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

[illarraza]

I'm sure he didn't preach "Theravada". Theravada is result of a long and complex development of the Buddhist Sangha and its relation to the Indian society and to other religions and to the Indian and South-east Asian political scene.
The word "theravada" is a later addition. Vasubandhu never uses it, perhaps he didnt even know it. Or may be the Indian Sanghas never accepted such a preposterous claim. Vasubandhu knows them by the name of Srilankan monks.

"Noted Canadian Buddhist scholar A.K. Warder (University of Toronto) identifies the following eighteen early Buddhist schools (in approximate chronological order): Sthaviravada, Mahasamghika, Vatsiputriya, Ekavyavaharika, Gokulika (a.k.a. Kukkutika, etc.), Sarvastivada, Lokottaravāda, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya, Sammitiya, Sannagarika, Bahusrutiya, Prajnaptivada, Mahisasaka, Haimavata (a.k.a. Kasyapiya), Dharmaguptaka, Caitika, and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila. Warder says that these were the early buddhist schools as of circa 50 BCE, about the same time that the Pali Canon was first committed to writing and the presumptive origin date of the Theravada sect, though the term 'Theravada' was not used before the fourth century CE."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

How about the School of the Elders?

Mark

[Queequeg]

I'm sure he didn't preach "Theravada". Theravada is result of a long and complex development of the Buddhist Sangha and its relation to the Indian society and to other religions and to the Indian and South-east Asian political scene.
The word "theravada" is a later addition. Vasubandhu never uses it, perhaps he didnt even know it. Or may be the Indian Sanghas never accepted such a preposterous claim. Vasubandhu knows them by the name of Srilankan monks.

"Noted Canadian Buddhist scholar A.K. Warder (University of Toronto) identifies the following eighteen early Buddhist schools (in approximate chronological order): Sthaviravada, Mahasamghika, Vatsiputriya, Ekavyavaharika, Gokulika (a.k.a. Kukkutika, etc.), Sarvastivada, Lokottaravāda, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya, Sammitiya, Sannagarika, Bahusrutiya, Prajnaptivada, Mahisasaka, Haimavata (a.k.a. Kasyapiya), Dharmaguptaka, Caitika, and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila. Warder says that these were the early buddhist schools as of circa 50 BCE, about the same time that the Pali Canon was first committed to writing and the presumptive origin date of the Theravada sect, though the term 'Theravada' was not used before the fourth century CE."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

How about the School of the Elders?

Mark

No. He talked about Sravakayana or Hinayana or Tripitaka path. This refers to teachings in the Agama Sutras and commentaries like the Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu.

Fundamentally, its defined as the path that seeks individual liberation. Buddhahood of this path only compares to the 7th Stage of Faith in the 52 Stage of Bodhisattva Practice of the Perfect Teaching. Actually, the "Buddhahood" of this path is provisional - wholly illusory. Its a phantom city, a mirage in the desert, that is pointed out to help sravakas have a sense of the beginning and end of the path they follow. They will at the appropriate time learn that the path they follow is illusory and that Buddhahood is actually still far off for them and that the real scale of the path is beyond their ability to comprehend - ie. the Buddha's life span.

Important to note that the Perfect path that is considered the highest teaching in Lotus traditions is Sudden. It is like a poison that kills the ego whenever it is introduced. Gradualism is itself a sort of illusion, though it is a beneficial one that is appropriate for those not ready for the Sudden. The Perfect path has a gradual aspect, but this is a process of purification - one has already entered the bodhi wisdom but habitual residue remains precluding perfection. It is a provisional display for the purpose of edifying and supporting others.

[Aemilius]

I'm sure he didn't preach "Theravada". Theravada is result of a long and complex development of the Buddhist Sangha and its relation to the Indian society and to other religions and to the Indian and South-east Asian political scene.
The word "theravada" is a later addition. Vasubandhu never uses it, perhaps he didnt even know it. Or may be the Indian Sanghas never accepted such a preposterous claim. Vasubandhu knows them by the name of Srilankan monks.

