This paper addresses the problem of ?layavijn?na in The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana (大乘起信論), focusing on comparing the two annotations of this sutra, written by Wonhyo and Fa-tsang. ?layavijn?na was invented by Yog?c?ra Buddhist Schools which is -along with Madhyamika- representative Buddhist sects in India .
The Yog?c?ra School created ?layavijn?na for two reasons?solving the problem of the inheritance of karma and the activity of consciousness in nirodha-sam?patti (滅盡定). According to Buddhist doctrines, the self is comprised of five elements (panca-skandha) in which the everlasting identity cannot be found. Therefore, karma?an act?temporarily connects hetu (因) and pratyaya (緣), indicating that there is no transcendental self, prior to experience. However, without positing an invariable self, Buddhism had to explain the process of inheriting karma as a result of which many Buddhist sects were divided after Buddha passed away. In this period, the Age of Abhidharma, many divided sects tried to bridge the gap between severance and succession of karma without postulating a self. For example, the School of Sarvasti-v?da (說一切有部) asserts that all elements ontically exist throughout the past, present, and future. Additionally, all acts produce the invisible karma (avijnapti-r?pa), which can make karma inheritable without any substantial entity. The School of Sautr?ntika, however, invented storage of karma?b?ja(種子)?in which all karma was saved and affected future rebirth. In regard to this trend, the Yog?c?ra School was asked for a new notion to solve this dilemma. Therefore, they invented ?layavijn?na, which successfully accomplished that goal. Another reason for inventing ?layavijn?na was to resolve the problem of consciousness activity in nirodha-sam?patti. In the state of nirodha-sam?patti, i.e, the ultimate stage of meditation, all activity of the mind is suspended. This brings up the question “How can a meditator’s mind succeed after awakening from meditation?” To solve this problem, many Buddhist sects, such as the Sautr?ntika, Mah?s??ghika, and Mah???saka, resolved storage of mind, which played a leading role in ?layavijn?na. Therefore, although vedan? (受), sa?jn? (想), and sa?sk?ra (行) cease in the state of nirodha-sam?patti, vijn?na (識) is stored in ?layavijn?na, which can make a practitioner stay alive after awakening from sam?dhi (三昧). Actually, these two problems arose from the same concept?how to bridge the gap between engagement and disengagement. ?layavijn?na made the Yog?c?ra School establish its own doctrine and thus become independent of sects in Indian Buddhism.
In the late Indian Buddhism, the prominent feature of ?layavijn?na is a meeting the tath?gata-garbha (如來藏). Tath?gata-garbha means the embryo of Buddha, which implies that all human beings have the possibility of becoming Buddha. However, their philosophical foundation completely depends on the doctrine of the Yog?c?ra School so that they are less systematic than any other Buddhist sects. Tath?gata-garbha is grounded on both life-and-death and nirv??a. Although all human beings are covered with kle?a (煩惱), their original mind is essentially equal to the mind of Buddha. Therefore, if their contaminated minds were cleansed, they would become Buddha.
The late Yog?c?ra School tried to combine ?layavijn?na with tath?gata-garbha because the structure of tath?gata-garbha, which is the cause of life-and-death and nirv??a, is similar to that of ?layavijn?na, in which confusion and enlightenment co-exist. The first book attempting to unify them was Lank?vat?ra s?tra (楞伽經), in which we find the following paragraph: “?layavijn?na which is called tath?gata-garbha” and “tath?gata-garbha which is called ?layavijn?na….” Such integrative attempts promoted the publication of The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. Who wrote this book and when it was written remain unknown. However, after Buddhism was imported into China, it is an undeniable fact that the development of Yog?c?ra thought in China was highly related to the book.
The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, which attempted to embrace the two opposing notions into One-Mind (一心), produces an ideological foundation for developing East Asian Buddhism. Additionally, many eminent monks wrote annotated books, among which Wonhyo''s and Fa-tsang’s annotations have been considered highly authoritative. These two monks, active at the same period, tried to arrange their Buddhist thoughts consistently. ?layavijn?na in the The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana differs from Indian Yog?c?ra Schools. The former plays a role that connects the contaminated reality and the enlightened world, while the latter is the vain consciousness that has to be fully overcome to accomplish nirv??a. In these books, One-Mind is divided into two: the gate of suchness (眞如門) and the gate of changed phenomena (生滅門). From these two things, all phenomena are produced. In this book, ?layavijn?na is mentioned in the gate of changed phenomena (生滅門). It is a unified consciousness (和合識) comprised of “neither birth nor death (不生不滅)” and “birth and death (生滅)”, which reside in the middle state of “neither the same nor the different (非一非異).” This ?layavijn?na develops into two meanings?Enlightenment (覺) and Unenlightenment (不覺)?producing all phenomena.
