the Yogācāra theory; they usually utilized the theory of Vasubandhu and considered him as the great master who had achieved a great collection of works. In contrast, the stream of Asaṅga‟s theory had developed into a Buddhist school, the She Lun Zong School in China (摄论宗) (Sheng, 1997: 245-6).

The Three fold Transformations of Consciousness of Vashubandhu

The Triṃśikā-Vijñapti-mātratā clearly states the outline of the theory of Vashubandhu. Aaccording to the Yogācāra scholars the content of this text can be divided into three categories:

1) Characteristic of Consciousness; the first twenty four stanzas describe the phenomena of universal entity.

2) The Nature of Consciousness, the twenty-fifth stanza explains all the characteristics of entity based on ontology.

3) The Position of Consciousness; the last five stanzas describe the process of practicing in order to attain the different fruition stages. Among these, the first is the most important one which explains the

3 kinds of transformation characteristics as follows (Sheng, 1997: 252).

1. The Transformation of ālaya-vijñāna (阿頼耶識 ) - Retribution (vipāka) Ālaya-vijñāna is referred to as retribution as well as all the seeds. Its grasping, locating and knowing are unperceivable. The term “vipāka” means the cause and effect because of the different times and characteristic; therefore, it is said that retribution can be transformed. For example, the peach tree branch transplants with the apricot branch, in future the ripe fruit which has the different ripen times and the taste of fruit is neither peach nor is it of original apricot taste. Ālaya-vijñāna refers to the cycle of births and deaths of

the human beings (saṃsāra), which can create all dharma. Therefore, it is called “all seed consciousness”, and through the ālayavijñāna the life realm is established and implement the mundane realm. This consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) always associates with the five universal mental factors, viz., attention, contact, sensation, perception and volition. The mental factor influences the ālaya-vijñāna quality and all seed consciousness which contains the thought of origination and cessation, which transforms the conditions of origination and cessation.

It is just like the stream of a water fall, from the far view that looks like a bale of white clothes or a motionless hand on the mountain cliff, but if we look thoroughly, it consists of the twinkling locomotion of continuous transformation. When the time from mental factor influences the ālayavijñāna (consciousness), it becomes the seed (cause); and when the time from the seed transforms the phenomena, it becomes its present behavior (fruition).

2. The Transformation of manas-vijñāna (末那識 )

Because of consideration or speculation, the 7th consciousness (manasvijñāna) always ponders consistently the ālaya-vijñāna to calculate and measure self and depends on the ālaya-vijñāna, condition of ālaya-vijñāna (consciousness), grasping it as self. Consequently, it is always associated with the four defilements viz., self-ignorance, self-view, self-conceit, and self-love.

3. The Transformation of distinguishing ‒ six consciousnesses – vijñapti viṣayasya

The first five consciousnesses depend on the 6th consciousness (manovijñāna) as the main principle and each of the comprehension distinguishing arises a rough emergence of phenomena. The 6th consciousness unites the first five consciousnesses and associates with many mental factors. For example, in the daily life many kinds of mental activities appear, which come under this category. It is distinguished into six different divisions; appearance and nature perceive the

external objects, and these may be wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate. Comprehension of all the phenomena appears owing to the ālaya- vijñāna of circulating transformation of distinguishing and knowing there is no real existence; therefore, it is said that all the dharma is the emergence of consciousness (Sheng, 1997: 252-3).

According to traditional interpretation, Vasubandhu states that there are eight consciousnesses: the five sense-consciousnesses of body (pañcavijñāna-kāya), 6th consciousness (mano-vijñāna), self-consciousness (manas-vijñāna), and the storehouse-consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). According to Kalupahana (1992), this classification of eight consciousnesses is based on a misunderstanding of Vasubandhu's Triṃśikaikā-kārikā by later adherents. He argues that instead of

positing additional consciousnesses, the Triṃśikaikā-kārikā describes the transformation of this consciousness as, taking vipāka, manana and vijñapti as three different kinds of functions, rather than characteristics, and understanding vijñāna itself as a function, Vasubandhu seems to be avoiding any form of substantiality thinking in relation to consciousness, because ālaya-vijñāna only represents the normal flow of the stream of consciousness uninterrupted by the appearance of reflective self-awareness. It is no more than the unbroken stream of consciousness called the lifeprocess by the Buddha (Kalupahana, 1992: 139).

