[Buddha-l] Cittamātra and Yogacāra

[Dan Lusthaus]

> Many Tibetan writers treat Cittamātra and Yogacāra as distinct schools
> with quite different views - I'm wondering why many western writers seem
> to use the terms interchangeably and treat them as a single school?
>
> - Chris

Excellent question, Chris. Separating citta-mātra from vijnapti-mātra is a 
doxographic invention of non-Indians. One sees it first in China, in the 7th 
century, with vijnapti-mātra (weishi 唯識) signifying Xuanzang's brand of 
Yogacara (based on 7th c. interpretations at Nālandā and elsewhere in 
India), while citta-mātra (weixin 唯心) is supposed to signify those 
interested in Dharma-nature (faxing 法性 = Buddha-nature = tathagatagarbha) 
instead of the supposedly more superficial Dharma-features (faxiang 法相), 
the latter another nickname assigned to the Xuanzang school. The definitive 
version of this bifurcation was forged by Fazang (Fa-tsang), the Huanyan 
patriarch.

The Tibetan version -- probably with some unacknowledged influence from the 
Chinese formulations -- arose later, addressing some of the same issues, but 
also a slew of additional issues, and for the doxographers solved a lot of 
messy problems about where to peg this or that text or author. That sort of 
attribution nonsense I would agree with Richard is not something worthwhile 
taking seriously -- except as a riddle, or a seemingly hopelessly tangled 
ball of twine that needs unraveling, i.e., as a hobby. Much of the Tibetan 
doxography has to be reexamined, especially concerning Yogacara (but Vose's 
book shows that Tibetan doxography of Madhyamaka could stand a major 
revisiting as well).

Note that in the two passages I cited, one from Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya and 
the other from Trisvabhava-nirdesa, both attributed to Vasubandhu (though 
there is major doubt outside Tib. circles that Vasubandhu was the author):

Apprehending vijñapti-mātra is the basis for the arising of the
nonapprehension of artha. The nonapprehension of artha is the basis for the
nonapprehension of vijñapti-mātra.

vijñapti-mātropalabdhim niśrityārthānupalabdhir-jayate. arthānupalabdhim
niśritya vijñapti-mātrasyāpi-anupalabdhir-jayate. (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya
I.7)

---
By the apprehending of citta-mātra, there is the nonapprehension of cognized
artha. By nonapprehending cognized artha, citta also is nonapprehended.

citta-mātra-upalambhena jñeyārthārthānupalambhatā. jñeyārtha anupalambhena
syāc-cittānupalambhatā. (Trisvabhāvanirdeśa 36)

both statements are very similar, one of the more obvious differences being 
that one refers to vijnapti-matra and the other to citta-matra.

Some have tried to substantiate an actual difference between these terms in 
terms of their history and who used/deployed them in India (e.g, Lankavatara 
would be citta-matra, while Trimsika would be vijnapti-matra, and so on), 
giving the citta-matra term a history toutside of and preceding the Yogacara 
of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Fun speculation, but nothing even close to real 
evidence in that debate.

My advice: Ignore the doxography if you are trying to understand what went 
on in India or in Indian texts. Just read the texts and make up your own 
mind. If you're interest is to discover what the Tibetans (or East Asians) 
thought at certain times and in certain places, then trace out the 
construction over time of the doxographies, similar to what Vose did for 
Candrakirti.

Dan