Articles by alphabetic order
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Yogacara Influence on the Northern School of Chan Buddhism

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Imasg tr.jpg


In East Asian contexts, Yogācāra Buddhism is often seen as a theoretical system rather than a collection of practical instructions. In particular, many people seem to have the stereotypic image that the Faxiang 法相 tradition (based on the Yogācāra texts brought to China by Xuanzang 玄奘) was a highly scholastic system, while Chan (Zen) Buddhism emphasized intuitive penetration into the essence of Buddhism. Thus, these two traditions are thought to have stood at the opposite ends of a spectrum. If one actually looks into early Chan texts belonging to the Northern School 北宗 (or its forerunner, East Mountain Teaching 東山法門), however, one realizes that the matter is not so simple. Yuanming lun 圓明論 and Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun 大乘開心顯性頓悟真宗論, for example, clearly display traces of the strong influence of Xuanzang's Yogācāra texts. Daofan qusheng xinjue 導凡趣聖心決 indicates that even the meditative practice of Chan Buddhism was influenced by Xuanzang’s Yogācāra. Apparently the relationship between Faxiang and Chan was much closer than is commonly believed


Yogācāra; Xuanzang; Faxiang tradition; Northern School; East Mountain Teaching; asallakṣaṇānupraveśopāyalakṣaṇa


In this paper I would like to discuss Chan in conjunction with Yogācāra, especially the Faxiang 法相 tradition. Needless to say, Chan is a tradition very closely associated with meditation. In contrast, the Faxiang tradition, the version of Yogācāra Buddhism brought to China by Xuanzang 玄奘 (602-64), is commonly seen as a very scholastic tradition. The textbook view of this tradition is something like the following (Kenneth Ch’en 1972, 325):1 For a time during the middle of the T’ang Dynasty the [Faxiang/Fa-hsiang] school flourished in China, but after Hsüan-tsang and K’uei-chi had gone, the school rapidly declined. . . . Moreover, the philosophy of the school, with its hairsplitting analysis and abstruse terminology, was too difficult and abstract for the practical-minded Chinese, who preferred the direct and simple teachings of the Ch’an and Pure Land Schools. Hence these schools flourished while the Wei-shih declined.2

According to this view, the system of the Faxiang School was cumbersome and scholastic, while the Chan tradition emphasized

  • An earlier version of this paper was read at an international symposium entitled, “Yogācāra Buddhism in China,” held at Leiden, June 8-9, 2000, organized by Lin Chen-kuo 林鎮國 (on this symposium, see Yamabe 2001). After that, I published a Japanese version of this paper as Yamabe 2006. The original English paper remains still unpublished. The present paper is an updated and revised version of that English paper. I thank Shih Huimin 釋惠敏, Peter Zieme, Yoshimura Makoto 吉村誠, Robert Kritzer, Wang Ding 王丁, Harada Wasō 原田和宗, Ōtake Susumu 大竹晋 and Kitsudō Kōichi 橘堂晃一 for their kind assistance in preparing this paper. I also owe much information to the anonymous reviewer of this paper.

1 Throughout this paper, I use the wordFaxiang” when I refer to the Chinese tradition based on the Cheng weishi lun成唯識論 (T No. 1585) translated by Xuanzang. When I refer to Yogācāra traditions in a wider sense in India and China, I use the wordYogācāra.” 2 Similar views are expressed by such Japanese authorities of Sino-Japanese Faxiang/Hossō Buddhism as Fukihara Shōshin (1944, 125) and Fukaura Seibun (1972, 26970).

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

On the Faxiang side, the textbook view is questionable with regard to two points. First, it is not entirely correct to say that the Faxiang School was a purely scholastic tradition. Second, the Faxiang School apparently exerted wider-ranging and longer-lasting influences over Chinese Buddhism than was formerly believed.

On the first point, since Paul Demiéville’s epoch-making work, “La Yogācārabhūmi de Sa'gharakṣa” (1954), it has been suggested that the Yogācāra School in India was preceded by practical traditions of meditators. It has also been argued that even the doctrinal system of the full-fledged Yogācāra School emerged from a systematic reflection on meditative experiences. It is true that, in India, the Yogācāra School eventually developed a complex doctrinal system, something that might give the impression of being less practical. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that, as an offshoot of the Indian Yogācāra School in China, the Faxiang tradition would have completely lost its practical elements.

If we take into consideration the prehistory of Yogācāra described above, we notice that the Indian meditative traditions, which may well have paved the way for the later Yogācāra School, had a strong influence on the practice of Chinese Buddhism from its very early stages. For example, elsewhere I have argued that An Shigao (second century), who first translated Buddhist scriptures (including meditation texts) into Chinese, may have been close to the early precursors of the Yogācāra School (Yamabe 1997). In addition, Kumārajīva’s 鳩摩羅什 (350?-409?) Zuochan sanmei jing 坐禪三昧經 (T No. 614), which had a lasting influence on the subsequent Chinese Buddhist practice, was partly based on Aśvaghoṣa’s Saundarananda. The Saundarananda, if I am correct, shares many similar elements with the Śrāvakabhūmi, probably the oldest portion of the Yogācārabhūmi (Yamabe, Fujitani Takayuki, Harada Yasunori 2002; Yamabe 2003).

Even the doctrines of the Yogācāra School were not irrelevant to the practice of Chinese Buddhists. This point will immediately become clear if we think of the two texts that are most closely associated with the early Chan tradition, namely the La$kāvatāra-sūtra (Lengqie abaduoluo bao jing 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經, T No.670) and the Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論, T No.1666). Both of these texts have many elements deriving from Yogācāra, so it would not be too controversial to claim that Yogācāra concepts heavily influenced early Chan through these two texts. If we look into some texts of the Northern School (Beizong 北宗), as we will see below, we notice that even Xuanzang’s Faxiang tradition had a strong influence not only on its theory, but also on its practice. This leads us to the second point mentioned above. It seems to me that Faxiang Buddhism exerted influence over Chinese Buddhism more widely and for a longer period than was previously believed. On this matter, Tsukamoto Zenryū (1975, 129-58) points out the existence of numerous Faxiang texts in the Jin edition of Buddhist Canon kept in the Guangshengsi 廣勝寺 (Shanxi 山西 Province) and thus demonstrates that the Faxiang tradition was active in north China through the Liao 遼 and Jin periods (10th-13th cent.). Chikusa Masaaki (2000, 3-57) makes it clear that Faxiang Buddhism continued to be studied until the Song and Yuan 元 periods (10th-14th cent.), not only in northern China but also in some parts of the south.

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

Ueyama (ibid.) further points out that an eminent scholar-monk Tankuang 曇曠 (latter eighth century), who studied at Ximingsi in Chang’an 長安 and was active in Dunhuang, composed texts based on the Faxiang doctrine, including the Dasheng baifa mingmenlun kaizong yiji 大乘百法明門論開宗義記, the Dasheng baifa mingmenlun kaizong yijue 大乘百法明門論開宗義決, the Dasheng rudao cidi kaijue 大乘入道次第開決, and the Weishi sanshilun yaoshi 唯識三十論要釋. Another significant scholar-monk, Facheng 法成 (ninth century), also active in Dunhuang (and Ganzhou 甘州), translated Woncheuk’s 圓測 (613-96) commentary on the Sa%dhinirmocana-sūtra, Jie shenmi jing shu 解深密經疏 into Tibetan (ibid., 117-19). He also gave extensive lectures on the Yogācārabhūmi, which are recorded in numerous notes entitled, Yuqielun shouji 瑜伽論手記, or Yuqielun fenmenji 瑜伽論分門記 (ibid., 219-46).

Thus, monks in Dunhuang did not just passively accept Faxiang texts from central China, but actively composed their own texts. Some more Faxiang texts not included in the standard Chinese Buddhist Canons are also found in Dunhuang mingmen lun, namely, an anonymous commentary on the Dasheng baifa mingmen lun 大乘百法明門論 (T No. 1614); the Dasheng baifalun yizhang 大乘百法論義章 by a certain “Venerable Yan” 晏法師; and an anonymous commentary on Xuanzang’s Bian zhongbian lun 辯中邊論 (T No. 1600; see Ueyama 1990, 378-401).

It is also significant that many manuscripts of Ci’en’s 慈恩 (632-82) commentary on the Lotus Sūtra (Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華經, T No.262), Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan 妙法蓮華經玄䌕 (T No. 1723), are found in Dunhuang (Ueyama 1990, 366-71). According to Ueyama (1990, 369), from the mid-eighth century onwards, this is virtually the only commentary on the Lotus Sūtra seen in the Dunhuang manuscripts. Hirano Kenshō (1984, 322-24) points out that the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan influenced popular lectures on the Lotus Sūtra in Dunhuang, as we can observe in the Miaofa lianhua jing jiangjing wen 妙法蓮華經講經文 (Pelliot chinois 2305). He further points out that other commentaries by Ci’en, the Guan Mile shangsheng doushuaitian jing zan 觀彌勒上生兜率天經䌕 (T No. 1772), the Amituo jing shu 阿彌陀經疏 (T No. 1757), the Shuo wugoucheng jing shu 說無垢稱經疏 (T No. 1782), and the Jin’gang bore jing zanshu 金剛般若經䌕述 (T No. 1700) were also influential on local lectures on the respective sūtras (Hirano 1984, 325-31). Ci’en’s commentaries thus seem to have exerted a strong influence on Buddhism in Dunhuang.