According to the Yogacarins‟ traditional explanation, the concept of consciousness is also applied to the karma function as seed and storehouseconsciousness. The following controversial issues vexed Buddhist philosophers as follows:

“If one carries out a good or evil act, why and how is it that the effects of that act do not appear immediately?”

“If it does not appear immediately and where is this karma waiting for its opportunity to play out?”

The answer given by the Yogācārins was the store consciousness or the 8th consciousness (ālayavijñāna). It simultaneously acts as a storage (house) place for karmic latencies and as a fertile matrix of predispositions that bring karma to a state of fruition. The similarity of this process to the cultivation of plants led to the creation of the metaphor of seeds (bīja) to explain the way karma is stored in the eighth consciousness. In the Yogācāra formulation, all experience without exception is said to result from the ripening of karma (Harvey, 2000: 297). The Treatise on Action (Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa) of Vasubandhu treats the subject of karma in detail from the Yogācāra perspective (Lamotte, 2001)

The Revolution of the Seed of Ālaya-vijñāna – Related to Awakening

The Yogācāra meditation practice process is referred to in the Yogācāra tradition as āśraya-parāvṛtti, "revolution of the basis" (King, 1998). The mind returns to its original condition of non-attachment, non-discrimination and non-duality (Park,1983: 127). In this awakening it is realized that observer and observed are not distinct entities, but mutually co-dependent.

The Mahāyānasamgraha of Asaṅga states the fruition of wisdom as the three bodies of the Buddha (Trikāya). It states that the eight consciousnesses can be transformed to four kinds of wisdom to achieve the Trikāya:

1) the first five consciousnesses transform the wisdom of accomplishment;

2) the 6th consciousness transforms the wonderful contemplating and investigating wisdom;

3) the 7th consciousness transforms the wisdom of equality; and

4) the 8th consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) transforms the great round mirror of wisdom. These four kinds of wisdom can overcome self-view and dogmatic defilements and transform the way from impurity to purity and attain emancipation (Sheng, 1997: 245).

Ven. Rahula (2013) says that ālaya-vijñāna is considered by men as their “soul” or “self”' (ātman). For instance, one of the Buddha's disciples (Sāti) took vijñāna in this sense and the Buddha reprimanded him for this wrong view. The attainment of Nirvāṇa is achieved by 'the revolution of ālayavijñāna which is called āśraya-parāvṛtti. Similary, “uprooting of ālaya” (ālayasamugghata) is used in the Pāli Canon as a synonym for Nirvāṇa. In addition, anālaya, no-ālaya is

another synonym for Nirvāṇa. The ālayavijñāna-parāvṛtti is sometimes called bīja-parāvṛtti - revolution of the seeds - as well. (Saṃklesika-dharma-bīja) “Seeds” of defilements cause the continuity of saṃsāra. Therefore, one may see that, although not developed as in the Mahāyāna, the original idea of Ālaya-vijñāna was already there in the texts of Theravāda.

Tathāgata-garbha

The store consciousness concept developed along with the Buddha nature doctrine and resolved into the concept of midstream or the "consciousness-continuity" (citta-santāna) to avoid being denounced as running counter to the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) and the tenets of selflessness (anātman). The Sautrāntika School asserts that an average man (pṛthagjana) also possesses the potentiality of becoming a Buddha. The Mahīśāsaka School suggests that there is the Buddha in the Saṅgha; therefore, one who gives alms to the Saṅgha obtains great merit; but not separately to the Buddha. They have an idea “I am a Buddha.”

