Recommendations for Yogacara works?

[Astus]

I'm not really sure why you want to divorce Zen from the Buddha.

This is only about the role of the Lankavatara Sutra in Zen, nothing more.

Some quips from Red Pine, who knows more than me about Chan and the Lankavatara

That does not show the role of the sutra in Zen, it only makes a number of generic statements based on personal assumptions.

As for Yogacara, you're probably the first scholar/practitioner I've come across who denies that Yogacara had an influence on Zen/Chan.

Perhaps it'd be better to be more specific about what is meant by "Yogacara" and what counts as an influence. Xuanzang died in 664, Shenhui was born in 684, Mazu was born in 709, so if there had been a Yogacara influence, it should have been that of Xuanzang's. But even if we consider the Dilun and Shelun, as thecowisflying noted, there should be some doctrinal correspondence pointed out for that. However, it doesn't look like that Zen had anything like that, but if you have something to the contrary, please show.

This doesn't sound very Yogacara to me:
"since the past this teaching of ours has first taken nonthought as its central doctrine, the formless as its essence, and nonabiding as its fundamental."
(Platform Sutra, ch 4, BDK ed, p 43)

Another summary from a few hundred years later:
"Question: What is the characteristic of this school?
Answer: The Zen school has the Diamond Sutra and the Vimalakirti Sutra as its main references. Its principle is that the mind is nothing other than the Buddha. A mind freed from clinging to anything constitutes its religious act. Its purpose is [to cause people to realize] that everything that has its own characteristics is empty of self-nature. Since the Buddha handed down the robe and bowl to Kasyapa, transmission from master to disciple has not changed. Details are known from the records."
(A Treatise on Letting Zen Flourish, in Zen Texts, BDK ed, p 101)

[Malcolm]

In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.

[pueraeternus]

In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.

There are many other important contributions as well, such as the eight consciousness model, Buddhist epistemology (pramanavada), the detailed path laid out in the Bodhisattvabhumi, etc.

[Malcolm]

In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.

There are many other important contributions as well, such as the eight consciousness model, Buddhist epistemology (pramanavada), the detailed path laid out in the Bodhisattvabhumi, etc.

The model eight consciousnesses existed in the sutras prior to the Yogacara elaboration of the three kāyas. Bodhisattvabhumi is basically a commentary on the Sūtra-alaṃkāra, but those paths and stages are also laid in in sūtra prior to Maitreyanath, but what isn't laid out and what appears to be a novelty introduced by Maitreyanatha is the doctrine of three kāyas.

[pueraeternus]

In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.

There are many other important contributions as well, such as the eight consciousness model, Buddhist epistemology (pramanavada), the detailed path laid out in the Bodhisattvabhumi, etc.

The model eight consciousnesses existed in the sutras prior to the Yogacara elaboration of the three kāyas. Bodhisattvabhumi is basically a commentary on the Sūtra-alaṃkāra, but those paths and stages are also laid in in sūtra prior to Maitreyanath, but what isn't laid out and what appears to be a novelty introduced by Maitreyanatha is the doctrine of three kāyas.

Not quite - the Trikaya predated Maitreyanath as well. For example, in the Lankavatara, the Sambhogakaya is known as the Nisyandabuddha. Then there is this Trikaya Sutra that explicitly talks about the three kayas, but I do not know if it pre or post dates Asanga.

If we are talking about innovations, then with regards to the three kayas, I would say it is the addition of the svā­bhāvika­kāya as the fourth kaya. Was the svā­bhāvika­kāya ever mentioned elsewhere prior to the Abhi­samayālaṃkāra?

So it will be more profitable to discuss the contributions vis a vis how the Yogacarins changed the course of the development of the dharma. And no doubt they were very influential.

[Malcolm]

Not quite - the Trikaya predated Maitreyanath as well. For example, in the Lankavatara, the Sambhogakaya is known as the Nisyandabuddha.

What I said was, " the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha." This systemization was his elaboration.

There is no doubt sambhogakāya was elaborated to solve certain problems raised by "real buddhas" attaining buddhahood in Akaniṣṭha in the Lanka, but the point is that there was no systematic presentation of three kāyas prior to Maitreyanatha, hence my point stands.