Numerous Faxiang manuscripts are found also in Turfan, such as the fundamental text of this school, the CWSL and its standard commentary by Ci’en, the Cheng weishi lun shuji 成唯識論述記 (T No. 1830); other classical Yogācāra texts, like the Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論 and the Bian zhongbian lun; sūtra commentaries, including the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan, its subcommentary by Quanming 詮明 (a Faxiang monk of the Liao Dynasty, 10th-11th cent.), Fahua jing xuanzan huigu tongjin xinchao 法華經玄䌕會古通今新抄, Quanming’s Shangsheng jing shu kewen 上生經疏科文 and Mile shangsheng jing shu huigu tongjin xinchao 彌勒上生經疏會古通今新抄, an otherwise unknown commentary on the Jie shenmi jing 解深密經, and the Yuzhu jin’gang bore jing shu xuanyan 御注金剛般若經疏宣演. We also find Faxiang treatises by Chinese masters like Zhizhou’s 智周 (668-723)

Dasheng rudao cidi 大乘入道次第 (T No. 1864), and Tankuang’s Dasheng baifa mingmen lun kaizong yiji and Dasheng baifa mingmen lun kaizong yijue. Manuscripts of these texts are all found in Turfan. Thus, Faxiang scholarship appears to have reached this remote oasis city via Dunhuang. In addition, significantly the existence of exchanges between the Liao state and Turfan is suggested by the discovery of the works of the Liao scholar, Quanming, in Turfan. Still more noteworthy is that many of these Faxiang texts were translated into Old Uighur (Old Turkish). Peter Zieme (2012, 149ff.) mentions Uighur translations of Ci’en’s Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan, “Unknown Commentary of the Vijñaptimātra School,” and Zhizhou’s Dasheng rudao cidi. In addition, Ci’en’s Dasheng fayuan yilinzhang 大乘法苑義林章 (T No. 1861), and several other Faxiang texts were also translated into Uighur or at least known to Uighur Buddhists. It is highly suggestive of his eminence in Uighur Buddhism that in a colophon to the Old Uighur translation of the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan, Ci’en is even called “God” (Zieme 2012, 150). Zieme (ibid., 151) further mentions a commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, which, according to Kasai Yukiyo (2012, 106), was translated from Chinese and has significant Faxiang elements. We shall come back to this text later.

Considering these points, we have good reasons to reconsider the distance between Yogācāra (especially Faxiang) and Chan. It is not at all unlikely that such a widely spread tradition as Faxiang exerted some influence over the emerging Chan tradition. This is the point I would like to establish in this paper. Research in the West on the Northern School has been greatly facilitated by McRae’s important contribution, The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism (1986). In this book he edits, translates, and analyzes two important early Chan texts, namely, the Fanqu shengwu jietuo zong Xiuxin yao lun 凡趣聖悟解脫宗修心

要論 (hereafter Xiuxin yao lun), attributed to the “fifth patriarchHongren (601-74), and the Yuanming lun 圓明論. The former text preserves the doctrine of the East Mountain Teaching (Dongshan Famen 東山法門), and the latter, that of the Northern School.

For the present purpose, what is directly relevant is the latter text, which contains many Yogācāra elements. McRae (1986, 210) is, of course, aware that the Yuanming lun contains Yogācāra elements. However, since his main interest lies in clarifying the background of the famous “mind verses” attributed to Shenxiu 神秀20 (?-706) and Huineng 慧能21 (638-713) in the Platform Sūtra (Nanzong dunjiao zuishang dasheng mohe bore boluomi jing liuzu Huineng dashi yu Shaozhou Dafansi shifa tan jing 南宗頓教最上大乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能大師於韶州大梵寺施法壇經, T No. 2007),22 he does not exhaustively identify the Yogācāra elements in the Yuanming lun, nor does he trace those elements to their sources. Yogācāra influence on this text from various sources is far more extensive than McRae seems to believe. In this regard, the Yuanming lun is in contrast to the other text that McRae studies, the Xiuxin yao lun, which contains few unambiguous Yogācāra elements.23 Apparently, the early Chan tradition received a great deal of Yogācāra influence in the period between the Xiuxin yao lun and the Yuanming lun. Therefore, a careful study of the Yogācāra elements of the Yuanming lun may well shed new light on an important aspect of early Chan history.

20 身是菩提樹 心如明鏡臺

時時勤佛拭 莫使有塵埃 (T48:337c1-2)   The body is the bodhi tree.

The mind is like a bright mirror’s stand.

At all times we must strive to polish it.

and must not let dust collect. (McRae 1986, 1-2) 21 菩提本無樹 明鏡亦無臺

佛性常清淨 何處有塵埃 (T48:338a7-8).

Bodhi originally has no tree.

The mirror also has no stand.

The Buddha Nature is always clear and pure.

Where is there room for dust? (McRae 1986, 2) 22 As is well known, there are versions of this text available in the Dunhuang manuscripts that contain significant differences. Since this text is not the main topic of this paper, I do not go into detail.

23 Ibuki (2011, 111) points out that the meditative experience described in this text is very similar to the meditative system of the Daofan qusheng xinjue 導凡趣聖心

決. He probably refers to the meditation on the external objects and the inner mind (T48:378b23-24; McRae ed., §[P], p.10). However, the parallelism between these two texts may require further examination.

Another significant text for my present purpose is the Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun 大乘開心顯性頓悟真宗論 (T No.2835, hereafter Zhenzong lun), which is attributed to Master Dazhao 大照禪師 and a lay practitioner Huiguang 居士慧光 and contains extensive discussions of the fourfold wisdom of the Yogācāra tradition. Even more important are the instructions on meditation found in the Daofan qusheng xinjue 導凡趣聖心決, a copy of which is found just after the Xiuxin yao lun in an anthology of East Mountain/ Northern School materials (Pelliot chinois 2657, 3018, 3559, 3664). The meditation method described here has a structure typical of the Yogācāra School, and this suggests that Yogācāra Buddhism affected not only the theory but also the practice of the Northern School. If we can establish these points, it will significantly change our view of the role that Yogācāra Buddhism played in China. It was not just an impractical scholasticism. Thus, studying Yogācāra elements in early Chan texts can be important for both Yogācāra and Chan studies. With this possibility in mind, in this paper I shall reexamine a few of the early Chan texts mentioned above.

ɉ The Yuanming lun

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

This text abounds in doctrinal elements traceable to various Buddhist doctrinal traditions. Yanagida (1963, 47) and Tanaka (1983, 397) maintain that the Yuanming lun was composed under the influence of Tathāgatagarbha thought as found in the La$kāvatāra-sūtra and the Awakening of Faith. On the other hand, Okabe (1980, 346) notes Huayan 華嚴 and Faxiang terms in this text, though he also emphasizes its close ties to the Awakening of Faith. McRae (1986, 210), too, observes “traces of Hua-yen, Mādhyamika, and Yogācāra doctrines” there. None of them, however, attempts to identify the sources of individual Yogācāra elements in this text. This is what I would like to do here. We can observe many Yogācāra elements from a few different groups of texts in the Yuanming lun. Here I examine three groups of Yogācāra texts (the La$kāvatāra-sūtra, Paramārtha’s text, and Xuanzang’s texts) that influenced the Yuanming lun. II.1 La$kāvatāra-sūtra

Early Chan was traditionally associated with the four-fascicle version of the La$kāvatāra-sūtra (LAS), as shown in such texts as the Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (T No. 2060) and the Lengqie shizi ji 楞伽師資記 (T No. 2837). Therefore, it might seem to be a matter of course that the LAS is one of the major sources of the Yuanming lun (YML). In fact, the historicity of the legend that Bodhidharma 菩提達摩 bestowed this sūtra on Huike 慧可 is quite dubious (McRae 1986, 2728), and very few quotations from the LAS have been found in early Chan texts (Suzuki Daisetz 2000, 304; see also Ui Hakuju 1939, 37073). Therefore, clear examples of the influence of the LAS on the YML are well worth pointing out. Though not necessarily a mainstream Yogācāra text, the LAS has many Yogācāra elements. Thus, the close ties between the LAS and the YML are significant for the purpose of this paper.

One example of a statement that seems directly traceable to the LAS is the following line from the YML (p.19): 一者從無始妄想熏習而生, 二者卽從現在香味因緣□□□從熏習而生.

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

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

大慧, 取種種塵及無始妄想薰是分別事識因 Mahāmati, grasping various objects and the beginningless impregnation of false thoughts are the causes of the consciousness that discriminates objects. Further, see the following passage from the YML (p.33).

賴耶本性無有形質, 及諸根身是有形質. 今時凡夫不見賴耶為本, 謂言父母能生. 是以浪作色身之觀. 推至微塵, 乃至虛空, 妄取羅漢之果. 若知身本來依賴耶而起者, 卽無眼耳鼻舌. [Ā]laya is essentially without substance, but the body consisting of various sense organs has substance. Deluded people nowadays do not understand that ālaya is the root [of human body] and think [rather] that it is parents who give birth to [the body of their child]. For this reason, they wrongly practice meditation on the physical body. They analyze it into motes of dust, up to [the point they look like] space (ākāśa), and [thereby] erroneously attain the fruit of arhatship. If one [simply] knows that the body has originally arisen depending on ālaya, then [one knows that] there is no eye, ear, nose, or tongue [that constitute the body].

The topic here is the meditative analysis of matter into atoms (paramā)u), found in Yogācāra sources (for example, the CWSL, T31:4b29-c4). The word laiye 賴耶 (abbreviated phonetic transcription of ālaya) is clearly Xuanzang’s terminology, so the main source here must have been Xuanzang’s texts. Nevertheless, the word weichen 微塵 as an equivalent of paramā)u catches our eyes. This word is clearly different from Xuanzang’s jiwei 極微 or Paramārtha’s linxu 䌺㸂, and suggests a tie to the following line of the LAS (T16:508c17-18): 竟者分析乃至微塵, 觀察壊四大及造色.

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

In the last chapter of the YML (p. 40), the text explicitly quotes from the LAS: 依楞伽經, 自覺聖智宗立一切諸法 皆是自心現量義. 若解者, 山川大地, 及以己身, 並是自心, 非是謬 (?) 也. According to the La$kāvatāra-sūtra, the teaching of selfrealizing noble wisdom presents the thesis that all dharmas are manifestations of one’s own mind. If one understands [this principle, the statement that] mountains, rivers, ground, and one’s own body are all [[[manifestations]] of] one’s mind is not false. The key concepts of this chapter, namely zijue shengzhi 自覺聖智 and zixin xianliang 自心現量, appear frequently in the LAS, and so obviously the content of this chapter is closely linked to the LAS. See, for example, the following passage from the LAS (T16:491b14-24): 如來地自覺聖智, 修行者不應於彼作性非性想. ⋯ 譬如水中有樹影現, 彼非影非非影, 非樹形非非樹形. 如是外道見習所熏妄想計著, 依於一異俱不俱有無非有非無常無常想, 而不能知自心現量.

