East Asian Transformations of the Two Hindrances: The Awakening of Faith, Weonhyo and the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment


Charles Muller
Toyo Gakuen University
Yogācāra Seminar, AAR 2001 Annual Meeting, Denver
November 18, 2001


The two hindrances (the afflictive hindrances and cognitive hindrances) are inextricably tied into all Yogācārin discussions of soteriology, as they represent basic ways of categorizing all the mistaken habits that human beings must rid themselves of in order to attain liberation. Although the definitions of the hindrances found in various Yogācāra texts are not always totally consistent with each other, they generally fit into a basic systematic model that is more or less definitive for the tradition. As Mahāyāna Buddhism developed and moved into East Asia, we find a number of authors who were interested in using the framework of the hindrances as a component of the explanation of their own soteriological systems. But although the naming and content of the hindrances used in these new texts are clearly derived from their original Yogācāra versions, their connotations show differences that are indicative of the special tendencies of the tradition that they are a part of. This paper introduces the basic Yogācāra interpretation of the hindrances, and traces two of the most significant transformations of their usage: (1) the version of the hindrances found in the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith (AMF), and (2) that found in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment. The comparison of these various understandings of the hindrances is aided greatly by the work of Weonhyo (617-686), the only major scholar in the history of Mahāyāna Buddhism to conduct a full length, concentrated study of the hindrances, which he did in a work entitled Ijangeui (Doctrine of the Two Hindrances). The paper has two main parts: In the first part, I show the radical difference between the basic Yogācāra understanding of the hindrances and that found in the AMF, arguing that it was the discovery of this difference that motivated Weonhyo to engage in the extensive research project that resulted in the production of the Ijangeui. In the second part, relying greatly on the analysis provided by the Chinese scholar-monk Zongmi (780-841), I show how the interpretation of the two hindrances was transformed in the East Asian apocryphon, the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, which offers a version of the hindrances that is again different from both the Yogācāra and AMF versions.



The Original Yogācāra Teaching of the Hindrances

The two hindrances as explained in the Yogācāra texts are the afflictive hindrances (kleśa-āvaraṇa) and cognitive hindrances (jñeya-āvaraṇa), which together constitute a common way of categorizing the broad range of phenomena that engender suffering, impel continuity of the cycle of rebirth, impede the attainment of liberation, and obstruct the ability to see reality as it is. These hindrances include all factors associated with ignorance, delusion, affliction, suffering, anxiety, and so forth. The systematization of the individual factors that comprise the hindrances was begun in the Abhidharmic texts with the compilation of the seventy-five dharmas, and the formal classification into these two broad categories followed in the Yogācāra texts.
In their standard interpretation, the afflictive hindrances include all the various forms of affliction enumerated in the Yogācāra treatises. This starts with the six primary afflictions, which arise based on the reification of an imagined self (我, 我見, 身見, 有身見, etc; satkāya-dṛṣṭi). From these six afflictions are derived the twenty secondary afflictions, ninety-eight, 104, 128 afflictions, etc. These further appear in actively manifest form, latent form, debilitating form, seed form, as habit energies, and in a range of sub-varieties of strength and weakness, coarseness and subtlety, and intermixture. Generally speaking, they are karmic—i.e., in addition to being the direct causes and manifestations of suffering, they create bonds to cyclic existence, enmeshing sentient beings into perpetual suffering and rebirth, and thus, by definition, obstruct the attainment of liberation—nirvana. This type of hindrance receives its name, then, based on its role as the agent, rather than object, of obstruction.
The cognitive hindrances are subtler obstructions of awareness that are grounded in discrimination and attachment by cognitive functions. In the original Yogācāra explanation, all cognitive hindrances are ultimately derived from the reification of imaginary objective phenomena. The Sanskrit jñeya, which can be interpreted in English as "the knowable(s)", or "all that can be known" was translated into Chinese as suozhi 所知—"that which is known," or "objects of cognition," etc. The orientation for the naming of these hindrances is opposite from of the afflictive hindrances, since, in the case of the cognitive hindrances, it is the things that should be known (reality, suchness, the noble truths, correctly apprehended phenomena, etc.) that are subject to the obstruction, rather than being the obstructing agents. Whereas it is the afflictive hindrances that directly bring about karmic suffering and rebirth in the three realms, it is the cognitive hindrances that keep sentient beings in a state of misapprehension of reality, allowing them to continue making the errors that allow for, at best, the non-elimination of the afflictive hindrances, and at worst, the creation of new afflictions.
The most comprehensive source for the basic understanding of the hindrances (which I will refer to here as the "orthodox" understanding, and later as the "Faxiang" understanding), is the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. The approach to the hindrances articulated in the Yogācārabhūmi can also be seen with minor variations in other seminal Yogācāra works, such as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, Abhidharma-sammucaya, Xianyang lun, etc. Discussions of the hindrances can also be found in East Asia, where significant efforts were made to offer a cohesive and systematic presentation of the Yogācāra system, based primarily on the translations of the major Yogācāra texts by Xuanzang (玄奘 600-664). The central text for what would end up being the predominant strain of East Asian Yogācāra, the Faxiang school, was the Cheng weishi lun成唯識論. This text was designed to present a cohesive--albeit rather imbalanced--overview of the Yogācāra system, especially as it was understood by Xuanzang and his disciple Kuiji. This text contains a section that summarizes the hindrances more or less according to their basic Yogācāra interpretation. In that treatise, we read:
What are the afflictive hindrances? Led by attachment to an imagined real self, they consist of the one hundred twenty-eight fundamental afflictions and the various secondary afflictions that are derived from them. These all torment and vex sentient beings in mind and body and obstruct nirvana. Thus they are called the afflictive hindrances. What are the cognitive hindrances? Led by attachment to imagined real phenomena they are constituted by views, doubt, ignorance, craving, hatred, pride, etc. [1] They obscure the undistorted nature of knowable objects and are able to obstruct bodhi. Thus they are called the cognitive hindrances.
The cognitive hindrances necessarily exist within the afflictive hindrances, because the afflictive hindrances take the cognitive hindrances as their support.[2] Although they do not differ in terms of essence, their functions are different. [Adherents of] the two vehicles can only eliminate the afflictive hindrances; the bodhisattvas eliminate both. Only the holy path is capable of permanently eliminating both kinds, but the subduing of the two in their active state can also occur in contaminated practices.[3]
It is important for the purposes of this paper to observe that the basic relationship between the hindrances is one that has a rational and clearly defined roots-to-branches structure. The cognitive hindrances, which represent subtler errors that are mistaken functions of awareness, serve as the basis of the afflictive hindrances. They are usually not karmic, since in most cases they do not have moral retribution associated with their function. The afflictive hindrances are behavioral habits that are always contaminated to some degree, and in the majority of cases, bring about undesirable moral retribution. When the two hindrances are discussed in the context of the Yogācāra paths by which they are removed (such as the paths of insight and cultivation, or the ten bhūmis) the afflictive hindrances are removed earlier by both bodhisattvas and adherents of the two vehicles (who rely on self-salvifically oriented practices) and the cognitive hindrances are removed later, by bodhisattvas only, through practices that are empowered by emptiness and compassion.[4]

Weonhyo's Ijangeui (Doctrine of the Two Hindrances)