With respect to the so called niṣyandabuddha = sambhoghākāya, this is really only Suzuki's opinion.

The commentary on the Lanka by Jñānaśribhadra states this concept in only one place: a buddha produced from ripening is a form that arises from the ripening (nisyanda) of the merit and wisdom accumulations, while the buddhas of emanation are those who show nirvana.

And the Lanka is the only sūtra which uses the term "niṣyandabuddha," so I think that is a pretty weak position of Suzuki's, very tentative and not proven at all.

When we examine sūtras by when they were translated into Chinese, not one sūtra translated into Chines predates the Maitreyan synthesis containing the term "saṃbhoga" with one or two possible exceptions. The Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra mentions a Sambhogabuddha -- this was translated by Gunabhadra between 412-421. It says:

If it is asked what is a sambhogabuddha, a sambhogabuddha is
equivalent in enjoyment and practice with bodhisattvas, equivalent in
aspects, food, speech, procedures, and conduct.

Maitreyanatha actually uses this term as well. He says in the MSL:

Because pristine consciousness is the cause of everything,
pristine consciousness is similar to a great source;
it is the sambhogabuddha
because it produces the reflection of pristine consciousness.

The longer Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra in Tibetan also has a chapter on the three kāyas, however, it seems quite likely that this chapter was a later addition, added after the time of Vasubandhu.

So in this case, if there is a canonical source for the term saṃbhoga, it would seem to be the reference to it in the Dharmasaṃgīti. Even so, it is not systematic, and it is a very slim basis for the elaborated system of three kāyas we find in the Maitreyan synthesis. Thus, I still stand by my observation that the most significant addition to Dharma by the Yogacara school is the doctrine of three kāyas

Then there is this Trikaya Sutra that explicitly talks about the three kayas, but I do not know if it pre or post dates Asanga.

It is quite late. It was never translated into Chinese.

If we are talking about innovations, then with regards to the three kayas, I would say it is the addition of the svā­bhāvika­kāya as the fourth kaya. Was the svā­bhāvika­kāya ever mentioned elsewhere prior to the Abhi­samayālaṃkāra?

Only Haribhadra holds svabhāvakāya and dharmakāya are distinct, he is eight century.

[Matt J]

Whaaat?

In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.

[pueraeternus]

Not quite - the Trikaya predated Maitreyanath as well. For example, in the Lankavatara, the Sambhogakaya is known as the Nisyandabuddha.

What I said was, " the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha." This systemization was his elaboration.

There is no doubt sambhogakāya was elaborated to solve certain problems raised by "real buddhas" attaining buddhahood in Akaniṣṭha in the Lanka, but the point is that there was no systematic presentation of three kāyas prior to Maitreyanatha, hence my point stands.

But the eight consciousness, etc were also systematized and elaborated by Yogacarins and laid the groundwork of how later Buddhists understand and debate these topics, so why focus only on the three kayas?

With respect to the so called niṣyandabuddha = sambhoghākāya, this is really only Suzuki's opinion.

The commentary on the Lanka by Jñānaśribhadra states this concept in only one place: a buddha produced from ripening is a form that arises from the ripening (nisyanda) of the merit and wisdom accumulations, while the buddhas of emanation are those who show nirvana.

And the Lanka is the only sūtra which uses the term "niṣyandabuddha," so I think that is a pretty weak position of Suzuki's, very tentative and not proven at all.

Asvabhava equates the nisyandakaya as the sambhogakaya. So this is not just Suzuki's opinion. Unless you want to quibble about the words -kaya and -buddha.

If we are talking about innovations, then with regards to the three kayas, I would say it is the addition of the svā­bhāvika­kāya as the fourth kaya. Was the svā­bhāvika­kāya ever mentioned elsewhere prior to the Abhi­samayālaṃkāra?

Only Haribhadra holds svabhāvakāya and dharmakāya are distinct, he is eight century.

I see. Interesting.

[Malcolm]

Not quite - the Trikaya predated Maitreyanath as well. For example, in the Lankavatara, the Sambhogakaya is known as the Nisyandabuddha.

What I said was, " the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha." This systemization was his elaboration.

