Redefining the Dharma Characteristics School in East Asian Yogācāra Buddhism

Redefining the Dharma Characteristics School in East Asian Yogācāra Buddhism

sumi lee

EasT asian Yogācāra Buddhism is traditionally divided into two groups, the Old and the New ogācāra tradition. The Old ogācāra refers to the ilun and the Shelun schools, that is, the ogācāra system developed before the renowned Chinese pilgrim uan ang (602–664) imported a new corpus of ogācāra literature from India. The New ogācāra typically refers to the Fa iang school (also known as the harma Characteristics School ), that is, the ogācāra school that emerged on

the basis of uan ang’s translations of the new literature. These two groups have been considered doctrinally antagonistic systems, particularly with regards to the issue of living beings’ capability for enlightenment. The general scholarly consensus is that the Old ogācāra system, especially the Shelun school, takes the position that all living beings universally have the capability for enlightenment, on the basis of the doctrine of innate Buddha Nature (Ch. foxing ), or a ā a a ar a. By contrast, the New ogācāra system maintains that living beings have different levels of spiritual ability and argues for the doctrine of five distinct spiritual lineages (Ch. wuzhong xing ; Skt. pañcagotra).1

This publicaTion was supported by a grant from the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS2013-R-77). 1 These two traditions are often considered by scholars as tracing back to Indian ogācāra origins, vi ., the lineage of Sthiramati (ca. si th century CE) and Paramārtha

(499 569) for the Old school, and the lineage of harmapāla (ca. si th century CE) and labhadra (529 645) for the New school. Ui Hakuju, for instance, says that uan ang

The harma Characteristics School of the New ogācāra tradition has been widely used in Buddhist scholarship to refer to the school associated with the New ogācāra doctrinal system. Thus, it has been generally used for all East Asian ogācāra schools that putatively developed on the basis of uan ang’s translations, thereby encompassing the Chinese Faiang, Korean P psang, and apanese Hossō schools.2 This broad definition of the harma Characteristics School often leads to an assumption of a consistent similarity or commonality, if not an identical correspondence, in the ogācāra tradition of East Asia. However, this ambiguous

umbrella categori ation of East Asian ogācāra Buddhism after uan ang under the singular rubric of the harma Characteristics School turns out to have historical and doctrinal problems. This paper analy es the problems associated with the notion of the harma Characteristics School and its implications in the East Asian ogācāra tradition. I will first identify what the problematic issues are, and then move on to e amine how, or in what way, these problems emerged in East Asian Buddhist history. Finally I discuss the significance of this issue in the broader perspective of the East Asian ogācāra tradition.

succeeded to ignāga (ca. 4 0 540), Asvabhāva (n.d.), and harmapāla’s strand, and Paramārtha to Sthiramati’s; see Ui 194 , vol. 1, p. 305. Although this genealogical connection has gained sympathy among scholars, some scholars also suggest evidence against this connection. For instance, Takemura Makio indicates that there is research to show that Sthiramati is younger than Paramārtha and that the Chinese translation of Asvabhāva’s works, which serves as the evidence for his genealogical connection with uan ang, does not accord in many aspects with the e uivalent Tibetan translations; see Takemura 19 2, p. 270.

The antagonistic bifurcation of the Old and New ogācāra has also been associated with the doctrinal dichotomy of One Vehicle (Ch. yisheng ; Skt. a ā a) and Three Vehicles (Ch. sansheng ; Skt. ri ā a). It is often thought that the Old ogācāra takes the One Vehicle position, whereas the New ogācāra advocates the Three Vehicles doctrine. In fact, the contrast between the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles appeared as a historical controversy during the seventh through

eighth centuries between the Old ogācāra thinkers who advocated universal Buddha Nature and those who defended the New ogācāra position of discriminative Buddha Nature in sentient beings; for instance, there was a dispute between Lingrun (fl. 650) and Shentai (fl. 645 65 ) at some time between 64 and 650, and another between Fabao (ca. 62 05) and Hui hao (64 14) around the beginning of eighth century. See Yoshimura 2009. 2 The different names of the schools are the vernacular readings of the same Chinese characters .

r i i N ā āra i a ar a ara ri i uan ang returned to China in 645 from his pilgrimage to India and began to translate the new Buddhist literature with the support of Emperor Tai ong

(r. 626 649). uan ang’s return marked a turning point in the medieval ogācāra tradition. The translation of the newly imported ogācāra te ts not only disclosed deficiencies in the Old ogācāra doctrines,3 but also contained innovative theories such as the distinction of five spiritual lineages (Ch. i i ), which sharply contrasted to the Old ogācāra doctrine that all beings become buddhas (Ch. yiqie jie cheng ). The doctrinal conflict between the previous mainstream Buddhist position and the perspective of the newly imported literature led to controversies between e egetes of each group. Modern scholars have regarded this polemic situation during the early Tang period (61 90 ) as evidence of the bifurcation between the Old and the New ogācāra. Against the backdrop of these doctrinal conflicts between the Old and the New ogācāra e egetes, the Fa iang school has been considered to represent the whole New ogācāra group. i (632 6 2), one of uan ang’s major disciples, systemi ed the newly introduced ogācāra teachings in such commentarial works to the new literature as the i i i