Although the hindrances are mentioned with regularity throughout the Yogācāra texts, nowhere in this corpus are the hindrances themselves treated as a main topic in an organized and sustained manner. We instead find them included as part of the discussion of other, larger topics, such as: the extent to which defilement penetrates the ālaya; how the practices of the various paths are distinguished; the relationship between certain kinds of afflictions, or views, and ignorance; the function by which affliction perfumates mental states, and so forth. Even in texts that contain extensive discussion of the hindrances, this discussion it is scattered. Thus, it is hard to know, without a serious bit of investigation, to what degree the various definitions of the hindrances in the Yogācāra texts actually agree with each other.
There was one scholar, however, who happened to be motivated to take up a rare interest in the hindrances, and who conducted a full-length research project investigating what was said about them throughout some fifty Mahāyāna texts. This was none other than the prolific Korean monk Weonhyo (元曉 617-686), who, in the course of his career, commented extensively on the doctrines of every single Mahāyāna school imported into East Asia.[5] Despite the unusual evenness with which Weonhyo treated the range of Buddhist doctrines, and at least in the end, a clear personal preference for the teachings of Huayan and the Awakening of Faith, Yogācāra-related commentarial work formed one of the largest segments of his total oeuvre.[6] Furthermore, his reliance on Yogācāra texts to explain the doctrines of other, ostensibly unrelated texts, such as Vinaya, Pure Land, and State Protection, is predominant. Thus even though Weonhyo himself would certainly reject such a title as "Master of the Yogācāra Doctrine," his knowledge of this system was no doubt a match for any of the great Yogācāra scholars of the era.
Weonhyo compiled his research on the two hindrances in a monograph-length work called the Ijangeui (二障義Doctrine of the Two Hindrances).[7] At the center of this inquiry were the Indian Yogācāra texts and their commentaries, but he also included materials from the Nirvana Sutra, Avataṃsaka-sūtra, Sutra for Humane Kings, and many other works not classified as Yogācāra, since all of these works, even if not exactly using the term "two hindrances," did have something to say about the presence of and removal of affliction and ignorance. The Ijangeui is organized into five main sections, around the following topics:
(1) Analysis of how the various texts explained the hindrances as being constituted, especially in terms of such Yogācāra categories as retributive moral quality; their distribution (or lack thereof) throughout eight consciousnesses; their conditions of manifest activity and latency; their function in the situation of seeds, habit energies, and perfumation; their categorization in terms of Yogācāra dharma-theory, etc.
(2) Enumeration of their various functions, broadly subsumed in the two categories of producing karma and bringing rebirth.
(3) Explanation of the rationale behind the various types of arrangements of the hindrances, including their groupings into 128, 104, and ninety-eight; the perspective of the eight kinds of deluded conceptualization; the three kinds of afflictions, and the two categories of arisen and hypostatic.
(4) An account of the Yogācārin methods for eliminating the hindrances. This section turns out to be one of the most concentrated and complete accounts of Yogācāra path theory available anywhere. While all five paths are discussed, the primary focus is placed on what exactly occurs within the two supramundane paths of seeing (見道 or "insight") and cultivation 修道. Inextricably mixed in this discussion are the matters of virulence and subtlety of afflictions, how the paths are actually applied in the circumstances of the two lesser vehicles and bodhisattva vehicles, and so on.
(5) A final chapter that treats discrepancies in interpretation between Mahāyāna/Hīnayāna, and between various Mahāyāna scriptures and commentators. Although Yogācāra is relatively systematic, there was no shortage of disagreements on subtle points regarding issues such as how perception occurs, and the degree to which defilement permeates the human consciousnesses.
The overall discourse of the Ijangeui is structured by one further dimension. That is, in each section, Weonhyo will first discuss the topic in terms of standard Yogācāra positions, which he calls the "exoteric approach" (顯了門). He will then follow this interpretation of the theme under discussion by looking at it from the point of view of what he calls the "esoteric approach" (隱蜜門). What is this esoteric mode of interpretation? Since the establishment of the esoteric category occurs as a direct result of Weonhyo's work with the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith [AMF], we need to look at the intimate role that the AMF played in stimulating the composition of the Ijangeui.
The AMF ended up being Weonhyo's unequivocal favorite among the texts that he explicated.[8] Since the AMF is concerned, more than anything else, with issues of the origins of, and the removal of affliction and ignorance in the effort of attaining enlightenment, it is not surprising that the two hindrances appear within it. But the definition that the AMF attaches to the hindrances constitutes a radical departure from the generic presentation made up to that point in the Yogācāra literature. Having been well-versed in the Yogācāra structure of the hindrances (such as given in the citation from the Cheng weishi lun above), we can understand Weonhyo's puzzlement upon meeting the following passage in the AMF:
Furthermore, the aspect of defiled mind is called the afflictive obstruction,[9] because it is able to hinder the intrinsic wisdom of suchness. The aspect of ignorance is called the obstruction of wisdom, as it is able to hinder mundane natural karmic wisdom. (T 1666.32.577c20-22)[10]
The phrase that says "the aspect of the defiled mind is called the afflictive obstruction" is not problematic in the context of the generic Yogācāra definition. But in the next part of the passage, the afflictive obstructions, rather than being presented in the standard manner as obstructing liberation, are said to impede the intrinsic wisdom that cognizes suchness—nothing less than the most fundamental manifestation of enlightened awareness. This kind of obstruction, in the context of the Yogācārabhūmi and other Indian Yogācāra texts, would clearly be categorized as a cognitive hindrance. Furthermore, the first part of this phrase, while not seeming problematic at first glance, does present difficulties upon further examination. Rather than being constituted by the six primary and twenty secondary afflictions, with the reification of a self at their head, the afflictive obstructions are identified as the (six kinds of) defiled mental states[11]—a description of a sequential movement of ignorance that has connotations unique (at least up to that point in time) to the AMF, and which cannot readily be correlated to the way that the afflictive hindrances are constituted in the Yogācārabhūmi, etc. We will discuss this further below.
Coming to the second sentence, we find the cognitive obstructions defined as ignorance. This in itself is not problematic, except for the fact that the ignorance being introduced here is not to be understood as a form of nescience that obstructs the fundamental apprehension of tathatā. Instead, it is something that obscures the functioning of the karmic, phenomenal, discriminating wisdom that one uses for everyday worldly activities. While this impediment does fall under the purview of cognitive functioning and thus no doubt belongs in this category, it would seem to be, at least on the basis of the brief description provided here, a relatively derivative, or secondary problem, which makes it difficult to reconcile with the roots-and-branches framework implicit in the Faxiang structure.
In fact, it would not be going too far to say that the positions on these two approaches to the hindrances are directly reversed in terms of fundamental and derivative, since the AMF's afflictive obstructions obscure the wisdom of tathatā, and the obstructions of wisdom impede a relatively external phenomena-oriented form of awareness. The author of the AMF is obviously aware of the differences between his account of the hindrances and the standard Yogācāra version, and is hence moved to clarify:[12]
What does this mean? Since, depending upon the defiled mind, one is able to see, manifest, and deludedly grasp to objects, the mental function is contrary to the equal nature of suchness. Taking all dharmas to be eternally quiescent and lacking the marks of arising, ignorant non-enlightenment is deluded and thus one apprehends phenomena incorrectly. Thus one has no access to the wisdom regarding particular phenomena that is applied to all objects of the container world. (T 1666.32.577c23-25)[13]
Beyond this problem of the relative fundamentality or superficiality of the awareness being obstructed, there is also the difference seen in the fact that both kinds of obstructions in the AMF are cognitive in character. There is no mention of the traditional six primary or twenty secondary afflictions, nor even a mention of the traditional origin of these—the reification of the views of "I" and "mine," etc. Instead, the afflictive hindrances are seen as consisting in a fundamental misapprehension of the equal character of existence. According to the teaching of the AMF, this will result in the first motion of the mind, and that motion will lead to a series of attachments, and eventually, agitation.
The obstructions to wisdom, on the other hand, find their basis in the error of seeing only unity/equality, which results in the inability to interact with the world. We can interpret a bit here and say that while both obstructions can be seen as being extremely subtle in character, the obstruction to wisdom would more likely be seen in its activity in the minds of those who have already had some experience with correct awareness. Thus it is an obstruction that might be understood as affecting advanced practitioners who need to be active in the world—bodhisattvas.
Let us now follow Weonhyo in his first-time treatment of the matter—his earlier commentary on the AMF, the Expository Notes. He first introduces the standard Yogācāra definition of the hindrances:
There are two general approaches for explaining the two hindrances. The first interpretation is that in which adherents of the two vehicles are pervasively hindered by the ten afflictions,[14] which cause them to transmigrate, and hinder their attainment of nirvana. These are called the 'afflictive hindrances.' Bodhisattvas, however, are subject to special hindrances, such as the various delusions of attachment to phenomena, etc., which lead to misapprehension of the knowable objective realm, which in turn obstruct their realization of enlightenment. These are called the cognitive hindrances. This is the [standard] interpretation that is given in other scriptures and treatises. (HPC 1.765a07-11)[15]
He next introduces the new approach that he has encountered here in the AMF.
In the second interpretation, all kinds of mental states of moving thought and attachment to characteristics function contrarily to the quiescent nature of the wisdom that cognizes suchness. These are called the 'obstacles of affliction.' The dark unawareness of intrinsic (fundamental) ignorance acts contrary to the function of detailed examination by conventional wisdom. This is called the 'obstacle to discriminating wisdom.' (HPC 1.765a11)[16]
Having taken note of this difference, he further indicates that the AMF's rendition of the hindrances is at least non-standard, and even opposite to what one would expect.
Now this treatise addresses the hindrances from this latter perspective, and therefore it says that the six kinds of defiled mind are called obstacles due to affliction, and calls the hypostases of ignorance the obstacles to discriminating wisdom. But would it not be more reasonable to say that ignorance should hinder the wisdom that cognizes suchness, and the defiled states of mind hinder conventional (discriminating) wisdom? (HPC 1.765a14-17)
[17]
Wouldn't it, indeed. Why are they not reversed? It would be more systematic to say that the direct recipient of the contrary effects of intrinsic ignorance is intrinsic wisdom, and that the manifestly functioning hindrances might obscure manifestly functioning wisdom. Why, according to Weonhyo, is this not the case?
Because it is not yet necessary for it to be this way. The meaning of "not necessary" is like the treatise itself explains. (HPC 1.764a18)[18]
The treatise itself does not have an explanation of the phrase "not necessary," so it is up to us to figure out what Weonhyo means here, based on our own understanding of the AMF. I interpret "not yet necessary" to mean that it is not yet necessary to resort to a secondary-level explanation of the hindrances, since the present explanation is being carried out in the context of a more fundamental level of the operation of cognitive function than that treated in the standard Yogācāra context. The AMF''s focus is on giving an account of the course of the mind through its very first movements—the so-called three subtle and six coarse marks, which also play a direct role in the explanation of the six kinds of defiled mind.
Sometime after the completion of this commentary, Weonhyo embarks on his two hindrances project, and sometime after the completion of that project, returns to the AMF to write the commentary that would make him one of the most respected scholars in all of East Asian Buddhist history. What does he have to say, then, after doing this extensive investigation? Returning to the same passage, where the author of the AMF has just given his unusual description of the hindrances, Weonhyo writes:
The sixth section is a clarification of the meaning of the two obstacles. In their exoteric interpretation, they are called the two hindrances; in their esoteric interpretation, they are called the two obstacles. These connotations have received full treatment in [my treatise] the Ijangeui. The explanation in this text (the AMF) is that according to the esoteric interpretation.
The meaning of "the aspect of defiled states of mind," refers to the six kinds of defiled mind. "Intrinsic wisdom," refers to quiescent luminous wisdom [i.e. the wisdom that cognizes suchness]. [Since the defiled states of mind] act contrary to quiescence, they are called "obstacles of affliction."
The meaning of "ignorance," is that of intrinsic ignorance. The meaning of the phrase, "mundane karmic wisdom," is the same as "subsequently attained wisdom." Ignorance darkens [perception] such that nothing can be discriminated. Therefore it acts contrary to the wisdom that discriminates the conventional world. Due to this connotation, it is called "the obstacle to discriminating wisdom." (HPC 1.764c14-23)[19]
This new commentary does not really explain much more than the first one, but it what it does add turns out to be important. A new and telling evaluative statement has been made, with the Yogācāra version of the hindrances being interpreted as "exoteric" in contrast to the "esoteric" hindrances of the AMF. When Weonhyo says that this is all explained in his treatise on the topic, he is not merely avoiding discussion of a thorny issue. In fact, if we do go and read the Ijangeui, we find out that not only is the matter explained there at great length; he has actually structured the entire discourse of that treatise according to this esoteric/exoteric framework. Moreover, although it was his reading of the AMF that opened his eyes to this new approach to the hindrances, the esoteric interpretation of the hindrances is not limited in its sources to the AMF, as Weonhyo will find evidence of this approach in earlier Indian works, most prominently the Śrīmālā-sūtra, where Weonhyo finds the esoteric aspect of the hindrances to have relevance as an approach to understanding the most fundamental bases or "hypostases" (住地) of ignorance and affliction.

