An analysis of a sinitic Mahaayaana phenomenon

·期刊原文
The meaning of "mind-only" (wei-hsin): An analysis of a sinitic Mahaayaana phenomenon
By Whalen Lai
Philosophy East and West
Volume 27 no 1.
January 1977
p. 65-83
(C) by The University Press of Hawaii

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 65

Modern Japanese Buddhologists, following a distinction
that was evident already in the T'ang Buddhist
circles, speak of a Mind-Only (Sanskrit: Cittamaatra)
school usually covering Zen and Hua-yen(a) as being
distinct from, and superior to, the
Consciousness-Only (Sanskrit: Vij~naaptimatra)
tradition, represented by the Wei-shih(b) school
(Fa-hsing(c)) of Hsuan-tsang's(d) followers.(1) This
distinction between the so-called Wei-hsin(e)
(Mind-Only) and Wei-shih (Consciousness-Only) is
often assumed to be self-evident. However, there is,
in Indian Buddhism, only one term, Yogaacaara or
Vij~naaptimatra, covering these two distinct branches
in China. In the Tibetan Buddhist canon also, the
section known as Cittamaatra designates only
Yogaacaara texts. There is no sharp distinction made
in India or Tibet between Cittamaatra and
Vij~naptimaatra, Mind-Only or Consciousness-Only, or,
for that matter, between citta, mind, or
(aalaya) -vij~naana, (storehouse)-consciousness. In
Yogaacaara traditions, citta is often another term
for aalayavij~naana. How is it then that the Chinese
and then the Japanese have this clear notion that
Mind-Only is something other than, and superior to,
Consciousness-Only? In the following article, I will
discuss the meaning of Mind-Only from only one
particular perspective by tracing the roots of the
Zen concept of the Mind being the Buddha-nature. I
will not touch upon the debate between Hua-yen and
Fa-hsian, an ideological conflict that historically
precipitated the Mind-Only versus Consciousness-Only
dichotomy.

Chih-chih-jen-hsin,
Chien-hsing-ch'eng-fo(f).
Point directly to the mind (hsin),
Recognize your (buddha-) nature (hsing) and become
enlightened.

These two lines are often given as two of the four
traits that characterize Ch'an (Zen) Buddhsim in
China.(2) They not only summarize a key outlook in
Ch'an, which is a uniquely Chinese Buddhist sect, but
are the epitome of a key development in Chinese
Buddhist thought as a whetsole.

The association of mind (hsin) and Buddha-nature
(fo-hsing(g), implied in the two epigrams cited, is
virtually accepted by all the Chinese Buddhist
schools. The northern Zen school is said to have
embraced the notion of chi-hsin chi-fo(h), your mind
is Buddha, the southern Zen school is said to embrace
the negative dialectics of wu-hsing wu-fo(i), neither
mind nor Buddha.(3) Their differences aside, mind and
Buddha are seen as affiliates. Both Zen schools
also adhered to the basic Chinese Buddhist doctrine
of chung-sheng chieh-yu fo-hsing(j), all sentient
beings have Buddha-nature. Your mind, your nature is
the source and basis of enlightenment.

T'ien-t'ai(k), Hua-yen, Ching-tu(l) (Pure Land)
all accepted the association of mind with the
universality of Buddha-nature. This association was
so axiomatic

p. 66

that the Fa-hsiang school since, for disclaiming the
doctrine of the universality of Buddha-nature and for
speaking of a deluded aalayavij~naana
(storehouse-consciousness) , had the misfortune of
being labelled as crypto-Mahaayaana or
pro-Hiinayaana.(4) No Indian Buddhists would have
thought of calling Yogaacaara a Hiinayaana school.
T'ien-t'ai, Hua-yen, and Ching-tu all have key creeds
concerning the mind. T'ien-t'ai talks about "the
Three Truths as being of the One Mind": Hua-yen talks
about the "Three Realms as being created by the One
Mind": and the Chin-tu group speaks of the "Three
Mind," the "Attainment of the Mind of Faith in One
Recitation (of Amida's name)," or the "Mind of
Peace."(5) All these creeds contain Chinese Buddhist
elements not totally or immediately reduceable to
purely Indian authenticated scriptural sources.
However, I will limit my discussion to the broader
case of the Zen association of Mind with
(Buddha-)nature. The Indian scriptural basis will be
analyzed. However, it will be demonstrated that the
Ch'an tradition borrowed a Taoist concept of mind,
incorporated the mind-nature (hsin-hsing) association
made by Mencius, and thereby anticipated the
philosophy of Wang Yang-ming(m) in the Ming dynasty.
The structure of analysis is given in Diagram 1.

THE INDIAN CONTRIBUTION TO MIND-ONLY

The qualities (of the things) come into existence
after the mind (lit. the qualities have mind as their
precursor), are dependent upon mind, and are made up
(formed) of mind. If a man speaks or acts with an
evil thought (mind), sorrow pursues him as the wheel
follows the foot of the drought-ox.(6)

So begins the Dhammapada, which emphasizes, in a
kind of"moral idealism," the centrality of the mind.
The same text recognizes the wavering restlessness of
the mind. From an early date, mind or consciousness
is a key object of Buddhist concern, in theory as in
practice. However, the conception of an innately pure
mind (visuddhi cittaprakrti; in Chinese, tzu-hsing
ching-ching hsin(n) ) that appear repeatedly in
Mahaayaana suutras and in Chinese Buddhist writings
is traced back, supposedly, to a sermon ascribed to
Gautama:

....all the component elements...have their support
in the Active Force and Defilements. The Active Force
and Defilements and founded on the Irrational Thought
and the latter has its support in the Innate Pure
Mind. Therefore, it is said: the Mind is radiant by
nature (but it) is polluted by occasional
defilements(7) [aagutakle`sa].

This doctrine of "pure mind" clearly suggests
something very close to the Hindu notion of the
aatman in its essential purity. How the innately pure
mind can be defiled or polluted by accidental
defilements remains a mystery.