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

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

釋曰, 實是自心所現, 非是謬也. 所以得知, 自心所現. 且論身四大者, 為內有四種妄想, 感得四大以為身. 是以無五大. 何以故. 內有沈重妄想故, 感得地大以為身. 內有津潤妄想故, 感得水大以為身. 內有忿熱妄想故, 感得火大為身. 內有飄動妄想故, 感得風大以為身. 是以得知, 皆是自心現量. Commentary: Indeed, [the four elements] are manifestations of our own mind; [this] is not wrong. Therefore, we know that [the four elements] are manifestations of our mind. Regarding the four elements of the body, because there are four types of wrong thoughts inside, we acquire the four elements constituting the body. For this reason, there are no five elements [beyond these four].” Why [not]? Since there is a false thought of heaviness inside, we acquire the earth element constituting the body. Since there is a false thought of moisture inside, we acquire the water element constituting the body. Since there is a false thought of heated anger inside, we acquire the fire element constituting the body. Since we have a false thought of movement inside, we acquire the wind element constituting the body. For these reasons, we know that everything is a manifestation of our own mind. This argument is clearly tied to the following portion of the LAS (T16:495c18-22).

大慧, 彼四大種云何生造色. 謂津潤妄想大種生內外水界. 堪能妄想大種生內外火界. 飄動妄想大種生內外風界. 斷截色妄想大種生內外地界. Mahāmati, how do those four elements create composite matter? I say that the element of the false thought of moisture creates the water element inside and outside. The element of the false thought of agility creates the fire element inside and outside. The element of the false thought of movement creates the wind element inside and outside. The element of the false thought of cutting matter (?) creates the earth element inside and outside. Though the agreement is not perfect, the Chinese expressions for “the false thought of moisture” (for the water element) and “false thought of movement” (for the wind element) agree exactly. There thus seems to be a clear connection between the YML and the LAS. Since, as we have seen, scholars have rarely observed any actual influence of the LAS on early Chan, this close relationship is quite significant. II.2 Paramārtha’s Text

At one place in the text, the YML is clearly based on Paramārtha’s translation. See the following passage from the YML (pp.33-34): 何以得知識元無有形質, 唯有四似. 何者名為四似. 似根, 似塵, 似我, 似識. 此是四似. 一一似中, 推覓元無有識根等, 並是賴耶之中影像也. How can one know that consciousness originally has no substance and only has four semblances? What are the four semblances? The semblances of sense organs, external objects, Self, and consciousness. These are the four semblances. Even if one searches in each semblance, [one finds that] there is originally no consciousness, sense organ, and so forth; they are just images in the ālaya.

Here again, the word laiye 賴耶 suggests a connection to Xuanzang’s texts. On the basis of the overall wording and the content, however, the main source here must have been Paramārtha’s translation of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhā+ya (Zhongbian fenbie lun 中邊分別論, T31:451b7-13 [No.1599], corresponding to verse I.3 and its commentary in the Sanskrit text).

塵根我及識 本識生似彼但識有無彼 彼無故識無 似塵者, 謂本識顯現相似色等. 似根者, 謂識似五根於自他相續中顯現. 似我者, 謂意識與我見無明等相應故. 似識者, 謂六種識. 本識者謂阿黎耶識. 生似彼者, 謂似塵等四物. 但識有者, 謂但有亂識. 無彼者, 謂無四物.

External objects, sense organs, Self, and consciousness; the fundamental consciousness arises and resembles these [four]. Only the consciousness exists, while these [semblances] do not. Since they do not exist, the consciousness does not exist [either]. “The semblance of external objects” means that the fundamental consciousness appears like matter and so forth. “The semblance of sense organs” means that the consciousness appears like the five sense organs in the [personal] continuities of oneself and others. “The semblance of Self” means that the consciousness of manas is associated with the view of Self, ignorance, and so forth. “The semblance of consciousness” means the six types of consciousness. “The fundamental consciousness” means ālayavijñāna. “Arises and resembles these [four]” means that it resembles the four items such as external objects. “Only the consciousness exists” means that only disturbed consciousness exists. “They do not exist” means that the four items do not exist.

The agreement of the four characteristic terms, sigen 似根, “the semblance of sense organs,” sichen 似塵, ‘the semblance of external objects,” siwo 似我, “the semblance of Self,” and sishi 似識, “the semblance of consciousness,” clearly indicates that Paramārtha’s, not Xuanzang’s, version of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhā+ya was the source of the YML. Further, the YML states that these four items are images of ālayavijñāna, an understanding that agrees with Paramārtha’s version, but not with Xuanzang’s. Therefore, in spite of the use of Xuanzang’s [a]laiye [阿]賴耶 instead of Paramārtha’s aliye 阿黎耶, it is clear that here the YML was drawing from Paramārtha’s Madhyāntavibhāga-bhā+ya.

II.3 Xuanzang’s Texts

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

In Chapter 4 of the YML, entitled Bianming sansheng nishun guan 辨明三乘逆順觀, “Explanation of the Meditation in Forward and Reverse Order of the Three Vehicles,” the text discusses the conversion of śrāvakas to the bodhisattva path. See, for example, the following line (p.31): 聲聞人廻心入菩薩道, 望 (?) 八識習氣藏而得. 而生菩薩道, 并行六波羅蜜.

Conversion of śrāvaka people to the bodhisattva path becomes possible based on the eighth consciousness, which contains vāsanās. Thus, [they] can give rise to the bodhisattva path and also practice the six pāramitās. According to the Faxiang doctrine, certain people have undetermined gotra in their ālayavijñāna, and thus they can convert from one vehicle to another. The passage quoted above seems to presuppose such a system. See, for example, the following passage from the CWSL (T31:55c1-3): 又說彼無無餘依者, 依不定性二乘而說. 彼纔證得有餘涅槃決定廻心求無上覺.

The statement that they have no [[[nirvāṇa]]] without remainder was made with regard to [the practitioners of] the two vehicles who have undetermined gotras. The moment they attain nirvāṇa with remainder, they definitely convert and seek the unsurpassed awakening. Further, see the following line from the YML (p.33):

今見眼耳鼻舌並是賴耶[[[識]]] 之氣.

The eye, ear, nose, and tongue that we see now are all vāsanās in the [ā]layavijñāna.

Here qi must be an abbreviated form of xiqi 習氣, namely, vāsanā. This line is actually a little ambiguous. Considering the preceding passage, we might read this line as simply meaning that vāsanās held in the ālayavijñāna give rise to the sense organs. However, if we consider another line that appears a little after this line in the YML (p. 34, quoted below), it seems also possible that the sense organs themselves were equated with vāsanās in the ālayavijñāna. If we accept the latter interpretation, this line may presuppose the following argument in the CWSL (T31:19c21-24): 識上色功能 名五根應理功能與境色 無始互為因

彼頌意言. 異熟識上能生眼等色識種子名色功能, 說為五根. 無別根等. It is reasonable to call the potential of matter in the consciousnessfive sense organs.” Potential and material objects have caused each other from time immemorial.

The meaning of this verse is as follows: “Potential of matter” refers to the bījas in the vipākavijñāna that can give rise to the consciousness [appearing as] matter, such as the eye, and [these bījas] are called the five sense organs. There are no sense organs and so forth apart from [the bījas]. This is a variant theory based on the Vi%śikā Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-

(Weishi ershi lun 唯識二十論, T31:75b17-23 [No. 1590], corresponding to verse 9 and its commentary in the Sanskrit text) but not adopted by the CWSL. Here the “potential” is synonymous with bīja and vāsanā, so the position of this passage agrees with that of the YML quoted above. It seems highly possible that the YML presupposed this argument. In the same context, the YML further states as follows (p.34):

但見賴耶本性無有生滅, 卽捨諸根之見. 何以故. 元無諸根故, 並是本識種子相分故. 本識之相分者, 卽無眼耳鼻舌之根.

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

The first line (of the original Chinese text), which states that the ālaya has no arising and perishing, seems alien to the Faxiang doctrine. Nevertheless, we should note that this quotation contains the distinctive Faxiang term “image-portion” (xiangfen 相分). In fact, the argument here would be unintelligible without referring to the Faxiang doctrine that subsumes bījas under the image-portion of ālayavijñāna. See the following (CWSL, T31:10a17-23): 阿賴耶識, 因緣力故, 自體生時, 內變為種及有根身, 外變為器. 卽以所變為自所緣. ⋯似所緣相說名相分.

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

Ɋ The Zhenzong lun

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

As already mentioned, this text presents itself as a record of questions and answers between a lay practitioner, Huiguang, and Chan Master Dazhao. One strange point here is that, according to the preface to this text, Dazhao is the Dharma name of Huiguang. If this is the case, it follows that this text is a monologue: the questioner and answerer are the same person. On the other hand, Ibuki (1992a, 302) points out that this preface was concocted based on the Dunwu zhenzong jin’gang bore xiuxing dabi’an famen yaojue 頓悟真宗金剛般若修行達

彼岸法門要決 (Yaojue). If he is correct, this preface does not have any independent value.

On the basis of a line in the preface that suggests that Dazhao was a disciple of Shenhui 神會 (684-758 ; Tanaka ed., 182; T85:1278a29), this text had long been considered to be a Southern-School text. Tanaka (1980, 233-41; 1983, 246-56), however, argued that the Zhenzong lun was closely linked to the Guanxin lun 觀心論 of Shenxiu 神秀 and thus belonged to the Northern School. I follow his arguments and treat the Zhenzong lun as a Northern School text. Scholars have noted that the Zhenzong lun was based on the Yaojue and other prior sources (Ibuki 1992a; 1992b; Nishiguchi Yoshio 2000; see also Ueyama 1976). Cheng 2011 argues that the source the Zhenzong lun most heavily relied on was the Dasheng qishi lun 大乘起世論. Therefore, these earlier sources need to be investigated also. However, if we follow Cheng (2011, 128), no earlier Chan source is known for most of the portions of the Zhenzong lun that discuss Yogācāra theories. Thus, for the present purpose, I think we should focus our attention on the Zhenzong lun itself.