Enlightenment (覺) is also divided into the following two types: original enlightenment (本覺) and acquired enlightenment (始覺). Original enlightenment is the fully accomplished state of One-Mind, the ultimate destination of all human beings. Acquired enlightenment is the process of advancing to original enlightenment, which is classified into four aspects as follows: origin (生), stasis (主), decay (異), and destruction (滅). Each aspect has kle?as that have to be abandoned. Therefore, after detaching from all filthy mind, One-Mind is finally achieved. This means that the state of acquired enlightenment is eventually the same as the state of original enlightenment.
Unenlightenment is also divided into the following two types: basic unenlightenment (根本不覺) and divergent unenlightenment (枝末不覺). These stem from basic ignorance of ?layavijn?na, constructing the world in which we live. Specifically, divergent unenlightenment is comprised of the Delusion of Three Fine States and Six Rough States (三世六?): The three fine states are ''fundamental impulsive karma by ignorance'' (無明業相), ''subject consciousness for seeing outward objects'' (能見相), and ''objective perception of the external world'' (境界相). The six rough states are ''distinctive mind against externals'' (智相), ''continual storing of false conception'' (相續相), ''attachment to outside objects'' (集取相), ''naming of anything'' (計名字相), ''making false karma'' (起業相), and ''suffering resulting from karma'' (業繫苦相).
Wonhyo’s commentary focused on the dynamic state of ?layavijn?na by equally harmonizing “neither birth nor death” and “birth and death.” According to his annotation, the four kle?as of abiding aspects in acquired enlightenment and ''distinctive mind against externals'' (智相) in six rough states were positioned as manas-vijn?na (末那識), implying that he settled self-consciousness by clearly conceiving the Delusion of Three Fine States.
As a result, through manas-vijn?na, self-awareness is established, distinctively expressing a chain of six consciousnesses that constitute the real world. Focusing on the dynamic activity of ?layavijn?na in phenomena, he highlighted the role of manas-vijn?na. Therefore, he located a distinctive mind against externals?directly emerging from the objective perception of the external world?at manas-vijn?na. Furthermore, he claimed that manas-vijn?na can not only be aware of ?layavijn?na but also of six objects (六境), thus broadening the capacity of reflection. This assertion, with emphasis on the activeness of ?layavijn?na and manas-vijn?na, is his unique opinion, which differs from the Yog?c?ra Schools’ general theory.
In Fa-tsang’s commentary, although ?layavijn?na is activated in changed phenomena, he points out that “neither birth nor death” is important because all phenomena depend on it. Furthermore, “neither birth nor death” is “cleared tath?gata-garbha,” which is the essence of all things. Although ?layavijn?na is the combined consciousness of “neither birth nor death” and “birth and death,” the most important thing to him was the true nature of ?layavijn?na, that is, its immortality. Consequently, he focused on recovering the state of true suchness, while the role of manas-vijn?na was not significant to him. In his commentary, manas-vijn?na, producing all contaminated phenomena, was intentionally excluded. He quoted the Lank?vat?ra s?tra, claiming that three types of consciousness in the sutra were: true aspects of ?layavijn?na, vain aspects of ?layavijn?na, and six consciousnesses. The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana was written with this sutra as a foundation, so he suggested that hints of manas-vijn?na could not be discovered.
Therefore, only six consciousnesses can reflect external objects. Only ?layavijn?na is reflected by manas-vijn?na, which he was reluctant to express clearly. To him, the essence of ?layavijn?na was the intrinsic value of “neither birth nor death,” that is, tath?gata-garbha, which purposely caused him to rule out manas-vijn?na.
These two Buddhist scholars’ commentaries reveal their varying cognitions and different views for establishing Buddhist sects around the 7thcentury. Wonhyo, who throughout his life belonged to no specific sects, tries to the thought of The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, in which the Yog?c?ra Buddhist school was combined with the thought of tath?gata-garbha. This shows his unique harmonization of the two opposing views, that is, reconciling the dispute (和諍).
However, Fa-tsang, the actual founder of the Huayen school (華嚴宗), was asked to compete with other Buddhist sects of that period, particularly the Fa-xiang sect (法相宗), to maintain the Huayen sect’s influence. Therefore, he stressed the superiority of Huayen’s doctrine by diminishing ?layavijn?na’s boundary. As a result, in his classification of the doctrine, The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana is positioned at ‘dependent arising of the Tathagatagarbha’ (如來藏緣起). Also, One-Mind, the ultimate destination of enlightenment, is interpreted as ‘One mind of tathagatagarbha (一如來藏心).
Due to these two representative commentaries, the range of ?layavijn?na was dramatically extended to combine with the Tathagata-garbha. This transition produces a crucial foundation for developing East Asian Buddhism.
This paper is limited to the problem of ?layavijn?na shown in the commentaries of The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. However, understanding ?layavijn?na is directly connected with the Di-lun sect (地論宗), the She-lun sect (攝論宗), and the Fa-xiang sect (法相宗). After adequate consideration of these doctrines, which remains a future task, we can clearly understand the concept of ?layavijn?na.