In a split second, the good mind is not tainted by
defilements. In another split second, the evil mind
itself too is also freed from being so tainted. It is
a mystery how defilements never touch the mind, how
the mind never affects defilements, and how the mind
which is not affected of [worldly] dharmas can
nevertheless become so tainted.(8)

p. 67

The above description of this mystery of a
pure-yet-tainted mind came from the `Sriimaalaa
suutra, a Mahaayaana suutra of southern Indian origin
produced around 300 A.D. By that time, the innately
pure mind had been associated with a new concept
called the "womb of the Tathaagata (Buddha) , "
tathaagata-garbha. All sentient beings have the
embryonic Buddha inside them. This "womb," acting as
a seed, will flower eventually into enlightenment.
This treasured germ or seed is the subject of
discourse in the Ratnagotravibhaaga
(Pao-hsing-lun)(o), Treatise on the Treasure Nature.
There it is said that not only man possesses the germ
or womb, but the womb also possesses man.

It is said by the (buddha) that all living beings are
always possessed of the (Womb) of the Tathaagata,
Tathaagata-garbha. That is to say, by the following
three meanings (of the term "Womb" or "Store"): (1)
the Absolute Body, Dharmakaaya, of the
Tathagatagarbha penetrates all living beings; (2) the
Tathaagata, being the Reality, tathataa (suchness) is
the undifferentiated whole;

p. 68

and (3) there exists the germ of the Tathaagatagarbha
(Tathaagata-gotra) in every being.(q)

The Ratnagotravibhaaga, being a fifth century A.D.
treatise, had successfully systematized the earlier
notion of the innately pure mind, detailed its
attributes. and magnified its power. The
tathaagatagarbha envelopes or encompasses the whole
world: the implication of a Mind-Only idealism is
already suggested in this text.

Indian Buddhism also had another early tradition
that the Chinese Buddhist tapped for a theory of a
Mind-Only doctrine. In the Praj~naa-paaraamitaa
suutras, we find the mention of the aspiration for
enlightenment (or Buddhahood) , bodhicitta. The
bodhisattva arouses this mind of enlightenment and
directs his whole being toward the attainment of this
enlightenment or wisdom. By the sixth century A.D.,
the Vairocana suutra developed this notion to the
full. The mind, once started off to enlightenment,
cannot backslide any more. Enlighten- ment is
guaranteed. Oriental Buddhists often use the term
p'u-t'i-hsin(p) (bod- hicitta), tzu-hsing ching-ching
hsin (vi`suddhi cittaprakrti) and ju-lai-tsang(q) or
ju-lai-tsang-hsin(r) (tathaagatagarbha) ,
interchangeably. However, Suzuki has realized that
originally "(to arouse) the bodhicitta" meant "(to
cherish) the desire of enlightenment" and not a "(to
possess) a mind of enlightenment" per se.(10)

However, the scriptural source from which the
Chinese produced the term "Wei-hsin" is from a famous
line in the Hua-yen-ching(s) , particularly one
Chinese translation of this stuutra from the Indian
Avata.msaka suutra. The sentence goes "San-chiai
wei-hsin tso(t);"(11) the three realms (of kaama,
desire; of form, ruupa; and the realms beyond form,
aruupa) are of Mind-Only. All realities are of the
Mind-Only. On the basis of this line, the Hua-yen
school historically criticized and defeated the
Fa-hsiang or the Consciousness-Only school in China.
As the Chinese sentence goes and as traditional
Chinese understanding stands. the line suggests that
all realities are created (tso) by the (One, Pure)
Mind. Only recent research into the original Sanskrit
reveals that it was not intended to mean that.

THE CHINESE READING OF THE MEANING OF WEI-HSIN

It was discovered that the word "create" (tso) found
in the Chinese translations was not in the original
Sanskrit. The original Sanskrit, according to Tamaki
Koshiro's investigation, is "Cittamatram idam yad
idam traidhaatuka."(12) It reads more literally, "The
threefold realm /of/ the mind only" or as Hakeda
gives it, "What belongs to this triple world is mind
only. "(13) A Tang translation of Avatamsaka suutra
into Chinese follows this more literal reading and
does not include the word "tso," make, create.(14)
Tamaki concludes that the Chinese interpretation
which sees the worlds as products of the mind is
peculiar to the Chinese and not attested to by either
the Sanskrit or the

p.69

Tibetan.(15) Saigusa Mitsuyoshi in his essay in the
same volume on Hua-yen thought lends support to
Tamaki's observation, for Saigusa discovers that the
so-called "Mind-Only" philosophy was really
tangential to the Avatamsaka suutra.(16)

Furthermore, the realization that the three
worlds are of the mind only comes, according to the
Da`sabhumi(ka) (Ten stages) suutra, to the
bodhisattva upon the sixth stage of his spiritual
ascent. This realization is crucial, though perhaps
not as ultimate as the Chinese made it out to be.
What is realized at this stage of "the open way of
wisdom or `facing' reality (abhimukhii)" is that the
mind and the objects are interdependent. It is clear
from the context of the suutra and from Vasubandhu's
commentary on the passage that the three worlds exist
as "object" because the mind or consciousness
(vij~naana) exists as a "subject."(17) Name-and-form
(naamaruupa) and consciousness (vij~naana) coexist.
In fact, the "unreality" of the three realms
corresponds to a "deluded" mind. It is the desiring,
craving mind that sees the desired three realms. The
realization of this should lead one to put a stop to
the unreal world as well as the deluded consciousness
and thereby transcend the mundane truth to reach the
higher truth. The mind does not create the phenomenon
of desire. Even if there is a subtle relationship
between reality and consciousness, it is clear that
the mind spoken of here is not the "Suchness pure
mind" but the deluded consciousness.(18)

How then did the meaning change from "The three
[illusory] worlds are of the [deluded] consciousness"
to "The three worlds are created by the [true] mind"?
The dearest turning point can be located in
Hui-yuan(u). Hui-yuan explicitly states that "The
three worlds are created by the true mind,
chen-hsin(v) ."(19) Hui-yuan's statement became
definitive. For Hui-yuan, the true mind (chen-hsin)
is none other than the true consciousness
(chen-shih(w) ) that is, the alayavij~naana, or
storehouse consciousness. This identification of hsin
and shih was challenged later.