the i i r i i , and the a a a i i a , and he was later identified as the first patriarch of the Fa iang school. uan ang’s new ogācāra teaching, along with i’s works, rapidly spread into Korea and apan, and there the new teaching became identified with the Fa iang school. In Korean Buddhist scholarship, the Silla ogācāra monk Taehy n (ca. eighth century) is typically regarded as the founder of the P psang chong , or the Silla harma Characteristics school, under the presumption that the Fa iang

school constitutes the representative of the New ogācāra. In the apanese Buddhist 3 Tullyun (alt. Toryun ; n.d.), a Silla ogācāra monk, indicates in the ugaron gi that the canonical basis that the Old ogācāra e egetes consulted for the doctrine of the ninth consciousness (Skt. a a avi ā a; lit. Immaculate Consciousness ), one of the significant doctrines of the Old ogācāra tradition, turned out not to e ist in uan ang’s new translations (see ugaron gi, T no. 1 2 , 42: 31 a11 19). See oshimura 2002, p. 65. tradition, three Fa iang e egetes, namely, i, Hui hao (64 14), and Zhi hou (66 23), are known as the three successive generations of the orthodo Fa iang school after uan ang.7

Some scholars, however, raise uestions about the orthodo y of i’s ogācāra position, by challenging, for instance, the previous assumption that uan ang passed on the essential ogācāra teaching only to i through the translation of the i i . Moreover, the ogācāra scholastic line of W nch’ k (613 696), another major disciple of uanang, came to be recogni ed as a proper line of the New ogācāra. Previously W nch’ k’s iming school was seen as a heterodo faction in contrast to i’s orthodo Cien school on the basis of the record in the Song gaoseng zhuan (The Song ynasty Biographies of Eminent

Monks), composed by Zanning (919 1001), but it now appears that this record on W nch’ k was a baseless fabrication. Some scholars highlight the distinction between uan ang’s and i’s doctrinal positions. For instance, Mitsukawa points out that while uanang translated the a a of Madhyamaka e egete Bhāvaviveka (a.k.a., ingbian ; ca. 500 5 0), i harshly critici es Bhāvaviveka in his commentaries on the i i , such 7 In this respect, the e egetical interpretations of these three patriarchs are defined as the judgement of the three patriarchs ( p. a a ). See Fukaura 1954, pp. 246–57.

It is recorded that uan ang translated the i i , the major canonical reference of the Fa iang school, working only with i (see i i a a

T no. 1 31, 43

60 b29 c14), and based on this record i is usually

considered to have received the essential teaching from uan ang as his major disciple. However, Hayashi presents several pieces of evidence that disclose that i’s relationship with uan ang was not as special as scholars usually have presumed. See Hayashi 2010.

as the i i i . In the article on the reception of Bhāvaviveka’s concept of inference (Skt. a ā a; Ch. i ia ) in East Asia, Moro also notes that uan ang does not show any evident criticism of Bhāvaviveka, whereas i strongly critici es Bhāvaviveka’s concept of inference as false (Skt. a ā ā ā a; Ch. i i ia ). ūki also says that it was not until i’s ogācāra strand became dominant over other strands that uan ang was associated with i’s strand. The broad categori ation of the harma Characteristics School also contains problems in understanding the Silla monk Taehy n’s ogācāra views. Taehy n’s e tant works show that he accepted not only the harma Characteristics School’s main tenets, but also defended other doctrinal views that do not seem to belong, or are even opposed, to the Fa iang P psang school. While Taehy n followed the New ogācāra school concerning the main doctrinal points, he also critici ed some

doctrinal points made by i and defended the Old ogācāra position. Since the New and Old schools are normally regarded as doctrinally antagonistic to each other, Taehy n’s seemingly dualistic attitude was controversial among his contemporary Buddhist e egetes.15 When considering these pieces of evidence, which point to the doctrinal diverseness of the New ogācāra tradition, we have to uestion why i’s ogācāra position has been considered the orthodo teaching to succeed uan ang’s ogācāra views and therefore to represent the entire tradition of the New ogācāra. In other words, given that i’s doctrinal position does not accord with uan ang’s, and that uan ang had other disciples who doctrinally disagreed with i, why has i’s ogācāra perspective been established as the most authori ed teaching in the New ogācāra tradition This phenomenon re uires more e planation. I will first discuss the origin of the term Fa iang school, and then the process by which the Fa iang school was accepted throughout East Asia. ri i a ia a i i i a ia i