"Noted Canadian Buddhist scholar A.K. Warder (University of Toronto) identifies the following eighteen early Buddhist schools (in approximate chronological order): Sthaviravada, Mahasamghika, Vatsiputriya, Ekavyavaharika, Gokulika (a.k.a. Kukkutika, etc.), Sarvastivada, Lokottaravāda, Dharmottariya, Bhadrayaniya, Sammitiya, Sannagarika, Bahusrutiya, Prajnaptivada, Mahisasaka, Haimavata (a.k.a. Kasyapiya), Dharmaguptaka, Caitika, and the Apara and Uttara (Purva) Saila. Warder says that these were the early buddhist schools as of circa 50 BCE, about the same time that the Pali Canon was first committed to writing and the presumptive origin date of the Theravada sect, though the term 'Theravada' was not used before the fourth century CE."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

How about the School of the Elders?

Mark

No. He talked about Sravakayana or Hinayana or Tripitaka path. This refers to teachings in the Agama Sutras and commentaries like the Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu.

I don't think there was one unified Sangha even when Shakyamuni was living. To begin with, he was a teacher like other contemporary teachers of Sramana schools.

Actually even Devadatta had followers for several hundred of years, one of the Chinese pilgrims to India did meet them. Thus the Sravakayana version of the career of Devadatta may be, and probably is, a complete hoax. Devadatta actually managed to found his own schools of ascetics. I feel there certainly is also other propaganda material included in the Theravada canon.

Buddha taught in all of the Sixteen Great Countries (Mahajanapada). You can be quite sure that the Arhats or lay people from other, and sometimes distant, countries did not very often come to Magadha to discuss the practical or theoretical matters with magadhan monks and laity.

The existing Sravakayana canons have a parochial flavor, most of the materials were collected in Magadha. It is noteworthy that the Sravakayana sutras mention Buddhist Viharas that exist in other countries (than Magadha). Teachings given by Shakyamuni in different countries may have differed to begin with. And then they developed gradually or very quickly into different directions, as is normal with human cultures everywhere on Earth.

[Queequeg]

How about the School of the Elders?

Mark

No. He talked about Sravakayana or Hinayana or Tripitaka path. This refers to teachings in the Agama Sutras and commentaries like the Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu.

I don't think there was one unified Sangha even when Shakyamuni was living. To begin with, he was a teacher like other contemporary teachers of Sramana schools.

Actually even Devadatta had followers for several hundred of years, one of the Chinese pilgrims to India did meet them. Thus the Sravakayana version of the career of Devadatta may be, and probably is, a complete hoax. Devadatta actually managed to found his own schools of ascetics. I feel there certainly is also other propaganda material included in the Theravada canon.

Buddha taught in all of the Sixteen Great Countries (Mahajanapada). You can be quite sure that the Arhats or lay people from other, and sometimes distant, countries did not very often come to Magadha to discuss the practical or theoretical matters with magadhan monks and laity.

The existing Sravakayana canons have a parochial flavor, most of the materials were collected in Magadha. It is noteworthy that the Sravakayana sutras mention Buddhist Viharas that exist in other countries (than Magadha). Teachings given by Shakyamuni in different countries may have differed to begin with. And then they developed gradually or very quickly into different directions, as is normal with human cultures everywhere on Earth.

Historical facts about the sangha don't matter. Nichiren was using an established model to define himself against.

[ronnymarsh]

Some pertinent considerations:

- When Shakyamuni Buddha talks about the Ten Suchness in the Hoben chapter he uses words and phrases.

Whether in the scheme presented in the Kumarajiva version or in the Sanskrit version in which the Buddha repeats a five-aspect formula (5*2=10), he is still directly teaching, using words and phrases, that true reality is made up of 10 aspects. . This kind of statement is not compatible with the orthodox notion of Madhyamaka.

- Madhyamaka and Yogacara are Indian schools that appeared before Zhiyi and Nichiren.