The concept of the storehouse consciousness as
the most basic consciousness is a key component of
the Yogaacaara philosophy. Yogaacaara philosophy
looked deeply into the workings of the human psyche.
According to its tenets, beyond the five senses (or
consciousnesses) there are the still deeper
consciousnesses of (a) the mental center, (b) the
ego-consciousness and (c) the eighth and last -- the
storehouse consciousness. The mental center, somewhat
like our notion of the brain, collects and integrates
the separate impressions received by the five senses
and produces what amounts to a mental image of an
entity. However, Buddhism is not satisfied with an
analysis of the cognitive process up to this point.
Buddhism believes that there is neither a permanent
subject called "I" nor a permanent object called a
thing. The false conception of "I" and "It" as if
they are two entities came from a deeper
psychological source in the seventh consciousness or
ego-consciousness. This ego-center creates the false
sense of the subject and the object, partly because
of ignorance and partly

p. 70

because of habitual ways of thought, that is,
conceptual thinking, that it had inherited from past
experiences. Finally, as a kind of reservoir into
which all impressions/ conceptions are deposited is
the storehouse consciousness, aalayavij~naana. The
aalayavij~naana is the most basic consciousness.
Hui-yuan, a famous master, identified the true mind
with this true consciousness. His scheme was like
this:

8th consciousness the chen-hsin (true Mind), aalayavij~naana
7th consciousness the deluded ego-consciousness (aadaanavi-
j~naana) or false mind (wang-hsin(x))
6th consciousness the deluded intent (i(y))
Five senses the deluded senses or consciousness
(shih)(20)

His interpretation was not the only one. In fact, it
is more standard to refer to the eighth as mind hsin
(citta, for aalayavij~naana) , the seventh as
intention, i, (manas) and the rest as consciousnesses
shih (vij~naanas).(21) Hui-yuan, however, was a very
influential thinker at the time, and his
interpretation of the Hua-yen suutra became the
orthodox pronouncement: the Three Realms are solely
created by the True Mind.

Another crucial scripture that lent itself to the
Chinese interpretation of Wei-hsin (Mind-Only) is the
Lankaavataara suutra. D. T. Suzuki has made a thorough
and commendable study of this work. He has actually
used the term "Cittamaatra" to describe its contents,
and associated the La^nkaavataara suutra's position
with the later Zen philosophies in China.(22)

According to Suzuki, one of the key contributions
of the suutra lies with its notion of "revulsion,"
parav.rtti, a sudden turnover in the seventh
consciousness, manas. The manas, as said before, is
the ego-consciousness that produced the illusion of
the subject and the object and therefore the
subject-object dichotomy. A sudden.turn in this
psychic center will revert illusion into
enlightenment that transcends that dichotomy.

Manas is conscious of the presence behind itself of
Alaya and also the latter's uninterrupted working in
the entire system of the Vij~naanas. Reflecting On
the AAlaya and imagining it to be an ego, Manas cling
to it as if it were reality and disposes of the
reports of the six Vij~naanas [the five senses and
the mental center] accordingly. In other words, Manas
is the individual will to live and the principle of
discrimination. The notion of an ego-substance is
herein established and also the acceptance of a
world external to itself and distinct from itself.
(23)

A sudden "conversion" in the manas "purifies" the
manas and liberates the aalayavij~naana, which up to
this moment has been tainted by defilements and
trapped in ignorance. Suzuki then describes the
transformation that takes place.

Let there be, however, an intuitive penetration into
the primitive purity (prakritipari`suddhi) of the
Tathaagatagarbha, and the whole system of the
Vij~naanas goes through a revolution.(24)

p. 71

The "primitive purity" mentioned here
(prakritipari`suddhi) is a synonym to the "innate
purity" of the "(innately pure) mind," which is the
tathaagatagarbha. The revulsion lets the innate
purity reveal itself. The discussion above is
summarized in Diagram 2.

Diagram 2. The Yogacara Psychology (simplified)

A. The five The first The The The
sense-fields 5 consciousnesses 6th 7th 8th

B. 1. form  1. eye-conscious.
2. sound  2. ear-conscious. Mental Ego- Store-
3. smell  3. nose-conscious. Center consci- house
4. taste  4. tongue-consci. ousness consci-
5. touch  5. body-conscious. ousness

p. 72

G. Enlightened State:

Attainment of enlightenment, purification of the
senses, seeing things "as they are": impermanent,
selfless, there is "neither the 'I' nor the 'It

Since the aalayavij~naana up to the moment of
revulsion has been accompanied by defilements in an
essential (and not an accidental) way, Chinese
scholars have at times elevated the tathaagatagarbha
above the aalayavij~naana. The tathaagatagarbha is
essentially pure; it is the Pure Mind, or the True
Mind. The aalayavij~naana is the impure consciousness
or the deluded consciousness.(25)

The Chinese find justification of this
distinction between Mind (hsin) and Consciousness
(shih, implying the aalayavij~naana) in one line in
the Bodhirucitranslated La^nkaavataara suutra. The
lines say:

The tathaagatagarbha is not within the
aalayavij~naana, for whereas the seven vij~naanas go
through rise and fall (sa.msaara) , the
tathaagatagarbha is beyond life and death
(sa.msaara).(26)

The passage seems to support the claim that whereas
the various consciousnesses are tied to the
phenomenal world of change and illusion, the
tathaagatagarbha alone is immutable, is above change,
and is the absolute (Dharmakaaya) . However,
throughout the La^nkaavataara suutra, the
aalayavij~naana always has been identified with the
tathaagatagarbha.(27) (The suutra is the scripture in
which the aalayavij~naana and the tathaagatagarbha
traditions -- up till then apparently separated from
one another by their northern and southern origins --
came together for the first time.)(28) The cited
passage actually mentioned only the seven vij~naanas
as mutable, making no mention of the eighth, that is,
the aalayavij~naana. It is very possible that the
passage only says that the
aalayavij~naanaqua-tathaagatagarbha is beyond life
and death--not in the sense of nirvaa.na, but in the
sense that both are substratum to the "rise-and-fall"
of the active seven consciousnesses.(29)

The Sanskrit version of the La^nkaavataara
suutra's passage as compiled by Nanjo Bunyu gives,
not surprisingly:

aparaav.rtte ca tathaagatagarbha`sabdasam `sabdita
aalayavij~naane naasti saptaavaa.m
prav.rttivij^nanaa.m nirodha.h. "In the
aalayavij~naana that is not [yet] revulsed and that
is called the tathagatagarbha, there is no cessation
of the seven active consciousnesses."(30) [Italies
added.]