It should be obvious from the table found at the end of this paper that the extensive discussion of the eight types of consciousness and their transformation into the four types of wisdom in the Zhenzong lun are based on the Faxiang doctrine. Therefore, I do not compare individual points concerning this text with their possible Faxiang sources.

We should note here that the Zhenzong lun at times deviates from the Faxiang orthodoxy. I would like to discuss two cases of such originality (or deviation) below.

First, see the following statement of the Zhenzong lun (Tanaka ed., pp. 199-200; T85:1280a5-9): 所言識者, 以了別為義. 如人眼與色相應之時, 意識於中分別. 或時計好, 或時計惡. 隨彼所計便有相生, 卽薰於第七末那之識. 承此薰故遂卽執取, 轉薰於第八識. What is called “consciousness” has the meaning of “cognition.” For example, when the eye and color are associated, the manovijñāna makes a judgment about [the object], sometimes as desirable, sometimes as undesirable. Following its judgment, an image appears and impregnates the seventh consciousness of manas. Due to this impregnation, [the manas] grasps onto [the object] and in turn impregnates the eighth consciousness [[[ālayavijñāna]]]. Clearly the passage presupposes Faxiang doctrine. Here, the understanding that when a sense perceives its object, manovijñāna makes a judgment about the object is a standard Yogācāra doctrine confirmed in such texts as the Sa%dhinirmocana-sūtra (Jie shenmi jing, T16:692b20-22 [No. 679]), the Yogācārabhūmi (Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論, T30:280a22-27 [No. 1579]), and the CWSL (T31:21a13-15). Therefore, the first half of the passage is not a problem. The second half, on the other hand, clearly disagrees with the Faxiang position. The CWSL makes it clear that only ālayavijñāna can receive impregnation. See below (T31:9c18-19):

唯異熟識具此四義可是所熏. 非心所. Only vipākavijñāna (= ālayavijñāna) satisfies these four conditions [necessary for being impregnated: solidity, neutrality, capacity to be impregnated, and coexistence with what impregnates] and can be impregnated. It is not the case that mental functions and so forth can be [impregnated]. Further, a standard commentary on the CWSL, the Cheng weishi lun shuji (T43:313b25-27), expressly states that the seventh consciousness cannot be impregnated, as follows: 其無性人此第七識四義具足. 何不受熏. 以染無記違善悪品. 今言無記唯無覆無記. The seventh consciousness of the gotra-less people satisfies these four conditions [for being impregnated]. Why does it not receive impregnation? Since it is defiled-neutral, it is not consistent with good and bad elements. The wordneutral” that appears here [in the four conditions] only refers to undefiled-neutral.

In the Faxiang doctrine, the seventh consciousness does not transmit the impregnation from the six types of active consciousness to the eighth consciousness. The six kinds of active consciousness directly deposit their bījas into ālayavijñāna, and so does the seventh. Therefore, this point clearly disagrees with the Faxiang position.

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

問曰. 四智既爾. 云何三身. 答曰. 大圓鏡智以為法身. 平等性智以為報身. 成所作智及妙觀察智以為化身. 又問曰. 以何知之而作是說. 答曰. 據今時現在而言. 具定一切無漏功德圓滿義足, 猶如世間明鏡現眾面像而無分別. 故說此智以為法身. 妄心既盡, 平等性成萬行成就. 以為報身. 六根無染廣度眾生.自離離他, 令他同解而修 . 故以化身.

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

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

Therefore, according to this model, the correspondences between the fourfold wisdom and the three bodies are as follows:

Great Mirror Wisdom The Dharma Body
Equality Wisdom The Body of Recompense
Action Wisdom
Observation Wisdom The Body of Transformation
On the other hand, the CWSL gives two theories about this issue. The first theory is as follows (T31:58a6-13):
Great Mirror Wisdom (ādarśajñāna) The Body of the Essence
(svabhāva-kāya =Dharma Body)
Equality Wisdom (samatā-jñāna)
Observation Wisdom
(pratyavek+a)ā-jñana) The Body of Recompense (sambhoga-kāya)
Action Wisdom (k*tyānu+,hānajñāna) The Body of Transformation (nirmā)a-kāya)
The second theory is as shown in the table below (T31:58a15-25):
Tathatā The Body of the Essence
Great Mirror Wisdom The Body of Recompense for Oneself (svasa%bhoga-kāya)
Equality Wisdom The Body of Recompense for Others (parasa%bhoga-kāya)
Action Wisdom The Body of Transformation

Thus the model of the Zhenzong lun does not agree with either theory of the CWSL. Sakuma Hidenori (1987, 387-403; 2012, 46) lists these and other models found in Yogācāra texts, but none of them agrees with the model in the Zhenzong lun. This theory may have been an invention within the Chan tradition. A notable point here is that, according to Kasai (2012, 108-9), an Old Turkish (Old Uighur) commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa has a combination of the fourfold wisdom and the three bodies that exactly agrees with the theory in the Zhenzong lun. See the following comparative table.
Fourfold Wisdom CWSL 1
= BBhVy
(Nishio ed.,
BBhSŚ (T26:
325c27-28) CWSL 2
Bunten Kenkyūkai ed., Tib. Text, 117.7118.10) MSA, Ch
[No. 1604]) Zhenzong lun Old
Tathatā/ Dharmadhātu Svabhāva (=Dharma) Svabhāva (=Dharma) -- -- -- --
Great Mirror Wisdom Svabhāva (=Dharma) Svasaṃbhoga Svabhāva
= Dharma (Svasaṃbhoga) Dharma Dharma Dharma
Equality Wisdom Saṃbhoga Parasaṃbhoga Saṃbhoga Dharma Saṃbhoga Saṃbhoga
Observation Wisdom Saṃbhoga ? Saṃbhoga Saṃbhoga Nirmāṇa Nirmāṇa
Action Wisdom Nirmāṇa Nirmāṇa Nirmāṇa Nirmāṇa Nirmāṇa Nirmāṇa

It is difficult to explain this agreement between the Zhenzong lun and the Old Uighur commentary. Kasai (2012, 106-7) points out that this Uighur commentary is on the whole close to the Jingming jing jijie guanzhong shu 淨名經集解關中疏 (T No. 2777), but that this particular discussion is not found in the Chinese commentary and was probably added by the Uighur translator. If so, perhaps the Uighur translator was familiar with the Chan interpretation of this matter. Further investigation is needed regarding the agreement between the Zhenzong lun and the Old Uighur commentary. Concerning the *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra (Jin’gang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經, T No. 273), Buswell observes as follows (1989, 9): The relationship the author [Buswell] draws between Ch’an praxis and the seminal doctrinal concepts of the wider sinitic tradition will show that, while Ch’an may “not,” as it claims, “rely on words and letters,” it nevertheless has drawn creatively, and with little real reticence, on the scriptural teachings of the larger Buddhist tradition.

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

ɋ Daofan qusheng xinjue

In the foregoing examination, we have observed that the Northern School was influenced by Faxiang doctrine. In this section, I would like to point out that early Chan was also influenced by Yogācāra practices.

The aforementioned Daofan qusheng xinjue, a set of instructions on meditation of the East Mountain Teaching/Northern School, is highly significant in this regard. Therefore, though it is rather long, I quote a large portion of this text:

若欲脩觀, 要須從外觀. 所以須者, 以諸外境, 是生心因緣, 起煩惱處. 又來凡夫志力麁淺. 若令卽入深深勝處, 恐難進趣. 所以先從外觀者, 須知諸法本來體性平等无差別相. 今所有諸法, 但是无始薰習因緣幻起, 無有實體. 此法平等因緣幻起理. 本非是有无生滅是非長短. 只為无始无明迷或, 不了此理, 無人法處, 妄見人法. 无生滅非有无處, 妄見有无, 妄生取着. 執人執法, 造種種業, 流轉六道. 今人法生滅有无等, 但只是妄心謂此心外, 更無一法可得. 既知此理, 但心所緣, 皆須一一隨逐, 如前觀察, 知唯是心无外境界. 作此觀察純孰已, 常令此心緣妄理. 住心得久. 得久已卽須卻觀此妄心. 為當是有, 為復是无, 又是滅. 種種推求, 畢竟不可得. 若過去, 過去心已滅. 若未來, 未來心未至. 若現在, 現在心不住. 又來兩心不並. 覺心生時, 不覺心已滅. 夫論心生, 必須假因籍緣.因緣若積聚, 心卽有所從生. 因緣先自不積聚. 生何可生. 生既无生, 滅亦无滅. 又須覩卻觀此心. 問. 此心既是智心覺心. 何須更觀.

答. 此心雖是智心覺心, 猶是心家流類. 仍有生滅境相未亡. 問. 既須此觀上有能觀所觀在耶. 答曰. 今言卻觀者只是嘗念觀心自卻觀, 更無能所(?). 凡刀不自割, 指不自指, 心不自觀心. 意在无觀之時, 卽有能觀所觀. 正卻觀之時, 既无能所觀. 此時離言絕相. 言語道斷, 心行處滅.

If one wishes to practice meditation, one should definitely begin with the meditation on the external. The reason why this is necessary is that external objects are the causes and conditions for giving rise to the mind and they are the locus where defilements arise. Further, ordinary people have shallow aspirations. So, if they are immediately made to enter the profound and unfathomable realm, they will probably have difficulty in progressing. Therefore, one who first meditates on the external should know that dharmas are originally equal in their essence and have no distinct characteristics. Now all dharmas merely arise like illusion, caused by beginningless impregnation, and they have no substance. These dharmas equally [follow] the principle of arising like illusion by causes and conditions. [The dharmas] originally neither exist nor do not exist, neither arise nor perish; nor are they long or short. Simply deluded by the beginningless ignorance and delusion, one does not realize this principle, and one wrongly sees persons and dharmas where there is no person or dharma. One [further] wrongly sees existence and non-existence and wrongly develops attachment to them, where there is no arising or perishing, and no existence or non-existence. One [thus] comes to be attached to persons and dharmas, performs various karmas, and transmigrates through the six destinies. Now persons and dharmas, arising and perishing, existence and non-existence, and so forth are merely what the deluded mind considers to be outside the mind, [but in reality] there is nothing to be apprehended [outside]. Understanding this principle, one merely needs to follow individual objects of mind, observe them as stated above, and know that they are no other than the mind without any external objects.