Madhyamaka appeared in the 2nd century. Yogacara in the 4th century. Zhiyi in the 6th century. Nichiren in the 13th century. Between the first and the second there is an interval of two centuries. As well as between the second and the emergence of Zhiyi.
So when we use the terms madhyamaka and yogacara we are referring to these schools developed in India. The Three Treatises and Characteristics of the Dharmas schools (Sanron and Hosso) are not the Madhymaka and Yogacara schools, they are Chinese schools that organized themselves more as study groups than as practice groups.
These schools studied a small set of Buddhist texts and based on them they proposed a philosophical and doctrinal vision destined for public debate. Both the adherents of the Tiantai and Nichiren schools are critical of the propositions brought by these schools even if they accepted the sources on which they were based.
Particularly speaking of Nichiren, Kanji Honzon Sho and other writings he says (or suggests) that the entire Corpus of Buddhist sutras form a perfect WHOLE, as if it were a single sutra.
Zhiyi's classification of the Sutras into Five Periods and Four Teachings was not an attempt to downplay some texts and conceptions to the detriment of others, but to systematize a cohesive Buddhism. This is the big difference between the original Tiantai and the other schools. Zhiyi considered the entire Canonical Buddhist Corpus, while Sanron and Hosso, as well as Kegon and Mantra, had narrow views particularized in terms of a small number of texts.
That is, for Zhiyi, both the texts that expose notions that were explored by Madhyamaka, such as the Prajna Paramita, are valid and true notions, as well as the texts and notions explored by Yogacara. And because what makes conflicting notions true is the Lotus Sutra, which transcends it all, it becomes central and all-encompassing, the piece that makes it all coherent and valid.

- Nichiren has a vision that seems to want to abandon absolutely all Sutras, and many people interpret it that way. However, he cites many other texts besides Hokkekyo to support his views.

To understand this, it is necessary to understand that Nichiren sees two dimensions in the Buddhist Corpus. One has to do with doctrine and the other with practice.
In terms of Doctrine, all texts are valid, perfect and adequate. But as far as practice is concerned, they are deficient and inadequate for the current moment.
In Nichiren Corpus little is discussed doctrines or issues about reality, as he assumes that people are already fully understood these essential doctrinal concepts. He is dedicated to exploring the practical dimension of Buddhism, the meditative aspect of the texts, and even his understanding of what the Lotus Sutra is is related to this.

[illarraza]

Some pertinent considerations:

- When Shakyamuni Buddha talks about the Ten Suchness in the Hoben chapter he uses words and phrases.

Whether in the scheme presented in the Kumarajiva version or in the Sanskrit version in which the Buddha repeats a five-aspect formula (5*2=10), he is still directly teaching, using words and phrases, that true reality is made up of 10 aspects. . This kind of statement is not compatible with the orthodox notion of Madhyamaka.

- Madhyamaka and Yogacara are Indian schools that appeared before Zhiyi and Nichiren.

Madhyamaka appeared in the 2nd century. Yogacara in the 4th century. Zhiyi in the 6th century. Nichiren in the 13th century. Between the first and the second there is an interval of two centuries. As well as between the second and the emergence of Zhiyi.
So when we use the terms madhyamaka and yogacara we are referring to these schools developed in India. The Three Treatises and Characteristics of the Dharmas schools (Sanron and Hosso) are not the Madhymaka and Yogacara schools, they are Chinese schools that organized themselves more as study groups than as practice groups.
These schools studied a small set of Buddhist texts and based on them they proposed a philosophical and doctrinal vision destined for public debate. Both the adherents of the Tiantai and Nichiren schools are critical of the propositions brought by these schools even if they accepted the sources on which they were based.
Particularly speaking of Nichiren, Kanji Honzon Sho and other writings he says (or suggests) that the entire Corpus of Buddhist sutras form a perfect WHOLE, as if it were a single sutra.
Zhiyi's classification of the Sutras into Five Periods and Four Teachings was not an attempt to downplay some texts and conceptions to the detriment of others, but to systematize a cohesive Buddhism. This is the big difference between the original Tiantai and the other schools. Zhiyi considered the entire Canonical Buddhist Corpus, while Sanron and Hosso, as well as Kegon and Mantra, had narrow views particularized in terms of a small number of texts.
That is, for Zhiyi, both the texts that expose notions that were explored by Madhyamaka, such as the Prajna Paramita, are valid and true notions, as well as the texts and notions explored by Yogacara. And because what makes conflicting notions true is the Lotus Sutra, which transcends it all, it becomes central and all-encompassing, the piece that makes it all coherent and valid.