Tradition The term Fa iang ong was first used by Fa ang (643 12), the eminent Huayan e egete, in his doctrinal ta onomy (Ch. jiaopan ).16 In the i r i i i , Fa ang uses the term Fa iang

when contrasting the view of ogācāra e egete labhadra (Ch. ie ian ; 529 645) with that of Madhyamaka e egete ānaprabha (Ch. Zhiguang

n.d.) on the Buddha’s three-period teachings (Ch. sanshi jiao ). labhadra attributes the third and most superior teaching to Mahayana of harma Characteristics (Ch. faxiang dasheng ), while ānaprabha to Mahayana of No Characteristics (Ch. wuxiang dasheng ).17 Later in the i i i i , Fa ang presents a doctrinal ta onomy of the four-level teachings, which includes Fa iang ong on the third level.1 Fa ang’s disciple Chengguan ( 3 39) also used this term in ju taposition with harma Nature School (Ch. Faxing zong ), with the purpose of denigrating i’s ogācāra strand. In other words, although this denominational name is widely used among modern scholars to refer to i’s ogācāra line or sometimes even to the entire New ogācāra tradition of East Asia, it was never used inside the circle of i’s strand.

16 See oshi u 19 3, p. 303. 17 Cf. i r i i i, T no. 1 26, 42: 213a11 b2. 1 The four-level teachings are as follows: Teaching of (1) Attachment to harmas Following Their Characteristics (Ch. Sui iang fa hi ong ), (2) No Characteristics of Real Emptiness (Ch. Zhenkong wu iang ong ), (3) harma Characteristics of Consciousness-only (Ch. Weishi fa iang ong ), and (4) ependent Origination from a ā a a ar a (Ch. Rulai ang yuan i ong ); see a i i yiji , T no. 1 46, 44: 243b22 2 . In the i i a i , Fa ang also clearly mentions the designation Teaching of harma Characteristics (Ch. Fa iang ong ) as the third of level teaching in his doctrinal ta onomy of four-levels of teaching, that is, the teaching of (1) E istence of Characteristics (Ch. ou iang ong ), (2) No Characteristics (Ch. Wu iang ong ), (3) harma Characteristics (Ch. Fa iang ong), and (4) True Characteristics (Ch. Shi iang ong ); see i i xuanyi, T no.1 90, 39: 426b29 c1.

In China, it was during the Song dynasty (960–1279) that a denomi national name for i’s ogācāra school emerged. et this denominational name was not Fa iang school, but Cien school, named after i’s epithet. For instance, the i , a Tiantai chronicle compiled by Zongjian (n.d.) in 123 , contains a list of schools including the Cien school.21 The Fozu tongji , an encyclopedic historical record written by Tiantai monk Zhipan (1220 12 5) in 1269, also mentions Teaching of the Cien school (Ch. Cien zongjiao ), along with other schools.22 In the Korean ogācāra school, the ogācāra scholastic tradition had been mostly referred to as the ogācāra school (K. a , or a

), or sometimes Cha n school (K. a ; Ch. Cien zong), until the beginning of the Kory dynasty (91 1392).23 The designation P psang chong first occurs in the epitaph of ich’ n (1055– 1101), one of the major scholar-monks in Korea.24 But scholars agree that this designation just refers to a doctrinal teaching, not an institutional school with a proper lineage. Moreover, it is Cha n school that is found most often in historical materials as the name for i’s ogācāra school from the late Kory dynasty through the early Chos n dynasty (1392–1910).25

It was in apan that the designation Fa iang school was accepted and later established as the official denominational name for the ogācāra school. When Fa ang’s Huayan school was imported to apan at the end of the eighth century, Fa iang ong ( p. Hossō shū ), the term that Fa ang used in his doctrinal ta onomy to refer to i’s ogācāra strand, was also transmitted. At first the name Hossō school was used by those outside

a a i i a ; see oshi u 199 , p. 4 4. oshimura also indicates that uan ang’s dis- ciples added asheng in front of their names, as in, for e ample, asheng i ; see oshimura 2004a, p. 41. 21 The i lists five schools, that is, the Chan , ianshou (a.k.a., Fa ang), Vinaya (Ch. L ), Esoteric (Ch. Mi ), and Cien schools (see i, no. 1513, 5: 255b22 c0 ).

22 The entire twenty-ninth fascicle of the Fozu tongji constitutes an e planation of the five schools, that is, the Chan school of Bodhidharma (Ch. amo chan ong ), the ianshou school (Ch. ianshou ongjiao ), the Cien school (Ch. Cien ongjiao ), the Esotericism of ogācāra (Ch. u ie mijiao ), and the Vinaya school of the Southern mountain (Ch. Nanshan l ong 律 ). Here, the first three patriarchs of the Cien school are listed as labhadra, uan ang, and i (see Fozu tongji, T no. 2035, 49: 294a29–b02). 23 See Kim 199 , pp. 412 15; H 19 6, pp. 209 15. 24 Kim 199 , pp. 39 404. 25 For detailed e planation, see H 19 6, pp. 209 23.

the school to refer to the ogācāra school, but gradually was adopted by the school members themselves. Afterwards, this designation became the official name for the ogācāra school in apan, and modern apanese scholars also have come to widely use it for i’s ogācāra strand in China and, sometimes, in Korea as well. Furthermore, as mentioned above, since i’s ogācāra line has been considered the orthodo ogācāra school to succeed uan ang in the apanese tradition, the name Fa

iang school often signified the New ogācāra Buddhism derived from uan ang’s translation of the new te ts in general. It seems that in this process the apanese concept of the Hossō school has become established in modern scholarship as the name to indicate the entire tradition of New ogācāra Buddhism. It appears then that the pervasive use of harma Characteristics School among modern scholars has resulted from an improper retrospective application of this idea of the Hossō school. In other words, a specific concept for the apanese ogācāra school, which was grounded upon Fa ang’s perspective on i’s ogācāra strand, was e panded to cover all New ogācāra strands throughout East Asia.