One would like to ask then: what repeatedly motivated
Bodhiruci and the Chinese Buddhist thinkers to posite
a Pure Mind above a yet imperfect aalayavij~naana,
storehouse consciousness? One possible answer is the
Chinese association of Buddha-nature with Mind and
principle.

THE CONJUNCTION OF MIND, NATURE, AND PRINCIPLE IN THE
NIRVAA.NA SCHOOL

The Chinese infatuation with a "pure core-self" is
understandable and perhaps even legitimate. A basic
axiom in the Chinese understanding of Mahaayaana is

p. 73

that Mahaayaana supports a theory of the universality
of Buddha-nature. The phrase "chung-sheng chieh-yu
fo-hsing" (all sentient beings have Buddha-nature)
had been on the tongues of the Chinese Buddhists
since the fifth century when the Mahaaparinirvaa.na
suutra was translated by Dharmak.sema and made
available to the southern gentry Buddhists. This
suutra pronounced the above-mentioned doctrine, and,
in one of its many speculations on the seat of this
Buddhanature, placed it in the mind or the innately
pure mind. The Mind is Buddhanature. Given this
doctrine in an authentic scripture, it is not
surprising that Chinese Buddhists felt the need to
assert a Pure Mind, qua Buddha-nature, qua Suchness
(tathataa) qua tathaagatagarbha above the lesser
understanding of those who followed a doctrine of a
phenomenal aalayavij~naana as the deluded or tainted
consciousness. If this is the case, then Mind-Only
doctrine was not a Chinese innovation but, as many
would argue, represents a better understanding of
Consciousness-Only (that is, Yogaacaara).

However, the issue is somewhat complicated by
certain factors: (1)it has been shown that the term
fo-hsing, Buddha-nature, has been a rather free
translation of terms in Sanskrit; (2) in the process
of using the term fo-hsing, the Chinese leaned toward
an ontological reading that aligned it with the
absolute in a noncausative context; and (3) Mencian
and Taoist motifs have been incorporated in the
process. Since the issues here are fairly involved
and would demand a treatment more detailed than
possible at present, I will focus primarily on the
Chinese proclivity for fo-hsing as defined by a
metaphysical principle, li, and as identified with
the mind. However, the other issues will also be
briefly touched upon.

It would appear that the choice of the word
"hsing" (nature) in the translation process was
influenced by the popularity of this term in Chinese
philosophical usage, especially that of Mencius who
argued ably that the nature (hsing) of man is good.
The original Sanskrit terms corresponding to the
Chinese "hsing" is generally either gotra, meaning
"seed," or garbha, meaning "womb."(31) Both of these
Sanskrit terms have been encountered already in
previous discussions. Gotra appeared in the title of
the Ratnagotravibhaaga, Treatise on the Treasured
Seed (the Chinese, however, have translated it as
Pao-hsing-lun, Treatise on the Treasured Nature).
Garbha appears in the term tathaagatagarbha. womb of
the Tathaagata, which Chinese usually translated
properly with ju-lai-tsang, the "store" (tsang) of
the Thus-come (ju-lai). The original Sanskrit of
"fo-hsing" actually corresponds to Buddha-garbha,
Buddha-womb, a synonym of tathaagatagarbha. It is
either a stroke genius, poetic license, or
misappropriation that the choice of "fo-hsing" to
translate Buddha-womb or -seed from the original
Sanskrit was made.(32)

Be that as it may, the term fo-hsing, like the
English term Buddha-nature. suggests an ontological
essence more than a tem like Buddha-womb or
Buddha-seed would. By its very connotation, fo-hsing
as used by the Chinese Buddhists implied an almost
aatman-like quality. Although the Mahaaparinirvaa.na
suutra

p. 74

itself had been known to have been highly "Hinduized"
in outlook, yet repeatedly the suutra took care to
define the attribute of Buddha-womb or -seed as the
"seed or the cause (hetu) leading towards
enlightenment."(33) Buddha-nature, strictly speaking,
has a dynamic or latent characteristic pointing
toward eventual enlightenment. A key passage in the
Mahaaparinirvaa.na suutra illustrates best its more
basic usage:

[Buddha-nature is the seed leading to
enlightenment].... the cause is the twelve chains of
causation, the cause of cause is wisdom, the result
is the highest enlightenment and the result of result
is the great final liberation.(34)

Following this fourfold classification, Chinese
Buddhist scholars of the Nirvaa.na school had, not
unfaithfully, spoken of Buddha-nature in terms of
"basic cause," "auxiliary cause," "result cause," and
"result of result cause."(35) In other words,
Buddha-nature, seen as a cause (hetu) to
enlightenment, was defined within a causative scheme
and not as an ontologically a priori reality. Man has
Buddha-nature, that is, a seed that can flower in
time to become enlightenment, but man as such is not
already a Buddha. The Zen phrase,
chien-hsing-ch'eng-fo, recognize your nature and
become enlightened -- immediately -- is not
applicable to the original setting in the
Mahaaparinirvaa.na suutra. In the suutra, buddhahood
is potentiality, not actuality. In order that the
mature Zen position could be, a subtle change in the
understanding of fo-hsing is required. This change
was applied by a group of radical sinitic figures,
who associated Buddha-nature with li(2), Principle, a
word closely associated with Tao.