There is no doubt sambhogakāya was elaborated to solve certain problems raised by "real buddhas" attaining buddhahood in Akaniṣṭha in the Lanka, but the point is that there was no systematic presentation of three kāyas prior to Maitreyanatha, hence my point stands.

But the eight consciousness, etc were also systematized and elaborated by Yogacarins and laid the groundwork of how later Buddhists understand and debate these topics, so why focus only on the three kayas?

Because the three kāyas were the only doctrine that were basically adopted by Madhyamakas like Candrakīrti following the Maitreyan synthesis; the eight consciousnesses and so on were not universally accepted by Madhyamakas, and even today are not.

With respect to the so called niṣyandabuddha = sambhoghākāya, this is really only Suzuki's opinion.

The commentary on the Lanka by Jñānaśribhadra states this concept in only one place: a buddha produced from ripening is a form that arises from the ripening (nisyanda) of the merit and wisdom accumulations, while the buddhas of emanation are those who show nirvana.

And the Lanka is the only sūtra which uses the term "niṣyandabuddha," so I think that is a pretty weak position of Suzuki's, very tentative and not proven at all.

Asvabhava equates the nisyandakaya as the sambhogakaya. So this is not just Suzuki's opinion. Unless you want to quibble about the words -kaya and -buddha.

Well, it is Asanga who does that, in the closing words of the Mahāyānasamgraha, where niṣyanda is used as an adjective to describe the sambhogakāya where the issue of the impermanence of the sambhogakāya and nirmanakāya are raised. So I am still not convinced it is the intent of the Lanka that one can claim that niṣyandabuddha = sambhogakāya since the person who wrote down the Lanka seems to ignore the term entirely, where as nirmāṇa used in association with the rūpakāya of the Buddha has an old history.

Niṣyanda means "corresponding cause," rgyu mthun pa, though in the Lanka there is still come influence from an earlier Chinese translation where the term is translated as rnam smin, ripened, which is normally reserved for vipaka. Interestingly, this term is completely absent from any of the five treatises, nor can it be found in any of the works on Abhisamayālaṃkāra.

Thus, I think it is still fair to say that the Yogacāra school really was responsible for the elaboration of the three kāyas over the older two kāya model, and it was elaborated to explain issues the two kāya model was not equipped to deal with. Most interestingly, Maitreyanatha imposes the three kāya model on the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras, in which the terms sambhogakāya, niṣyandabuddha, etc., are completely absent. There is something there to consider.

[Matt J]

I'm not saying that only Yogacara had an influence on Zen, or that Zen is Yogacara. But to deny it seems very disingenuous. Many Zen practitioners seem to take it as a given--- such as Red Pine, DT Suzuki, the disciples of Katagiri, and many others. Thomas Cleary writes that Yogacara "is one of the main veins of Mahayana Buddhism with which Zen is traditionally associated with from its very foundation." After all, Vasubandhu is listed as a Zen Patriarch---we all know him as a prime mover of Yogacara. You can also read Hakuin elucidate on the Eight Consciousnesses and the Four Cognitions in Cleary's Kensho: The Heart of Zen. The Four Cognitions is interesting because he talks about the three kayas and the transformation of consciousness, both very Yogacara. One can look at Chinul's Straightforward Explanation of the True Mind in the same text. In fact, I would have a hard time swinging a dead cat in a Zen library without hitting Yogacara flavored ideas.

Of course, these are just texts. Zen is hardly what I would call a text based tradition. Interestingly, in his Compass of Zen, Zen Master Seung Sahn writes off Madhyamaka as consisting primarily of analysis, whereas Zen consists of direct experience. Anyway, my experience of Zen confirms the above.

Here's a bit from Ma Zu, in Zen's Chinese Heritage by Andy Ferguson:

One day Mazu addressed the congregation, saying, “All of you here! Believe that your own mind is Buddha. This very mind is buddha mind. When Bodhidharma came from India to China he transmitted the supreme vehicle teaching of one mind, allowing people like you to attain awakening. Moreover he brought with him the text of the Lankavatara Sutra, using it as the seal of the mind-ground of sentient beings. He feared that your views would be inverted, and you wouldn’t believe in the teaching of this mind that each and every one of you possesses. Therefore [Bodhidharma brought] the Lankavatara Sutra, which offers the Buddha’s words that mind is the essence—and that there is no gate by which to enter Dharma. You who seek Dharma should seek nothing. Apart from mind there is no other Buddha. Apart from Buddha there is no other mind.