The Esoteric Aspect of the Hindrances in the Ijangeui

Weonhyo adumbrates the discussion of the esoteric hindrances in the Ijangeui by repeating the basic definition given in the AMF—that the afflictive obstructions are constituted by the six defiled mental states, while the obstructions to wisdom are constituted by fundamental ignorance. Here, however, Weonhyo makes the important pronouncement to the effect that the six kinds of defiled mental states [of the AMF] fully cover the content of both hindrances as explained in their standard Yogācāra context. I.e., every type of hindrance in the Yogācāra system, whether active or latent, afflictive or cognitive, can be explained within the context of these six. This also means that the AMF's esoteric obstructions to wisdom are to be treated as something of a completely different character from the cognitive hindrances in Yogācāra.
This interpretation of the hindrances reflects something of the basic thematic structure of the AMF, as its point of departure is that of the One Mind which has the two aspects of suchness and arising-and-ceasing. An important aim of the AMF was to trace the first series of mental moments that lead the mind in its departure from suchness. This occurs starting with the first movement of mind produced by ignorance and then proceeds through the sequence of the six defiled mental states. Passing through these six states of "descent," one arrives to the state where the mind is associated with attachment (the coarsest of the six defilements, third of the six coarse marks). One then continues down through the last three of the six coarse marks, i.e. (4) the coarse mark of defining names 計名字相 (assigning names to the sensations). (5) the coarse mark of producing karma 起業相 (performing good and evil activities based on attachment to the sensations), and (6) the coarse mark of the suffering produced by karma 業繫苦相.
From this perspective then, affliction has movement as its most basic characteristic. Specifically, the first movement of thought is the telling step away from the original perfect equanimity as suchness. After that, it's all downhill, so to speak, to the point where one experiences the suffering of karmic retribution. As Weonhyo points out, the cognitive hindrances in the original Yogācāra system, no matter how subtle, would by definition be subsumed in this category. [20]
As for the cognitive hindrances in the AMF, it is discriminating wisdom that is obscured—the wisdom that apprehends phenomena and allows for the [correct] distinctions between things, which Weonhyo defines in his latter commentary as "subsequently attained wisdom" (pṛṣṭha-labdha-jñāna). If we based our full understanding on the line in the AMF that explains the obstructions to wisdom only as impediments to discriminating knowledge, we would be inclined to take it as a secondary-level impediment, a kind of derivative effect of the operation of the afflictive obstructions, or the six defiled minds. But a full grasp of the ramifications of the term "intrinsic ignorance" 根本無明 as it is used in tathāgatagarbha-oriented texts such as the AMF, Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, Śrīmālā-sūtra etc., shows us that it is at the same time the factor acting at the most fundamental level, that which sets the six defiled mental states into motion. Therefore, it is at the same time anterior and posterior to the afflictive obstructions, their basis as well as their outcome. Weonhyo says:
Intrinsic ignorance, the basis upon which the six defiled mental states are established, is the most extremely subtle form of darkness and non-awareness. Confused in regard to the oneness and equality of the nature [of living beings] within, one is unable to face outside and grasp the distinctions in characteristics. Therefore one lacks the ability to grasp to objectively distinguished differences, not to mention the difference between them and true wisdom. Since the characteristics [of suchness] are the things most near, this ignorance is the most distant thing from them. It is like the nearness of the lowest acolyte to the head monk. Within all of birth-and-death there is not a single thing that is more subtle than ignorance and which serves as a basis. Only with this as a basis [does thought] suddenly appear. Therefore it is called "beginningless ignorance." (HPC 1.795a11-14)[21]
At this point in the Ijangeui, Weonhyo makes a pivotal move in developing the doctrine of the esoteric aspect of the hindrances, by associating them with the "hypostases" of ignorance and affliction found in texts such as the Benye jing and Śrīmālā-sūtra.[22] Weonhyo says:
As the Benye jing says: "Before this hypostasis there is no arising of phenomena; therefore it is called the hypostasis of beginningless ignorance." (T 1485:24.1022a7-8) ... Even though ignorance is not directly bound to the result-of-maturation consciousness, a fundamental and insoluble fusion is created. Therefore we explain its attributes based on this consciousness. It is based on this reasoning that [ignorance] is said to exist at such a fundamental level of consciousness as the ālaya consciousness. (HPC 795a18-23)[23]
Having established these correlations, each of the subsequent sections of the Ijangeui that treat the hindrances—i.e., their categorization, their function, and their removal, are examined first through the orthodox Yogācāra interpretations, and then through this "esoteric" interpretation. Having now assimilated the structure of the four hypostases into his framework, Weonhyo establishes a new pair of categories to cover the new, broader range of hindrances necessitated by the AMF and its associated texts: "hypostatic" 住地 and "arisen" 起. The whole gamut of both kinds of hindrances in the orthodox Yogācāra system (whether they be seeds, habit energies, or whatever) are placed in the "arisen" category, leaving the hypostatic dimension of the hindrances as their esoteric aspect.
From here, it would be possible to examine the way the esoteric and esoteric aspects are analyzed in detail in the Ijangeui, but such a specific examination might better be left to another paper that has a thematic emphasis that is focused on that kind of comparative analysis. Instead, I would like now to take a look at the next major turn taken up in regard to the hindrances.

The Two Hindrances in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment

The second major reinterpretation of the hindrances is that offered in the pivotal East Asian apocryphon, the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (Yuanjue jing 圓覺經 [SPE]). The SPE was a text that grew out of, the nascent Chan/Huayan nexus. It is the prototypical "original enlightenment" text, which took the soteriological framework developed by the AMF as its basis, expressing this framework more fully into the realm of practical application. One can see in every chapter of the SPE a maturing sinicized reworking of Buddhist doctrine, interwoven with proto-Chan meditative orientations.[24]
The basic characterization of the Chan/Huayan attitude toward Faxiang has been to point out that the East Asians were on the whole unreceptive to Faxiang's unwieldy technical categories, to the notion of rigidly predetermined religious capacities, and to the requirement of three incalculable eons for the attainment of Buddhahood.[25] While most specialists in this area would probably still acknowledge that there is some measure of truth contained in this broad observation, this perspective should always be taken in counterbalance with an awareness of the extent to which, on the other hand, the East Asian tradition actually had little recourse but to adopt components of Yogācāra technical language to establish a minimal East Asian Buddhist system of psychology, epistemology and soteriology. Such fundamental Yogācāra concepts as the eight consciousnesses, eighteen realms, three natures, karmic seeds and habit energies, two hindrances, and so forth became basic vocabulary for East Asian doctrinal schools such as Tiantai and Huayan.