The reason that the Fa iang school cannot be identified with the whole tradition of New ogācāra is not just confined to the fact that the geographical area in which this term was in use did not cover all of East Asia. In terms of its scholastic position, the Hossō school refers specifically to i’s ogācāra school, as we can see from the fact that this term was transmitted to apan through Fa ang’s Huayan system. When accepting the concept of a Hossō shū through Fa ang’s doctrines, apanese Buddhist thinkers also accepted Fa ang’s viewpoint on ogācāra doctrines, that is, the view that the ogācāra system is doctrinally antagonistic to the Madhyamaka.

This view may be better e plained in the broader conte t of the contempo raneous conflicts between the Madhyamaka and the New ogācāra, now known as the Emptiness-E istence (Ch. kongyou ) controversy. As uan ang translated the new canonical te ts brought from India, such a work as the a a , a translation of Madhyamaka e egete Bhāvaviveka’s a ā ā a a ara a ā ra, led to a controversy regarding the doctrinal differences between Madhyamaka and New ogācāra,27 and Fa ang was well aware of this conflict.2 The polemics that emerged between the Sanron and the Hossō schools from the Nara period (710–794)29 through the Heian period ( 94 11 5) also confirm that the position of the Hossō school conforms to Fa ang’s view of the ogācāra school. Revolving around the issue of the Indic authenticity of the so-called ra a a ra (hereaf-

ter, a i ), which contains a verse very similar to Bhāvaviveka’s famous verse in the a a , Sanron e egetes who defended Bhāvaviveka’s position argued that the scripture was authentic, while Hossō e egetes who critici ed Bhāvaviveka dismissed

27 For instance, i critici es Bhāvaviveka’s position as wrongly attached emptiness (Ch. equ kong ) in the i i i (see T no. 1 30, 43: 494b24 26). 2 In the i r i i i, Fa ang makes a contrast between the Madhyamaka and the ogācāra, referring to them respectively as Mahayana of No Characteristics (Ch. Wu iang asheng ) and Mahayana of harma Characteristics (Ch. Fa iang asheng ); see n. 1 , 19 above. Fa ang’s i i i i is also well known for his interpretation of

the a i i as a synthetic work that mediates the conflict between the Madhyamaka and ogācāra systems through the a ā a a ar a teaching. 29 Matsumoto demonstrates that the controversy between the Sanron and Hossō schools began during the early Nara period, not during the Heian period as previously presumed (see Matsumoto 1990), thereby disclosing that the controversy between the schools arose almost at the same time Fa ang’s Huayan teaching was transmitted, that is, around 51 (see n. 26 above). This in turn raises the possibility that the Hossō school reflects Fa ang’s understanding of the Fa iang school.

it as an apocryphal te t. This conflict between the Sanron and the Hossō schools, the apanese counterparts of the Madhyamaka and the ogācāra schools, e actly parallels the Emptiness-E istence controversy in China. We can thus see that the Hossō school is the apanese e uivalent of i’s ogācāra strand. Along with the problems in regarding i’s ogācāra school as the only representative school of the New ogācāra tradition, as discussed above, this leads us to conclude that the Hossō school, merely as an e uivalent of i’s school, cannot be representative of the New ogācāra.

i a i i a ia a i r With regards to the matter of the establishment of the Hossō school in apan, one might say that the Hossō teachings had arrived in apan before Fa ang’s Huayan system was imported. This interpretation would be based on the record of the a i (Circum- stances of the Transmission of Buddhism through the Three Countries), a historiography of Buddhism dated 1311, by the Kegon monk yōnen

(1240 1321). In this work, yōnen describes the fourfold transmission of the Hossō school, which has been widely accepted in the apanese Buddhist tradition. According to this story, the first transmission of Hossō teaching occurred in the seventh century by ōshō (629 00), who had learned it from uan ang; the second transmission was conducted by two monks named Chitsū (fl. 65 6 2) and Chidatsu (fl. 65 ), who studied under both uan ang and i; the third by Chihō (fl. 06), Chiran (n.d.), and Chiyū (n.d.), who studied under Zhi hou; and, the fourth by enbō (fl. 46), who also learned it from Zhi hou. The pervasive view in the apanese Buddhist tradition that i, Hui hao, and Zhi hou are the three orthodo Fa iang patriarchs who succeeded to uan ang’s ogācāra teachings, appears to be based on this fourfold transmission story. yōnen’s description afterwards was received as the standard e planation on the transmission of the Hossō school in apanese Buddhism.

