View source for East Asian Yogācāra

{{Short description|East Asian traditions representing the Yogachara school of Buddhism}}
{{Chinese Buddhism}}
{{Japanese Buddhism}}

'''East Asian Yogācāra''' refers to the [[Mahayana]] Buddhist traditions in [[East Asia]] which developed out of the [[History of Buddhism in India|Indian Buddhist]] [[Yogachara|Yogācāra]] (lit. "yogic practice") systems (also known as ''Vijñānavāda'', "the doctrine of consciousness" or ''Cittamātra'', "mind-only"). In [[East Asian Buddhism]], this school of Buddhist [[idealism]] was known as the "'''Consciousness-Only school'''" ({{cjkv|t=唯識宗|p=Wéishí-zōng|r=Yuishiki-shū|k=유식종}}).

The 4th-century brothers, [[Asanga|Asaṅga]] and [[Vasubandhu]], are considered the classic founders of Indian Yogacara school.<ref name=":11">Siderits, Mark, ''Buddhism as philosophy'', 2017, p. 146.</ref> The East Asian tradition developed through the work of numerous Buddhist thinkers working in Chinese. They include [[Bodhiruci]], [[Ratnamati]], Huiguang, [[Paramartha|Paramārtha]], [[Jingying Huiyuan]], [[Zhiyan]], [[Xuanzang]] and his students [[Kuiji]], [[Woncheuk]] and [[Dōshō]].

The East Asian consciousness only school is traditionally seen as being divided into two main groups. There are the "Old Translation 舊譯 (''Jiù yì'')" or "Ancient Vijnaptimatra 唯識古學 (''Wéishí gǔxué'')" schools, which refers to the earliest traditions to develop in China prior to Xuanzang, primarily the Dilun and Shelun, which heavily blends [[buddha-nature]] thought with Yogācāra. The other branch is the "New Translation 新譯 (''Xīn yì'')" or "Contemporary Vijnaptimatra 唯識今學 (Wéishí jīnxué)" Schools, which refers specifically to the tradition of Xuanzang and tends to focus much more strictly on mainstream Yogācāra philosophy following the Indian master [[Dharmapala of Nalanda|Dharmapala]].<ref name=":25">{{Cite book |last=Yang |first=Weizhong |title=中国唯识宗通史 |publisher=凤凰出版社 |year=2008 |isbn=9787806439593 |location=China |publication-date=2008 |pages=1–15 |language=Zh |trans-title=Complete History of Yogacara in China}}</ref>

==Names==
In [[Chinese Buddhism]], the overall Yogācāra tradition is mostly called ''Wéishí-zōng'' ({{cjkv|t=唯識宗|r=Yuishiki-shū|k=유식종}}, yusik) which is a translation of the [[Sanskrit]] {{Lang|sa-Latn|Vijñānavādin}} ("cognition only", "mere consciousness"). The consciousness-only view is the central philosophical tenet of the school which states that ontologically there are only ''[[vijñāna]]'' (consciousness, mental events).

Yogācāra may also be referred to as ''Yújiāxíng Pài'' (瑜伽行派), a direct translation of the Sanskrit term Yogācāra ("Yogic praxis").

The term ''Fǎxiàng-zōng'' ("dharma characteristics", {{cjkv|t=法相宗|r=Hossō-shū|k=법상종}}) was first applied to a branch of Yogacara by the [[Huayan]] scholar [[Qingliang Chengguan|Chengguan]], who used it to characterize the teachings of the school of [[Xuanzang]] and the ''[[Cheng Weishi Lun|Cheng Wei Shi Lun]]'' as provisional, dealing with the characteristics of phenomena or [[dharma]]s. As such, this name was an outside term used by critics of the school, which eventually was adopted by Weishi nevertheless. Another lesser known name for the school i''s Yǒu Zōng'' ({{lang|zh|有宗}} "School of Existence"). [[Yin Shun]] also introduced a threefold classification for Buddhist teachings which designates this school as ''Xūwàng Wéishí Xì'' ({{lang|zh|虛妄唯識系}} "False Imagination Mere Consciousness System").{{sfn|Sheng-yen|2007|page=13}}

In opposition to the "Dharma characteristics" view, the term Dharma nature school (''Fǎxìng zōng'', 法性) is used to refer to a form of Yogācāra which blends Yogācāra with [[buddha-nature]] (tathagatagarbha) thought, especially with the doctrines of texts like the ''[[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana|Awakening of Faith]].'' This term would include schools like Dilun, Shelun, [[Zen|Chan]], and [[Huayan]], who affirm basic Yogācāra principles like mind-only, while also promoting metaphysical views which are not strictly compatible with orthodox Yogācāra.<ref name=":5" />

==Characteristics==
{{main|Yogācāra|Eight Consciousnesses}}{{multiple image
| width             = 140
| image1            = Muchaku Hokuendo Kofukuji 2.jpg
| image2            = Seshin (Unkei) Hokuendo Kofukuji.jpg
| footer            = [[Asaṅga]] (left) and [[Vasubandhu]] statues at [[Kofuku-ji]]
}}
Like the Indian parent Yogācāra school, the East Asian Weishi tradition teaches that reality is only consciousness, and rejects the existence of mind-independent objects or matter. Instead, Weishi holds that all phenomena (dharmas) arise from the mind. In this tradition, deluded minds distort the ultimate truth, and project false appearances of independent subjects and objects (which is termed the imagined nature).{{sfn|Tagawa|2014|p=1–10}}

In keeping with Indian Yogācāra tradition, Weishi divides the mind into [[Eight Consciousnesses]] and the Four Aspects of Cognition, which produce what we view as reality. The analysis of the eighth, the ālayavijñana, or store-consciousness (阿賴耶識) which is at the root of all experience, is a key feature of all forms of Weishi Buddhism. This root consciousness is also held to be the carrier of all karmic seeds (種子). A disintct teaching of the Faxiang School is that of three kinds of cognitive objects innovated by Xuanzang 唯識三類境 (''Wéishí sān lèi jìng''). Another central doctrinal schema for the Weishi traditions is the schema of [[Yogachara#The Three Natures and Emptiness|the three natures]] (三性).

The central canonical texts of Weishi Buddhism are the classic Indian sutras associated with Yogācāra, such as the ''[[Sandhinirmocana Sutra|Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra]]'' and the ''[[Ten Stages Sutra|Daśabhūmikasūtra]],'' as well as the works associated with [[Maitreya]], [[Asanga]] and [[Vasubandhu]], including the ''[[Yogācārabhūmi-Śāstra|Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra]]'', ''[[Mahāyānasaṃgraha]]'', ''[[Viṃśatikā-vijñaptimātratāsiddhi|Viṃśatikā]],'' [[Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā|''Triṃśikā'']], and the ''Xianyang shengjiao lun'' (顯揚聖教論, T 1602.31.480b-583b).<ref>Schmithausen, Lambert. 1987. ''Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogâcāra Philosophy.'' Tokyo:          International Institute for Buddhist Studies. ''Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series.'' IV</ref>

Besides these Indic works, the ''[[Cheng Weishi Lun]]'' (成唯識論'', The Demonstration of Consciousness-only'') compiled by Xuanzang is considered the central work of the tradition, which is generally studied alongside the three commentaries of Kuiji, Huizhao, and Zhizhou known as the Three Commentaries on Weishi 唯識三個疏 (''Wéishí sān gè shū).''

There are different sub-sects of the East Asian Weishi, including the early schools such as Dilun and Shelun, the school of Xuanzang, as well as Korean and Japanese branches of Weishi.

==History in mainland Asia==
Translations of Indian Yogācāra texts were first introduced to China in the early fifth century.{{sfn|Paul|1984|page=6}} Among these was [[Guṇabhadra (Buddhist monk)|Guṇabhadra]]'s translation of the ''[[Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra]]'' in four fascicles, which would also become important in the early history of [[Chan Buddhism]]. Another early set of translations where two texts by [[Dharmakṣema]] (Ch: Tan Wuchen 曇無讖; 385–433): the ''Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra'' (''Pusa di chi jing'' 菩薩地持經; ''Stages of the Bodhisattva Path''), and the ''Bodhisattva [[Pratimokṣa|Prātimokṣa]]'' (which contains excerpts from the [[Yogācārabhūmi-Śāstra|''Yogācārabhūmi'']]).<ref>Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', p. 4. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref> Soon following the first traditions of Chinese Yogacara formed, the Dilun (''[[Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra|Daśabhūmika]]'') and Shelun (''[[Mahāyānasaṃgraha]]'') schools which flourished during the Northern and Southern Dynasties to the early Tang before being eclipsed by Xuanzang's new translation school.