- Nichiren has a vision that seems to want to abandon absolutely all Sutras, and many people interpret it that way. However, he cites many other texts besides Hokkekyo to support his views.

To understand this, it is necessary to understand that Nichiren sees two dimensions in the Buddhist Corpus. One has to do with doctrine and the other with practice.
In terms of Doctrine, all texts are valid, perfect and adequate. But as far as practice is concerned, they are deficient and inadequate for the current moment.
In Nichiren Corpus little is discussed doctrines or issues about reality, as he assumes that people are already fully understood these essential doctrinal concepts. He is dedicated to exploring the practical dimension of Buddhism, the meditative aspect of the texts, and even his understanding of what the Lotus Sutra is is related to this.

Actually Ronny, Nichiren had many believers who were illiterate like the Atsuhara Martyrs. He realized that for these people, it was sufficient to have faith in Namu Myoho renge kyo. However for his literate disciples and believers, he gave them detailed scriptural passages from the Lotus Sutra and other sutras. Principally the priests were given the task to correctly transmit the teachings. Today, less than one tenth of one percent of people are illiterate. Today, the Succession or Transmission is indeed through the Scrolls of the Lotus Sutra and the authentic writings of Nichiren as taught by Nichiju, the founder of the Kempon Hokke who was the Chief Priest of the Tendai School before converting to Nichiren Lotus Sutra Buddhism at the age of 67.

[Queequeg]

Some pertinent considerations:

- When Shakyamuni Buddha talks about the Ten Suchness in the Hoben chapter he uses words and phrases.

Whether in the scheme presented in the Kumarajiva version or in the Sanskrit version in which the Buddha repeats a five-aspect formula (5*2=10), he is still directly teaching, using words and phrases, that true reality is made up of 10 aspects. . This kind of statement is not compatible with the orthodox notion of Madhyamaka.

This is mistaken. A total misunderstanding of Madhyamaka. See Chapter 24 of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. The critic claims Nagarjuna's position is incompatible with the Four Noble Truths (ie. the Buddha's teachings "using words and phrases"). Nagarjuna slams them. Really harshly and explains that emptiness, the conventional, and the middle are the same and that this is the basis of the Buddha's teachings "using words and phrases."

So when we use the terms madhyamaka and yogacara we are referring to these schools developed in India.

Speak for yourself. These refer to the proponents of these teachings, but more critically, these terms stand for particular views.

The Three Treatises and Characteristics of the Dharmas schools (Sanron and Hosso) are not the Madhymaka and Yogacara schools, they are Chinese schools that organized themselves more as study groups than as practice groups.
These schools studied a small set of Buddhist texts and based on them they proposed a philosophical and doctrinal vision destined for public debate. Both the adherents of the Tiantai and Nichiren schools are critical of the propositions brought by these schools even if they accepted the sources on which they were based.

Particularly speaking of Nichiren, Kanji Honzon Sho and other writings he says (or suggests) that the entire Corpus of Buddhist sutras form a perfect WHOLE, as if it were a single sutra.
Zhiyi's classification of the Sutras into Five Periods and Four Teachings was not an attempt to downplay some texts and conceptions to the detriment of others, but to systematize a cohesive Buddhism. This is the big difference between the original Tiantai and the other schools. Zhiyi considered the entire Canonical Buddhist Corpus, while Sanron and Hosso, as well as Kegon and Mantra, had narrow views particularized in terms of a small number of texts.