But while seeking to ground themselves to some extent in Indian doctrinal foundations, the founders of the most distinctively East Asian philosophical and practical schools (here I refer primarily to Huayan and Chan) were equally determined to present something that would be attuned to the East Asian philosophical consciousness. Thus, while they sometimes used Yogācāra structures intending a fair approximation of their original meaning, they just as often used them to deliberately present a radically different approach. [26]
The SPE is exemplary as an East Asian composition that appropriates many of the more widely known Indian teachings and practices, reinterpreting these for its own purposes. One of the most prominent examples of this adaptation can be seen when the author of the SPE explains the traditional Indian meditation methods of śamatha and vipaśyanā, but then introduces a wholly new, third type of practice called chan'na (dhyāna禪那) that subsumes and transcends the prior two, and as we know, later becomes shortened to chan.
The SPE's teaching on the two hindrances comes in its fifth chapter, that of the bodhisattva Maitreya, the chapter that makes the most extensive appropriation of Yogācāra structures. Here, in response to Maitreya's request for a set of criteria by which to distinguish levels of practitioners, the Buddha answers by arranging practitioners into five groups, which he calls the "five natures"—a direct reference to the five natures of Faxiang[27]
In contrast to the Faxiang model, which was created for the purpose of making clear distinctions between practitioners in terms of their fundamental soteric capacities, the SPE's "natures of practitioners" are levels on the path that are attainable by anyone. These "natures," rather than being firm predilections, refer instead to the quality of one's present attainment, judged according to the degree to which one has eliminated various types of obstructions to liberation and correct awareness.[28] The SPE then distinguishes the five natures in terms of the two kinds of hindrances.
The sutra reads:
Good sons: due to their inherent desire, sentient beings generate ignorance and manifest the distinctions and inequalities of the five natures. Based on the two kinds of hindrances they manifest deep and shallow [resistance to liberation]. What are the two kinds of hindrances? The first are the hindrances of principle, which obstruct correct awareness; the second are the phenomenal hindrances, which impel the continuation of saṃsāra.
What are the five natures? Good sons, if sentient beings have not yet been able to eliminate the two kinds of hindrances, this is called "non-consummation of one's Buddhahood." If sentient beings permanently discard desire, then they have succeeded in removing the phenomenal hindrances, but have not yet eliminated the hindrances of principle. They are able to awaken in the way of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas but are not able to manifest and dwell in the state of the bodhisattva.
Good sons, if all sentient beings of the degenerate age desire to float on the great ocean of the Tathāgata's Perfect Enlightenment, they should first arouse the determination to eliminate the two kinds of hindrances. Once the two kinds of hindrances are quelled,[29] one can awaken and enter the state of the bodhisattva.
After permanently eliminating the hindrances of phenomena and principle, one is able to enter the sublime Perfect Enlightenment of the Tathāgata, and able to fully accomplish bodhi and great nirvana.
Good sons, all sentient beings without exception actualize Perfect Enlightenment. When you meet a Genuine Teacher, rely on the dharma-practice of the causal stage that he sets up for you. When you follow this practice, both sudden and gradual will be included. If you come upon the correct path of practice of the unsurpassed bodhi of the Tathāgatas, then there are no "superior" or "inferior" abilities of people: all accomplish buddhahood. (T 842.17.916b20-c7; HPC 7.146a; Muller, Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, pp. 144-146.)[30]
The most obvious initial change regarding the hindrances in the SPE, is the fact that the sutra abandons their originally translated Chinese nomenclature. For "cognitive hindrances/obstructions to wisdom" (所知障/智礙) the SPE uses "hindrances of principle," (lizhang理障) and for afflictive hindrances/obstructions (煩惱障/惑礙), it uses "hindrances of phenomena" (shizhang事障). Since the SPE is deeply imbued with Huayan thinking, it is obvious that the author is alluding to the components of Huayan's four dharmadhātus (四法界), or "reality realms," which represent increasingly advanced levels of insight into the nature of reality, based on the Buddhist wisdom of dependent origination and emptiness. By using the li-shi structure, the SPE is also placing the two hindrances into an essence-function relationship with each other.
The four Huayan levels of insight into reality, are shi ("phenomena" 事), li ("principle" 理), non-obstruction between li and shi (理事無礙), and non-obstruction between shi and shi (事事無礙). The realm of shi, or phenomena, refers to mundane wisdom, the world of the everyday consciousness of unenlightened sentient beings—a consciousness that is attached to discriminated phenomena. Li refers to a worldview based in a perception of the empty nature of existence, wherein all phenomena are seen to be equal in their original nature. It can also be characterized as a worldview based in non-discriminating religious experience, rather than rational, discriminating thought. In this Huayan context, we would assume the hindrances of phenomena to be related to obstructions derived from the unenlightened discriminating consciousness, whereas hindrances of principle would be impediments to perceptions of reality attained through insight into the empty nature of existence. As the chapters of SPE unfold, this interpretation is borne out, although at this juncture it is only alluded to vaguely.
While the usage of the five natures theory here seems to be done almost fully with the intent of repudiating the Yogācāra understanding, when it comes to the hindrances, the author is intimating a much closer correlation to prior models. His initial definition resonates with the Yogācāra model by:
(1) Arranging the two from the perspective of the hindrances of principle being concerned with seeing reality correctly (thus, cognition), and the hindrances of phenomena (affliction) being concerned with the continuity of saṃsāra.
(2) Arranging them according to the general distinction made between the ability to quell and eliminate demonstrated by adherents of the two vehicles, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas. The Yogācāra analysis of this process, explicated in great detail in the Ijangeui, basically matches this.
Since the SPE was written with great reliance on the AMF, there is no way that the AMF's "two obstructions" could not have been known to the SPE's author, and could not have influenced his view of what factors the hindrances should entail. One hint of confirmation of the author's awareness of both definitions of the hindrances is that in labeling them, he uses both of the Chinese characters used by Faxiang and the AMF respectively to render the meaning of the hindrances/obstructions: zhang障 from the Faxiang texts, and ai礙 from the AMF. It is also likely, late seventh century production of the SPE, that the author had access to the Ijangeui. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the author of the SPE had both models of the hindrances in mind when he created this new framework.
While we have seen how the SPE's hindrances are expected to be correlated to the Faxiang hindrances, if we analyze the intended correlation in greater detail, especially in terms of the terminology being used, there are problems. In Yogācāra, the cognitive hindrances are defined as the reification of objective phenomena, which is opposite in connotation to the SPE's term, "hindrances of principle." These difficulties increase if we take into further consideration the relationship with the AMF''s obstructions—Weonhyo's "esoteric" hindrances, since in the Awakening of Faith, the obstructions to wisdom are defined in their obfuscation of phenomenal wisdom, which is again, problematic in relation to the terminology of the SPE. Fortunately, we are not alone in being aware of this problem.