The usage of li began probably very early; it
played a central role in the thought of Chih-tun(aa);
it was inherited by the first expert in the Nirvaa.na
school, Tao-sheng(ab). However, the Buddhist monk who
truly identified Buddhanature with li was Fa-yao(ac)
who utilized the concept of li that was earlier
favored by the subitists Tao-sheng and Chih-tun.
Fa-yao defined the Buddhanature as the "principle
(li) by which sentient beings become
enlightened."(36) Fa-yao came after the "sudden
versus gradual" enlightenment debate between
Tao-sheng and Hui-kuan(ad) . In associating
Buddha-nature with li, the One absolute, he drew upon
the tradition of the subitists. In underlining the
idea "become," he endorsed the position of Hui-kuan.
Fa-yao synthesized both extremes and was possibly
influenced by the `Sriimaalaa suutra.(37) He
articulated a theory of the Buddha-nature that is
uniquely Chinesein flavor:

Sentient beings have the principle by which to become
enlightened.
The Buddha-nature's principle will ultimately be used
(yung(ae), functioned) by the mind, despite the fact
that [the mind] is being hidden by defilements People
who receive the teaching hear of the doctrine of the
Buddha-nature and attain faith-understanding
[adhimukti]. This is because there is already this
superior principle inside them which allows them to
attain extraordinary insight.

The permanent principle being manifested, one knows
the meaning of the teaching previously revealed.

p. 75

A grand-disciple of Fa-yao, Seng-tsung(af), gave even
more radical expression to the relationship between
li and the Buddha-nature in man:

The Buddha-nature is li, principle.
The essence-principle (hsing-li(ag) ,
nature-principle) never varies; it only differs in
the degree of manifestation.
To be one with the principle is the dharma that
transcends the world.
The principle of the Buddha-nature lies at the heart
of all transformations and is beyond life and death
(sheng-mieh(ah), sa.msaara) itself.
The essence-principle is permanent, and it is only
hidden because sentient beings are deluded.
Not part of matter the principle: is beyond all form
or color.(39)

In most of the passages cited above, the word "Tao"
can easily be substituted for "li." Like the Tao, li
is the absolute principle behind, in, or above
phenomenal changes. The Buddha-nature defined in
terms of li is, therefore, an essential, transcendent
entity, and, unlike the Sanskrit gotra or hetu, it is
a priori, perfect, and complete.

Chi-tsang(ai) (A.D. 549-623) of the San-lan
school was alert to this innovative use of the term
li by Seng-tsung.

This interpretation [by Seng-tsung that identifies
Buddha-nature with the principle] is most ingenious
but it is not based on proper lineage transmission.
It is important that all doctrines have traceable
roots. I would like to know on what suutra and on
whose authority is the theory that "the
Buddha-principle is the basic cause of Buddha-nature"
based?(40)

T'ang Yung-t'ung(aj) commented on Chi-tsang's
observation:

This passage [from Chi-tsang] is most noteworthy.
This is because the Chou I(ak) (I Ching, Book of
Changes) had the idea of "exhausting the principle
(li) and fulfilling one's nature (hsing)." In the
Chin period, the philosophers based themselves on
this tradition and used the word "li" to designate a
thing's essence. Among the Buddhist scholars like
Tao-sheng, the term was also appropriated. With
Fa-yao, the use of the term was developed and quite a
few followed in his tradition....This development is
extremely significant in the history of Chinese
thought and demands investigation.(41)

Actually the association of li and hsing by Fa-yao
and Seng-tsung anticipated the Neo-Confucian
"hsing-li" philosophy of Chu Hsi (A.D. 1130-1200).

Equally, if not more, important is the Buddhist
association of hsing (nature) and hsin (mind), which,
in turn, anticipated the development in Wang
Yang-ming. The choice of the word fo-hsing has been
influenced, no doubt, by Mencian usage. Mencius in
his own writings has aligned hsing and hsin,
especially in the chapter on Chin-hsin(al) ,
Exhausting or developing to full the mind: "To
exhaust one's mind is to know one's nature."(42) It
would not be surprising to find therefore that the
Buddhists in the fifth and sixth centuries, probably
under Mencian influence, picked out selectively the
Mahaaparinirvaa.na suutra's idea of the Innately Pure
Mind and developed various theories of mind as the
Buddha-nature, Tang Yung-t'ung has looked into this
issue in some detail.

p. 76

so I will only cite the key personages (a clear
majority) who held a theory of a mind-nature
identity:(43)

Pao-liang(am) The innately pure mind is the Buddha-nature
Liang Wu-t'i(an) The spirit or mind is Buddha-nature
Fa-yun(ao) The tathaagatagarbha's impulse to desire
bliss and avoid suffering is the Buddha-nature
Fa-an(ap) The indestructable mind that transmigrates
is the Buddha-nature
Ti-lun(aq) masters The aalayavij~naana pure mind is Buddha-nature
She-lun(ar) masters The untainted, amalavij~naana, is Buddha-nature

The choice of the mind as the abode of Buddhahood is
natural because of the long tradition of hsin-related
speculations in China. Hsin is so central a word that
a whole section of Chinese vocabulary has it as a
radical. The same could hardly be said of the word
shih, consciousness. The triumph in China of hsin
(citta) over shih (vij~naana) (almost synonymous in
India) is "fated."

THE ULTIMATE CHINESE SOURCE OF THE MIND-ONLY
PHILOSOPHY: CHUANG-TZU

Yet more important than the Mencian idea of a moral
mind is perhaps Chuang tzu's(as) notion of a mystical
mind, the Hsu-ming ling-chueh hsing(at), the vacuous,
luminous, spirited, alert mind. Chuang-tzu (between
399 and 295 B.C.) was a philosopher keenly aware of
the workings of the mind. He described the "scheming,
plotting, restless mind" of the "little man" or the
"everyday man."(44) He was acutely aware of the
tension between the self and objects and is reputed
to have propounded the final dissolution of self and
object, identifying the two as one. On the one hand,
he was the poet of despair, lamenting the
corruptibility of the mind that decays along with the
body. On the other hand, he was the euphoric dreamer
of roving cosmic freedom, the fantasy-builder of of
the immortal hsien(au) tradition.