You don't really get exclusivism based on a text or set of texts until Pure Landers start obsessing about how Mappo means no one can benefit from the Buddha's teachings and they focus on Amitabha's vows and rebirth in Sukhavati to the exclusion of other teachings and practices. Rather, these various schools you refer to, including Tiantai, privilege a certain text or set of texts as the lens through which to interpret and understand the rest of the canon.

That is, for Zhiyi, both the texts that expose notions that were explored by Madhyamaka, such as the Prajna Paramita, are valid and true notions, as well as the texts and notions explored by Yogacara. And because what makes conflicting notions true is the Lotus Sutra, which transcends it all, it becomes central and all-encompassing, the piece that makes it all coherent and valid.

I don't know if you actually mean "transcend" but the Lotus does not "transcend", at least in Zhiyi (and Nichiren's view). Rather, the provisional teachings are the Saddharma taught in response to the capacities and conditions of the listener. This is the description of upaya/hoben in the Lotus. Zhiyi described the relationship as "opening the provisional to reveal the real." The Lotus opens provisional teachings and reveals them to be saddharma. Nichiren emphasized connection to the Saddharma, exclusively, as explained below.

- Nichiren has a vision that seems to want to abandon absolutely all Sutras, and many people interpret it that way. However, he cites many other texts besides Hokkekyo to support his views.

To understand this, it is necessary to understand that Nichiren sees two dimensions in the Buddhist Corpus. One has to do with doctrine and the other with practice.
In terms of Doctrine, all texts are valid, perfect and adequate. But as far as practice is concerned, they are deficient and inadequate for the current moment.
In Nichiren Corpus little is discussed doctrines or issues about reality, as he assumes that people are already fully understood these essential doctrinal concepts. He is dedicated to exploring the practical dimension of Buddhism, the meditative aspect of the texts, and even his understanding of what the Lotus Sutra is is related to this.

Nichiren accepted the idea that in Mappo, which started according to E. Asian Buddhist thought in 1054 CE, the Buddha's provisional teachings are ineffective for beings appearing in Saha. The provisional teachings were taught in response to the capacities and conditions of beings born in the former and middle days of the Buddha's teachings.

Nichiren is not concerned with whether beings can understand the Buddha's teachings or not. He assumes we really can't. Rather, as he wrote at the end of Kanjinnohonzonsho, the Daimoku is like an amulet tied around our necks out of compassion by the Buddha. The imagery here is like a tag around our necks so that no matter how we are tossed about in our ignorance, we never lose a connection to the Buddha. A dog does not understand the dog tag on its neck, but if it gets lost, it will be returned to its owner.

People try to theorize some elaborate doctrine and attribute it to Nichiren, mostly because I think people can't accept how simple and straight forward Nichiren's teaching is. They can't grok the nature and magnitude of his faith in the Daimoku. But that is what it is. Without understanding, with a mere faith (adhimukti) in the Daimoku, the saddharma is indelibly marked in the mind stream and will irrepressibly flourish into bodhi without effort.

[Caoimhghín]

This was a good thread to return to DharmaWheel for.



Short answer: they were already a part of Tendai, but that doesn't mean that historical Tiāntāi didn't at one point place itself in opposition to Yogācāra teachings. The Tendai sect has also been at different times in opposition to the Hossō sect. Never did they feel the need to jettison all teachings associated with them, however.

The answer's short, and says so little, while implying much.

[Vert]

This was a good thread to return to DharmaWheel for.



Short answer: they were already a part of Tendai, but that doesn't mean that historical Tiāntāi didn't at one point place itself in opposition to Yogācāra teachings. The Tendai sect has also been at different times in opposition to the Hossō sect. Never did they feel the need to jettison all teachings associated with them, however.

The answer's short, and says so little, while implying much.