However, researchers have highlighted many problems with this trans mission story. At first, yōnen himself provides different e planations in his other works, such as the a and the ai i , by changing the order of the transmissions or deleting a transmission from the list. 6 Particularly in the first transmission by ōshō, scholars indicate that i’s works that served as the doctrinal basis for the Fa iang school, such as the i i i, the i i

zhangzhong shuyao, and the i i r i i, had not even appeared yet during the time when ōshō resided in China.37 Moreover, it has been noted that before the appearance of the term Hossō shū, Hosshō shū ( harma Nature School) was used to refer to the ogācāra teaching in apan.3 Thus, it may be e pected that what ōshō learned from uan ang was not i’s Fa iang doctrine, and, in this respect, some scholars suggest that Silla ogācāra Buddhism was involved in the process of the transmission. From the perspective of the bifurcation of East Asian ogācāra, according to which the harma Nature School is doctrinally opposed to the harma Characteristics School, the transition of the school name from the former to the latter may sound odd. Although we do not have all the answers to the uestions surrounding this issue for now, what is

36 In the a, yōnen attributes Chitsū and Chidatsu to the first transmission, Chihō to the second, and enbō to the third, deleting ōshō’s transmission. But in the ai i, Chitsū and Chidatsu are described as conducting the first transmission, and ōshō the second, with no mention of enbō (Sueki 1992, p. 12 ). See also Kitsukawa 2002, pp. 1 2 3. 37 ōshō resided in China from 653 through 661. The i i i and the i i a a were composed sometime between 659 and i’s death in 6 2, and the i i r i i between 661 and 6 2. Further, the i i r i i is cited in the i i i, and the i i , which was composed after 662, is cited in the Zhangzhong shuyao. See Sueki 1992, p. 12 ; Kitsu- kawa 2002, pp. 1 3 4. Also, there is a study that shows the i i i and the Zhangzhong shuyao were consistently revised by i throughout his life; see Hayashi 2012, pp. 193 96, 199 201. certain to us at this point is that ogācāra teaching prior to the import of the designation Hossō shū was not identical to what is now known to us as the Hossō school.

Now, the uestion arises: if more than one ogācāra school was transmitted to apan, why did yōnen attempt to e plain the transmissions of the ogācāra teachings only within the frame of the Hossō school The fact that yōnen himself was not consistent in describing the transmission story in his works suggests that he did not have definite information on the transmissions, if he did not intentionally manipulate the story about them. Nevertheless, yōnen construed the transmission of ogācāra teachings as that of the Hossō school. Why then did yōnen e plain the ogācāra transmission to apan within the frame of the Hossō school An answer to this uestion may be found in yōnen’s historical worldview, namely, transmission across the three countries ( p. a

vi ., the transmission of Buddhism from India to China and to apan). In yōnen’s time, the three countries structure in the transmission of Buddhism served as a conceptual basis to provide apanese Buddhism with pride and authority by linking it directly to Indian and Chinese origins. This historical view first appeared in the ninth century to elevate apanese people’s confidence in their Buddhist tradition. Later on, in the thirteenth century this notion became settled in apanese Buddhist literature as an established historical paradigm. It was during this time that yōnen compiled the a i, the widely accepted reference for the three countries model thereafter. In his already entrenched historical outlook, which is centered on the three countries, yōnen conceivably could not find any room for other countries’ histories of Buddhism to be included in his historical narrative.

Besides the three countries paradigm, yōnen followed another framework in his historical discourse, that is, employing the term sect, or school ( p. ). The scheme of the eight schools ( p. a ), which is seen in the title of the a (Outline of the Eight Schools), one of yōnen’s major works dated to 12 6, had been already established under official recognition in the early Heian period. At this time, however, tensions still remained between the si schools of Nara ( p. a ), the previous religious authorities, and the newly approved Tendai

and Shingon schools.44 It was in yōnen’s time of relative politi cal and social stability that the eight schools were received as established religious orders. But the eight schools were then challenged by such new schools as the Zen and ōdo schools. In this milieu, yōnen, as a Buddhist historian who originally belonged to the si schools of Nara, was probably tasked with confirming the legitimacy of the eight established schools, that is, the si schools of Nara as well as the Tendai and Shingon schools, by providing a definite historical description of their origins and lineages. In other words, yōnen sought to find the authoritative origin of each school within the well-established three countries paradigm in order to legitimi e the already set schools. Thus, yōnen recogni ed only the eight meaningful schools in his historical structure, while dismissing any other schools or strands. This also e plains yōnen’s silence on any form of ogācāra school transmitted to apan prior to the Hossō school or the Silla ogācāra school. In summary, yōnen constructed his historical narrations within the ready-made notions of transmission across the three countries and schools, and therefore simply disregarded historical facts outside these categories.