== Old Translation Schools ==
The earliest Yogacara traditions were the Dilun (''[[Daśabhūmikasūtra-śāstra|Daśabhūmika]]'') and Shelun (''[[Mahāyānasaṃgraha]]'') schools, which were based on Chinese translations of Indian Yogacara treatises. The Dilun and Shelun schools followed traditional Indian Yogacara teachings along with [[Buddha-nature|tathāgatagarbha]] (i.e. buddha-nature) teachings, and as such were really hybrids of Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha.<ref name=":0" /> While these schools were eventually eclipsed by other Chinese Buddhist traditions, their ideas were preserved and developed by later thinkers, including the Korean monks [[Woncheuk]] ({{circa|613}}–696) and [[Wonhyo|Wohnyo]], and the patriarchs of the [[Huayan]] school like [[Zhiyan]] (602–668), who himself studied under Dilun and Shelun masters and [[Fazang]] (643–712).<ref name=":72">King Pong Chiu (2016). ''Thomé H. Fang, Tang Junyi and Huayan Thought: A Confucian Appropriation of Buddhist Ideas in Response to Scientism in Twentieth-Century China,'' p. 53. BRILL.</ref>

===Dilun school===
The Dilun or Daśabhūmikā school ([[Sanskrit]]. {{Lang-zh|c=地論宗|p=di lun zong}}, "School of the Treatise on the Bhūmis") was a tradition that derived from the translators [[Bodhiruci]] (Putiliuzhi 菩提流支; d. 527) and [[Ratnamati]] (Lenamoti 勒那摩提; d.u.). Both translators worked on Vasubandhu's ''Shidijing lun'' (十地經論, Sanskrit: {{Lang|sa-Latn|*Daśabhūmi-vyākhyāna}} or {{Lang|sa-Latn|*Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra}}'', "Commentary on the [[Ten Stages Sutra|Daśabhūmikasūtra]]"''), producing a translation during the [[Northern Wei]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Muller |first=A.C. |title=Quick Overview of the Faxiang School 法相宗 |url=http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/schools/faxiang.html |access-date=2023-04-24 |website=www.acmuller.net}}</ref><ref name=":2">Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', p. 6. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref>

[[Bodhiruci]] and Ratnamati ended up disagreeing on how to interpret Yogacara doctrine and thus, this tradition eventually split into northern and southern schools. During the [[Northern and Southern dynasties|Northern and Southern Dynasties era]] this was the most popular Yogacara school. The northern school followed the interpretations and teachings of [[Bodhiruci]] (6th century CE) while the southern school followed Ratnamati.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2" /> Modern scholars argue that the influential treatise called the ''[[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana|Awakening of Faith]]'' was written by someone in the northern Dilun tradition of Bodhiruci.<ref>Jorgensen, John; Lusthaus, Dan; Makeham, John; Strange, Mark, trans. (2019), ''Treatise on Awakening Mahāyāna Faith'', New York, NY: Oxford University Press, in Introduction (pp. 1–10).</ref> Ratnamati also translated the ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'' (究竟一乘寶性論 Taisho no. 1611), an influential buddha-nature treatise.<ref name=":42">Brunnhölzl, Karl (2015). ''When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra'', p. 94. Shambhala Publications. {{ISBN|978-0-8348-3010-3}}</ref> [[File:Northern_and_Southern_Dynasties_3.png|thumb|Status of China during the [[Northern and Southern dynasties|Northern and Southern Dynasties era]]]]
According to Hans-Rudolf Kantor, one of the most important doctrinal differences and points of contention between the southern and northern Dilun schools was "the question of whether the [[Ālayavijñāna|ālaya-consciousness]] is constituted of both reality and purity, and is identical with the [[Luminous mind|pure mind]] (Southern Way), or whether it comprises exclusively falsehood, and is a mind of [[Kleshas (Buddhism)|defilements]] giving rise to the unreal world of sentient beings (Northern Way)."<ref>Kantor, Hans-Rudolf. [https://philpapers.org/archive/KANPAO-2.pdf "Philosophical Aspects of Sixth-Century Chinese Buddhist Debates on "Mind and Consciousness""], pp. 337–395 in: Chen-kuo Lin / Michael Radich (eds.) ''A Distant Mirror Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism''. Hamburg Buddhist Studies, 3 Hamburg: Hamburg University Press 2014.</ref>

According to Daochong (道寵), a student of Bodhiruci and the main representative of the northern school, the storehouse consciousness is not ultimately real and [[buddha-nature]] is something that one acquires only after attaining Buddhahood (that is, the storehouse consciousness ceases and transforms into the buddha-nature). On the other hand, the southern school of Ratnamatiʼs student Huiguang (慧光) held that the storehouse consciousness was real and synonymous with buddha-nature, which is immanent in all sentient beings like a jewel in a trash heap. Other important figures of the southern school were Huiguangʼs disciple Fashang (法上, 495–580), and Fashangʼs disciple [[Jingying Huiyuan]] (淨影慧遠, 523–592). This school's doctrine was later passed on to the [[Huayan]] school via [[Zhiyan]].<ref>Muller, Charles. [http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?57.xml+id(%27b5730-8ad6-5b97%27) 地論宗 School of the Treatise on the Bhūmis (2017), Digital Dictionary of Buddhism.] http://www.buddhism-dict.net</ref>

An important founding figure of the southern Dilun, Huiguang (468–537) was the leading disciple of Ratnamati, who composed various commentaries, including: ''Commentary on the Ten Grounds Sutra'' (十地論疏 (Shidilun shu), ''Commentary on the Flower Garland Sutra'' (華嚴經疏 Huayanjing shu), ''Commentary on the Nirvana Sutra'' (涅槃經疏 Niepanjing shu) and ''Commentary on the Sutra of Queen Srimala'' (人王經疏 Renwangjing shu).

=== Shelun school ===
During the sixth century CE, the Indian monk and translator [[Paramartha|Paramārtha]] (Zhendi 真諦; 499–569) widely propagated Yogācāra teachings in China. His translations include the ''[[Sandhinirmocana Sutra|Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra]]'', the ''[[Madhyanta-vibhaga-karika|Madhyāntavibhāga-kārikā]]'', the ''[[Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā]]'', [[Dignāga|Dignāga's]] ''Ālambana-parīkṣā'' (''Wu xiang si chen lun'' 無相思塵論), the ''[[Mahāyānasaṃgraha]]'' and the ''Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī'' (Juedingzang lun 決定藏論; a part of the a Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra).<ref name=":2" />{{sfn|Paul|1984|page=32-33}} Paramārtha also taught widely on the principles of Consciousness Only, and developed a large following in southern China. Many monks and laypeople traveled long distances to hear his teachings, especially those on the ''Mahāyānasaṃgraha''.{{sfn|Paul|1984|page=32-33}} This tradition was known as the Shelun school (摂論宗, ''Shelun zong'').<ref name=":1">Keng Ching and Michael Radich. [https://www.academia.edu/39730891/Keng_Ching_and_Michael_Radich_Param%C4%81rtha_Brills_Encyclopedia_of_Buddhism_Volume_II_Lives_edited_by_Jonathan_A_Silk_editor_in_chief_Richard_Bowring_Vincent_Eltschinger_and_Michael_Radich_752_758_Leiden_Brill_2019 "Paramārtha." ''Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Volume II: Lives''], edited by Jonathan A. Silk (editor-in chief), Richard Bowring, Vincent Eltschinger, and Michael Radich, 752-758. Leiden, Brill, 2019.</ref>