After one has become proficient in this observation, one should [then] always make one’s mind focus on the principle of the falsity [of external dharmas]. One keeps one’s mind [on this principle] for a long time. After [doing so], one should reflectively observe the deluded mind [itself, in the following way]: “Does [this mind] exist or not? Does it perish?” [If one thus] examines [the mind] in various ways, in the end no [[[mind]]] is to be apprehended. If [one searches for] the past mind, the past mind has already perished. If [one searches for] the future mind, the future mind has not come yet. If [one searches for] the present mind, the present mind does not abide. Further, two minds do not coexist. When awakened mind arises, unawakened mind has already perished. [If one] talks of the arising of mind, it must depend on causes and conditions. If causes and conditions were accumulated, mind would have the means by which to arise. [In reality,] causes and conditions themselves have not been accumulated before. [So] how can there be arising? If there is no arising, there is no perishing. Also, one needs to reflectively observe this mind.

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

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

The general structure of the observations described here (first external objects, then internal mind) is none other than the sequence of standard Yogācāra meditation, usually referred to as asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyala- k+a)a, “the aspect of the means of entering the aspect of non-existence,” an expression found in the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhā+ya.

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

當說卽於虛妄分別入無相方便相. 頌曰. 依識有所得 境無所得生依境無所得 識無所得生 論曰. 依止唯識有所得故, 先有於境無所得生. 復依於境無所得故, 後有於識無所得生. 由是方便得入所取能取無相 .

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

Commentary: “Owing to the apprehension of” only “consciousness,” first “the non-apprehension of its objects arises.” Further, “owing to the non-apprehension of its objects, the non-apprehension of the consciousness arises” afterwards. By this method, one can enter the aspect of nonexistence of the object and subject of apprehension. As an example of the same structure, see the following verses quoted in the CWSL (T31:49b29-c3):64 菩薩於定位 觀影唯是心 義想既滅除 審觀唯自想如是住內心 知所取非有 次能取亦無 後觸無所得 In concentration, a bodhisattva observes that [[[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]]] images are just mind. When thoughts of objects are removed, he closely observes only his own thoughts.

Thus, he resides in the inner mind and knows that the objects of apprehension do not exist. Then the subject of apprehension does not exist either. After that, he attains non-apprehension.

Judging from the presence of some typical Yogācāra expressions in the quoted portion of the Daofan qusheng xinjue,65 the similarities with the Yogācāra methods of meditation do not seem coincidental.66 Also noteworthy is the following line found in the last part of the quotation:

64 These verses are said to be from the *Yogavibhāga (Fenbie yuqie lun 分別瑜伽 論), which is quoted in the Mahāyānasa%graha (She dasheng lun ben 攝大乘論本, T31:143c6-9 [No.1594]), §III.17. 65 所有諸法但是无始薰習因緣幻起, “All dharmas merely arise like illusion caused by beginningless impregnation and have no substance”; 唯是心无外境界, “they are no other than the mind, and there are no external objects”. (quoted above) 66 Cf. a similar structure of meditation is observed in the *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra also.

See below: 識生於未時 境不是時生 於境生未時 是時識亦滅 彼卽本俱無 亦不有無有 無生識亦無 云何境從有 (T9:373b1-4) When consciousness has not yet been produced, Objects then are not produced either. When objects have not yet been produced, Consciousness is then also extinguished.

These are both originally nonexistent, 凡刀不自割, 指不自指, 心不自觀心.

A knife cannot cut itself, a finger cannot point at itself, and the mind cannot observe itself. This is a characteristic expression found in discussions in the Abhidharma and Yogācāra literature concerning whether or not mind can perceive itself. Considering the general affinity of these meditative instructions with Yogācāra literature, the source of this line may have been the following passage from the *Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra (Fodi jing lun 佛地經論, T26:303a26-b1 [No. 1530]):

集量論說. 諸心心法皆證自體, 名為現量. 若不爾者, 如不曾見不應憶念. 是故四智相應心品, 一一亦能照知自體. 云何不與世法相違, 刀不自割, 指端不能觸指端故. 不見燈等能自照耶. The Pramā)asamuccaya says:67 All types of mind and mental functions perceive themselves, and [this perception] is called “direct perception” (pratyak+a). Otherwise, as if one cannot recall what one has not experienced[, one would not recall one’s own mental experiences]. Therefore, each of the groups of mental elements associated with the fourfold wisdom can perceive itself. How does it not contradict our daily experiences, because a knife does not cut itself, and the tip of a finger cannot touch itself? Do you not see that lamps and so forth can illuminate themselves?

They neither exist nor do not exist. Consciousness that is unproduced is also nonexistent,

So how is it that objects exist on account of it? (Buswell 1989, 243-44) 一切境空. 一切身空. 一切識空. 覺亦應空. (T9:368b24-25) If all sense realms are void, all bodies are void, and all consciousnesses are void, then enlightenment too must be void. (Buswell 1989, 204) 67 According to Harada (personal communication), the real source of this quotation is the Nyāyabindu, I.10 (F. I. Shcherbatskoi ed., Bibliotheca Buddhica 7:11.4): sarvacittacaittānām ātmasa%vedana% “All the minds and mental functions perceive themselves.” The positions of the Daofan qusheng xinjue and the *Buddhabhūmisūtraśāstra are not exactly the same, and thus one might also consider an Abhidharma text like the *Abhidharma-Mahāvibhā+ā (Apidamo dapiposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 [No. 1545]) to be a possible source. See the following passage (T27:43a26-28):

有說. 世間現見, 指端不自觸, 刀刃不自割, 瞳子不自見, 壯士不自負. 是故自性不知自性. Someone maintains: In the world, one experiences that the tip of a finger cannot touch itself, the edge of a sword cannot cut itself, the pupil cannot see itself, or a fighter cannot beat himself. Therefore, something cannot cognize itself.

On the other hand, we should recall here that these early Chan texts not infrequently deviate from their conclusions when referring to Yogācāra texts. Therefore, some difference in the arguments does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the Daofan qusheng xinjue was referring to the *Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra here.

In any case, it is beyond doubt that the expression in question was based on Indian Abhidharma/Yogācāra literature. Therefore, it is highly likely that the meditative method described above was not the original contribution of the Northern School but was based on an Indian Buddhist (probably Yogācāra) tradition. Somewhat problematic in the Daofan qusheng xinjue is the following line:

若過去, 過去心己滅. 若未來, 未來心未至. 若現在, 現在心不住. If [one searches for] the past mind, the past mind has already perished. If [one searches for] the future mind, the future mind has not come yet. If [one searches for] the present mind, the present mind does not abide.

This line resonates with the famous passage from the Diamond Sūtra (Jin’gang bore boluomi jing 金剛般若波羅蜜經 [T No. 235]). However, we should note that an even closer parallel is found in Zhiyi’s 智顗 (538-98) Lüeming kaimeng chuxue zuochan zhiguan yaomen 略明開曚初學坐禪止觀要門 (hereafter Kaimeng chuxue, Sekiguchi 1974, 340): 若謂心是有者, 為在是過去, 未來, 現在耶. 若在過去, 過去己滅. 何得有心. 若在未來, 未來未至, 何得有心. 若是現在, 現在不住. 則不可得. If one thinks that the mind exists, does one believe it to be in the past, future, or present? If in the past, the past [[[mind]]] has already perished. How can there be mind? If in the future, the future [[[mind]]] has not yet come. How can there be mind? If it is the present [[[mind]]], the present does not abide. Therefore it cannot be apprehended.

Although similar expressions are found in other texts as well, the Lüeming kaimeng chuxue zuochan zhiguan yaomen contains a closest parallel to the Daofan quesheng xiujue on this matter.72 Thus we have to consider the possibility that the Daofan quesheng xiujue was partly dependent on a pre-Faxiang meditation text as well.73 Nevertheless, both from the overall structure and from the characteristic expressions, it is clear that the Daofan quesheng xiujue was heavily dependent on the Yogācāra and Abhidharma texts brought to China by Xuanzang.

72 Although this would be later than the Daofan qusheng xinjue, the Dasheng bensheng xindiguan jing大乘本生心地觀經 (T3:327b4-5 [No. 159], 8th cent.) is another text that has very similar expressions. 73 I thank the anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to this possibility. He points out that in the Xiuxi zhiguan zuochan fayao修習止觀坐禪法要 (hereafter Xiuxi zhiguan, T46:467a16-b6), commonly known as the Tiantai xiao zhiguan 天台小止觀 (hereafter Xiao zhiguan), there is a discussion of the mind in the three periods (quoted above) similar to the one in the Daofan qusheng xinjue. The reviewer also says that after this portion, the Xiuxi zhiguan quotes the Awakening of Faith and propounds a meditative method very similar to the one in the Daofan qusheng xinjue. Thus, he suggests that this method (first external objects, then internal mind) goes back to Zhiyi.

This is certainly a significant suggestion that deserves consideration. We should, however, also note that there are serious textual problems on the Xiao zhiguan. According to Sekiguchi (1974), Xiuxi zhiguan is a highly corrupt version of the Xiao zhiguan, and a more authentic and older form of the text is found in the Kaimeng chuxue. Significantly, in the Kaimeng chuxue, the quotation from the Awakening of Faith is missing. This quotation is most likely a later interpolation (ibid., 302-3). The discussion of the external objects and the internal mind is not clearly stated in he Keimeng chuxue either. Thus, the Xiao zhiguan is a rather unlikely source of this meditative method in the Daofan quesheng xinjue. On the other hand, even though its quotation in the Kaimeng chuxue cannot be attested, the Awakening of Faith itself is noteworthy. See the following line (T32:582a22-23):

是正念者, 當知唯心無外境界. 既復此心亦無自相, 念念不可得. Regarding correct mindfulness, one should know that there is only the mind and no external objects. Since this mind does not have its own characteristics either, it cannot be apprehended at any moment.