I shall quote a line from T'ang Chun-i's(av)
study of the concept of mind in Chuang-tzu to
illustrate a point:

The mind discovered by Chuang-tzu is the mind that
has momentarily ceased to respond to external matters
and ceased to acknowledge outside affairs. This mind
has turned inward upon itself and come to recognize
its own [absolute, independent] existence as
such.(45)

As Chung-tzu lamented the mind that was bewildered by
and drawn into the interchanging colors of the world
outside, he also celebrated this discovery of a
luminous, spirited mind. This self-sufficient mind is
compared to a mirror that shines forth in a strange
"dark" light, illuminating passively without
beholding consciously either self or object.(46) It
is precognitive as well as supracognitive. It is this
mystical concept of mind that influenced much of
Chinese spiritualism. The Chinese Buddhists merely
inherited this tradition and blended it wth the
Indian understanding.

In constrast to the Indian Buddhist tradition,
which went into elaborate details in its analysis of
the mind, its functions, and the various aspects and

p. 77

levels of consciousnesses, the Chinese concept of
mind remained comparatively compact.(47) What
is often differentiated in the Yogaacaara philosophy
remains undifferentiated in the Chinese scheme. For
example, the aalayavij~naana (store-house
consciousness) is largely a repository of biijas,
(seeds). The aalayavij~naana does not cognize objects
nor itself, since the discriminative
(subject-object) knowledge, based on a false sense of
self-nature (svabhaava) applied to self and others,
"resides" with the seventh vij~naana, the manas. In
normal everyday cognition, (false) self and (false)
object exist interdependently; the five senses (first
five consciousnesses) and their corresponding
sense-realms "feed" on each other. To attain wisdom,
the ideal is to put an end to this endless flow of
impressions from without and misguided habitual
thinkings from within. The cessation of "subject" and
"object" is therefore desirable for an enlightenment
into the anaatman insight. Compared with this Indian
scheme, Chuang-tzu's concept of mind has a certain
charming simplicity. Hsin (mind, heart) is
"precognitive" in its pristine state,
"object-cognitive" through its involvement with the
world of objects, and "transcognitive" or
self-enlightened when it returns to its roots. It
includes within itself functions that the Yogaacaara
philosophy would delegate to the manas (hsin, like
manas, can cognize itself and objects) and perhaps
the manovij~naana (hsin, like manovij~naana,
synthesizes the impressions received by the senses).

Here we find an element in the Chinese notion of
Mind that is decidedly foreign to the Yogaacaara
tradition in India, but which is precisely the
distinguishing mark of `Sa^nkara's Vedaanta. The
Yogaacaara philosophy is an epistemological
philosophy analyzing how knowledge comes to be. In
denying a notion of the aatman, self, Yogaacaara only
affirms the process of knowing but denies the
existence of a knower (since the knower, like the
known, is an interdependent false construct). A
natural or logical question -- not necessarily a
proper question--then is: who or what knows the
knowledge? or is the subject-object knowledge (of
things) immediately self-conscious or known (that is,
it knows its own knowing)? `Sa^nkara solved this key
problem in Yogaacaara epistemology ("Who knows
knowing?") by positing the aatman as the self that
knows (reality) and knows that it knows. The self is
both the knower (of things) and the self-knower; it
cognizes objects just as it also witnesses its own
existence. `Sa^nkara's notion of the self is what
Paul Hacker has characterized as the lumen
intellectuale, and it corresponds to Chuang-tzu's
notion of the absolute, vacuous, mysteriously alert,
self-knowing mind. The direct parallel to `Sa^nkara's
aatman would be the Chinese notion of shen-ming(aw)
(the luminous and enlightened spirit) used by one
member of the Nirvaa.na school Emperor Wu of the
Liang dynasty.

The Taoist concept of mind is therefore more
monistic, comprehensive. Subject and object are not
denied but positively affirmed in the Taoist theory
of "equalization of all things." The Taoist mind is
even free from the paradox of the Indian concept of
the Innately Pure Mind mysteriously polluted by ac-

p. 78

cidental defilements. The Taoist mind is, when
compared with the aalayavij~naana, more "active" and
can know itself. It is noumenal and pure.

The Chinese association of mind with nature
(Mencian in inspiration: "To exhaust the mind is to
know one's nature") and mind with the absolute
(Chuang-tzu's transcendental mind) is what was
responsible for the Chinese selective and creative
reading of comparable (though never exactly the same)
concept of mind (that is, the innately pure mind) in
Indian Buddhist thought. It is also responsible for
the Chinese discriminative distinction of the
tathaagatagarbha (ju-lai-trang hsin) from the less
perfect aalayavij~naana. The emergence of a Mind-Only
philosophy was then propelled by such native
predispositions and considerations. The subtle
transformation of Buddha-seed or -womb from the
original Sanskirt in the Mahaaparinirvaa.na suutra,
through the translated form of fo-hsing
(Buddha-nature), to the notion of a nature associated
with li, Principle, meant the absolutization of this
Buddha-essence into an a priori, full-grown entity.
Thus, for example, the term li-fo-hsing(ax) was used
in the circle of Hui-yuan.(48) Thus, too, the term
chen-ju-fo-hsing(ay),(49) thusness Buddha-nature or
thusness as Buddha-nature, was used by Pao-liang. The
structure of the conceptual relationship that emerged
then within the Nirvaa^na school was something like
the following:

A naive reading of this triad or correlationships
into Sanskrit would yield:

However, as we have seen, the structure is more
Sinitic than Indian. The absolute phrased in terms of
li, recalls the Tao, and even the Chinese choice of
the term chen-ju is very likely under the influence
of the Taoist notion of tzu-jan(az), "naturalness,"
The implicit structure is therefore this:

p. 79

The Zen identification of mind, (Buddha)-nature
and Buddhahood in the line "Point directly to the
mind, recognize your nature and become enlightened"
(with which we began our discussion on Mind-Only)
would follow from the. `triad' structure explained
earlier. The northern Zen school, as depicted in the
Platform Sutra, is said to insist on wiping the dust
off the mirror (the mind). In so insisting, it still
retained somewhat the early Buddhist notion of a
"radiant mind polluted by accidental defilements."
The southern Zen school seems to follow more
faithfully the notion of mind discovered by
Chuang-tzu: an innately pure, vacuous, radiant mind
without any defilements, shining forth like the light
from a candle. This Sinitic divergence eventually
precipitated the conflict in Lhasa, Tibet.(50)

Summing-Up

The "Mind-Only" philosophy in Chinese Buddhism
asserts that the Mind is immediately Buddha and that
it even "creates" all phenomena. This philosophy is a
uniquely Chinese development. The Indian Buddhist
philosophy generally holds the opinion that the
illusion of the world corresponds to a deluded,
tainted consciousness, seldom ever asserting that the
phenomenal world and the mind are "by nature" good.
For inheriting the more Indian position, the school
of Hsuan-tsang known as Wei-shih, or
Consciousness-Only, was attacked and erased in T'ang
China. To the Chinese Buddhists who opposed
Hsuan-tsang, the latter's idea of the aalayavij~naana
("tainted consciousness") was not yet the "final" or
"ultimate" spiritual core. There was a higher. purer,
and absolute mind without even the accidental
defilements (aagutakle`sa). That mind was seen as
superior to the storehouse-consciousness. It then
followed that "Mind-Only" was also, superior to
"Consciousness-Only." The Chinese then created a
distinction that did not exist in Indian Yogaacaara
and that was only vaguely suggested by the Indian
scriptural traditions. The present essay's rather
involved arguments can be summed up in the following:

p. 81

Notes

1. The term "Mind-Only" (in Japanese, yuishin) had
become popularly used probably after Murakami
Senjo's(bb) modern reclassification of the various
Buddhist schools in the Meiji period. However,
historically, the category was implicit in
Fa-tsang's(ho) understanding of the Hua-yen
suutra, and his elevation of the "tathaagatagarbha
causation" school above the Wei-shih fa-hsiang
school, the Consciousness-Only school of
Hsuan-tsang (T. 44, 243b). For a fuller discussion
on the historical aspects of this issue, see my
"The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana: A Study of
the Unfolding of Sinitie Mahayana Motifs," (Ph. D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 1975).

2. The full four lines describing the essence of Zen,
as translated in Heinrich Dumoulin's A History of
Zen Buddhism (Boston: Beacon press, 1963), p. 67,
are:

A special tradition outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing at the soul of man;
Seeing into one's own nature, and the attainment of
Buddhahood.

The verse is attributed to Nan-chuan P'u-yuan
(748-834); see ibid., p. 299.

3. The distinction is more subtle than that presented
here, but for brevity's sake, I follow Fung
Yu-lan(bd) in his Chung-kuo che-hsueh shih(be)
(Shanghai: Shang Wu Press, 1934). The book is
incompletely translated in the Buddhist section by
Derk Bodde as A History of Chinese Philosophy
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1952-1953); see ibid., pp. 388-406.

4. This opinion created in China is still repeated
today; see for example, Takakusu Junjiro,
Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy (Honolulu,
Hawaii: University of Hawaii, 1947), p. 82: "For
several reasons this school is considered to be
still within the range of the formalistic,
realistic Hinayana. It aims at an analysis of the
phenomenal world, and is called Quasi-Mahayana."

5. The Hua-yen school's concept of mind will be
explained in the essay. The T'ien-t'ai school's
concept was based on a liberal reading of the
Ta-chih-tu-lun(bf) (Mahaapraj~naaparamitaa sastra
ascribed to Naagaarjuna) by Chih-i(bg); see Leon
Hurvitz, "Chih-i," Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques
12 (Brussels, 1960-1962), p. 274, footnotes 2, 3.
The Ching-tu school took the notion of the "Three
Mind" from the Amida-meditation suutra (commonly
referred to as the Kuan-ching(bh)); see Jodo
sanbukyo(bi), trans. Nakamura Hajime(bj) et al.
(Tokyo: Iwanami, 1963) , 2. p. 63. On the
metamorphosis of the Sanskrit term
ekacittaprasanna into the Chinese popular reading
of it as i-nien hsin-hsin(bb), see Fujita Kotatsu,
Genshi Jodo shiso no kenkyuu(bl) (Tokyo, Iwanami
1970), pp. 576-618. The term "an-hsin(bm)," mind
of peace, assurance and repose, is not
"scriptural," but it played an important role in
Zen and Pure Land schools; see Mochizuki
Shinko(bn) ed. Bukkyo Daijiten(bo) (Tokyo,
1909--1916), 1, pp. 82b-83b.

6. Dhammapada, trans. P. L. Vaidya (Poona, 1934), p.
53.

7. Passage cited by Takasaki Jikido. "A Study of
the Ratnagotravibhaga (Uttara-tantra), " Serie
orientale roma 33 (Rome, 1966), p. 240 from the
Anguttara Nikaaya, I, 5, 9-10 and elsewhere; see
vol. 1, p. 10 of the Anguttara Nikaaya in the
Paali Text Society's translation,

8. My translation from the Chinese in T. 12, p.
222b. The `Sriimaalaa suutra has been translated
into English by Alex and Hideko Wayman as The
Lion's Roar of Queen `Sriimaalaa (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1974); see p. 106.

9. Passage cited in Takasaki Jikido, op. cit., p.
198; see a similar passage from the Chinese
Fo-hsing-lun(bp) in T. 31, p. 796a.