If the Hossō school that yōnen attempted to establish through the fourfold transmission was the Fa iang school, which was imported together with Fa ang’s Huayan system, and if yōnen’s establishment of the Hossō school was based on the confined worldview of the three countries and his own sectarian consciousness, then it becomes obvious that the concept of 44 One e ample of this tension may be found in the a i (Record on Transmission across the Three Countries) composed by Hossō monk Kakuken (1131 1213) at the end of the Heian period (11 3). ust like yōnen, Kakuken also employed the frame of the three countries, but scholars point to the difference in the usage of this paradigm between them. Whereas yōnen used it to reestablish the sectarian orders of the time in a relatively stable environment, Kakuken adopted it to elevate his own school’s political and social status in the urgent situation of sectarian crisis due to the rise of the new schools such as the Tendai school. For more discussion of Kakuken’s view on the three countries, along with its political and social background, see Ichikawa 1994.

the Hossō school cannot represent the entire tradition of the New ogācāra Buddhism. yōnen’s fourfold transmission story has led scholars to associate the Fa iang school not only with i’s e egetic line but also with uan ang’s scholastic position. However, uan ang in fact appears to have been unwittingly placed into i’s line due to the emphasis given in the apanese Buddhist tradition to i’s Fa iang strand as the orthodo teaching. It should be noted that in this process of identifying i’s line with uan ang’s scholastic position, two independent facts have been conflated: the fact that the predominant ogācāra school based on uan ang’s new translations was i’s Fa iang school, and the fact that New ogācāra Buddhism refers to all the Buddhist teachings based on uan ang’s new translations. Even though i’s Fa iang school emerged on the basis of uan ang’s new translations, this fact does not mean that uan ang, in turn, belonged to i’s Fa iang lineage; neither can i’s Fa iang school be identified with the entirety of the New ogācāra Buddhism that was derived from uan ang’s translations. Although yōnen attempted to establish a consistent identity for the apanese Hossō school in the scheme of the three countries by including not only i’s but also uanang’s line in the transmission story, it appears that the Fa iang Hossō school should be confined just to i’s lineage.

Furthermore, it is difficult to apply the concept of schools, the basic frame in yōnen’s historical narration, to the Buddhist tradition of the early Tang period, in which a school as an independent institutional religious community had not yet emerged. As previous studies demonstrate, it was not until the latter half of the eighth century that sectarian consciousness appeared in Chinese Buddhism. For instance, it was Chengguan, Fa ang’s disciple, who first recogni ed the Huayan school as an independent school with sectarian identity and used the designation Huayan school

(Ch. Huayan ong ). Chengguan’s disciple, Zongmi ( 0 41), also presented an orthodo list of successive Huayan patriarchs and thereby established the lineage of the Huayan school. Zhanran ( 11 2), a contemporary of Chengguan later identified as the si th (or ninth) patriarch of the Tiantai school, first used the designation Tiantai school (Ch. Tiantai ong ) in the Fahua dayi ,49 attempting to prove his school’s superiority over the rival Chan tradition. However, even in this period the

independent schools in the sense of school proper do not seem to have been fully established because Enchin ( 14 91), a apanese Tendai monk who traveled to China from 53 through 5 , stated that there were no schools in the Tang dynasty at that period. udging from all these facts, it seems very unlikely that the Fa iang school e isted as an independent school during the early Tang period.

espite all the historical and doctrinal discrepancies, yōnen’s histori- cal perspective, along with the frameworks of the three countries and the eight schools, significantly influenced later Buddhist historians and scholars even until modern times. His outlook has been received as the standard model in interpreting this process not only for apanese Buddhist history but also for the whole Buddhist tradition of East Asia. The above discussion on the defective aspects of yōnen’s historical view and its subse uent influence may be summari ed as follows: (1) yōnen attempted to e plain apanese ogācāra Buddhism only within the category of the Hossō school, while disregarding other ogācāra strands

transmitted to apan, such as the Hōsshō school. (2) On the basis of the historical framework of transmission across the three countries, yōnen ignored the history of other countries in his narration, such as the role of the Silla ogācāra school, in the process of the formation of apanese ogācāra Buddhism. (3) yōnen connected the apanese Hossō school to the Chinese ogācāra tradition through the scheme of four-fold transmission, and this entailed the careless assumption that a school named Fa iang school e isted in China. (4) In relation to (3), yōnen included uan ang in his four-fold transmission story of the Hossō school, and as a result, uan ang has been mistakenly regarded as having provided the doctrinal basis of the Fa iang school, although he has no direct relation to the Fa iang school or i’s ogācāra line. (5) As a result of (4), the Fa iang school has been interpreted as the orthodo ogācāra strand that succeeded uan ang, and, conse uently the entire New ogācāra tradition of East Asia, which is based on uan ang’s new translations, tends to be interpreted under the frame of the Fa iang school. In short, the concept of the Fa iang school may be seen as one of the mistaken retrospective apanese Buddhist concepts that has influenced modern scholarship on Buddhism.