According to Rahula (2013), in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra the term “tathāgata-garbha” is used as a synonym for ālaya-vijñāna and is described as “luminous by nature” (prakṛti-prabhāsvara) and pure by nature (prakṛti-pariśuddha) but appearing as impure because it is sullied by adventitious defilements. In the

Aṅguttara-Nikāya, citta (mind) is described as “luminous” (pabhassara), but it is sullied by adventitious minor defilements (āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṃ). One may notice here that ālaya-vijñāna (or tathāgata-garbha) and citta are described almost by the same terms. SNM says that ālaya-vijñāna is also called citta.

According to Kalupahana (1992: 140), the concept of ālaya is borrowed from Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; but it does not have the same characteristics nor does it

function in the same way. It is neither "the originally pure mind" (prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta) nor "the location of the womb (of enlightenment)" (garbha-samsthāna).

According to Akira and Groner (2007), in Early Mahāyāna texts, no mention is made of a Buddha-element or nature (Buddha-dhātu), the potential to become a Buddha. The statement that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature first appears in the Mahāyāna version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.

The Genealogy of Yogācāra School

In the early period of Yogācāra, it is said that Maitreya Nātha (c. 270-350 A.C) was the teacher of Asaṅga. Some believed that he is the future Buddha, but others consider he just had the same name with the future Buddha (Maitreya). According to Paramārtha in “Vasubandhu’s biography”, there were three brothers: Asaṅga (c.310 - c.390 A.C.), Vasubandhu and Virincivatsa. They came from Northern Puruṣa-pura, a Brahmin family and had ordinations under Sarvāstivāda School.

Ven. Asaṅga used his supernatural power (meditation) to go to the pure land of Maitreya, in order to learn the emptiness concept of Mahāyāna doctrines from him. When Asaṅga and Vasubandhu propagated the dharma, it was time when the Gupta dynasty was flourishing (Sheng,1997, 237-248). The pilgrim Xuan Zang mentions that master Asaṅga was from Mahīśāsaka School excellent in meditation, later he converted himself to Mahāyāna. As we know the Mahīśāsaka School was excellent in profound meditation.

According to the biography of Vasubandhu, the master Vasubandhu (320400 A.C.) pretended to be crazy and went to Sarvāstivda School for learning. He learnt the Mahāvibhāsā-Śāstra within twelve years and mastered it. Later, he wrote the Abhidharmakośa Śāstra of thirty volumes, even though he described the tenets of

Sarvāstivāda, in certain parts he used the tenets of Sautrāntika to supplement the tenets of Sarvāstivāda. Before Vasubandhu converted to Mahāyāna, he had written many Buddhist Sarvāstivāda texts (Sheng, 1997: 247-8). We postulate that Master Vashubandhu was greatly influenced by the concepts of the Sarvāstivāda School.

In the middle period of Yogācāra, there were eleven great masters, for example, Ven. Dignāga is famous in logic study and was from South India. Another example, Ven. Dharmapāla, who is the chief of Nālanda, was very intelligent, and prominent. In India, he is considered as a brilliant star of the later historical period of Mahāyāna.

Some years later Yogācāra exponents also synthesized the two views, particularly Śāntarakṣita in the 8th century, whose view was later called "Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka" by the Tibetan tradition. The Yogācāra School held a prominent position in Indian Buddhism for centuries after the time of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu. Teachings and derivations of this school have influenced and became well-established in East Asian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism.

Conclusion

The philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism might have played an important role to influence the development of the Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. Later, Mādhyamika and Yogācāra further established and led to the efflorescence of the principal teachings of the Buddha. Next, during the time of early Indian Buddhist schools, they practiced the direct path or differents path to the same destination (Arahantship). Later, during the time of early Mahāyāna, they practiced a direct path or different paths to reach optional destinations which could be either Arahantship or Bodhisattva-hood.