Zongmi's Analysis of the Problems in Correlating the SPE's Hindrances

In the context of the trends developing in the sinicization of Indian doctrines during the early Tang/Silla periods, there is one scholar in particular who would have been in the position of being directly confronted by the complications we have broached here. This is the major commentator on the SPE, who also did extensive work on the AMF, and who was deeply learned in both Faxiang and Huayan doctrine—the Chan/Huayan patriarch Zongmi (宗密 780-841). The SPE was Zongmi's favorite text, and he was without question the premiere expert on this sutra in the history of East Asian Buddhism.[31] In Zongmi's commentary on this line in the SPE, it is apparent that he saw precisely the problems we have raised above regarding the incongruence in the naming and ostensive content of the SPE's hindrances. What he has to say on this point constitutes more than simply a complete discussion of the issues. It represents, in itself, an important contribution to the body of two hindrances-related literature. Thus, I have translated Zongmi's analysis of the matter in full below.
The line from the SPE says:
What are the two hindrances? The first is the hindrance of principle, which obstructs correct awareness. The second is the phenomenal hindrance, which [impels] the continuation of life and death.
Zongmi says:
I will explain the point in two parts. The first part will be a comprehensive explanation of both hindrances, and the second part will be a special treatment of the hindrances of principle. The two hindrances as explained in the first part have an essential aspect and a formal aspect. The formal aspect is equivalent to the Yogācāra teaching of the hindrances of afflictive and cognitive hindrances.[32] In the case of the formal aspect, [the SPE's] phenomenal hindrances are equivalent to the hindrances of affliction, since the afflictions are able to both serve as hindrances, and to impel the continuity of life and death. The hindrances of principle are equivalent to the cognitive hindrances, wherein the knowables in themselves are not the hindrances. These hindrances hinder the principle that is to be known.
These [hindrances of principle] can also be correlated to the fundamental ignorance and six defiled mental states of the Awakening of Faith. One aspect of the defiled mind [Interlinear note: The six kinds of defiled mind have two aspects. One is the aspect of non-enlightenment; the other is the aspect of continuity of rebirth. First I will address the matter from the aspect of continuity of rebirth.] is the same as the hindrances of phenomena, which defile the pure mind. This impels it into continued rebirth, as well as the reification of imagined names, which serves to engender all kinds of karmic activities. These all have the connotation of continuity of life-and-death [as is attributed to the phenomenal hindrances in the SPE].
The other aspect of the six defiled mental states [Interlinear note: I.e., the aspect of non-enlightenment] , included together with fundamental ignorance, is equivalent to the hindrances of principle, which obscure the true mind of the reality-realm. Unenlightened, deluded conceptualization renders one unable to apprehend the nature and characteristics of all phenomena. This is the meaning of [the line in the sutra that says] "obstructs correct awareness." [Interlinear note: In terms of the theory of the Faxiang school only, the mental factors denoted by the hindrances are the same. However, the function explained here is different.] Therefore, the AMF says: "This mind is originally pure in its own-nature...since one does not apprehend the single reality-realm, the mind loses its association [with suchness] (T 1666.32.577c2-6) [Interlinear note: Here, the distinction of "mind-king" and "mental factors" has not yet been made.] , and thought spontaneously arises, [Interlinear note: Since there is no pre-existent defiled phenomenon to serve as the basis for the arising of this thought, the AMF says "spontaneously."] and this is called "ignorance." These defiled states of mind are defiled by none other than this ignorance.
[The AMF says] "The aspect of defiled states of mind is called the obstructions of affliction, as they are able to obstruct the fundamental wisdom of suchness. [Interlinear note: Therefore the text below says that the substance of true suchness originally has the knowledge of true consciousness and great wisdom, etc. In the SPE, the character 知 (knowledge, awareness) refers to the agitation from the defiled states of mind, which acts in opposition to quiescence. Thus it is called a hindrance.] . The aspect of ignorance is called the obstructions to [discriminating wisdom], as it is able to hinder the natural karmic wisdom of the conventional world." (T 1666.32.577c21 f.) [Interlinear note: This refers to experiential wisdom. The meaning of "natural" is like the moon's immediate reflection in all bodies of water without contrivance. In the SPE, the term 見 (views, insight) is synonymous with 知見. The prior refers to the nature of insight, whereas this refers to the aspects of insight. Ignorance has the function of blurring, such that things are not properly distinguished. Since this opposes the function of [discriminating] wisdom, it is called the obstruction to wisdom. Even though the sutra attributes this kind of activity to the hindrances of principle, in fact they operate within both the hindrances of principle and phenomena. In the AMF, they are limited to the realm of phenomena. In the cases of both the obstructions to wisdom [AMF] and the hindrances of principle [SPE], they are named in reference to that which is obstructed [rather than in reference to the obstructing agent].]
Question: It would seem that if we are trying to match the accounts of the AMF and SPE on this point, then the AMF's obstruction of the wisdom of suchness matches perfectly to the [SPE's] hindrances of principle; and the hindrance to conventional wisdom matches with the [SPE's] phenomenal hindrances [which is diametrically opposite from the way they are named]. How can the correspondences outlined above be reconciled with these?
Answer: As was stated above, these hindrances have an essential aspect[33] This essential aspect is as taught in the AMF, and thus accords with what has just been taught. The formal aspect[34] is the same as that taught in Yogācāra, which differs somewhat from that taught in the AMF. [Interlinear note: As Fazang's commentary to the AMF says: "The two hindrances presently under discussion are to be understood from the perspective of the mutual dependence of root and branch, so as to clarify that they are not established in relation to the two reifications of person and phenomena, therefore this is somewhat different from the Yogācāra perspective. (Zongmi here cites Fazang's commentary (T 1846.44.268b25), but Fazang originally got this interpretation from Weonhyo's commentary (T 1844.44.212a21))]
Yet if we approach the two hindrances of principle and phenomena in a general sense, then anything that obstructs the principle and [discriminating] wisdom, causing them not to be clearly manifest, can be collectively called ignorance. And that which prevents mental functioning from attaining liberation, can be collectively called affliction. Since the emphasis of the teaching in the SPE is on principle and [discriminating] wisdom, both of the hindrances taught in the AMF can be generally subsumed under the category of hindrances of principle taught in the SPE. [Interlinear note: The two wisdoms of the principle—that of true suchness and conventional—both are the objects of the obstruction in the obstruction of correct awareness. [In the context of the AMF] this refers to ignorance and the aspect of non-enlightenment in the defiled states of mind, which, as shown above, act as the agents of obstruction.]
Only the aspect of the defiled mental states [from the AMF] that is concerned with impelling rebirth should be understood as applicable to the phenomenal hindrances of the SPE. In this case though, the passions themselves are understood as the agent of hindrance, and nothing is posited as being subjected to the obstruction. If we wanted to posit something as being subjected to [obstruction], it would be "liberation," since, when life and death are perpetuated, one does not obtain liberation. [Interlinear note: The object of hindrance being liberation, and the agent of hindrance being affliction agrees with both the former and latter interpretations.] Since the concept of liberation is not subsumed under "reality-principle", even if it is included in connotation, it cannot expressly be stated so.