r a r i a i a ia At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that East Asian ogācāra Buddhism is divided into two doctrinally antagonistic systems, that is, the Old, and the New, ogācāra traditions, and that the New ogācāra group typically refers to the Fa iang school. If we may conclude that the Fa iang school, or i’s ogācāra strand, is not the only strand that constitutes the New ogācāra tradition on the basis of the discussion above, the antagonistic paradigm of the Old and the New ogācāra, or Tathāgatagarbha and ogācāra, should also be reconsidered. This is because this contrasting bifurcation builds upon the presumption that the entirety of the New ogācāra is represented by i’s Fa iang school, which took an antagonistic position vis- -vis the a ā a a ar a theory of the Old ogācāra. This suggests that the contrasting framework of the Old ogācāra vs. the New ogācāra is associated with the careless application of i’s Fa iang school to the entire New ogācāra tradition. The traditional bifurcation of Tathāgatagarbha and ogācāra in this respect should be confined to a doctrinal contrast between the Tathāgatagarbha position of the Old ogācāra and i’s ogācāra perspective. If we consider other New ogācāra scholastic traditions, such as the ogācāra schools of W nch’ k or Taehy n in Silla, or the Hosshō strand in Nara, which were e cluded from yōnen’s historical worldview of the Hossō school, we will be able to find more doctrinal aspects of the New ogācāra Buddhism than have thus far been known to us.

ABBREVIATIONS

BZ ai i . 100 vols. Ed. Su uki akujutsu Zaidan

Tokyo: Kōdansha. 19 0 3. T ai i ai . 5 vols. Ed. Takakusu unjirō and Watanabe Kaikyoku . Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai. 1924 32.

i a ai i . 150 vols. Ed. Kawamura Kōshō

. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai. 19 5 9.

REFERENCES

I. Primary Sources

a a i . T no. 2194, 56. i i i . T no. 1 30, 43. i i a a . T no. 1 31, 43. a a a a a i . T no. 1 35, 35. a i i i i . T no. 1 46, 44. a a . T no. 15 , 30. Fozu tongji . T no. 2035, 49. a i . T no. 1 15, 40. i i a i . T no. 1 90, 39. a i . In BZ, vol. 62, pp. 22.

i r i i i . T no. 1 26, 42. i . no. 1513, 5. a i . T no. 945, 19. Song gaosengzhuan . T no. 2061, 50. ar i . T no. 1 2 , 42. II. Secondary Sources Blum, Mark L. 2002. ri i a v r a i a ra a i ōdo Hōmon enrushō. New ork: O ford University Press. Ch’ae Inhwan 채인환. 19 3. Silla Taehy n p psa y n’gu (I): Haengj k kwa ch jak

(I): 과 (Studies on the harma Master Taehy n of Silla: His eeds and Compositions). a 불교학보 20, pp. 5 10 . Ch’oe W nsik 최원식. 1993. T’aehy n i posalgye ihae wa hy nsil munje insik 의 이해와 인식 (T’aehy n’s Understanding of Bodhisattva Precepts in View of Current Problems). Kasan hakpo 가산학보 2, pp. 104 30. Fujino Michio . 195 . Zen’ inji kō (Reflections on Zen’ inji). Shigaku zasshi 66, no. 9, pp. 1 43. Fukaura Seibun . 1954. i i i a (Research on the Study of Consciousness-only), vol. 1. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō. Hasegawa Takeshi . 2002. Eshō ai ni kansuru mondai kō (Reflections on Problems in Eshō’s ar ra i ). a a

50, no. 2, pp. 666 2. Hayashi Kana . 2010. ion aishi Ki no denki no saikentō

(A Reconsideration of the Biography of the reat Master ion Ki). a a

59, no. 1, pp. 242 46. . 2012. Ki sen to sareru ronsho oyobi ai iri no seiritsu katei ni tsuite

(Concerning the Forma- tion Process of the Treatises and Commentaries attributed to Ki and the ai iri ). a 61, pp. 1 9 212.

Hirai Shun’ei . 1966. Chūgoku Sanron shū no rekishiteki seikaku ( jō): Toku ni Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru shūha no seiritsu o megutte ・( )

(The Historical Characteristics of the Chinese Sanron School (I): With Special Reference to the evelopment of Schools in Chinese Buddhism). a a a ai a a i

24, pp. 9 115. . 19 9. Heian shoki ni okeru Sanron, Hossō kakuchiku o meguru shomondai

・ (Problems Relating to the ebates between Sanron and Hossō in the Early Heian Period). a a a ai a a i 3 , pp. 2 91. H H ngsik 허흥식. 19 6. r a (Studies on the History of Kory Buddhism). Seoul: Ilchogak. H Namjin 허남진, ed. 2005. a a i i a i a a 삼국과 통일신라의 불교사상 (Buddhist Thought in the Three Kingdoms and the Unified Silla), vol. 2. Seoul: S ul Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu. Ichikawa Hirofumi . 1994. Kakuken a i to sangoku: Chūsei shoki ni okeru taigaikan no ichisokumen