As Hotori Rishō (1992, 55) points out, this line resonates with the Yogācāra method of asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a. Thus, we should consider the possibility that the asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a was already accepted by Chinese Buddhists at the stage of the Awakening of Faith. On the other hand, we should note that the structure of the asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a is not entirely clear in the Awakening of Faith (in the asa/lak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a, the second meditation presupposes the

Ɍ Conclusion

We have observed numerous Yogācāra elements in the Northern School texts. Concerning the elements borrowed from mainstream Buddhist texts in Northern Chan texts, McRae observes as follows (1986, 198): …much of the energy of early Ch’an seems to have been directed at convincing other Buddhists (or at least those with some knowledge of Buddhism) that the Northern School approach to the religion was the most, or even the only, authentic one. This task required that the Northern School trace its doctrine back to the scriptures and prove that it was the highest teaching of the Buddha.

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

Whether or not the asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a was accepted in China before Xuanzang is a problem that requires further examination, but it seems certain that Xuanzang’s Yogācāra texts

first, but that dependency is not explicitly stated in this text). In addition, even if we notice the structure of the asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a here, it is probably because the Awakening of Faith was under the influence of a Yogācāra tradition (see Hotori, op cit., and Takemura Makio 1990). This matter requires more extensive investigation, which is beyond the scope of the present paper. (I thank Ōtake Susumu for the reference to Hotori 1992 and Takemura 1990, as well as for his advice on the Awakening of Faith).

reintroduced this important Yogācāra method to the Chinese Buddhist world, and at that time it did catch the attention of Chinese Buddhists. Admittedly in this paper I have presented only one clear example of such influence, and I certainly do not claim that the entirety of the practice of the Northern School was under the influence of the Faxiang School.74 Nevertheless, given the stereotypic image of Faxiang as a dry and impractical scholasticism, it is quite significant that not only the theory but also the practice of one of the supposedly most practical Buddhist traditions in China, Chan, were influenced by the Faxiang School. This suggests, I believe, that the highly developed Yogācāra doctrine brought back to China by Xuanzang was accepted not only as theory but also, at least to some extent, as practical guidance by Chinese Buddhist practitioners.

An examination of Yogācāra elements in these Northern School texts is also important for the study of early Chan history. The Northern School was a direct descendent of Daoxin and Hunren’s “East Mountain Teaching.” The Xiuxin yao lun, which propounds the East Mountain Teaching, has hardly any distinctively Yogācāra elements.75 It is noteworthy that not even the La$kāvatāra-sūtra, which is supposed to have been the most important sūtra for the early Chan tradition, is expressly mentioned. For either chronological or geographical reasons, the early Chan tradition does not seem to have been exposed to the Yogācāra Buddhism at this stage.76 In the *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra, on the other hand, we can observe the clear

74 There is also a Faxiang text that shows a hostile attitude to Chan. See Saitō Tomohiro 2012. 75 We can observe a few idealist elements and some quotations from the Daśabhūmikasūtra (Da fangguang fo huayan jing Shidi pin 大方廣佛華嚴經十地品, T9:558c10 [No. 278]) and the Awakening of Faith (T32:576c11-15) in the Xiuxin yao lun, but no distinctly Yogācāra element. 76 See the tentative chronology below:

443 Guṇabhadra’s La$kāvatāra-sūtra (four-fascicle version) 499-569 Paramārtha

548 Paramārtha came to Jiankang 建康 influence of both the La$kāvatāra-sūtra and Xuanzang’s Yogācāra (including the asallak+a)ānupraveśopāyalak+a)a, see n. 66). It is also noteworthy that in the late seventh century, the Northern School advanced to Chinese metropolitan areas in the Central Plains and probably had easier access to Xuanzang’s Yogācāra texts.

Ueyama (1990, 428-30) points out that, later in Dunhuang, the Northern School was even identified with the Faxiang School. See the following threefold classification of Mahāyāna Buddhism found in Dunhuang manuscripts (after ibid., 429).77

<poem> 勝義皆空宗 The Teaching That Maintains That Everything is Empty in the Supreme Truth 應理圓實宗 The Round Teaching That Accords with the Principle 法性円融宗 The Teaching of the Harmony with the Dharma-Nature 破相宗 The Teaching of Removing Characteristics 法相宗 The Teaching of Dharma-Characteristics (Faxiang School) 法性宗 The Teaching of Dharma-Nature

580-651 Daoxin 601-74 Hongren (Xiuxin yao lun?) 602-64 Xuanzang

645 Xuanzang returned to Chang’an 638-89 Faru c.686 Faru came to Shaolin-si 少林寺 near Luoyang. (Ogawa 2007, 41)

(Xiuxin yao lun?, Daofan qusheng xinjue?) ?-706 Shenxiu (YML?) 668-85 Composition of the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra according to Buswell (1989, 71)

700 Shenxiu meets Empress Wu at Luoyang 77 This table is an amalgamation by Ueyama of Stein 2583; 4459; and Pelliot chinois 2258v. 經中宗 The Middle Teaching [Based on] Sūtras 唯識宗 The Teaching of Consciousness-Only 論中宗 The Middle Teaching [Based on] Treatises 南能頓宗 The Sudden Teaching of [[[Hui]]]neng in the South 漸宗 The Gradual Teaching

北秀宗 The Teaching of [Shen] xiu in the North According to Ueyama (ibid., 428), Stein 2583 is a sub-commentary on the Baifalun shu 百法論疏 of Tankuang (the latter half of the eighth century [ibid., 17]), copied on the verso of a document written around 866-71. “The Round Teaching That Accords with the Principle” and “The Teaching of Consciousness-Only” are epithets of the Faxiang School, so this model clearly identifies the Faxiang School with the Northern School. In the face of the heavy Yogācāra influence observed in Northern School texts, this identification does not seem entirely groundless. This paper is obviously not the place to draw an overall picture of early Chan history. Nevertheless, I think that consideration of Yogācāra elements in these early Chan texts does help clarify a very important aspect of early Chan.  Abbreviations and Short Titles

AF See Awakening of Faith. AKBh Abhidharmakośa-bhā+ya (Apidamo jushe lun 阿毘達磨俱舍論), T No. 1958. AMV *Abhidharma-Mahāvibhā+ā (Apidamo dapiposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), T No. 1545. ASBh Abhidharmasamucchaya-bhā+ya (Dasheng apidamo zaji lun 大乘阿毘達磨雜集論), T No. 1606. Awakening of Faith Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論, T No. 1666. BBhVy Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyā. BBhSŚ *Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra (Fodi jing lun 佛地經論), T No. 1530. CWSL Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論, T No, 1585. Kaimeng chuxue Lüeming kaimeng chuxue zuochan zhiguan yaomen 略明開曚初學坐禪止觀要門. LAS La$kāvatāra-sūtra (Lengqie abaduoluo bao jing 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經), T No. 670. MAVBh Madhyāntavibhāga-bhā+ya (Zhongbian fenbie lun 中邊分別論), T No.1599. MSA Mahāyānasūtrāla%kāra (Dasheng zhuangyanjing lun 大乘莊嚴經論), T No. 1604. MSgBh Mahāyānasa%graha-bhā+ya (She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋), T No. 1597. MSgUp Mahāyānasa%grahopanibandhana (She dasheng lun shi 攝大乘論釋), T No. 1598. Platform Sūtra Nanzong dunjiao zuishang dasheng mohe bore boluomi jing liuzu Huineng dashi yu Shaozhou Dafansi shifa tan jing 南宗頓教最上大乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能大師於韶州大梵寺施法壇經, T No. 2007. SAVBh Sūtrāla%kārav*ttibhā+ya. Shuji Cheng weishi lun shuji 成唯識論述記, T No. 1830.

SNS Sa%dhinirmocana-sūtra (Jie shenmi jing 解深密經), T No. 676. Tanaka ed. See Tanaka 1989. Vajrasamādhi *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra (Jin’gang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經), T No. 273. Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra (Weimojie suoshuo jing 維摩詰所說經), T No. 475. Vi%ś Vi%śikā Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi- (Weishi ershi lun 唯識二十論), T No. 1590. Xiao zhiguan Tiantai xiao zhiguan 天台小止觀. Xiuxi zhiguan Xiuxi zhiguan zuochan fayao 修習止觀坐禪法要, T No. 1915. Xiuxin yao lun Fanqu shengwu jietuo zong Xiuxin yao lun 凡趣聖悟解脫宗修心要論. YML Yuanming lun 圓明論. YBh Yogācārabhūmi (Yuqieshi di lun 瑜伽師地論), T No. 1597. Yaojue Dunwu zhenzong jin’gang bore xiuxing da bi’an famen yaojue 頓悟真宗金剛般若修行達彼岸法門要決. Zhenzong lun Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun 大乘開心顯性頓悟眞宗論, T No. 2835. ZZ Dainihon zokuzōkyō 大日本續藏經. References Buswell, Robert E., Jr. 1989. The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea: The “Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra,” a Buddhist Apocryphon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ch’en, Kenneth K. S. 1972. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (1964) Cheng Zheng 程正. 2002. Tongo shinshū kongō hannya shugyō tatsuhigan hōmon yōketsu to Daijō kaishin kenshō tongo shinshūron『頓悟真宗金剛般若修行達彼岸法門要訣』と『大乘開心顕性頓悟眞宗論』(Dunwu zhen zong jin gang panruo xiu xing da bianfamen yaojue and Da cheng kai xin xian xing dunwu zhen zonglun). Komazawa Daigaku Daigakuin Bukkyōgaku Kenkyūkai nenpō 駒沢大学大学院仏教学研究会年報 (Annual of Graduate Research in Buddhist Studies) 35:17180.

2005. Gazō Tonkō bunkenchū ni hakken sareta zenseki ni tsuite 俄藏敦煌文獻中に發見された禪籍について (Chan Texts found in Dunhuang Manuscripts of the Russian Collections). Zengaku kenkyū 禪學研究 (Studies in Zen Buddhism) 83:17-45.

