Malcolm wrote:Right, we do not agree. I do not accept that there is a so called Indian Yogacara that is not cittamatra, despite whatever confusion some Tibetans and Westerners have about this issue.
Indeed. It's instructive to see how the distinction between mind-only and consciousness-only developed in China and Japan: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78948070/Will ... gy-ha-302p. Page 153, The Meaning of "Mind-Only" (Wei-Hsin): "an analysis of a sinitic Nahayana phenomenon, by Whalen Lai:
Modern Japanese Buddhologists, following a distinction that was evident already in theT'ang Buddhist circles, speak of a Mind-Only (Sanskrit: Cittamaatra) school usually covering Zen and Hua-yen as being distinct from, and superior to, the Consciousness-Only (Sanskrit: Vijnaaptimatra) tradition, represented by the Wei-shih school (Fa-hsing) of Hsuan-tsang's followers. This distinction between the so-called Wei-hsin (Mind-Only) and Wei-shih (Consciousness-Only) is often assumed to be self-evident. However, there is, in Indian Buddhism, only one term, Yogaacaara or Vijnaaptimatra, covering these two distinct branches in China. In the Tibetan Buddhist canon also, the section known as Cittamaatra designates only Yogaacaara texts. There is no sharp distinction made in India or Tibet between Cittamaatra and Vijnaptimaatra, Mind-Only or Consciousness-Only, or, for that matter, between citta, mind, or (aalaya)-vijnaana, (storehouse)-consciousness. In Yogaacaara traditions, citta is often another term for aalayavijnaana. How is it then that the Chinese and then the Japanese have this clear notion that Mind-Only is something other than, and superior to, Consciousness-Only? In the following article, I will discuss the meaning of Mind-Only from only one particular perspective by tracing the roots of the Zen concept of the Mind being the Buddha-nature. I will not touch upon the debate between Hua-yen and Fa-hsian, an ideological conflict that historically precipitated the Mind-Only versus Consciousness-Only dichotomy.