10. In his early work, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism
(1907) , Suzuki followed the traditional and
natural Chinese reading and interpreted
p'u-t'i-hsin (bodhicitta) substantively as the
mind of enlightenment. In his later study on the
Ga.ndavyuha, after a diligent study of the
Sanskrit phrases "amuttaraayaa^m samyak sa^mbodhan
cittasya utpaa.h" and "cittotpaada," he came to a
different conclusion and was able to correct the
traditional Chinese and Japanese understanding of
fa p'u-t'i-hsin(bq) as "awakening the mind of
enlightenment," that is, the misconception that
"there is a special mental equality to be called
"enlightenment-mind'.... or that this mind itself
is enlightenment. "Suzuki was able to show that
the "cherishing the desire for enlightenment"
marks the beginning of the career of a
bodhisattva's compassion and wisdom, but that this
act is nothings like the instant attainment of
Buddhahood that oriental Buddhists had made it out
to be. Suzuki, who himself came out of the Mind-Only
tradition and misread the meaning in 1907, gave us
personally and in critical scholarship

p. 82

an insight into the problem I am addressing. See D.
T. Suzuki, "The Ga.n.davyuha," in his On Indian
Mahayana Buddhism ed. Edward Conze (New York: Harper
and Row., 1968), pp.208-211.

11. Bodhiruci was largely responsible for this
translation, see T. 26. p. 169a; T. 9, p. 558c:
T. 10, p. 514c.

12. Tamaki Koshiro, "Yuishin no tsuikyuu(br)," Kegon
Shiso(bs), ed. Nakamura Hajime (Kyoto, 1960), pp.
345-356.

13. Hakeda Yoshito, trans.. The Awakening of Faith
Attributed to Asvaghosa (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967), p. 49, in the inserted
note within his translation.

14. See Tamaki. ibid.. p. 358. and the T'ang
translation of the same line in T. 10, p. 194a.
p. 533a. Tso was dropped. but one (Mind)' was
added in the T'ang version: "What the three
worlds possess, is One Mind only."

15. Tamaki, ibid., p. 359.

16. See Saigusa. "Engi to yuishin(bt)," Kegon Shiso,
pp. 201-273.

17. See T. 26, p. 169b.

18. Tamaki, however, reverses his own critical
finding and rationalizes or defends the
traditional Mind-Only position but the argument,
in my judgment, is apologetic instead of truly
concrete; Tamaki, op. cit., pp, 345-356.

19. T. 44, p. 527b.

20. See Fukaura Seibun, Yuishiki gaku kenkyuu(bu)
(Kyoto: Nagato Bunshodo, 1954), 1, pp. 188-208.

21. See note in Hakeda, op. cit., p, 47.

22. Suzuki, Studies in the La^nkaavataara Suutra
(London: R. Routledge and Sons, 1930).

23. Suzuki, trans., The La^nkaavataara Suutra
(London: R. Routledge and Sons, 1956), p. xiii.

24. Ibid,, p. xxvi.

25. Traditionally it is said that there were three
main positions held in China during the Sui-T'ang
period concerning the status or nature of the
aalayavij~naana: Bodhiruci and Ratnamati held the
view that it is pure, Paramartha proposed a
theory of a mixed (true-and-false)
aalayavij~naana, while Hsuan-tsang supported a
theory of a "deluded" aalayavij~naana. The
ideology-free description of the nature of the
aalayavij~naana has been given in lucid Chinese
by Shih Yin-shun(bv), I fo-fa yen- chiu fo-fa(bw)
(Taiwan, 1961), pp. 301-361.

26. My translation from the Chinese version that came
from the hands of Bodhiruci; see T. 16. p. 556bc.

27. Ibid.

28. Takasaki, op. cit., p. 198.

29. The aalayavij~naana, being a depository of
"seeds" and a reservoir of past and present
impressions, does not actively participate in the
rising and falling" stream of consciousness.

30. I am indebted to Masatoshi Nagatomi for finding
and pointing out as well as for the translation
of the passage in Nanjo Bunyu. ed.. The
La^nkaavataara Suutra Gombun Nyuryorakyo (Kyoto:
Otani University Press, 1956).

31. See Ogawa Ichijo, Nyoraizo, Bussho no Kenyuu(bx)
(Kyoto, 1969) pp. 43 68.

32. See my "The Awakening of faith in Mahayana," pp.
102-106. The etymology of the Chinese word "hsing"
as "what pertains to birth" justifies eventually
the ingenious choice of fo-hsing to trans late
buddha-garbha or gotra.

33. See T. 12, p. 538c and passim.

34. T. 12. p. 524a.

35. See T. 37, pp. 547b, 548b.

36. T'ang Yung-t'ung. Han Wei liang Nan-pei-ch;ao
Fo-chiao-shih, (Shanghai: Shang Wu Press. 1939).
p. 679.

37. Fa-yao, according to the Kao-seng-chuan(by), was
one of the first to specialize on the `Srimala
sutra.

38. T'ang, ibid., pp. 687 688.

39. Ibid. p. 688.

40. Ibid., p. 698.

41. Ibid., p. 690.

42. Mencls. 7.A.l.

43. T'ang, ibid., pp. 681 712.

p. 83

44. Chuang-tzu, 2.

45. T'ang Chun-i, Chung-kuo che-hsueh yuan lun(bx)
(Hong Kong: Now Asia College Press, 1966), 1,
p.102.

46. Ibid.

47. "Compact" is used in opposition to
"differentiated, " following the sociological
usage in, for example, Robert Bellah's article
"Religious Evolution," in his Beyond Belief (New
York: Harper and Row 1970).

48. T'ang Yung-t'ung, Fo-chiao-shih, p. 716.

49. Ibid., pp. 680, 698-699.

50. Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism met in a
controversy in Tibet; see Paul Demieville's
classic, Le concile de Lhasa (Paris: Impr.
nationale de France, 1952) or short excerpt in
Edward Conze, ed., Buddhist Scriptures
(Middlesex; Penguin, 1959), pp. 214-217. The
Chinese held that there was a "pure, a priori,
Buddha-nature mind without klesa (defilements)
requiring only immediate recognition."