2011. Daijō kaishin kenshō tongo sinshūron no eko bunken ni tsuite: Tokuni Daijō kiseron tono kanren o chūshin ni 『大乘開心顯性頓悟眞宗論』の依據文獻について:特に『大乘起世論』との關連を中心に

(The Documents on Which the Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun Was Based). Komazawa Daigaku Bukkyō Gakubu kenkyū kiyō 駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀要 (Journal of the Faculty of Buddhism of Komazawa University) 69:121-41. Chibetto Bunten Kenkyūkai 西蔵文典研究会, ed. and trans. 1981. Chibetto bunkenn ni yoru Bukkyō shisō kenkyū 西蔵文献による仏教思想研 究 (*Studies in Buddhist Thought by Tibetan Materials), vol. 2, Anne zō “Daijō shōgon kyōron shakusho” Bodaibon 安慧造『大乗荘厳経論釈疏』:菩提品 (*Sthiramati’s Sūtrāla%kārav*ttibhā+ya: Bodhyadhikāra), part. 2. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin 山喜房仏書林. Chikusa Masaaki 竺沙雅章. 2000. Sō-Gen Bukkyō bunkashi kenkyū 宋元仏教文化史研究 (*Study in the History of Buddhist Culture in the SongYuan Periods). Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin 汲古書院.

Deleanu Florin. 2006. The Chapter on the Mundane Path (Laukikamārga) in the “Śrāvakabhūmi”: A Trilingual Edition (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese), Annotated Translation, and Introductory Study. 2 vols. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series, 20. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. Demiévile, Paul. 1954. La Yogācārabhūmi de Sa'gharakṣa. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient 44(2): 339-436. Elverskog, Johan. 1997. Uygur Buddhist Literature. Silk Road Studies I. Turnhaut: Brepols. Fang Guangchang 方廣錩. 1997. Zangwai Fojiao wenxian 藏外佛教文 獻 (*Extra-Canonical Buddhist Texts), vol. 3. Beijing: Zongjiao Wenhua Chubanshe 宗教文化出版社.

Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文. 1972. Yuishikigaku kenkyū 唯識学研究 (*Study in Yogācāra), vol. 1. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō. (1954) Fukihara Shōshin 富貴原章信. 1944. Nihon Yuishiki shisōshi 日本唯識思想史 (*History of Yogācāra Thought in Japan). Kyoto: Taigadō 大雅堂. Hirakawa Akira 平川彰, et al. 1973. Kusharon sakuin 倶舎論索引 (Index to the Abhidharmakośabhā+ya [P. Pradhan Edition]), pt. 1, Sansukuritto go, Chibetto go, Kanyaku taishō サンスクリット語,チベット語,漢譯對照 (Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese). Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan 大蔵出版. Hirano Kenshō 平野顕照. 1984. Kōkyōmon no soshiki naiyō 講経文の組織内容 (*The Structures and Content of Popular Lectures on Sūtras in Dunhuang). In Kōza Tonkō 講座敦煌 (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 7, Tonkō to Chūgoku Bukkyō 敦煌と中国仏教 (*Dunhuang and Chinese Buddhism), 321-58. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社. Hotori Rishō 阿理生. 1992. Indo shoki yuishiki to Daijō kishin ron インド初期唯識と『大乘起信論』(The Early Vijñaptimātravāda in India and the Mahāyānādhimuktyutpāda). Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 40(2): 53-57. Huang Yongwu 黃永武, ed. 1986. Dunhuang yishu zuixin mulu 敦煌遺書最新目錄 (*A Latest Catalogue of Dunhuang Manuscripts). Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐. Ibuki Atsushi 伊吹敦. 1991. Hōnyo-ha ni tsuite 法如派について (On Faru and His Followers). Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 40(1): 110-13.

1992a. Tongo shinshū kongō hannya shugyō tatsuhigan hōmon yōketsu to Kataku Jinne 『頓悟真宗金剛般若修行達彼岸法門要決』と 荷沢神会 (*Dunwu zhenzong jin’gang bore xiuxing dabi’an famen yaojue and Heze Shenhui). In Nihon, Chūgoku Bukkyō shisō to sono tenkai 日本・中国仏教思想とその展開 (*Buddhist Thought in Japan and China and Its Development), 291-325. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin 山喜房仏書林.

1992b. Daijō kaishin kenshō tongo shinshūron no eyō bunken ni tsuite 『大乗開心顕性頓悟真宗論』の依用文献について (The Works on Which the Dasheng kaixin xianxing dunwu zhenzong lun Was Based). Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 41(1): 97-100.

2001. Zen no rekishi 禅の歴史 (*History of Chan). Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法藏館. Kasai Yukiyo 笠井幸代. 2012. The Outline of the Old Turkish Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra. In Dunhuang Studies: Prospects and Problems for the Coming Second Century of Research, 106-111. St. Petersburg: Slavia. Kitsudō Kōichi 橘堂晃一. 2012. The Four Kinds of Wisdom in Old Uyghur Buddhist Terminology. Conference paper presented at Xiyu- Zhongya yu wenxue guoji xueshu yantaohui ણᄽ⎞ˁʑࡍ⣫ߡもણ ⠛ᶇ⤽ሳ (International Symposium on Central Asian Philology). Zhongguo Zhongyang Minzu Daxue 中国中央民族大学 (Minzu University of China). November 23-25, 2012. Retitled as "A Chan School Text in Old Uyghur: Mainz 340" and is forthcoming in the proceedings of the same conference. Kudara Kōgi 百済康義. 1980. Uiguru yaku Myōhō renge kyō gensan ウイグル訳『妙法蓮華経玄賛』(Uigur Translation of the Miao-fa-lian-huajing Xuan-zan), part 1. Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 佛教學研究 (The Studies in Buddhism) 36:49-65.

1983. Myōhō renge kyō gensan no Uiguru yaku danpen 妙法蓮華経玄賛のウイグル訳断片 (*Fragments of a Uighur Translation of the Miaofa lianhua jing xuanzan). In Nairiku Ajia, Nishi Ajia no shakai to bunka 内陸アジア・西アジアの社会と文化 (*Societies and Cultures of Inner and West Asia), 185-207. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha 山川出版社.

1990. Gime Bijutsukan shozō Myōhō rengekyō gensan Uiguru yaku danpen ギメ美術館所蔵『妙法蓮華経玄賛』ウイグル訳断片 (Uigur Fragments of the Miao-fa-lian-hua-jing Xuan-zan Preserved in the Musée Guimet). Ryūkoku kiyō『龍谷紀要』(The Ryukoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences) 12(1): 1-30. McRae, John R. 1986. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism. Studies in East Asian Buddhism, no.3. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Nishiguchi Yoshio 西口芳男. 2000. Shanto 138V Bukkyō mondō to Tongo shinshūron 上図一三八V 仏教問答と『頓悟真宗論』 (A Study of the Dunwu zhenzong lun and the Shanghai Library Ms. 138 verso). Zen Bunka Kenkyūjo kiyō 禅文化研究所紀要 (Annual Report of the Institute for Zen Studies) 25:57-105. Nishiwaki Tsuneki 西脇常記. 2009. Chūgoku koten shakai ni okeru Bukkyō no shosō 中國古典社會における佛教の諸相 (*Various Aspects of Buddhism in the Classical Chinese Society). Tokyo: Chisen Shokan 知泉書館. Ogawa Takashi 小川隆. 2007. Jinne: Tonkō bunken to shoki no zenshūshi 神会:敦煌文献と初期の禅宗史 (*Shenhui: Dunhuang Manuscripts and Early Chan History). Tōdai no zensō 唐代の禅僧 (*Chan Monks of the Tang Period), vol. 2. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten 臨川書店. Okabe Kazuo 岡部和雄. 1980. Zensō no chūshō to gigi kyōten 禅僧の注抄と疑偽経典 (*Commentaries by Zen Monks and Apocryphal Sūtras). In Kōza Tonkō 講座敦煌 (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 8, Tonkō Butten to Zen 敦煌仏典と禅 (*Dunhuang Buddhist Texts and Chan), 335-76. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社. Saitō Tomohiro 齋籐智寛. 2012. Hossōshū no Zenshū hihan to Shindai sanzō: Tonkō monjo Sutain 2546 Myōhō rengekyō gensan shō (gi) to Shindai shamon gyōki 法相宗の禪宗批判と眞諦三藏:敦煌文書スタイン二五四六『妙法蓮華經玄贊鈔(擬)』と『眞諦沙門行記』(The Trepiṭaka Paramārtha and Faxiang Criticism of the Chan School: The Miaofa lianhua jing xuan zan chao (Dunhuang, Stein no. 2546) and the Zhendi shamen xing ji. In Shindai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 眞諦三藏研究論集 (Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha), 303-44. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo 京都大学人文科学研究所. Sakuma Hidenori 佐久間秀範. 1987. “Sanshin” to “gohō”: Ryōsha no ketsugō kankei to sono seiritsu katei <三身>と<五法>—両者の結合関係と その成立過程 (*The ‘Three Bodies’ and the ‘Five Elements’: Their Correspondences and Formative Process). In Indogaku bukkyōgaku ronshū: Takasaki Jikidō hakusi kanreki kinen ronshū インド学仏教学論集:高崎直道博士還暦記念論集 (*Papers on Indian and Buddhist Studies: Festschrift for Dr. Takasaki Jikidō on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Tokyo: Shunjūsha 春秋社.

2002. Chūgoku, Nihon Hossō kyōgaku ni okeru shiki to chi no ketsugō kankei: Fūin sareta dairokusiki → jōshosachi, go genshiki → myōkanzacchi no seitōsei 中国・日本法相教学における識と智の結合関係:封印された第六識→成所作智,五現識→妙観察智の正当性 (*The Correspondences between the Consciousness and Wisdom in Sino-Japanese Faxiang Scholarship: The Legitimacy of the Concealed Model of manovijñāna > k*tyānu+,hānajñāna, pañcavijñāna > pratyavek+a)ājñāna). In Kimura Kiyotaka hakushi kanreki kinen ronshū Higashi Ajia Bukkyō: Sono seiritsu to tenkai 孝 博士還 暦 記 論 集 東アジア仏教:その成 立と展 開 (*Festschrift for Dr. Kimura Kiyotaka on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, East Asian Buddhism: Its Establishment and Developments), 65-86.

2012. Yugagyō Yuishiki shisō towa nanika 瑜伽行唯識思想とは何か (*What is Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda Thought?). In Shirīzu Daijō Bukkyō シリーズ大乗仏教, vol. 7, Yuishiki to yugagyō 唯識と瑜伽行 (*Vijñānavāda and Yogācāra), 19-72. Tokyo: Shunjūsha 春秋社. Schmithausen, Lambert. 1973. Spirituelle Praxis und philosophische Theorie im Buddhismus. Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 3 (73): 161-86.