The most distinctive teaching of this school was the doctrine of the "pure consciousness" or "immaculate consciousness" (''amalavijñāna'', Ch: ''amoluoshi'' 阿摩羅識 or ''wugou shi'' 無垢識).<ref name=":22">Radich, Michael. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20140107130546/http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/134689/1/41_45.pdf The Doctrine of *Amalavijnana in Paramartha (499-569), and Later Authors to Approximately 800 C.E.]'' ''Zinbun'' 41:45-174 (2009) &nbsp;Copy &nbsp;BIBT<sub>E</sub>X</ref><ref name=":43">{{Cite web |title=amalavijñāna - Buddha-Nature |url=https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Key_Terms/amalavij%C3%B1%C4%81na |access-date=2022-11-27 |website=buddhanature.tsadra.org}}</ref><ref name=":33">Lusthaus, Dan (1998), Buddhist Philosophy, Chinese. In: ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', p. 84. Taylor & Francis.</ref> Paramārtha taught that there was a pure and permanent (''nitya'') consciousness that is unaffected by [[Duḥkha|suffering]] or [[Kleshas (Buddhism)|mental afflictions]], is not a basis for the defilements (unlike the ''[[Eight Consciousnesses|ālayavijñāna]]''), but rather is a basis for the noble path (''āryamārga'').<ref name=":22" /> Thus, the immaculate consciousness is the purifying counteragent to all the defilements.<ref name=":22" /> According to Paramārtha, at the moment of enlightenment, one experiences a "transformation of the basis" (''āśrayaparāvṛtti'') which leads to the cessation of the storehouse consciousness, leaving only the immaculate consciousness.<ref name=":22" />  Some texts attributed to Paramārtha also state that the [[Three natures|perfected nature]] (''pariniṣpannasvabhāva'') is equivalent to the ''amalavijñāna.<ref name=":22" />'' Furthermore, some sources attributed to Paramārtha also identify the immaculate consciousness with the "innate purity of the mind" (prakṛtiprabhāsvaracitta), which links the idea with the doctrine of [[Buddha-nature|Buddha nature]].<ref name=":22" />

== Xuanzang's New Translation school ==
[[File:Xuanzang_route.jpg|thumb|A map of India showing [[Xuanzang]]'s travel routes throughout the subcontinent]]
[[File:Xuanzang w.jpg|thumb|Xuanzang transporting the scriptures]]

By the time of [[Xuanzang]] (602–664), Yogācāra teachings had already been propagated widely in China, but there were many conflicting interpretations among the different schools. At the age of 33, Xuanzang made a dangerous journey to India in order to study Buddhism there and to procure Buddhist texts for translation into Chinese.{{sfn|Liu|2006|p=220}} He sought to put an end to the various debates in Chinese consciousness-only Buddhism by obtaining all the key Indian sources and receiving direct instruction from Indian masters. Xuanzang's journey was later the subject of legend and eventually fictionalized as the classic Chinese novel ''[[Journey to the West]]'', a major component of East Asian popular culture from [[Chinese opera]] to Japanese television (''[[Monkey (TV series)|Monkey Magic]]'').

Xuanzang spent over ten years in India traveling and studying under various Buddhist masters.{{sfn|Liu|2006|p=220}} These masters included [[Śīlabhadra]], the abbot of the [[Nalanda|Nālandā Mahāvihāra]], who was then 106 years old.<ref>Wei Tat. ''Cheng Weishi Lun.'' 1973. p. li</ref> Xuanzang was tutored in the Yogācāra teachings by Śīlabhadra for several years at Nālandā. Upon his return from India, Xuanzang brought with him a wagon-load of Buddhist texts, including important Yogācāra works such as the ''[[Yogacarabhumi-sastra|Yogācārabhūmi-śastra]]''.{{sfn|Tagawa|2014|p=xx-xxi}} In total, Xuanzang had procured 657 Buddhist texts from India.{{sfn|Liu|2006|p=220}} Upon his return to China, he was given government support and many assistants for the purpose of translating these texts into [[Chinese language|Chinese]].

As an important contribution to East Asian Yogācāra, Xuanzang composed the treatise ''[[Cheng Weishi Lun]]'', or "Discourse on the Establishment of Consciousness Only."{{sfn|Liu|2006|p=221}} This work is framed around [[Vasubandhu]]'s ''[[Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā]]'' ("Thirty Verses on Consciousness Only") but it draws on numerous other sources and Indian commentaries to Vasubandhu's verses to create a doctrinal summa of Indian consciousness only thought.{{sfn|Liu|2006|p=221}} This work was composed at the behest of Xuanzang's disciple Kuiji, and became a central representation of East Asian Yogācāra.{{sfn|Liu|2006|p=221}} Xuanzang also promoted devotional meditative practices toward [[Maitreya]] [[Bodhisattva]].

Xuanzang's disciple [[Kuiji]] wrote a number of important commentaries on the Yogācāra texts and further developed the influence of this doctrine in China, and was recognized as the second ancestor of the school, who closely guarded the teachings of Xuanzang from deviation.{{sfn|Yang|2008|p=565}} His ''Cheng weishi lun shuji'' (成唯識 論述記; Taishō no. 1830, vol. 43, 229a-606c) is a particularly important text for the Weishi school.<ref name="Lusthaus, Dan 2007">Lusthaus, Dan (undated). ''Quick Overview of the Faxiang School'' ({{lang-zh|s=法相宗|labels=no}}). Source: [http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/schools/faxiang.html] (accessed: December 12, 2007)</ref>

After Kuiji, the second patriarch of the Weishi school was Hui Zhao. According to A.C. Muller "Hui Zhao 惠沼 (650–714), the second patriarch, and Zhi Zhou 智周 (668–723), the third patriarch, wrote commentaries on the ''Fayuan yulin chang'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the ''Madhyāntavibhāga''; they also wrote treatises on Buddhist logic and commentaries on the ''Cheng weishi lun''."<ref name=":0" /> Four generations after Xuanzang, the transmission of the school is considered to have ceased with the last known member of the lineage being Yizhong

Another important figure is [[Yijing (monk)|Yijing]] 義淨 (635–713), who traveled to India in imitation of Xuanzang. He translated several works of Vinaya, as well as Yogācāra commentaries by [[Dharmapala|Dharmapāla]] on Dignāga's ''[[Ālambana-parīkṣā]]'' and on Vasubandhu's ''[[Viṃśatikā-vijñaptimātratāsiddhi|Viṃśikā]]''.<ref name="Makeham, John p. 9">Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', p. 9. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref>

=== Wŏnch'ŭk's school and Korean Yogācāra ===
While the lineage of Kuiji and Hui Zhao was traditionally considered the "orthodox" tradition of Xuanzang's school, there were also other lineages of this tradition which differed in their interpretations from Kuiji's sect.<ref name=":8">{{cite journal|doi=10.1353/jkr.2020.0000 |title=Sthiramati, Paramārtha, and Wŏnhyo: On the Sources of Wŏnhyo's Chungbyŏn punbyŏllon so |date=2020 |last1=Moro |first1=Shigeki |journal=Journal of Korean Religions |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=23–43}}</ref> Perhaps the most influential heterodox group was a group of Yogācāra (Korean: Beopsang) scholars from the Korean [[Silla|Silla kingdom]], mainly: [[Woncheuk|Wŏnch'ŭk]], Tojŭng, and Taehyŏn (大賢).<ref name=":8" />

Wŏnch'ŭk (圓測, 613–696) was a Korean student of Xuanzang as well as a disciple of the Shelun master Fachang (567–645).<ref name=":9">[https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/People/W%C7%92nch%27%C7%94k Wŏnch'ŭk] in [http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27 ''The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism'', 996–97.] Princeton University Press, 2014.</ref> He composed various texts, including ''Haesimmilgyǔng so'' (C. ''Jieshenmi jing shu''), an influential commentary to the ''Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra'' which was even translated to Tibetan and is known as the "Great Chinese Commentary" to Tibetans. This work later influenced Tibetan scholars like Tsongkhapa.<ref name=":9" />