References Akira, Hirakawa. and Groner, P. (2007). A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, New Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Bapat, P.V. (1996). 2500 Years of Buddhism, Leh-Ladakh, India: International Meditation Centre. Fang L.T (方立天). (2001). A Brief history of Chinese Buddhism, China: The Publication of the Cultural Religion. Garfield, J. L. (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garfield, J.L. (1994). Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why did Nagarjuana Start with Causation?, Philosophy East & West, Vol. 44, 2. Harvey, B.P. (2000). Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. I-Tsing. tr. Junjiro Takakusu (1982). A Record of Buddhist Religion:

As Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago,, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd . Kalupahana, D.J. (2005). Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kalupahana, D. J. (1994). A History of Buddhist philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kalupahana, D. J. (1992). The Principles of Buddhist Psychology, Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Kathāvatthu, (2010). Shew Zan Aung and Caroline Augusta Foley Rhys Davids, Points of Controversy, Bristol: The Palu Text Socitey. Keenan, J. P. (2000). Saṃdhinirmocana - The Scripture on the Explication of the Underlying Meaning, Berkeley CA, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. King, R. (1998) .Vijñaptimātratā and the Abhidharma Context of early Yogācāra. Asian Philosophy. King, R. (1995). Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna

Context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, Sunny Press. Kochumuttom, Thomas A. (1999). A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience. A New Translation and Interpretation of the Works of Vasubandhu the Yogacarin, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Lamotte, E and Pruden, L. M.. (2001). Karmasiddhiprakarana: The Treatise on Action by Vasubandhu, tr. Asian Humanities Press. Lusthaus, Dan (2002). Buddhist Phenomenology, London: Routledge. Lindtner, C (1997). Master of Wisdom, Berkeley: Dharma Publishing.

Muller, A. Charles. (2005). Wonhyo's Reliance on Huiyuan in his Exposition of the Two Hindrances. (Published in Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. Imre Hamar, ed.,

Harrassowitz Verlag) Nakamura, Hajime. (2004). A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Part Two, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited. Nagamura,Hajime.(2002).『龍樹』講談社学術文庫, Japan:(Nāgārjuna) Kodansha Academic library. Pachow, W. (1992). tr. A Study of the Twenty-Two Dialogues on Mahayana Buddhism (of Tan Kuang),Taiwan: Tungchu Publishing CO, Taipei. Park, S.-B. (1983). Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment (SUNY

Series in Religious Studies). New York: State University of New York Press. Saṃyutta Nikāya, (2000). tr. Bhikkhu Bodhi. The Connection Discourses of the Buddha, Boston: Wisdom Publication. Sheng Yan. (圣严法师). (1997). The History of Indian Buddhism, Taiwan:

Dharma Drum Publication. Suzuki., D.T. (1978). Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra,, Boulder, CO: Prajña Press. Takakusu, Juniiro (1982). A Record of Buddhist Religion: As Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695), New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Khapa, Tsong (2002). The Great Ttreatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment: Volume 3, Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications. Vasumitra‟s Treatise of Hsuan Chwang, (1925) tr. Jiryo Masuda, Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools. Williams, P. (2005). Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Vol. III. London: Routledge.

Buddhist Scripture: Taisho Tripiṭaka

Dīgha Nikāya, tr. Maurice Walshe, The Long Discourses of the Buddha, Wisdom Publication, Boston. Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Taisho Tripiṭaka, (16), 670. Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā sūtra (文殊師利問經), Taisho Tripiṭaka, 14 (468) Saṃyukta-Āgama, Taisho Tripiṭaka, (2), 99. Triṃśikā-Vijñapti-mātratā (唯識三十論頌), Taisho Tripitaka, 31 (1586)

Websites M.N 121 Cūlasuññata Sutta, translated from the Pāli by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), last visited (Nov

2013), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn The Thesaurus Literaturae Buddhicae (Buddhist literature sentence by sentence in Sanskrit, Pāli, Chinese, Tibetan, English, etc. University of Oslo. Last visited (Oct 2014). https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=library&bid Ven. Rahula, W. Ālaya-vijñāna or store consciousness, last visited (July

2013). http: www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha195.htm Ven. Yin Shun. 印度之佛教 Indian Buddhism, chap. I. http//yinshun edu.org.tw/Master_yinshun/y33_01. last visited (July 2013). Zim, Robert. (1995). Basic ideas of Yogācāra Buddhism. San Francisco State University. Source: last visited (Oct 2013).

Source

Influence of the Philosophy of Nikāya Buddhism on Mādhyamika and Yogācāra

Source

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Categories

Tools