Interestingly, i have stumbled upon the following:

Screenshot_20220725-222038-265.png (431.86 KiB) Viewed 1472 times

This talks about the beginning of my question. Zhiyi and as such by proxy Nichiren were influenced by the Chinese Nirvana school teachings which helped shape the doctrine of both teachers.

[Queequeg]

What is this source? Citation please.

Its not clear what it means to inherit some reading of "Mind as the locus of enlightenment." This wasn't merely a "Nirvana School" idea - its basic Mahayana from the beginning. For instance, the Vimalakirti Sutra says, "“Śāriputra, it is through the transgressions of sentient beings that they do not see the purity of the Tathāgata’s (i.e., my) buddha land. This is not the Tathāgata’s fault! Śāriputra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.” Vimalakirti Sutra, Watson tr.

Also, without access to more of this source, I'm get the impression this writer you quote does not understand Zhiyi. He's mistaken in asserting a symmetrical relationship between mind and matter, which are subsumed and correlated within the context of some all encompassing Mind of wisdom. This would correspond to what Zhiyi described as Distinct Perfect teaching, not Sudden Perfect which he considered the highest. Its true Zhiyi does not reduce mind to matter and matter to mind as some monism, but he goes further than drawing a symmetry and actually brings them together as distinct yet integrated and thoroughly mutual identity. As he remarked in one of the only critiques of Yogacara that I am aware of:

"In Vasubandhu's theory of consciousness only, there is only the one consciousness, but it is divided into the discrimination and the undiscriminating forms of consciousness; the discriminating consciousness is what we usually call consciousness, whereas the undiscriminating consciousness is "consciousness appearing to be an object." All the physical objects in the universe - vases, clothing, carts, and carriages - are all this undiscriminating form of consciousness... But since they are all one nature, we can equally say that there are two forms of matter, the discriminating and undiscriminating... It is this sense that mind and matter are non-dual. Since he [Vasubandhu] is able to say there are these two different forms of consciousness, we can equally say they are two different forms of matter... in the Integrated Teaching, we can also say that all things are matter only, or sound only, or scent only, or flavor only, or tactile sensation only, or consciousness only. In sum, every dharma inherently includes all the dharmas throughout the dharma-realm."
Evil and/or/as the Good, Ziporyn p. 164

What Zhiyi is distinguishing in his teaching is not the identity of extremes, but rather, in Ziporyn's words, the failure in the Yogacara view in characterizing the dharmadhatu from a unicentric perspective, ie. the discriminating mind. The mutuality at the center of Zhiyi's teachings is absolutely critical to understand him as well as to understand his teachings on practice. The nature of the empty mind is such that when one fixes their concentration on any phenomena - a vase, for instance - the vase is the totality of the dharmadhatu; all dharmas are functions of the vase in the sense that there is a vase, and then everything else which is the context of the vase. This extends to the subjective mind - when we fix our attention on the vase, that vase is our mind; there is no mind beyond the perception of the vase. The implications for that are extensive and profound, and lie at the heart of Zhiyi's teachings.

It might sound odd, but this is nothing but a riff on the 18 dhatus: eye, visual object, and visual consciousness are all three arisen together. Remove any one of the triad and the other two also are unarisen. I guess we could say, the Yogacara position that Zhiyi critiques is (whether this is a fair and accurate critique is another matter) the eye consciousness is primary and the eye and visual object are subordinate functions. Zhiyi's position is that we could take any of those three as primary and define the other two. When we cognize all three simultaneously, this is a comprehensive, ie. Complete, view. Ultimately, this is not just some theoretical exercise but the whole point is to integrate this idea in one's examination of phenomena in vipashyana practice. In this passage, Zhiyi is not analyzing dharmas as a triad - he is leaving out the Middle Way which is, if you understand Zhiyi, implied in his description of the mutual identities of subject and object.

[Vert]

What is this source? Citation please.