Wŏnch'ŭk's interpretations often differ from that of the school of Xuanzang and instead promotes ideas closer to those of the [[#Early traditions (Dilun and Shelun)|Shelun school]]{{Broken anchor|date=2025-08-03|bot=User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration|target_link=#Early traditions (Dilun and Shelun)|reason= The anchor (Early traditions (Dilun and Shelun)) [[Special:Diff/1171689868|has been deleted]].|diff_id=1171689868}}, such as the doctrine of the "immaculate consciousness" (''amalavijñāna'') and the idea that the ''ālayavijñāna'' was essentially pure.<ref name=":9" /> Due to this, Wŏnch'ŭk's work was criticized by the disciples of Kuiji.<ref name=":12">Buswell, Robert E. (2004). ''Encyclopedia of Buddhism'', 'Wŏnch'ŭk', p. 903. Volumes 1,2. Macmillan Reference.</ref> Wŏnch'ŭk's tradition came to be known as the Ximing tradition (since he resided at Ximingsi monastery), and it was contrasted with Kuiji's tradition, also called the Ci'en tradition after Kuiji's monastery at Da Ci'ensi.<ref name=":12" />

While in China, Wŏnch'ŭk took as a disciple a Korean-born monk named Tojŭng ({{cjkv|c=道證}}), who travelled to [[Silla]] in 692 and propounded and propagated Woncheuk's exegetical tradition there where it flourished. In Korea, these Beopsang teachings did not endure long as a distinct school, but its teachings were frequently included in later schools of thought and also studied by Japanese Yogācāra scholars.{{sfn|Tagawa|2014|p=xx-xxi}}

Another influential figure in Korean Yogācāra is [[Wonhyo|Wŏnhyo]] (元曉 617–686). While he usually seen as a Huayan scholar, he also wrote many works on Yogācāra and according to Charles Muller "if we look at Wŏnhyo's oeuvre as a whole, along with accounts of his life, his involvement in Yogācāra studies looms large, and in fact, in terms of sheer quantity, forms the largest portion of his work."<ref name=":10">Muller, A. Charles. "Introduction: Yogācāra Studies of Silla." ''Journal of Korean Religions'' Vol. 11, No. 1 (April 2020): 5–21 6 2020 Institute for the Study of Religion, Sogang University, Korea.</ref> His work was influential on later Chinese figures like Fazang.<ref name=":10" />

=== Dharma characteristics vs Dharma nature debates ===
[[File:Fazang, buddhist Monk, Japanese print, 13th century.jpg|thumb|The [[Huayan]] scholar [[Fazang]] was known for defending the positions of the earlier "dharma nature" schools and the ''Awakening of Faith'', and for critiquing the school of Xuanzang on various points.]]
With the rise of other Sinitic Mahayana schools to prominence, like [[Huayan]] and [[Chan Buddhism|Chan]], the Yogacara tradition of Xuanzang came under some doctrinal criticism.<ref name=":5">Hamar, Imre, 2007. "A Huayan Paradigm for the Classification of Mahāyāna Teachings: The Origin and Meaning of Faxingzong and Faxiangzong." In Imre Hamar, ed. ''Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism''. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 195–220.</ref> Sinitic schools like Huayan were influenced by the [[buddha-nature]] and [[Ekayāna|ekayana]] (one vehicle) teachings, especially the doctrines of the ''[[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana|Awakening of Faith]]''. They were thus connected with the teachings of the Dilun and Shelun schools.<ref name=":72"/> As such, their doctrines differed in significant ways from that of the school of Xuanzang.<ref name=":5" />

The scholars of the Huayan school like [[Fazang]] (643–712), [[Qingliang Chengguan|Chengguan]] (738–839), and [[Guifeng Zongmi|Zongmi]] (780–841), critiqued the school of Xuanzang, which they termed "Faxiang-zong" (dharma-characteristics school, a term invented by Chengguan), on various points.<ref name=":6">Gregory, Peter N. ''Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism,'' p. 189. University of Hawaii Press, 2002.</ref><ref name=":5" /> A key contention was that Xuanzang's school failed to understand the true Dharma-nature (Ch: fa-xin, [[Tathātā|dharmata]] or [[Tathātā|tathata]], i.e. the buddha-nature, the one mind of the ''Awakening of Faith''), even if they did understand the nature of dharmas (fa-xiang).<ref name=":5" /> According to Dan Lusthaus, "This distinction became so important, that every Buddhist school originating in East Asia, including all forms of Sinitic Mahayana, viz. [[Tiantai]], Hua-yen, Ch'an, and [[Pure Land Buddhism|Pure Land]], came to be considered Dharma-nature schools."<ref>Lusthaus, Dan. ''Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch ' eng Wei-shih lun,'' p. 372. London: Routledge Curzon, 2002.</ref>

The Huayan school sees the Dharma nature as dynamic and responding to conditions (of sentient beings), it also sees the Dharma nature (the buddha-nature, [[Hongaku|original enlightenment]]) as the basis and source of [[Saṃsāra|samsara]] ''and'' [[nirvana]].<ref name=":5" /> As such, Huayan scholars like Zongmi critiqued the view of the Xuanzang "Faxiang" school which held that the Dharma nature ([[Tathātā|suchness]]) was "totally inert" and "unchanging" in favor of the view found in the ''Awakening of Faith'' which sees the one mind (the dharma nature) as having ''both'' an unconditioned and a conditioned aspect. This conditioned aspect of the dharma nature is an active and dynamic aspect out of which all pure and impure dharmas arise.<ref name=":6" /> As Imre Hamar explains:<blockquote>The issue at stake is the relationship between the Absolute and phenomena. Is the tathata, the Absolute, [[Pratītyasamutpāda|dependent arising]], or is it immovable? Does the Absolute have anything to do with the phenomenal world? According to the interpretation of the final teaching of Mahayana (i.e. Faxingzong), the Absolute and phenomena can be described with the 'water and wave' metaphor. Due to the wind of ignorance, waves of phenomena rise and fall, yet they are not different in essence from the water of the Absolute. In contrast with this explanation, the elementary teaching of Mahayana (i.e. Faxiangzong) can be presented by the metaphor of 'house and ground' . The ground supports the house but is different from it.<ref name=":5" /> </blockquote>Another key distinction and point of debate was the nature of the [[Eight Consciousnesses|alayavijñana]]. For Xuanzang's school, the alayavijñana is a defiled consciousness, while the so-called "Dharma-nature" position (following the ''Awakening of Faith'') is that the alaya has a pure untainted aspect (which is buddha-nature) as well as an impure aspect.<ref name=":5" />

The schools which were more aligned with the "Dharma-nature" position (like Huayan, [[Tiantai]] and Chan) also affirmed the ultimate truth of the one vehicle, while the Xuanzang school affirms the difference among the three vehicles.<ref name=":5" /> They also reject Xuanzang's view that states that there is a certain class of very deluded beings called [[icchantika]]s who can never become Buddhas.<ref name=":5" /> The Xuanzang school also maintained the [[Yogachara#Five Categories of Beings|Five Natures Doctrine]] ({{lang-zh|t=五性各別|s=五性各別|p=wǔxìng gèbié|w=wu-hsing ko-pieh}}) which was seen as provisional and as being superseded by the one vehicle teaching by schools like Huayan and Tiantai.