A bit of Hui Hai, from Zen: Teaching of Instananeous Awakening by John Blofeld:

Q: From where do we start this practice?

A: You must start from the very root.

Q: And what is that?

A: Mind is the root.

Q: How can this be known?

A: The Lankavatara Sutra says: ‘When mental processes arise, then do all dharmas (phenomena) spring forth; and when mental processes cease, then do all dharmas cease likewise.’ The Vimalakirti Sutra says: ‘Those desiring to attain the Pure Land must first purify their own minds, for the purification of mind is the purity of the Buddha Land.’ The Sutra of the doctrine Bequeathed by the Buddha says: ‘Just by mind control, all things become possible to us.’ In another sutra it says: ‘Sages seek from mind, not from Buddha; fools seek from the Buddha instead of seeking from mind. Wise ones regulate their minds, rather than their persons; fools regulate their persons rather than their minds.’

While on Blofeld, here is some Huang Po, from his Zen Teaching of Huang Po:

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you—begin to reason about it, and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured.

More Chinul, from Secrets of Cultivating the Mind, trans. Thomas Cleary:

The material body is temporal, having birth and death. The real mind is like space, unending and unchanging. Thus it is said, “When the physical body decays and dissolves back into fire and air, one thing remains aware, encompassing the universe.

Perhaps it'd be better to be more specific about what is meant by "Yogacara" and what counts as an influence. Xuanzang died in 664, Shenhui was born in 684, Mazu was born in 709, so if there had been a Yogacara influence, it should have been that of Xuanzang's. But even if we consider the Dilun and Shelun, as thecowisflying noted, there should be some doctrinal correspondence pointed out for that. However, it doesn't look like that Zen had anything like that, but if you have something to the contrary, please show.

This doesn't sound very Yogacara to me:
[snip]

[ItsRaining]

I'm not saying that only Yogacara had an influence on Zen, or that Zen is Yogacara. But to deny it seems very disingenuous. Many Zen practitioners seem to take it as a given--- such as Red Pine, DT Suzuki, the disciples of Katagiri, and many others. Thomas Cleary writes that Yogacara "is one of the main veins of Mahayana Buddhism with which Zen is traditionally associated with from its very foundation." After all, Vasubandhu is listed as a Zen Patriarch---we all know him as a prime mover of Yogacara. You can also read Hakuin elucidate on the Eight Consciousnesses and the Four Cognitions in Cleary's Kensho: The Heart of Zen. The Four Cognitions is interesting because he talks about the three kayas and the transformation of consciousness, both very Yogacara. One can look at Chinul's Straightforward Explanation of the True Mind in the same text. In fact, I would have a hard time swinging a dead cat in a Zen library without hitting Yogacara flavored ideas.

Of course, these are just texts. Zen is hardly what I would call a text based tradition. Interestingly, in his Compass of Zen, Zen Master Seung Sahn writes off Madhyamaka as consisting primarily of analysis, whereas Zen consists of direct experience. Anyway, my experience of Zen confirms the above.

Here's a bit from Ma Zu, in Zen's Chinese Heritage by Andy Ferguson:

One day Mazu addressed the congregation, saying, “All of you here! Believe that your own mind is Buddha. This very mind is buddha mind. When Bodhidharma came from India to China he transmitted the supreme vehicle teaching of one mind, allowing people like you to attain awakening. Moreover he brought with him the text of the Lankavatara Sutra, using it as the seal of the mind-ground of sentient beings. He feared that your views would be inverted, and you wouldn’t believe in the teaching of this mind that each and every one of you possesses. Therefore [Bodhidharma brought] the Lankavatara Sutra, which offers the Buddha’s words that mind is the essence—and that there is no gate by which to enter Dharma. You who seek Dharma should seek nothing. Apart from mind there is no other Buddha. Apart from Buddha there is no other mind.

A bit of Hui Hai, from Zen: Teaching of Instananeous Awakening by John Blofeld:

Q: From where do we start this practice?

A: You must start from the very root.