Since, in the case of the Awakening of Faith, it is opposites that obstruct each other, the six defiled mental states obstruct the wisdom of suchness, and ignorance obstructs the wisdom that discriminates the world. It is precisely because this relationship seems contradictory that the author of that treatise saw the need to clarify himself, saying "what does this mean"? [Interlinear note: This is to clarify the apparent lack of relationship between subject and object.] His explanation says: "Since depending upon the defiled mind, one is able to see, manifest, and deludedly grasp to objects, the mental function is contrary to the equal nature of suchness." (T 1666.32.577c22) [Interlinear note: Defiled states of mind continue in a series, producing discriminations in regard to the equality of suchness; therefore their function is contrary. This matches the above point. ] This is because all phenomena are eternally quiescent, lacking the marks of activity, and so the ignorance of non-enlightenment is deluded in regard to the differences between phenomena, and is unable to function in accordance with the discriminating wisdom that grasps the various phenomena. [Interlinear note: Since ignorance blurs the distinctions made by worldly discriminating wisdom, it acts contrary to it. This completes the latter point.]
In conclusion, even though each approach has its own circumstances, there is no conflict in terms of the principle being expressed. Therefore each explanation can, according to its situation, be considered to be authentic, and not mistaken. This concludes the comprehensive explanation of both hindrances.
Although there are issues that could be taken up regarding the relationship between the SPE's hindrances and those of Faxiang, Zongmi's above explanation is focused mainly on correlating the SPE's hindrances with those of the AMF. Zongmi then concludes by explaining how the hindrances of principle should be seen in the special context of the SPE itself.
Next is the special explanation of the hindrances of principle. When, in this sutra, there is something that is obstructed, consciousness [rather than objects] must necessarily be its basis. The sutra initially says "hindrances of principle", but this is a term applied to the obstruction of correct awareness, which is in fact a matter that transcends such categories as essence and characteristics. This is because this sutra takes correct awareness as its cardinal principle. Therefore, the SPE and the AMF each expel disease, exhaustively returning all dharmas to the enlightened mind. They do not rely upon doctrines of voidness or nothingness, but instead directly manifest reality to its fullest [Interlinear note: suchness flows out (T 842.17.913b18; Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment p. 75.); nirvana is like last night's dream. (T 842.17.915a16; Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment p. 116.)] , using the perfect and sudden teaching to express the essence. Therefore the Huayan jing also sees suchness as the thing which is misunderstood. That sutra says: "There is not a single sentient being who lacks the tathāgata's wisdom." (T 279.10.272c05)
However, due to attachment to deluded concepts, one does not actualize [this wisdom]. [Interlinear note: Wisdom is originally our possession, but we do not actualize it. This being the case, awareness has no way to eliminate evil and actualize the truth. Hence, corrective practices must serve as wisdom.] Once one is freed from deluded conceptualization, the wisdom of omniscience, the untaught wisdom [Interlinear note: Wisdom attained without study.] , natural wisdom, [Interlinear note: Wisdom attained without practice.] and unobstructed wisdom [Interlinear note: the wisdom that is possessed equally by sages and worldlings.] are all manifested right here.
Indeed, the whole discourse of the SPE can be seen as a series of instructions on how to correct and avoid wrong orientations toward meditative practice. The author of the SPE has taken the original Yogācāra concept of the cognitive hindrances together with the obstructions to wisdom in the AMF and simplified them into a package that includes all aspects of obstruction that are concerned with mistaken apprehensions of reality—basically, everything that we would categorize under the rubrics "ignorance" and "delusion" in any kind of general sense. Zongmi has not paid much attention to the problem of trying to correlate the relation of the SPE's hindrances to the original Faxiang framework, but no doubt the attachment to views of self that are seen as the starting point of the Faxiang afflictive hindrances would also be assimilated together into the hindrances of principle here. From the viewpoint of the Yogācārin, this no doubt has to be seen as a form of reductionism. To the author of the SPE, it is a matter of streamlining the doctrine to make it fit for practical application. Nonetheless, it is clear that the author of the SPE has attempted to cover both connotations of the hindrances seen in Yogācāra and the AMF. For although he has ended up, like the author of the AMF, with a set of hindrances that is in fact almost fully cognitive in character, he has at the same time re-included the roots-and-branches aspect that is seen the Yogācāra model, but using instead, the Huayan li-shi structure.
A point that Zongmi does not make, but which bears mentioning, is that the bulk of the clarification of the de facto meaning of the cognitive hindrances (hindrances of principle) in the SPE does not occur in this chapter, but in subsequent chapters, mainly chapters six (Pure Wisdom Bodhisattva) and nine (Purifier of All Karmic Hindrances Bodhisattva). In those chapters we find the focus to be especially on the reification of experiences of religious insight as hindrances. It is in this kind of application that the meaning of the cognitive hindrances takes on a new dimension that might conceivably be extrapolated from the AMF or Yogācāra standpoint, but cannot be confirmed with direct textual evidence. That is, since the obstruction of that which should be known (for example, objects as they are in themselves), is brought about precisely by the constructs that we are already presently aware of, or knowing, it is the known itself that obstructs awareness. It is attachment to our imagined (parikalpita) realm that obstructs us from knowing reality as it is. Thus, the meaning of cognitive hindrances as taught in the SPE could also be interpreted as hindrances by the known, in addition to the standard hindrances to the known (or knowables).
Applying this to the situation of meditative practice, meditators may at times experience great leaps of insight—indeed, they are clearly expected to do so in the modern Zen tradition. As the SPE warns in a later chapter, in these incomplete experiences of enlightenment, the hindrances have not been eliminated, but instead are merely lying dormant in the ālaya consciousness, awaiting the appropriate causes and conditions for their re-manifestation. [35] This matter of making practitioners aware of the subtle way in which they trick themselves into valorizing and attaching to their own insights is one of the most pervasive concerns in the SPE—trying to make practitioners aware that their own so-called "enlightenment" is often the cause of serious problems, and that unless enlightenment is complete and final—"perfect"—it reverts to an understanding, and becomes a cognitive hindrance—or hindrance of principle.[36] This theme is expressed most clearly in chapter six, the chapter of the bodhisattva Pure Wisdom:
Good sons, all bodhisattvas see their understanding as an obstruction. But even if they eliminate the "understanding-obstruction," they still abide in a view of enlightenment. This "enlightenment-obstruction" becomes a hindrance and they are not perfectly free. ( T 842.17.917a21; Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, p. 160. )[37]
Thus, while the SPE duly mentions both kinds of hindrances, we can observe, as Zongmi has indicated, that it is really the cognitive hindrances that are the object of its concern. Another way of characterizing the central theme of the sutra is to say that its primary emphasis is on non-abiding (無住)—the ability for the mind to function without getting trapped in its own artifices, without getting stuck in any kind of constructs whatsoever, for it is precisely these abodes, these reifications, which constitute the cognitive hindrances.
Later Chan discourse altogether drops the usage of the technical terms "cognitive hindrance" or "hindrance of principle," but Chan practice, especially the classical form of Chan practice that includes direct interaction between teacher and student, becomes focused almost exclusively on the removal of cognitive hindrances in the broad sense taught in the SPE, as the Chan masters were (and are) expected to identify in their students the prejudices, presuppositions, and most importantly, the attachment to incomplete enlightenment experiences, which become nothing but a new form of delusion.