=== Decline ===
[[File:Leshan giant buddha.jpg|thumb|The [[Leshan Giant Buddha|Giant Buddha of Leshan]], a monumental example of Maitreya devotion. The inscription on this statue states: "Due to the faith in the cause of the future, we erect the statue of Maitreya; we, the humble ones, will go through all the kalpas and engage in the training infinitely" (由是崇未來因，作彌勒像，俾前劫後劫，修之無窮).<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Jingjing Li |date=2018 |title=Traversing China for the Forgotten Pure Land of Maitreya Buddha |url=https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/traversing-china-for-the-forgotten-pure-land-of-maitreya-buddha/ |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=Buddhistdoor Global}}</ref> ]]
After the fourth patriarch, the influence of the school of Xuanzang declined, though it continued to be studied at certain key centers, such as [[Chang'an]], [[Mount Wutai|Mt. Wutai]], [[Zhengding County|Zhendingfu (now)]] [[Shijiazhuang]]), and [[Hangzhou]].<ref name=":3">Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', p. 10. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref> The Weishi (consciousness-only) school survived into the Song and Yuan dynasties, but as a minor school with little influence.<ref name=":3" /> However its texts have remained important sources for the study of Yogācāra thought down to today.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3" />

The Xuanzang school's influence declined due to competition with other Chinese Buddhist traditions such as [[Tiantai]], [[Huayan]], [[Chan Buddhism|Chan]] and [[Pure Land Buddhism]]. Nevertheless, classic Yogācāra philosophy continued to exert an influence, and Chinese Buddhists of other schools relied on its teachings to enrich their own intellectual traditions.{{sfn|Tagawa|2014|p=xx-xxi}}<ref name="Makeham, John p. 9"/>

An important later figure associated with Yogācāra studies was the syncretic [[Chan Buddhism|Chan]] scholar monk [[Yongming Yanshou]] (904–975), who wrote the ''Record of the Source Mirror'' (宗镜录) that extensively discusses Yogācāra.<ref>Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', pp. 10-11. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref>

Other Yogācāra teachings remained popular in Chinese Buddhism, such as devotion to the [[bodhisattva]] [[Maitreya]] (who was associated with the tradition and is seen as the founder of Yogācāra). Various later Chinese figures promoted Maitreya devotion as a [[Pure Land Buddhism|Pure Land]] practice and as a way to receive teachings in visions.<ref name=":4" /> [[Hanshan Deqing]] (1546–1623) was one figure who describes a vision of Maitreya.{{sfn|Hanshan Deqing|1995}}

== Ming Dynasty Yogacara Revival ==
By the [[Ming dynasty]], through the turbulence of [[Yuan dynasty]] and its fall, Yogacara studies had entered an unprecedented period of stagnation. Whilst [[Xuanzang|Xuanzang's]] lineage had long since ceased to be in the [[Tang dynasty]], the texts and commentaries of his disciples were still in circulation until sometime in the Yuan dynasty. But by the time Ming scholars turned their focus to Yogacara, even these commentaries had been lost and Yogacara came to be seen as an extinct discipline.<ref name=":192">{{Cite book |last=Shi |first=Shengyen |title=明末佛教研究 |publisher=東初出版社 |year=1993 |isbn=9575981073 |location=Taiwan |publication-date=2006 |pages=155–197 |language=Zh |trans-title=Study of Late Ming Buddhism}}</ref>

=== The Revival's Source ===
The only secondary sources available to Ming Buddhists were [[Yongming Yanshou|Yongming's]] ''Record of the Source Mirror'' (宗镜录) and [[Qingliang Chengguan|Chengguan's]] Commentary to the Avatamsaka Sutra, (华严经疏钞) which both extensively cited the commentaries of Xuanzang's disciples, and Yuanfeng's ''Questions and Answer on Introducing Vijnaptimatra'' (唯识开蒙问答), an introductory work from the Yuan that cities [[Kuiji|Kuiji's]] commentaries.<ref name=":192"/>

Despite the lack of sources, during the middle of the Ming dynasty, a revival in the study of Yogacara was initiated, which scholars speculate began with the publication of two primers to Yogacara by Luan Putai 魯菴普泰 (?–?) in 1511: ''Supplementary Comments on the Verses of the Eight Consciousness'' and Kuiji's ''Commentary on the Hundred Dharmas''. This marked a turning point in Ming Buddhist history, as a wave of new commentaries began to be published, and many Yogacara experts were produced from his lineage.<ref name=":20">{{Cite journal |last=Yang |first=Weizhong |date=2015 |title=明代普泰系、高原明昱系華嚴宗、唯識學傳承考述 |url=https://www.huayencollege.org/files/paper/%E8%8F%AF%E5%9A%B4%E5%B0%88%E5%AE%97%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E5%AD%B8%E8%A1%93%E7%A0%94%E8%A8%8E%E6%9C%83%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86/%E5%96%AE%E7%AF%87%E4%B8%8B%E8%BC%89/2015%20%E8%8F%AF%E5%9A%B4%E5%B0%88%E5%AE%97%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E5%AD%B8%E8%A1%93%E7%A0%94%E8%A8%8E%E6%9C%83%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86(%E4%B8%8A%E5%86%8A%E5%96%AE%E7%AF%87)/07-%E6%A5%8A%E7%B6%AD%E4%B8%AD-%E6%98%8E%E4%BB%A3%E6%99%AE%E6%B3%B0%E7%B3%BB%E3%80%81%E9%AB%98%E5%8E%9F%E6%98%8E%E6%98%B1%E7%B3%BB%E8%8F%AF%E5%9A%B4%E5%AE%97%E3%80%81%E5%94%AF%E8%AD%98%E5%AD%B8%E5%82%B3%E6%89%BF%E8%80%83%E8%BF%B0.pdf |journal=華嚴專宗國際學術研討會論文集}}</ref>

Putai was a successor of what was possibly one of the few Ming lineages that maintained investigation of Yogacara. Earlier sources record that the teacher of his teacher Huijin 慧進 (1355–1436) was a renowned Huayan master, with expertise on Yogacara. Putai's lineage continued to be immensely productive after him not only producing the three "Dragon Elephants", [[Hanshan Deqing]] 憨山德清 (1546–1623), [[Yunqi Zhuhong]] 雲棲株宏 (1535–1615), and Zibo Zhenke 紫柏真可 (1543–1603), but also other influential masters such as Xuelang Hongen 雪浪洪恩 (1545–1607).<ref name=":20" />

And it is these four figures, that were pivotal to the flourishing of Yogacara studies. Hanshan, like Putai, produced commentaries on the ''Verses on Eight Consciousnesses'' and the ''Hundred Dharmas'', whilst Zibo commented only on the former. More importantly Zibo placed in his students the importance of understanding Yogacara, leading to his lay pupil, Wang Kentang  王肯堂 (1549–1613), to make it the subject of close study.<ref name=":192"/><ref name=":232">{{Citation |last=Gessler |first=Elena |title=WANG KENTANG 王肯堂 AS A TRUE VIJÑĀNAVĀDIN: ZIBO ZHENKE'S 紫柏真可 CIRCLE AND THE INTELLECTUAL NETWORK OF THE LATE MING YOGĀCĀRA REVIVAL |date=January 2022 |journal= |url=https://www.academia.edu/97503342}}</ref>

=== Two Generations Later ===
After Putai, another independent source of the Ming, Yogacara studies was Gaoyuan Mingyu 高原明昱 (1544–1633), whose commentary on the ''Cheng Weishi Lun'' finished in 1611 marked a turning point in history. Prior to this, scholars were limited to collating texts or commenting on short, introductory works like the ''Verses on the Eight Consciousnesses'' and the ''Hundred Dharmas'', but his was the first commentary on the central text of the Chinese Yogacara school, that opened the tide for a wave of new commentaries on the work.<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal |last=Zhichang |first=Yang |date=December 2020 |title=晚明《成唯識論》註釋傳統的重新建構 —數位量化人文的視角 |url=https://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ011/bj011606243.pdf |journal=臺大佛學研究 |issue=40 |pages=85–134}}</ref> Mingyu's lineage continues to this day and is referred to as the Huayan-Yogacara combined lineage, with prominent monks such as Haiyun Jimeng 海云继梦 (1950年1月23日—).<ref>{{Cite web |last=admin |title=大華嚴寺法脈傳承 |url=https://www.huayenworld.org/dharma-lineage/ |access-date=2025-08-07 |website=大華嚴寺全球資訊網 |language=zh-TW}}</ref>

Mingyu, like Putai was a [[Huayan]] master, but based in Sichuan, from a distinct Huayan lineage to that of Putai whose tradition centred around Beijing. Despite this both scholars share similar mystical stories on the origin of their knowledge of Yogacara.<ref name=":20" /> Putai is said to have been travelling through a storm came upon the home of an old couple to avoid the rain. Upon listening to their conversation, he realised they were discussing the tenets of Yogacara, so he asked to study under them. Similarly Mingyu was described having encountered a mysterious monk at a site in Mount Zhongnan associated with Kuiji who instructed him on the ''Cheng Weishi Lun''.<ref name=":20" /> While Putai's knowledge has a tracable origin, no earlier inspiration can be identified for Mingyu.

