Did Nichiren introduced yogachara concept in his teaching or were they already part of tendai?

[Vert]

No. He didn't.

Fare well.

You are wrong, as you are most of the time you comment on Tiantai Buddhism. You shouldn't be spreading misinformation instead you should educate yourself. I have found further confirmation that he taught the doctrine of Nine consciousness.

Screenshot_20220810-155228-078.png (657.82 KiB) Viewed 906 times

Source:

The_Doctrine_of_Amalavijnana_in_Paramar.pdf

(1013.51 KiB) Downloaded 96 times

[Queequeg]

Did you read the footnotes? Two of the works attributed to Zhiyi that mention Amalavijnana are probably not his work. Radich nonetheless cites them because his aim is not to discuss Zhiyi but to identify early mentions of this term in Chinese Buddhist sources.

I am surprised that it's mentioned in Fahuaxuani (Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) and looked it up. He's not exactly teaching the Nine Consciousnesses scheme in that passage but as explained in Radich's article, he is relating Amalavijnana to his teachings, using it to elaborate his own unique teaching. The mention is brief and he quickly moves on. Amalavijnana is not the point of the passage. I would not be surprised that this was Guanding's commentary that was inserted and not Zhiyi's actual teaching as hinted in the footnotes. It's hardly grounds to argue that the 9 consciousness scheme was in any way important in Zhiyi's teachings.

This is not to dispute that the teaching was elevated later and adopted widely in E. Asia.

[Vert]

Did you read the footnotes? Two of the works attributed to Zhiyi that mention Amalavijnana are probably not his work. Radich nonetheless cites them because his aim is not to discuss Zhiyi but to identify early mentions of this term in Chinese Buddhist sources.

Indeed, no disagreement here, he does say in the footnotes that is difficult to say for sure when Zhiyi taught such and what can be attributed to his disciple later editing of his lecturse. The first two works he cites are likely his lecture on the subject edited by his disciples while the last two are indeed likely to not be his works (although he does not consider it to be a fact) as per his footnotes.

It is a healthy skepticism of the writings that come down to us but even if part of it was later added by his disciples, we can assume the core of the two first works are from his lectures and that he indeed taught such doctrine for his disciples to them expand on such teachings later on.

It is always difficult to determinate what works are direct writings by Zhiyi, edited/compiled material by his disciples, just apocryphal or even misattributions because the lack of records from the time but it is safe to assume based on the overall evidence that he taught and gave lectures on the subject. Now how extensively he tackled the subject is a matter for (extensive) debate.

Now regardless how central or not such teachings was for him, my point is simply that he was aware of the doctrine and incorporated it in his teachings. I am not claiming anything further than that exactly because the difficulties of knowing the origin of such works for sure mentioned above.