A Mahayana has three “philosophical perspectives”: Yogacara, Madhyamaka and Tathagatagarbha. The first part of Samadhi, the second part of Prajna and the third part of the synthesis between the two perspectives. Every Mahayana school of Chinese Buddhism starts from the Tathagatagarbha perspective, so they are all syntheses between Yogacara and Madhyamaka.
Nichiren wrote, for example:
“You should by all means perform as much good as you possibly can for the sake of your deceased husband. The words of a wise man of old also teach that “you should base your mind on the ninth consciousness, and carry out your practice in the six consciousnesses.” How reasonable it is too! In this letter I have written my long-cherished teachings. Keep them deep within your heart. You should by all means perform as much good as you possibly can for the sake of your deceased husband. The words of a wise man of old also teach that “you should base your mind on the ninth consciousness, and carry out your practice in the six consciousnesses.” How reasonable it is too! In this letter I have written my long-cherished teachings. Keep them deep within your heart." (Hell is the Land of Tranquil Light – SGI’s Gosho No 52)
and also
“The body is the palace of the ninth consciousness, the unchanging reality that reigns over all of life’s functions. To be endowed with the Ten Worlds means that all ten, without a single exception, exist in one world." (The Real Aspect of ther Gohonzon – SGI’s Gosho nº 101)
The notion of consciousnesses other than the first six is a theme presented by the Yogacara perspective, and particularly the idea of “Amala Vijnana” is a particularity brought up by Paramartha, the translator/writer of the Awakening of Faith. of the Sino-Japanese schools of Yogacara references.
When I say that the type of synthesis that exists in Nichiren prioritizes Yogacara over Madhyamaka (although it uses the basic madhyamaka nomenclature, like the Three Truths), I am basing myself on that aspect. How often does Nichiren talk about “emptyness” in his writings? What is more important in understanding Nichiren Buddhism, the notion of the "seed of Buddhahood" or the notion of "Shunyata"? Isn't that self-evident?
__________________________________________________________
B - You have to be a generalist in internet forum conversations, I can't dedicate myself to writing an entire thesis here.
__________________________________________________________
C- What are the sources of these general doctrinal criticisms of the Awakening of Faith?
Chi-i lived in the 6th century, between 538 and 597 CE. The Awakening of Faith was translated by Paramartha, a contemporary of him (died 569 CE). The Huayan school will only be formalized at the beginning of the 8th century CE, and the one who will devote efforts to refute it will be Miao-lo. However, before the existence of the Awakening of Faith, before the existence of the Huayan school, Chi-i had already developed her perception, which cannot be said to be opposed to the perceptions present in Avamtasaka and in the Awakening of Faith, on the contrary , the formulation of the idea of “Sanzen” depends on three fundamental texts: Kumarajiva's Lotus Sutra, which exposes the notion of “Ten Suchness”, the Avatamsaka Sutra which exposes the interpenetration of the Ten Realms, and the notion of the Three Spheres of individuation of the Shastra of the Great Prajna Paramita. Note that without Avatamsaka, the notion of “Sanzen” does not hold up to a Buddhist critic.
The problem with the general idea of the Huayan school is not derived from Avatamsaka, which in Tiantai's classification system represents the greatest teaching just below the Hokke-Nehan, but rather from Huayan's failure to ignore the Ten Lotus Suchness, and the consequences from this ignorance to universalist Buddhist soterology.
I repeat, without the Avatamsaka Sutra there would be no notion of Ichinen Sanzen.
__________________________________________________________
D- Ichinen does not mean “ksana” (a moment) from the Buddhist understanding of time.
The Chinese Buddhist term for "ksana" is the phonetic adaptation 刹那 [setsuna] and not "ichinen".
Ichinen 一念 precisely means “One Thought” or “One Remembrance”.
A ksana, from the Buddhist perspective, is equivalent to 1/60 of "one thought", ie, from the perspective of time, "Ichinen" is equivalent to sixty ksanas.
This “One Thought” is equivalent to the entire process of “knowledge”, that is, the entire process that starts from the contact between subject (sense organ) and object, until the emergence of a consciousness.
When we say “ichinen” [a thought] we are including everything: all five aggregates of the subject (the one who perceives and becomes aware) and all aspects related to the object that is perceived.
And yes, the Ichinen Sanzen is a teaching about the mind, but it is nonetheless “an epistemological theory about how things really are…”.
See, in Kanjin Honzon Sho tells the following dialog:
“Question: What is the diference between the teaching of one thousand suchnesses in one hundred realms and the teaching of one mind–three thousand?
Answer: The teaching of one thousand suchnesses in one hundred realms concerns only sentient beings, while the teaching of one mind–three thousand is related to all beings, sentient or nonsentient.
The notion of “Ichinen Sanzen” does not only address the “mind” aspect, but also the whole material reality. At KHS Nichiren goes on to explain how this is possible:
“[Ten suchnesses can be classified into two headings: matter and mind.] Appearance is matter. Nature is mind. Entity, power, activity, and environmental cause are matter and mind. Primary cause and e›ect are mind. Rewards and retributions are matter. (…)”
By including
EVERYTHING that exists, we are talking precisely about the sphere of the
ABSOLUTE.
Ichinen Sanzen's general idea is to understand that all that “exists” is inherently emptyness both of a self-sufficient existence (emptyness of atman) and of real distinctions that can be related to each of the constituent factors of reality (emptyness of dharmas ).
That is, not only is there no independent "I" in any constituent element of reality, there is no real distinction between them in which we can say "this dharma" is different from "that dharma". That is, A Buddha does not exist apart from Ordinary Mortals, just as the Pure Land does not exist apart from the Saha World.