=== A New Curriculum ===
Hongen whilst not producing any commentaries of his own, lectured extensively on Yogacara and collated together and published a group of eight texts named the "Eight Essentials of the School of Characteristics", which came to be the standard curriculum until the Republican Era, and were described as the "stairway" to understanding Yogacara. The eight texts included are:

# Treatise on the Hundred Dharmas 百法明門論 ''Author: Vasubandhu (天親菩薩); Translator: Xuanzang (玄奘)''
# Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only 唯識三十論 ''Author: Vasubandhu (世親菩薩); Translator: Xuanzang (玄奘)''
# Treatise on the Object-Support Condition 觀所緣緣論   Sanskrit: ''Ālambanaparīkṣā''   ''Author: Dignāga (陳那菩薩); Translator: Xuanzang (玄奘)''
# Explanation of the Six Connectives and Separables 六離合釋 ''Author and translate unknown''
# Commentary on the ''Ālambanaparīkṣā'' 觀所緣緣論釋 ''Commentary by Dharmapāla (護法菩薩); Translator: Yijing (義淨)''
# ''Nyāyapraveśa'' (Introduction to Logic) 因明入正理論 ''Author: Śaṅkarasvāmin (商羯羅主菩薩); Translator: Xuanzang (玄奘)''
# The Three-Part Inference 三支比量 *(Formulated by Xuanzang; excerpted by Chan Master Yongming Yanshou in the ''Zongjing lu'')
# Verses on the Structure of the Eight Consciousnesses 八識規矩頌 ''(Apocryphally attributed to Xuanzang 玄奘)''

=== Movement's Peak ===
Hongen's students continued his study of Yogacara, with Yiyu Tongrun 一雨通潤 (1565–1624), penning the second commentary on the ''Cheng Weishi Lun'' following Mingyu also in 1611 but published in the following year.<ref name=":20" />

Wang Kentang's burgeoning interest in Yogacara led him to study with several students of Hongen and also Mingyu, bringing together two disparate traditions. And it is through consulting the commentaries of Mingyu and Tongrun, that he produced the third commentary on the ''Cheng Weishi Lun'' published in 1613. Wang's text is often seen as the pinnacle of Ming commentaries, building on previous works and using careful evidential methods (考证) through citing all Indic and Chinese sources available producing a voluminous and well researched work.<ref name=":232"/><ref name=":192"/>

Following Mingyu, Tongrun, and Wang there came to be another wave of commentaries on the Cheng Weishilun, the most influential being [[Ouyi Zhixu|Oyui Zhixu's]] 蕅益智旭 (1599–1655) ''Cheng Weishi Lun Guanxin Fayao'' 观心法要, a unique work that employs Tiantai exegetical methods to expound Yogacara.<ref name=":192"/> Other works of this period include those of Zhuhong's and Mingyu's disciples.<ref name=":24">{{Cite journal |last=Jiameng |first=Pan |date=2021 |title=明末清初《成唯识论》注疏考 |url=https://qikan.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=00002EGKK7787JP0MNDO8JP16DR |journal=《宗教学研究》 |volume=1 |pages=106–112}}</ref>

One scholar categorises commentaries on the ''Cheng Weishi Lun'' into two periods:

1.        Investigatory.

2.        Internalisation.

Mingyu, Tongru, and Wang represent the first stage citing extensively of surviving Indic and Chinese Yogacara texts to reconstruct an extinct commentarial tradition. Later works, like those by Ouyi, are building on the basis of this reconstructed tradition, and aim not to as accurately reconstruct an ancient tradition, but rather make accessible what was now a well researched discipline. These later commentaries are marked by a significantly reduced number of citations and shorter lengths.<ref name=":21" />

The Yogacara fervour ended after the early [[Qing dynasty|Qing period]], by which time up to 16 commentaries had been produced on the ''Cheng Weishi Lun'' alone, exceeding even the output during the Tang dynasty.<ref name=":24" /> Although, few new works were published in the Qing, the study of Yogacara continued, eventually culminating in a second revival in the Republican era with the retrieval of lost Tang Dynasty commentaries from Japan and new translations from Sanskrit and Tibetan.

=== Transmission to Japan ===
The revived interest in Yogacara in the Ming dynasty led to the publication of many new commentaries on the subject, which were then exported in Japan both as individual texts, as well as part of the new Jiaxing Canon that incorporated newly authored texts in the Ming. We find based on records of imported books that various works, most importantly those of Mingyu and Ouyi, were imported to [[Edo period|Tokugawa Japan]].<ref name=":26">{{Cite journal |last=簡 |first=凱廷 |date=2015 |title=晚明唯識學作品在江戶時代的流傳與 接受初探∗ |url=https://www.chibs.edu.tw/ch_html/chbs/16/chbs1603.pdf |journal=中華佛學研究 |issue=16 |pages=43–72}}</ref>

These new publications found a new life in Japan, where they became the subject of much interest and debate, currently 16 individual Japanese commentaries on the Yogacara texts of Mingyu and Zhixu, as well as two on the ''Hundred Dharmas'' edited by Putai can be identified. Mingyu's commentary on the ''Verses of the Eight Consciousnesses'' received the most attention, having eight sub-commentaries written on it alone. These Japanese commentaries were primarily located in [[Tendai]] temples, implying that Tendai monks had a great deal of interest on these Ming writings.<ref name=":26" />

However, the reception of the Ming dynasty masters was not universally positive. Native Yogacara experts such as Kiben 基辨 (1722–1791) of the Hosso-Shu and Kaidō 快道 (1751–1810) of the [[Shingon Buddhism|Shingon-Shu]] were extremely critical of Zhixu and Mingyu, describing their commentaries as contributing nothing more than "extra words" onto the base text. The crux of their criticism originates from the Ming author's lack of [[Tang dynasty]] sources and so failed to correctly interpret the texts, mis-identified arguments and opponents, and were unable to move beyond the surface meaning.<ref name=":26" />

Though it should be noted, even these critics were implicitly influenced by the Ming revival as there was a revitalised interest in commenting on Yogacara texts, especially ones that had received minimal attention in the past, such as [[Dignāga]]'s ''[[Alambana]]-parīkṣā'' an essential text to the Ming Yogacara scholars.<ref name=":26" />

== Modern Revitalisation ==
[[File:Liang Shuming.jpg|thumb|[[Liang Shuming]]]]

[[File:熊十力 1960s.jpg|thumb|[[Xiong Shili]]]]

The 20th century saw a flourishing of Weishi studies in China.<ref>Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', pp. 13-14. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref> Important figures in this revival include [[Yang Wenhui]] (1837–1911), [[Taixu]], [[Liang Shuming]], [[Ouyang Jingwu]] (1870–1943), Wang Xiaoxu (1875–1948), and Lu Cheng.<ref name=":36">Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref><ref name=":35">Hammerstrom, Erik J.. [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Expression-%22The-Myriad-Dharmas-are-Only-in-20-Hammerstrom/ff3f2e8c08a79c4b8c618347dacb4b4baa5bfb91 "The Expression "The Myriad Dharmas are Only Consciousness"] in Early 20th Century Chinese Buddhism." (2010).</ref>{{sfn|Nan|1997|p=42}}{{sfn|Sheng-yen|2007|p=217}} Weishi studies was also revived among Japanese philosophers like [[Inoue Enryō]].<ref name=":35" />

Modern Chinese thinkers of the Weishi studies revival also discussed [[Western philosophy]] (especially [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegelian]] and [[Kantianism|Kantian]] thought) and modern [[science]] in terms of Yogacara thought.<ref name=":35" /><ref>Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', p. 1. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref>