Its not clear what it means to inherit some reading of "Mind as the locus of enlightenment." This wasn't merely a "Nirvana School" idea - its basic Mahayana from the beginning. For instance, the Vimalakirti Sutra says, "“Śāriputra, it is through the transgressions of sentient beings that they do not see the purity of the Tathāgata’s (i.e., my) buddha land. This is not the Tathāgata’s fault! Śāriputra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.” Vimalakirti Sutra, Watson tr.

What he means is that according to Zhiyi, Buddha-Nature is the same as the mind, the Ninth conscience, and having read both Zhiyi and Nichiren, i agree 100% with the author. It is pretty clear that Zhyli adopted the theory of the nine consciences of Paramārtha and as such saw the deepest conscience to be the same as Buddha-Nature/Tathāgatagarbha and as such so did Nichiren.

I would also suggest you take a look at this post and answers:



And here is the source of the text i posted above:
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=xI ... &q&f=false

[Queequeg]

What he means is that according to Zhiyi, Buddha-Nature is the same as the mind, the Ninth conscience, and having read both Zhiyi and Nichiren, i agree 100% with the author. It is pretty clear that Zhyli adopted the theory of the nine consciences of Paramārtha and as such saw the deepest conscience to be the same as Buddha-Nature/Tathāgatagarbha and as such so did Nichiren.

I would also suggest you take a look at this post and answers:



And here is the source of the text i posted above:
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=xI ... &q&f=false

If you want to make that leap and assert that Zhiyi adopted the 9 Consciousness model, you are entitled to your opinion, but you will not find actual support for that in any of Zhiyi's extant writings. If you want to know what Zhiyi actually had to say about Buddhanature, you should look at what he actually wrote about it. It is profound.

Especially, if you want to understand Nichiren, it behooves you to understand what Zhiyi taught about Buddhanature. Sadaihiho, for instance, resonates with teachings on Threefold Buddhanature.

As was pointed out above, the concern with Amala Vijnanana from a Nichrien perspective is odd since Nichiren himself hardly mentioned it.

Fare well.

[Vert]

If you want to make that leap and assert that Zhiyi adopted the 9 Consciousness model, you are entitled to your opinion, but you will not find actual support for that in any of Zhiyi's extant writings. If you want to know what Zhiyi actually had to say about Buddhanature, you should look at what he actually wrote about it. It is profound.

Fare well.

You can find mentions of the teaching of Nine consciousness in multiple Tiantai writings on all ages. Youxi Chuandeng, an important Tiantai talks about Zhiyi teachings and it's relation to the doctrine of Nine consciousness.Your Madhyamaka-only interpretation of Zhiyi teachings is a very narrow view and misses the bigger picture.

You can check Youxi writings here:
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... F/download

[Queequeg]

If you want to make that leap and assert that Zhiyi adopted the 9 Consciousness model, you are entitled to your opinion, but you will not find actual support for that in any of Zhiyi's extant writings. If you want to know what Zhiyi actually had to say about Buddhanature, you should look at what he actually wrote about it. It is profound.

Fare well.

You can find mentions of the teaching of Nine consciousness in multiple Tiantai writings on all ages. Youxi Chuandeng, an important Tiantai talks about Zhiyi teachings and it's relation to the doctrine of Nine consciousness.Your Madhyamaka-only interpretation of Zhiyi teachings is a very narrow view and misses the bigger picture.

You can check Youxi writings here:
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... F/download

As we've already discussed in this thread, yogacara teaching were integrated later. To claim that Amalavijnana is needed to understand Zhiyi's teachings on Buddhanature is flatly wrong. Rather, as Yogacara came to prominence, Tiantai thinkers sought to explain Zhiyi's teachings in light of the new concepts and terminology. You're approaching this backwards. And again, if your aim is to understand Nichiren, you're certainly wasting your energy on a concept that even he hardly mentioned. You would be better served learning ichinen sanzen.

We're coming back around to ground already covered in this thread. So, I'm out until we reach new ground.