1976. On the Problem of the Relation of Spiritual Practice and Philosophical Theory in Buddhsm. In German Scholars on India, 235-50. Bombay: Nachiketa Publications. Sekiguchi Shindai 関口真大. 1974. Tendai shōshikan no kenkyū 天台小止観の研究 (A Study of the T‘ient‘ai Siao-Chihkuan). Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin 山喜房仏書林. (1954)

1964. Zenshū shisōshi 禪宗思想史 (A History of Thoughts of the Zen Sect). Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin 山喜房仏書林.

1967. Daruma no kenkyū 達摩の研究 (A Study on Daruma). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店. Shinohara Hisao 篠原壽雄. 1980. Hokushū-zen to Nanshū-zen 北宗禅と南宗禅 (*The Northern School and the Southern School). In Kōza Tonkō 講座敦煌 (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 8, Tonkō Butten to Zen 敦煌仏典と禅 (*Dunhuang Buddhist Texts and Chan), 165-98. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社. Shōgaito Masahiro 庄垣内正弘. 2003. Roshia shozō Uigurugo bunken no kenkyū: Uiguru moji hyōki kanbun to Uigurugo butten tekisuto ロシア所蔵ウイグル語文献の研究:ウイグル文字表記漢文とウイグル語仏 典テキスト (Uighur Manuscripts in St. Petersburg: Chinese Texts in Uighur Script and Buddhist Uighur Texts). Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Daigakuin Bungaku Kenkyūka 京都大学大学院文学研究科 (Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University). Suzuki Daisetz 鈴木大拙. 2000. Zen shisōshi kenkyū 禪思想史研究 (*Study in the History of Chan Thought), no.3. In Suzuki Daisetz zenshū 鈴木大拙全集 3:1-335. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店. (1968) Tanaka Ryōshō 田中良昭. 1969. Tonkōbon Enmyōron ni tsuite 敦煌本「圓明論」について (The Yüan-ming-lun from Tun-huang). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學仏教學研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 18(1): 204-7.

1980. Nenbutsu-zen to kōki Hokushū-zen 念仏禅と後期北宗禅 (*Nianfo Chan and the Late Northern School of Chan). In Kōza Tonkō 講座敦煌 (*Seminar on Dunhuang), vol. 8, Tonkō Butten to Zen 敦煌仏典と禅 (*Dunhuang Buddhist Texts and Chan), 221-42. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社.

1983. Tonkō Zenshū bunken no kenkyū 敦煌禅宗文献の研究 (A Study of Tun-huang Zen Manuscripts). Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社.

1989. Kōchū wayaku Daijō kaishin kenshō tongo shinshūron 校注和訳『大乗開心顕性頓悟眞宗論』 (A Revision with Note and Translation of the Ta-ch‘êng K‘ai-sin hsien-sing tun-wu chên-tsung lun into Japanese). Zaidan hōjin Matsugaoka Bunko kenkyū nenpō 財団法人松ヶ岡文庫研究年報 (The Annual Report of Researches of Matsugaoka Bunko) 3:173-215. Tanaka Ryōshō and Cheng Zheng 程正. 2009. Tonkō Zenshū bunken bunrui mokuroku 敦煌禪宗文獻分類目録:II Goroku rui 語録類 (The Classified Catalogue of Dunhuang Chan Manuscripts: II “Recorded Sayings” of Chan), pt. 1. Komazawa Daigaku Zen Kenkyūjo nenpō 駒澤大學禪研究所年報 (Annual Report of the Zen Institute) 21:280-304.

2010. Tonkō Zenshū bunken bunrui mokuroku 敦煌禪宗文獻分類目録:II. Goroku rui 語録類 (The Classified Catalogue of Dunhuang Chan Manuscripts: II. “Recorded Sayings” of Chan), pt. 2. Komazawa Daigaku Zen Kenkyūjo nenpō 駒澤大學禪研究所年報 (Annual Report of the Zen Institute) 22:350-16.

2011. Tonkō Zenshū bunken bunrui mokuroku 敦煌禪宗文獻分類目録:II. Goroku rui 語録類 (The Classified Catalogue of Dunhuang Chan Manuscripts: II. “Recorded Sayings” of Chan), pt. 3. Komazawa Daigaku Zen Kenkyūjo nenpō 駒澤大學禪研究所年報 (Annual Report of the Zen Institute) 23:252-74. Tanaka Ryōshō, and Okimoto Katsumi 沖本克己, trans. 1989. Daijō butten, Chūgoku Nihon hen 大乘仏典中国・日本篇 (*Mahāyāna Texts from China and Japan), vol. 11. Tonkō 敦煌 (*Dunhuang), pt.2. Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha 中央公論社. Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆. 1975. Bukkyō shiryō to shiteno Kinkoku Daizōkyō: Tokuni Hokusō Shakkyō mokuroku to Tō, Ryō no Yuishiki-shū kankei shōsho ni tsuite 仏教史料としての金刻大蔵経:特に北宋釈教目録と唐・遼の唯識宗関係章疏について (*The Jin Edition of Buddhist Canon as Buddhist Historical Material: Focusing on the Catalogues of Buddhist Texts from the Northern Song and YogācāraRelated Commentaries from the Tang and Liao Periods). Reprint in Tsukamoto Zenryū chosakushū 塚本善隆著作集 (*Collected Works of Tsukamoto Zenryū) 5:93-164. Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha 大東出版社. (1936) Ueyama Daishun 上山大峻. 1976. Chibetto yaku Tongo shinshū yōketsu no kenkyū チベット訳『頓悟真宗要決』の研究 (A Study on the Tibetan Version of Tunwu chên tsung yao chüeh). Zen Bunka Kenkyūjo kiyō 禅文化研究所紀要 (Annual Report from the Institute for Zen Studies) 8:33-103.

1990. Tonkō Bukkyō no kenkyū 敦煌佛教の研究 (*Study in Dunhuang Buddhism). Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法藏館. Ui Hakuju 宇井伯壽. 1939. Zenshūshi kenkyū 禪宗史研究 (*Study in the History of Chan Traditions). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Wang Ding 王丁. 2007. Tulufan chutu de Tangdai weishixue wenxian xiaokao 吐魯番出土的唐代唯識學文獻小考 (*An Examination of the Yogācāra Texts from the Tang Period Excavated in Turfan). Tonkō shahon kenkyū nenpō 敦煌寫本研究年報 (*Annual Memoir of Dunhuang Manuscript Studies) 1: 145-63. Yamabe Nobuyoshi 山部能宜. 1997. An Shigao as a Precursor of the Yogācāra Tradition: A Preliminary Study. In Watanabe Takao kyōju kanreki kinen Bukkyō shisō bunkashi ronsō 渡邊隆生教授還暦記念佛教思想文化史論叢 (Buddhist Thought and History of Buddhist Culture: A Collection of Papers in Honor of Professor Watanabe Takao on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday), 785-826. Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō 永田文昌堂.

2001. Gakkai hōkoku: “Chūgoku ni okeru Yuishiki Bukkyō” shinpojiumu ni sanka shite 学会報告・「中国における唯識仏教」シンポジウムに参加して (Conference Report: Yogācāra Buddhism in China, Leiden, June 8-9, 2000). Bukkyō bunka 佛教文化 (Buddhist Culture) 11: 67-73.

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

2006. Hokushū Zen bunken ni mirareru Yuishiki kyōgi no eikyō 北宗禅文献にみられる唯識教義の影響 (*Yogācāra Elements Found in Some Texts of the Northern School of Chan Buddhism). In Chūgokugaku no jūjiro: Kaji Nobuyuki hakushi koki kinen ronshū 中国学の十字路:加地伸行博士古稀記念論集 (*Crossroads of Chinese Studies: Festschrift for Dr. Kaji Nobuyuki on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday), 571-91. Tokyo: Kenbun Shuppan 研文出版. Yamabe Nobuyoshi, Fujitani Takayuki 藤谷隆之, Harada Yasunori 原田泰 . 2002. Memyō no gakuha shozoku ni tsuite: Saundarananda to Shōmonji no hikaku kenkyū 馬鳴の学派所属について: Saundaranandaと『声聞地』の比較研究 (On the School-Affiliation of Aśvaghoṣa: A Comparative Study of the Saundarananda and the Śrāvakabhūmi), part 1. Bukkyō bunka 佛教文化 (Buddhist Culture) 12: 1-65. Yanagida Seizan 柳田聖山. 1963. Den hōbo ki to sono sakusha: Perio 3559 monjo o meguru Hokushū Zen kenkyū shiryō no sakki, sono ichi 傳法寶紀とその作者:ペリオ三五五九號文書をめぐる北宗禪研究資料の

札記,その一 (On the Ch’uan-fa-Pao-chi and Its Compiler: One of the Earliest of the So-Called “Transmission of the Lamp” Histories of Chiense Zen School). Zengaku kenkyū 禪學研究 (Studies in Zen Buddhism) 53:45-71.

1999. Zen Bukkyō no kenkyū 禅仏教の研究 (*Study in Chan Buddhism). Kyoto: Hōzōkan 法藏館. Zieme, Peter. 2012. Some Notes on Old Uigur Translations of Buddhist Commentaries. Sōka Daigaku Kokusai Bukkyōgaku Kōtō Kenkyūjo nenpō 創価大学・国際仏教学高等研究所・年報 (Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University) 15:147-60.

3 Text, 第六識, but I follow the variant given in the footnote of the Taishō canon. Concerning this and the following variants, see Sakuma 2002, 67. 4 Text, 前五識, but I follow the variant given in the Taishō canon. 5 Text, 意識, but I follow the variant shown in the footnote of the Taishō canon. 6 Text, 五識, but I follow the variant shown in the footnote of the Taishō canon.

7 This passage is based on the Dasheng wusheng fangbian men 大乘無生方便門. See Ibuki 1992b, 97; Cheng 2011, 128. 8 Text, 總持之門. I follow the variant shown in the footnote of the Taishō canon. 9 This passage is also based on the Dasheng wusheng fangbian men. See Ibui 1992b, 97-98; Cheng 2011, 128.