Bibliography

Modern

Cook, Frances H., trans. Three Texts on Consciousness Only. Berkeley: Numata Center for Translation and Research, 1999.

Gregory, Peter N.. Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Muller, A. Charles. The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment: Korean Buddhism's Guide to Meditation. Albany: SUNY Press, 1999.

Classical

Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論(Establishing Consciousness Only). T 1585.31.1a-59a.

Da niepan jing 大涅槃經(Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra). T 374.12.365c-603c.

Daeseung gisinnon sogi heobon 大乘起信論疏記會本(Combined Commentaries on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith). HPC 1.733-789.

Daesung gisinnon byeolgi 大乘起信論別記(Expository Notes on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith). T 1845.44.226a-240c.

Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論(Treatise on Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith). Attributed to Aśvaghoṣa. T 1665.32.575b-583b.

Gishinnon so 起信論疏(Commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith). T 1844.44.202a-226a.

Huayan jing 華嚴經(Avataṃsaka-sūtra). T 278.9.395a-788b.

Ijangeui 二障義(Doctrine of the Two Hindrances). Weonhyo 元曉. HPC 1.789c-814b.

Jingang sanmei jing 金剛三昧經(Vajrasamādhi-sūtra). . T 273.9.365c-374b.

Liuzu tanjing 六祖壇經(Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch). T 2008.48.346a-362b.

Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經T 1485.24.1010b-1023a.

Renwang jing 仁王經(Sutra for Humane Kings). T 245.8.825a-834.

Shengman jing 勝鬘經(Śrīmālā-sūtra). T 353.12.217a-223b.

Yuanjue jing 圓覺經(Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment). T 842.17.913a-922a.

Yuanjuejing dashu 圓覺經大疏(Great Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment). Zongmi. Z 243.9.324a-418b.

Abbreviations

T = Taishō shinshū daizōkyō [Japanese Edition of the Buddhist Canon] (1924-35). Tokyo: Daizōkyōkai.
HPC = Han'guk pulgyo chŏnsŏ [The Collected Texts of Korean Buddhism] (1984). Seoul: Dongguk University Press.

Notes

1. There are already problems here, since the Yogācārabhūmi since the Cheng weishi lun has included craving and hatred here as contributing to the constitution of the cognitive hindrances. In most of the Yogācāra texts, these are usually considered to be part of the afflictive hindrances. As Weonhyo says in the early part of his Doctrine of the Two Hindrances:

Led by the attachment to person, the [six] fundamental afflictions and the [twenty] secondary afflictions, such as anger, resentment, concealing and so forth constitute the nature of the afflictive hindrances. If we take into account the other phenomena that are associated with these afflictions, including attendant factors, the karma they produce, as well as the karmic retribution that is experienced, all can be seen as playing a role constituting the afflictive hindrances.
What constitutes the cognitive hindrances? Led by attachment to phenomena, they have as their substance deluded conceptualization and discrimination, along with attachment to the teachings, pride, ignorance and so forth. Taking into account the secondary phenomena that can be included as cognitive afflictions, there are also the attendant factors and their marks that are attached to.
 return

2. In his rendering of this passage in the BDK series, Frances Cook has mistranslated this line, reversing the positions of the two hindrances between supporter and supported. See Three Texts on Consciousness Only, p. 299. (T 1585.31.48c18) return

3. 煩惱障者. 謂執遍計所執實我薩迦耶見而為上首百二十八根本煩惱. 及彼等流諸隨煩惱. 此皆擾惱有情身心能障涅槃名煩惱障. 所知障者. 謂執遍計所執實法薩迦耶見而為上首見疑無明愛恚慢等. 覆所知境無顚倒性能障菩提名所知障. 煩惱障中此障必有, 彼定用此爲所依故. 體雖無異而用有別. 二乘但能斷煩惱障. 菩薩俱斷. 永斷二種唯聖道, 能伏二現行通有漏道. (T 1585.31.48c6-29) return

4. As Weonhyo explains at considerable length in his treatise on the hindrances (to be discussed below), this is only true in a general sense, as certain types of cognitive hindrances are actually removable by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and there are certain situations (such as that where the salvation of other sentient beings is at stake) where the bodhisattvas are more proficient than the practitioners of the two vehicles at the removal of the afflictive hindrances. return