In his 1929 book on the history of Chinese Buddhism, Jiang Weiqiao wrote:{{blockquote|In modern times, there are few ''[[śramaṇa]]'' who research [Faxiang]. Various laypeople, however, take this field of study to be rigorous, systematic and clear, and close to science. For this reason, there are now many people researching it. Preeminent among those writing on the topic are those at Nanjing's Inner Studies Academy, headed by Ouyang Jian.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hammerstrom|first1=Erik J.|title=The Expression "The Myriad Dharmas are Only Consciousness" in Early 20th Century Chinese Buddhism|journal=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報|date=2010|volume=23|page=73|url=http://www.chinesebuddhiststudies.org/previous_issues/chbj2303Erik%2071-92.pdf|access-date=2017-09-05|archive-date=2018-04-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409230631/http://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/previous_issues/chbj2303Erik%2071-92.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>}}
Ouyang Jian founded the Chinese Institute of Inner Studies ({{lang-zh|t=支那內學院}}), which provided education in Yogācāra teachings and the [[Prajnaparamita|Prajñāparamita]] sūtras, given to both monastics and laypeople.{{sfn|Nan|1997|p=141}} Many modern Ccommentariesist scholars are second-generation descendants of this school or have been influenced by it indirectly.{{sfn|Nan|1997|p=141}}

[[New Confucianism|New Confucian]] thinkers also participated in the revival of Weishi studies.<ref name=":36" /><ref name=":32">Aviv, E. (2020). "Chapter 3 The Debate over the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna". In ''Differentiating the Pearl from the Fish-Eye''. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. {{doi|10.1163/9789004437913_005}}</ref><ref name=":35" /> New Confucians like [[Xiong Shili]], Ma Yifu, [[Tang Chun-i|Tang Junyi]] and [[Mou Zongsan]], were influenced by the philosophy of Indian Yogācāra philosophy, and by the thought of the ''[[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana|Awakening of Faith]],'' though their work also critiqued and modified Weishi philosophy in various ways''.''<ref>Makeham, John. ''The Awakening of Faith and New Confucian Philosophy,'' Brill, 2021, introduction.</ref><ref>Makeham, John. ''Transforming Consciousness: Yogacara Thought in Modern China'', p. 30. Oxford University Press, 2014.</ref>

The work of Xiong Shili was particularly influential in the establishment of what is now called [[New Confucianism]]. His ''A New Treatise on Vijñaptimātra'' (新唯識論, ''Xin Weishi Lun'') draws on Yogacara and Confucian thought to construct a new philosophical system.<ref>Muller, A.C. ''Xiong Shili and the New Treatise: A review discussion of Xiong Shili'', New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness, ''an annotated translation by John Makeham''. ''SOPHIA'' '''56''', 523–526 (2017). {{doi|10.1007/s11841-017-0595-8}}</ref>

==History in Japan==
[[File:Hosso Mandala, Muromachi period, 1400s AD, color on silk - Tokyo Naitonal Museum - Tokyo, Japan - DSC09416.jpg|thumb|Maitreya and the 23 Hossō patriarchs, c. 16th century]]

[[File:Kofukuji_Monastery_Hosso_Patriarchs_of_Nanendo_II_(408).jpg|thumb|Jōtō (740–815), a Buddhist monk of the Nara and early Heian periods who studied at Kofukuji and is considered a patriarch of the Hosso school]]

=== Early period ===
The Consciousness-Only teachings were transmitted to Japan as "Hossō-shū" (法相宗, Japanese for "Faxiang School"), and they made considerable impact.<ref>Sho, Kyodai (2002). ''The Elementary-Level Textbook: Part 1: Gosho Study "Letter To The Brothers"''. SGI-USA Study Curriculum. Source: {{cite web |url=http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/SokaGakkai/Study/Elementary/Text1.htm |title=Elementary Study - Letter to the Brothers |access-date=2008-01-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071215001051/http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/SokaGakkai/Study/Elementary/Text1.htm |archive-date=2007-12-15}} (accessed: January 8, 2007)</ref> There were various key figures who established early Hossō in Japan. One of them was [[Dōshō]] 道昭 (629–700), a student of Xuanzang from 653 to 660. Dōshō and his students [[Gyōki]] and Dōga followed the "orthodox" texts and teachings of Xuanzang's school and transmitted these to Japan at Gangōji Temple.<ref name=":13">Green, Ronald S. Chanju Mun. ''Gyōnen's Transmission of the Buddha Dharma in Three Countries'', pp. 59-60. BRILL, 2018.</ref> Other important figures who also studied under Xuanzang were Chitsu and Chitatsu. Together with Dōshō they defended the orthodox interpretations of Kuiji.<ref name=":13" />

Another line of transmission was that of Chihō, Chiran, and Chiyu (all three visited Korea and then China c. 703), as well as the later figures Gien / Giin (653–728) and Genbō (d. 746). This tradition is known as the "Northern Temple transmission" since the lineage came to be based at [[Kōfuku-ji]].<ref name=":14">Green, Ronald S. Chanju Mun. ''Gyōnen's Transmission of the Buddha Dharma in Three Countries'', pp. 60-62. BRILL, 2018.</ref> This tradition was known to follow the teachings of the school of the Korean monk Wŏnch'ŭk in contrast to the "southern temple" tradition of Gangōji.<ref name=":14" />

The northern and southern temple traditions debated each other for centuries over their varying interpretations (Kuiji's "orthodoxy" vs the views of the Silla Korean masters and their commentaries).<ref name=":15">Green, Ronald S. (2020). Early Japanese Hosso in Relation to Silla Yogacara in Disputes between Nara's Northern and Southern Temple Traditions. ''Journal of Korean Religions'', 11(1), 97–121. doi:10.1353/jkr.2020.0003</ref> These debates can be found in various later Hossō doctrinal sources, including: {{Nihongo|''Record of the Light of the Lamp of Hossō''|法相燈明記|Hossō tōmyō ki|815}} by Zen'an, {{Nihongo|''Summary of the School of the Weishi lun''|唯識論同學鈔|Yuishikiron dōgakushō}} by Ryōsan 良算 (1202–?) and {{Nihongo|''Chapters Providing a Brief Study of the Mahāyāna Yogācāra''|大乘法相硏神章序|Daijō hossō kenjinshō}} by Gomyō (750–834).<ref name=":15" />

Hossō was an influential school during the [[Heian period]]. Hossō scholars also frequently debated with other emerging schools of [[Buddhism in Japan|Japanese Buddhism]] at the time. Both the founder of [[Shingon Buddhism|Shingon]], [[Kūkai]], and the founder of [[Tendai]], [[Saichō]], exchanged letters of debate with Hossō scholar [[Tokuitsu]].{{sfn|Abe|1999|p=208–19}} Saichō condemned the school for not accepting the one vehicle teaching of the ''[[Lotus Sutra]]'', which was seen as a provisional teaching in Hossō. Kukai, who became an influential figure at [[Nara (city)|Nara]], was more conciliatory with Hossō, and maintained amicable relations with the tradition. After Kukai, Shingon scholar monks often studied and commented on Hossō sources, while Hossō monks adopted Shingon ritual practices.<ref name=":17" /> However, over time, the universalist doctrine of the Tendai school won out and the Hossō position (which held that only some beings can become Buddhas and some beings called [[icchantika]]s have no hope for awakening) became a marginal view.<ref name=":17" />

=== Kamakura revival and modernity ===
[[File:Kofukuji Eastern Golden Hall.jpg|thumb|The Eastern Golden Hall or Tokondo (東金堂) of [[Kōfuku-ji]], Nara, Japan. Kofukuji Temple is the head temple of the Yogacara School in Japan.]]