A Buddha is an ordinary mortal and an ordinary mortal is a Buddha. The Pure Land is the Saha World and the Saha World is the Pure Land.
Here is the meaning of
“my land is pure and indestructible, but the multitude to see it burn up”.
It is not possible to say that they are “faces of the same coin”, because in a coin each side exists in opposition to the other. What could be said is that they are like the face of a sphere.
A sphere has only one face, but we can touch two equally distant poles in all directions. The "North" pole of a sphere is not a distinct face of the sphere in relation to the "South", the two are aspects of that sphere, but when we establish a convention called "distance" on this surface we say that there are two poles.
This means that in the process of knowledge (the formation of our own reality) there is no subject and object, there is no contact, there is no sensation, there is no perception, there is no volition and there is no consciousness.
We say "subject" only when there is a referential called "object", and vice versa, as they are mutually dependent, there is no subject outside the object and no object outside the subject, what exists is a single reality that is at the same time subject-object.
This is precisely the general perspective called “vijnanapiti matra”, or “only representation”, which is the notion brought by the Yogacara school. However, unlike the approach of the “Characteristics of Dharmas” school, Chi’i by including the notion of the “Ten Suchness” expands the concept and demonstrates how lighting is accessible to everyone, including, in the extreme, plants and stones.
Plants and stones are part of what is discriminated in the relationship as an “object”, what is known. Therefore they fall into the category of what Buddhism calls "dharmas".
Dharmas in Buddhism are the elements that make up reality. In general terms they are the sets we call the Five Aggregates (skandhas), ¨Twelve Bases (ayatanas) and Eighteen Spheres (dhatus).
The
five aggregates are:
Form, Perception, Sensation, Volition and Consciousness.
The
twelve Ayatanas are:
Six sense objects (thoughts, textures, tastes, smells, sounds and sights) plus the Six Sense Organs (mind, body, tongue, nose, ears and eyes).
The
eighteen Dhatus are:
the Twelve Ayatanas plus the Six Consciousnesses arising from contact.
This is what Buddhism calls
“dharmas”, without this understanding it is not possible to understand what we are talking about.
Now, from the knowledge of what a "dharma" is, we go to Kumarajiva's Lotus Sutra, in the Hoben chapter, and read the following:
“The true aspect of all dharmas [Shoho Jisso] can only be understood and shared between buddhas. This reality consists of the appearance [Nyoze So], nature [Nyoze Sho], entity [Nyoze Tai], power [Nyoze Riki], influence [Nyoze Sa], internal cause [Nyoze In], relation [Nyoze En], latent effect [Nyoze Ka], manifest effect [Nyoze Ho], and their consistency from beginning to end [Nyoze Hon Ma’kukyo To]
As the set of Ten Suchness indicates the non-dual characteristic of mind and matter in each dharma [as per the KHS quote above] it means that each of these dharmas (six aggregates, twelve bases and eighteen spheres) possess the non-dual characteristic of mind- matter
This could not be perceived by the Indian school Yogacara, or any other, since the “Ten Suchness” does not appear in the Indian text, only in the translation by Kumarajiva, who presents us with a paraphrase about the ten dharma questions that appear in the Sutra.
Without this understanding, there can be no notion that “objects” also have/are minds and that they therefore have the ability to attain enlightenment.
The result of this perspective has effects on the soteriological basis of Buddhism with regard, first, to the possibility of the two vehicles attaining Samyaksamboddhi, as well as, secondly, the possibility of the icchantikas attaining the same.
If we ignore the “Ten Suchness” of Kumarajiva's Lotus, then we have absolutely no reason to believe that “objects” have “mind” and therefore innate Buddha nature. So, from this perspective, those of the two vehicles, who destroyed their minds and went into extinction, cannot have the capacity to attain other different enlightenment, nor can the icchantikas who burnt out their virtuous mental aspects (the cause for enlightenment).
This is the main point of dispute between the Tiantai school, and therefore Nichiren, in relation to the Hosso (Yogacara) and Kegon (Avatamsaka) school, but not in relation to the general and comprehensive structure of reality, including its sources.
Nichiren says the following in gosho “The Three Kinds of Treasure” (Sushun Tenno Gosho – Gosho do Imperador Sushun] SGI’s Gosho 106:
Buddhism teaches that, when the Buddha nature manifests itself from within, it will receive protection from without. This is one of its fundamental principles. The Lotus Sutra says, “I have profound reverence for you.”2 The Nirvana Sutra states, “All living beings alike possess the Buddha nature.” Bodhisattva Ashvaghosha’s Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana says, “Because the true abiding Law invariably permeates one’s life and exerts its influence, illusions are instantly extinguished, and the Dharma body manifests itself.” Bodhisattva Maitreya’s Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice contains a similar statement. What is hidden turns into manifest virtue.
Here Nichiren presents an argument and cites four texts to support it: the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra, the Awakening of Faith and the Yogaron, that is, together with the two main teaching sutras he uses two texts from a Yogacara perspective, including the Awakening of Faith.
In the Gosho “Teaching, Ability, Time and Country” (SGI's Gosho 07), Nichiren says the following:
“Japan is a country that is exclusively suited to Mahayana, and among those teachings it should be dedicated solely to the Lotus Sutra. (The above statement is attested to in The Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice, the writings of Seng-chao, and the records of Prince Shōtoku, the Great Teacher Dengyō, and Annen.)6 To understand this is to understand the country. “
Again, here Nichiren again bases his argument on a Yogacara (Yugaron) source which is later cited in the gosho "On the Five Guides for Propagation".