(Kakuken’s a i and the Three Kingdoms: An Aspect of the Perception of Foreign Countries during the Early Medieval Period). i a Ni i i 44, pp. 23 3 . Ienaga Saburō . 1966. Hossō shū no meigi ni tsuite (On the esignation Hossō School ). In ai i i , pp. 262 65. Kyoto: Hō ōkan. Inoue Mitsusada . 1961. Nanto rokushū no seiritsu (Formation of the Si Schools of the Southern Capital). Ni r i i 156, pp. 2 14. Kamata Shigeo . 1965. i i (Research on the History of Chinese Huayan Thought). Tokyo: Tōkyō aigaku Tōyō Bunka Kenkyusho. Kim ngt’ae 김영태. 1997. a a 한국불교사 (History of Korean Buddhism). Seoul: K ngs w n. Kitsukawa Tomoaki . 199 . i i i r r i no Enjiki setsu inyō no okeru mondaiten: Enjiki no shin’i no kanten kara

(Problems in Citations of Enjiki in the i i ir

r i : Seen from the Perspective of Enjiki’s True Intention). a a

4 , no. 1, pp. 69 1. . 2002. Nihon Asuka, Nara jidai ni okeru Hossō shū no tokushitsu ni tsuite , (Concerning Characteristics of the Hossō School in the Asuka and Nara Periods of apan). a 5, pp. 1 1 219. Matsumoto Nobumichi . 1990. Sanron, Hossō tairitsu no shigen to sono haikei: Shōben no i r juyō o megutte ・

(The Origins and Background of the Sanron-Hossō ispute: On the

Reception of Shōben’s i r). In a r a , ed.

Hirai Shun’ei , pp. 4 5 502. Tokyo: Shunjūsha. Mitsukawa Hogei . 1965. ai i r kanken: Chūgan, uishiki kōshō ni okeru ichishiten to shite ・ (A Perspective on the ai i r : An Aspect of the E changes between Madhyamaka and ogācāra). a a 13, no. 2, pp. 613 1 . Moro Shigeki . 1999. i ni tsuite no ni, san no mondai: Shishō kankei o chūshin ni — (A Few Problems about the Biography of Bokuyō Chishū: Focusing on the enealogic Relationship between Master and isciple). a a 4 , no. 1, pp. 1 0 2. . 2004. Shōben hiryō no Higashi Ajia ni okeru juyō (The Reception of Bhāviveka’s Reasoning in East Asia). a , pp. 297–324. Pang In 방인. 1995. T’aehy n i usik ch’ rhak y ngu 의 (A Study on T’aehy n’s Philosophy of Consciousness-only). Ph diss., Seoul National University. Shika ono aiji . 195 . Nihon Hossō shū no keifu: Ni r i i no shisōteki tachiba (The Lineage of apanese Hossō: The Standpoint of the Ni r i i). ai a r 35 , pp. 74–94. Sueki Fumihiko . 1992. Nihon Hossō shū no keisei (The

Formation of the apanese Hossō School). Bukkyogaku 32, pp. 21 39. Takemura Makio . 19 2. iron shū, Shōron shū, Hossō shū ・ ・ (The iron School, the Shōron School, and the Hossō School). In i i i i a ai : ・, vol. , ed. Hirakawa Akira , Kajiyama ūichi , and Takasaki ikidō , pp. 263 301. Tokyo: Shunjūsha. Ui Hakuju . 1947. a r (Overview of Buddhism). 2 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Weinstein, Stanley. 1959. A Biographical Study of T ’u-En. a Ni i a 15, nos. 1 2, pp. 119 49.

. 19 . Schools of Chinese Buddhism. In ia i i , ed. Mircea Eliade, pp. 4 2 . New ork: Macmillan. oshida Ka uhiko . 2003. Revisioning Religion in Ancient apan. Japanese r a i i i 30, nos. 1 2, pp. 1 26. oshimura Makoto . 2002. Shōron gakuha no shinshikisetsu ni tsuite

(Mind and Consciousness Theory of the Shōron School). a a 51, no. 1, pp. 61 65. . 2004a. Chūgoku uishiki shogakuha no shōko ni tsuite

(On the esignations of the Chinese Consciousness-only Schools). i a i ia

2, pp. 35 4 .

. 2004b. uishiki gakuha no goshō kakubetsusetsu ni tsuite

(On the Theory of Five istinct Natures in the Consciousness-only School). a a a ai a a i 62, pp. 223 5 . . 2009. Tō shoki no uishiki gakuha to busshō ronsō

(Consciousness-only Schools and Controversy on Buddha Nature in the Early Tang Period). a a a ai a a i 6 , pp. 296 310. 60 oshi u oshihide . 19 3. Shōsō yūe ni tsuite (On the Shōsō yūe). a a a ai a a i 41, pp. 300 21. . 1992. Taiken no i ir a i o megutte

(On Taiken’s i i ir a i). a a 41, no. 1, pp. 11 23. . 199 . Hossō shū to iu shūmei no saikentō (A Reconsideration of the School Name Hossō School ). In i a i r a aa a a a r i i r , ed. Watanabe Takao Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronshū Kankōkai , pp. 465 6. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō. ūki Reimon . 1956. enjō to sono gakuha no seiritsu ( enjō and the Establishment of His School). a i

11, pp. 329 3.