Q: And what is that?

A: Mind is the root.

Q: How can this be known?

A: The Lankavatara Sutra says: ‘When mental processes arise, then do all dharmas (phenomena) spring forth; and when mental processes cease, then do all dharmas cease likewise.’ The Vimalakirti Sutra says: ‘Those desiring to attain the Pure Land must first purify their own minds, for the purification of mind is the purity of the Buddha Land.’ The Sutra of the doctrine Bequeathed by the Buddha says: ‘Just by mind control, all things become possible to us.’ In another sutra it says: ‘Sages seek from mind, not from Buddha; fools seek from the Buddha instead of seeking from mind. Wise ones regulate their minds, rather than their persons; fools regulate their persons rather than their minds.’

While on Blofeld, here is some Huang Po, from his Zen Teaching of Huang Po:

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you—begin to reason about it, and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured.

More Chinul, from Secrets of Cultivating the Mind, trans. Thomas Cleary:

The material body is temporal, having birth and death. The real mind is like space, unending and unchanging. Thus it is said, “When the physical body decays and dissolves back into fire and air, one thing remains aware, encompassing the universe.

Perhaps it'd be better to be more specific about what is meant by "Yogacara" and what counts as an influence. Xuanzang died in 664, Shenhui was born in 684, Mazu was born in 709, so if there had been a Yogacara influence, it should have been that of Xuanzang's. But even if we consider the Dilun and Shelun, as thecowisflying noted, there should be some doctrinal correspondence pointed out for that. However, it doesn't look like that Zen had anything like that, but if you have something to the contrary, please show.

This doesn't sound very Yogacara to me:
[snip]

These are closer to Tathagatabarbha teachings rather then Yogacara. In Yogacara the mind is generally referred to as the collection of the eight consciousnesses which are defiled and only pure when transformed into wisdoms upon Buddhahood. The original pure being Buddha isn't really taught in Yogacara as far as I know. They are more focused on the originally pure seeds in the Alaya which can bring forth the various stages of Sagehood (Arhat, Pratekya, Buddha).

[Aemilius]

Tathagatagarbha is mentioned in the Lankavatara sutra, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-na ... tara-Sutra

[Astus]

Many Zen practitioners seem to take it as a given--- ... After all, Vasubandhu is listed as a Zen Patriarch

In that case it shouldn't be difficult to compare some works of Vasubandhu with the works of some Zen teachers and show the correspondences.

You can also read Hakuin elucidate on the Eight Consciousnesses and the Four Cognitions in Cleary's Kensho: The Heart of Zen. The Four Cognitions is interesting because he talks about the three kayas and the transformation of consciousness, both very Yogacara.

Talking of the eight consciousnesses, the three bodies, and the four wisdoms is not unique to Yogacara. Both Hakuin and Jinul teach that the bodies and wisdoms exist inherently, but that is contrary to what you find in the Mahayanasamgraha or the Cheng Weish Lun. Furthermore, Hakuin very much simplifies the function of the bodies and wisdoms, as it is common within Zen.

One can look at Chinul's Straightforward Explanation of the True Mind in the same text.

That text differentiates right at the beginning the scriptural and the patriarchal teachings. Furthermore, it talks of inherent buddha-nature, a concept that is denied not only by the doctrine of the five gotras, but also how the mind is understood in Yogacara.

Yogacara flavored ideas

It seems that is a different flavour.

Here's a bit from Ma Zu, in Zen's Chinese Heritage by Andy Ferguson:

Believe that your own mind is Buddha. This very mind is buddha mind.

Not according to Yogacara, where this mind is very much the product of defilements.

he brought with him the text of the Lankavatara Sutra

It already existed in Chinese.

using it as the seal of the mind-ground of sentient beings.

The ground is the alayavijnana in Yogacara, not some sort of pure consciousness.

A bit of Hui Hai, from Zen: Teaching of Instananeous Awakening by John Blofeld:
A: Mind is the root.

Again, nothing specific to Yogacara. Look at the first two stanzas of the Dhammapada:

"Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow."

While on Blofeld, here is some Huang Po, from his Zen Teaching of Huang Po:

This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible

All eight consciousnesses are momentary, definitely not indestructible.