[Vert]

If you want to make that leap and assert that Zhiyi adopted the 9 Consciousness model, you are entitled to your opinion, but you will not find actual support for that in any of Zhiyi's extant writings. If you want to know what Zhiyi actually had to say about Buddhanature, you should look at what he actually wrote about it. It is profound.

Fare well.

You can find mentions of the teaching of Nine consciousness in multiple Tiantai writings on all ages. Youxi Chuandeng, an important Tiantai talks about Zhiyi teachings and it's relation to the doctrine of Nine consciousness.Your Madhyamaka-only interpretation of Zhiyi teachings is a very narrow view and misses the bigger picture.

You can check Youxi writings here:
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... F/download

As we've already discussed in this thread, yogacara teaching were integrated later. To claim that Amalavijnana is needed to understand Zhiyi's teachings on Buddhanature is flatly wrong. Rather, as Yogacara came to prominence, Tiantai thinkers sought to explain Zhiyi's teachings in light of the new concepts and terminology. You're approaching this backwards. And again, if your aim is to understand Nichiren, you're certainly wasting your energy on a concept that even he hardly mentioned. You would be better served learning ichinen sanzen.

We're coming back around to ground already covered in this thread. So, I'm out until we reach new ground.

I am not talking about Yogachara exactly, more like the Yogachara ideas that came together with Buddha-Nature school as represented by Paramārtha and the Nirvana school. They were not idealistic like Yogachara proper is rather they simply saw mind and Buddha-Nature as the same.

Also i was able to find what i was looking for, here is Zhiyi/Chin-i description of the Nine consciousness. Here it shows he wrote/taught about it:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sch ... 2_23423096

[narhwal90]

Nichiren adopted the 9 Consciousness model, in that way along with ichinen sanzen, he might be orthodox Tendai. OTOH I wonder if his emphasis on these sorts of points might be different than Tendai in general- or perhaps not.

[Vert]

Nichiren adopted the 9 Consciousness model, in that way along with ichinen sanzen, he might be orthodox Tendai. OTOH I wonder if his emphasis on these sorts of points might be different than Tendai in general- or perhaps not.

In regards with the idea of 9 consciousness and ichinen sanzen, there is no difference between Nichiren views and formulations and those of Zhiyi/Tiandai. Zhiyi and Saicho writings are the pillars of Nichiren metaphysics formulations.

Screenshot_20220726-145757-912.png (162.4 KiB) Viewed 1405 times

[Queequeg]

Also i was able to find what i was looking for, here is Zhiyi/Chin-i description of the Nine consciousness. Here it shows he wrote/taught about it:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sch ... 2_23423096

No, it doesn't. It claims that Zhiyi taught such a scheme without a single citation to support that assertion. I would not rely on that paper for anything, frankly. It reads like an undergraduate's naive attempt to explain everything that ever was, ever will be, in the space of a term paper.

"The practice of Japanese Samurai way is linked to overcoming problems arising from one's unconscious state of mind (exemplified by Freudian psychology)."

Oh, please. If this article was peer reviewed, then the peers are equally poor scholars to the author. Garbage.

[Vert]

Also i was able to find what i was looking for, here is Zhiyi/Chin-i description of the Nine consciousness. Here it shows he wrote/taught about it:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sch ... 2_23423096

No, it doesn't. It claims that Zhiyi taught such a scheme without a single citation to support that assertion. I would not rely on that paper for anything, frankly. It reads like an undergraduate's naive attempt to explain everything that ever was, ever will be, in the space of a term paper.

"The practice of Japanese Samurai way is linked to overcoming problems arising from one's unconscious state of mind (exemplified by Freudian psychology)."

Oh, please. If this article was peer reviewed, then the peers are equally poor scholars to the author. Garbage.

Whatever you like or not Zhiyi taught the theory of Nine consciences and that is it, you can get as mad as you want over it but that doesn't change the facts. That is where i leave this thread, i showed and demonstrated what i wanted to and I am satisfied.

[Queequeg]

No. He didn't.

Fare well.