The tumultuous [[Kamakura period]] (1185–1333), saw a revival (fukkō) and reform (kaikaku) of Hossō school teachings, which was led by figures like [[Jōkei (monk)|Jōkei]] (1155–1213) and Ryōhen.<ref name=":17">Ford, James L. (2006). ''Jokei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan.'' Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 35-68. {{ISBN|978-0-19-518814-1}}</ref> The reformed doctrines can be found in key sources like ''Jō yuishiki ron dōgaku shō'' (''A Collaborative Study of the Treatise on Consciousness-only''), Jōkei's ''Hossōshū shoshin ryakuō'' and Ryōhen's ''Kanjin kakumushō'' (''Summation on Contemplating the Mind and Awakening from a Dream'').<ref name=":17" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ryohen |last2=Müller |first2=Charles (transl.) |title=Observing the Mind, Awakening from a Dream |date=2021 |publisher=Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai |location=Moraga, California |isbn=978-1-886439-86-3 |url=https://www.bdkamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/dBET_YongjiaSongandObserving-the-Mind_2022.pdf}}</ref> A key element of Jōkei's teachings is the idea that even though the five classes of beings and the one vehicle teaching are relatively true, they are not ultimately so (since all phenomena are ultimately empty, non-dual and "neither the same nor different"). He also affirms that even icchantikas can attain enlightenment, since they will never be abandoned by the Buddhas and their compassionate power (which is not bound by causal laws).<ref name=":17" />

In a similar fashion, Ryōhen writes:<blockquote>Thus it should be remembered that in our school the doctrine of one vehicle and the doctrine of five groups of sentient beings are regarded as being equally true, for the doctrine of one vehicle is formulated from the standpoint that recognizes the unchangeable quality of the underlying substance of dharrnas, whereas the doctrine of the five groups of sentient beings has its roots in the distinctiveness of conditioned phenomena.... Thus, since our standpoint is that the relationship between the absolute and conditioned phenomena is one of "neither identity nor difference," both the concept of one vehicle as well as the concept of five groups of sentient beings are equally valid.<ref name=":17" /> </blockquote>During the Kamakura, several new Buddhist schools were founded, with the various Pure Land sects derived from Hōnen becoming especially popular. As a novice monk, [[Hōnen]] had studied with Hossō scholars, but he later debated them while promoting his Pure land path.<ref>{{cite web |title=JODO SHU English |url=http://www.jodo.org/about_hs/ho_life.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131031030308/http://www.jodo.org/about_hs/ho_life.html |archive-date=2013-10-31 |access-date=2009-07-01 |website=www.jodo.org}}</ref> Jōkei was among Hōnen's toughest critics.{{sfn|Ford|2006b|p=110–113}}

Jōkei is also known for popularizing the devotional aspects of Hossō, and for working to make it accessible to a wider audience.{{sfn|Ford|2006b|p=110–113}}<ref name=":18">Ford, James L. (2006). ''Jokei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan.'' Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 69-71. {{ISBN|978-0-19-518814-1}}</ref> Jōkei promoted devotion to various figures, like [[The Buddha|Shakyamuni]], [[Guanyin|Kannon]], [[Kṣitigarbha|Jizo]], and [[Maitreya]], as well as numerous practices, like various nembutsu seeking birth in a pure land, dharani, precepts, liturgy ([[Kōshiki|koshiki]]), rituals, lectures, worship of relics, etc.<ref name=":18" /> His pluralist and eclectic teachings thus offer a contrast to the more exclusive Kamakura schools who focused on one Buddha ([[Amitābha|Amitabha]]) or one practice ([[Nianfo|nembutsu]] etc.). For Jōkei, difference and diversity matters and people are not all the same (on the relative level), and thus it is not true that one practice or one Buddha is suitable for everyone.<ref name=":18" /> However, like the [[Pure land|Pure Land]] schools, Jōkei stressed the importance of relying on the "other power" (of a Buddha or bodhisattva) and of birth in a [[pure land]] (Jōkei stressed the pure land of Maitreya), as well as practices that were accessible to less elite practitioners.<ref name=":18" />

Jōkei is also a leading figure in the efforts to revive monastic discipline at places like [[Tōshōdai-ji]], [[Kōfuku-ji]] and counted other notable monks among his disciples, including [[Eison]], who founded the [[Shingon Risshu]] sect.{{sfn|Ford|2006a|p=132–134}}

Although a relatively small Hossō sect exists in Japan to this day, its influence diminished due to competition from newer Japanese Buddhist schools like Zen and Pure Land.{{sfn|Tagawa|2014|p=xx-xxi}} During the [[Meiji period]], as tourism became more common, the Hossō sect was the owner of several famous temples, notably [[Hōryū-ji]] and [[Kiyomizu-dera]]. However, as the Hossō sect had ceased Buddhist study centuries prior, the head priests were not content with giving part of their tourism income to the sect's organization. Following the end of World War II, the owners of these popular temples broke away from the Hossō sect, in 1950 and 1965, respectively. The sect still maintains [[Kōfuku-ji]] and [[Yakushi-ji]].

==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}

===Bibliography===
* {{cite book|last=Abe|first=Ryūichi|author-link=Ryuichi Abe |title=The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0ExNmHIACskC|year=1999|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-52887-0}}
* {{cite book|last1=Buswell|first1=Robert|author-link1=Robert Buswell Jr.|last2=Lopez|first2=Donald S.|author-link2=Donald S. Lopez Jr.|title=The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-fWKngEACAAJ|year=2013|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-15786-3}}
* {{cite book|last=Ford|first=James L.|title=Jōkei and Buddhist Devotion in Early Medieval Japan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ACnfqhZUgXYC&pg=PA159|year=2006a|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-972004-0}}
* {{cite book |last1=Ford |first1=James |chapter=Buddhist Ceremonials (Kōshiki) and the Ideological Discourse of Established Buddhism in Medieval Japan |editor-last1=Payne |editor-first1=Richard K. |editor-last2=Leighton |editor-first2=Taigen Dan |editor-link2=Taigen Dan Leighton |title=Discourse and Ideology in Medieval Japanese Buddhism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s7x_AgAAQBAJ |date=18 April 2006b |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-24209-2}}
* {{cite book|last=Hamar|first=Imre|author-link=Imre Hamar|title=Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ikPxIBFOz-sC|year=2007|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag|isbn=978-3-447-05509-3}}
* {{cite book|author=Hanshan Deqing|author-link=Hanshan Deqing|title=The Autobiography & Maxims of Master Han Shan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JC_YAAAAMAAJ|year=1995|publisher=H.K. Buddhist Book}}
* {{cite book|last=Liu|first=JeeLoo|author-link=JeeLoo Liu|title=An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy: From Ancient Philosophy to Chinese Buddhism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C1QZV1ddihUC|year=2006|publisher=Wiley|isbn=978-1-4051-2949-7}}
* {{cite journal | last=Minagawa |first=Sachiyoshi |title=Medieval Japanese Vijnaptimatra Thought-On nyakunmuro |journal=Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies |volume=46 |number=2 |year=1998}}
* {{cite book|last=Nan|first=Huaijin|author-link=Huaijin Nan|title=Basic Buddhism: Exploring Buddhism and Zen|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YAoZ5m9u8OwC|year=1997|publisher=Weiser Books|isbn=978-1-57863-020-2}}
* {{cite book|last=Paul|first=Diana Y.|author-link=Diana Y. Paul|title=Philosophy of Mind in Sixth-century China: Paramārtha's "evolution of Consciousness"|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=77SfAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP6|year=1984|publisher=Stanford University Press|isbn=978-0-8047-1187-6}}
* {{cite journal |last=Puggioni |first=Tonino |year=2003 |url=http://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/66703/1/seoul_j_16_75.pdf |title=The Yogacara-faxiang faith and the Korean Beopsang &#91;法相&#93; tradition |journal=Seoul Journal of Korean Studies |volume=16 |pages=75–112|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150614070331/http://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/66703/1/seoul_j_16_75.pdf |archive-date=2015-06-14}}
* {{cite book|author=Sheng-yen|author-link=Sheng-yen|title=Orthodox Chinese Buddhism: A Contemporary Chan Master's Answers to Common Questions|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8PI-WPJd4aIC&pg=PA13|year=2007|publisher=North Atlantic Books|isbn=978-1-55643-657-4}}
* {{cite book|last=Tagawa|first=Shun'ei|title=Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1C4qAwAAQBAJ|year=2014|publisher=Wisdom Publications|isbn=978-0-86171-895-5}}
* {{cite journal |last=Yoshimura |first=Hiromi |title=Plural Theories on Vijnaptimatra in the Mahayanasutralamkara |journal=Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies |volume=54 |issue=2 |year=2006}}
{{wikisource|Triṃśikā Vijñaptimātratā}}

{{Buddhism topics}}
{{Yogācāra}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:East Asian Yogācāra}}
[[Category:History of Buddhism in China]]
[[Category:Buddhism in the Nara period]]
[[Category:History of Buddhism in Korea]]
[[Category:East Asian religions]]
[[Category:Yogacara]]