Because the novel teachings Xuanzang conveyed represented Indian Buddhist orthodoxy and because the Chinese emperor lavished extravagant patronage on him, Xuanzang quickly became the preeminent East Asian Buddhist of his generation, attracting students from Korea and Japan, as well as China. Two of his disciples, the Korean monk Woncheuk 圓測 (613–696) and the Chinese monk Kuiji 窺基 (632–682), bitterly competed to succeed Xuanzang upon his death, their rivalry largely centering on divergent interpretations of the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (Treatise on Establishing Consciousness-Only), a commentary on Vasubandhuʼs Triṃśikā (Thirty Verses) that, according to tradition, Kuiji helped Xuanzang compile and translate from ten Sanskrit commentaries. Throughout the remaining history of this tradition in China, Korea, and Japan, the Cheng weishi lun has been the central doctrinal source.

Kuiji comes to be regarded as the first patriarch of this tradition. Hui Zhao 慧沼 (650–714), the second patriarch, and Zhi Zhou 智周 (668–723), the third patriarch, wrote commentaries on the Fayuan yilin chang, the Lotus Sutra, and the Madhyântavibhāga; they also wrote treatises on Buddhist logic and commentaries on the Cheng weishi lun.1 After Zhizhou, Faxiangʼs influence declined in China, though its texts continued to be studied by other schools. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Faxiang enjoyed a revival among Chinese philosophers such as Yang Wenhui (1837–1911), Ouyang Jingwu (1871–1943), Taixu (1890–1947), and Xiong Shili (1883–1968), who sought a bridge between native philosophy and Western philosophy, especially in the field of epistemology.

In Korea, Beopsang studies flourished in the Silla, in the works of such monks as Wonhyo 元曉, Daehyeon 大賢, Doryun 道倫, Sinbang 神昉, and others. Also, as noted above a monk of Korean origin, Woncheuk 圓測 was one of the core students of Xuanzang. But Yogâcāra in Korea tended to be blended with Tathāgatagarbha tendencies at an early stage, and while remaining influential, tended to lose its distinctive identity.

Among the more prolific Hossō leaders of the Heian period was Zenju 善珠 (727–797), a disciple of Genbō. He was originally affiliated with the Kōfukuji, and afterwards founded Akishino Temple 秋篠寺. Writing prolifically on Yogâcāra doctrines, he was influenced by writings that came into Japan both from the Tang and Silla. He also wrote extensively on Buddhist logic (hetu-vidyā 因明).

The Hossō school maintained its energy going into the Kamakura period, featuring the likes of Jōkei 貞慶 (1155–1213), who became one of the outstanding figures of the Hossō-shū in the Kamakura period. Jōkei was a prolific writer on Yogâcāra 唯識, liturgical texts 講式, and other topics. He was known for his strict observance of the precepts, and for his devotion to Maitreya 彌勒信仰. Perhaps best-known among his many Yogâcāra-focused works is the Gumei hosshin shū 愚迷發心集 (Anthology of Awakenings from Delusion). By the Jōkeiʼs time, Hossō was engaged in deep competition not only the competing doctrinal schools such as Kegon 華嚴宗, Tendai 天台宗, and Shingon 眞言宗, but also the new popular schools of Pure Land 淨土宗 and Zen 禪宗, so Jōkei sought to re-systematize to make it more compatible with these competing traditions.

One of the last great representatives of the Hossō-shū was the author of our present translation, Ryōhen 良遍 (1194–1252). Ryōhen was a prolific and influential writer on Yogâcāra doctrine. Born in Kyoto, he entered the order as a youth at Kōfukuji, where he learned the Hossō teachings, becoming especially proficient at Buddhist logic. In 1241 he secluded himself at Chikurinji 竹林寺 in Ikoma 生駒, where he especially devoted himself to the systematization of the Hossō teachings in connection with Kegon, Tendai, Shingon, Madhyamaka 三論宗, and Pure Land. Ryōhenʼs most famous work the Kanjin kakumushō 觀心覺夢鈔 (Précis on Contemplating the Mind and Awakening from the Dream) is a compendium of East Asian Yogâcāra teachings that summarizes the key doctrines articulated in the Cheng weishi lun, and at the same time responds to the critiques of the Tendai and other traditions. Ryōhen defends the Hossō positions with scriptural citations and logic, but at the same time makes a strong effort to find common ground with his interlocutors. After Ryōhenʼs time, the Hossō school gradually waned in influence, unable to compete with the popularity of the new schools of the Kamakura period. In 1892, Horyūji 法隆寺, Kōfukuji , and Yakushiji 藥師寺 were designated as the three head temples of the school.

Most East Asian Buddhist schools, along with Faxiang, accepted many standard Yogâcāra doctrines, such as the eight consciousnesses 八識, three natures 三性, and mind-only, though each school quibbled about specifics. The two doctrines that drew the most attacks were the Faxiang rejection of tathāgatagarbha ideology for being too metaphysically substantialistic and the Faxiang doctrine of five seed-families (Sanskrit, pañcagotras; Chinese, wu xing 五性), which held that oneʼs potential for awakening was determined by the good seeds already in oneʼs consciousness stream. Practitioners of the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and Mahāyāna paths, as well as those who were undecided about practice, could fulfill these paths only by bringing the respective seeds of whichever path they contained to fruition. A fifth seed-family, icchantika, being devoid of the requisite seeds, can never and would never desire to achieve awakening. Since the other East Asian Buddhist schools held that all beings possess buddha-nature incipiently as tathāgatagarbha, and thus all have the potential for awakening, they found the icchantika 一闡提 doctrine unacceptable. However, Faxiang did not treat the icchantika as an ontological category or predestination theory; it only referred to someone incorrigible, someone who, in recent lives, remains impervious to the teachings of Buddhism. Anyone desiring enlightenment, by definition, cannot be an icchantika.

For a list of the scriptural works considered to be orthodox by the Chinese Faxiang school, see 六經十一論.

References

Lusthaus, Dan. 2002. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogâcāra Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun. London:  RoutledgeCurzon.

Sponberg, Alan. 1979. “The Vijñaptimātratā Buddhism of the Chinese Monk K'uei-chi (CE 632–682).” Vancouver. University of British Columbia.

Tagawa Shun'ei. 2009. Living Yogâcāra: An Introduction to Consciousness-only Buddhism. Boston:  Wisdom Publications.

Weinstein, Stanley. 1965. “The Kanjin kakumushō.” Harvard University.