5. In over 220 fascicles, Weonhyo explicated virtually all of the Mahāyāna streams that made their way into East Asia, including Vinaya, Logic, Satyasiddhi, Lotus, Vimalakīrti, Prajñāpāramitā, Mādhyamika, Yogācāra, Tathāgatagarbha, Pure Land, Lotus, Nirvana, Huayan, and State Protection. He had a distinctive approach to his method of explication, since, as distinguished from his rough contemporaries in East Asia whose commentarial method was focused on classification of teachings, Weonhyo was interested in testing these doctrinal barriers to see if they could not be shown to be offering a description of the same ultimate reality. Thus he focused his energies in the identification and dissolution of the conceptual barriers that lay between variant interpretations of doctrine. return

6. Give some numbers here. return

7. My current translation of this treatise, being carried out under the auspices of the international Weonhyo translation project, will be about 200 pages when published in English. return

8. He called the AMF "the patriarchal teaching of all treatises," and called its author "the chief arbiter of all controversies." 是謂諸論之祖宗 羣諍之評主也 (T 1845.44.226b5-12). Weonhyo commented on the AMF eight times—far more than any other work. Among these commentaries, two are extent. The earlier commentary, entitled Taesŭng kisillon pyŏlgi (Expository Notes on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith 大乘起信論別記) was written prior to the composition of the Ijangeui, and the latter work, the Taesŭng kisillon so (Commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith) was written afterwards. These are contained in the Taishō, and were also redacted together with the śāstra itself to create the Combined Version of Weonhyo's Commentaries on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. A translation of this combined version by Sung Bae Park is to be released as part of the international Weonhyo translation project. return

9. The AMF uses a different Chinese character to designate these obstructions—ai礙 instead of zhang障. These are synonyms, so there is nothing special indicated in this. But as a way of making distinctions in this paper, ai will be translated as "obstructions" to indicate that they are from the AMF, and zhang as "hindrances" to indicate that they are from the orthodox Yogācāra/Faxiang system. return

10. 又染心義者, 名爲煩惱礙, 能障眞如根本智故. 無明義者, 名爲智礙, 能障世間自然業智故. return

11. The six defiled mental states are: (1) Defilement in which the mind is associated with attachment; (third of the six coarse marks). (2) Defilement in which the mind is associated with non-interruption; (second of the six coarse marks--mark of continuity). (3) Defilement in which the mind is associated with discriminating knowledge; (first of the six coarse marks). (4) Defilement in which the mind is not associated with manifest form; (mark of the objective realm; third of the three subtle marks). (5) Defilement in which the mind is not associated with the subjectively viewing mind, (mark of the subjective perceiver; second of the three subtle marks). (6) Defilement in which the mind is not directly associated with fundamental karma. (mark of karma, which is moved by ignorance; the first of the three subtle marks) The six are listed in order of increasing subtlety, and thus it is said that the first two reside in the sixth consciousness; the third resides in the seventh consciousness and the last three reside in the eighth consciousness. As shown in the parentheses, these six are analogous to the first six of the nine marks of the arising of suffering, including the three subtle marks, and the first three of the six coarse marks. return

12. This point will also be picked up below by Zongmi below. return

13. 此義云何. 以依染心, 能見, 能現妄取境界, 違平等性故. 以一切法常靜無有起相, 無明不覺妄與法違故. 不能得隨順世間一切境界種種智故. return

14. The ten afflictions are: desire 欲, hatred 瞋, ignorance 癡, pride 慢, doubt 疑, view of self 身見, extreme view 邊見, evil view 邪見, view of attachment to views 見取見, extreme views in regard to discipline 戒禁取見. The first five affect those of lower spiritual development while the second five affect those of greater spiritual development. return

15. 然二障之義 略有二門. 一, 二乘通障十使煩惱能使流轉, 障涅槃果 名煩惱障. 菩薩別障, 法執等惑迷所知境, 障菩提果, 名所知障. 此門如餘經論所說. The reader may want to take note, regarding the cognitive hindrances, of the difference between this basic description and that given above in the citation from the Cheng weishi lun. That text lists pride, doubt and so forth under the cognitive hindrances, whereas Weonhyo has listed them under the afflictive hindrances. According to the explanations given in the Yogācārabhūmi and so forth, Weonhyo's explanation is correct. I do have some ideas as to why the Cheng weishi lun may have given this odd characterization of the hindrances, but some investigation is necessary. return

16. 二, 一切動念取相等心違如理智寂靜之性, 名煩惱礙. 根本無明昏迷不覺, 違如量智覺察之用, 名爲智礙. return

17. 今此論中約後門義, 故説六種染心名煩惱礙, 無明住地名爲智礙. 然以相當無明應障理智, 染心障於量智何不爾者. return

18. 未必爾故, 未必之意如論自説. return

19. 第六明二礙義. 顯了門中名爲二障密門内名爲二礙. 此義具如二障說. 今此文中 說隱密門. 言染心義者 是顯六種染心也. 根本智者, 是照寂慧. 違寂靜故 名煩惱礙也. 無明義者 根本無明. 世間業智者 是後得智. 無明昏迷無所分別 故違世間分別之智 依如是義名爲智礙 釋所以中 正顯是義. return

20. In terms of the profound influence the AMF held on the development of later forms of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and especially Chan, we can see how this strong emphasis on the pitfalls in the first movement of the mind could have had influence on the development of into no-mind 無心 doctrines. return

21. 根本無明者, 彼六染心所依根本, 最極微細 冥闇不覺. 内迷自性一如平等, 未能外向取差別相. 故無能取所別異乃至與眞明. 其相太近故 此無明於彼最遠. 如下沙彌與和上坐近也. 於生死中無有一法細於無明而作其本. 唯此爲元忽然始起. 是故說名無始無明. return

22. Those who are conversant with the Śrīmālā-sūtra will recall that one of its principal teachings is that of the four hypostases (rendered by Wayman as the "four entrenchments"), the first, and most fundamental of which is the hypostasis of ignorance (Wayman's "nescience entrenchment"). return

23. 如本業經言. 其住地前便無法起, 故名無始無明住地. ...如是無明, 雖非與異熟識相應, 而爲作本和合不離. 故依此識方說其相. 由是攝在梨耶識位 return

24. These tendencies of the SPE are discussed in the introduction to my translation of that text as The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment: Korean Buddhism's Guide to Meditation. return

25. See for example, Kenneth Ch'en's Buddhism in China, p. 325, and Wing-Tsit Chan's Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, p. 373. return

26. Much of the new articulation of Buddhist doctrines came in the form of the composition of new scriptures, such as the SPE, and as I have pointed out in my own work on that text, the most common denominator shared by East Asian indigenous works connected with the formation of indigenous Chinese schools was a logic based in the East Asian essence-function (tiyong體用) paradigm, along with a special concern for the notion of sudden enlightenment. (Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, p. 10-14.) With the watershed text for this essence-function transformation of Buddhism being the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, tiyong and sudden enlightenment-attentive works appeared one after the other in the form of such scriptures as the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra (Jingang sanmei jing金剛三昧經), the Platform Sutra (Liuzu tanjing 六祖壇經), the SPE, along with various other commentaries produced within the emerging Huayan and Chan traditions. return

27. In Faxiang, these were five predispositions that practitioners were believed to possess in terms of their potential for attainment of liberation. They included (1 and 2) the two lesser vehicle practitioners (arhats and pratyekabuddhas), (3) great vehicle practitioners (bodhisattvas), (4) those whose nature is not determined, and (5) icchantikas—persons so depraved that they are incapable of attaining liberation, no matter what they do. return

28. The SPE further changes the original Faxiang paradigm by actually presenting not five, but six kinds of practitioners, with the re-interpretation of the Faxiang icchantika category into two different types of characters, who are listed below as number one and number six. The six are: (1) those who have not achieved any actualization whatsoever of their buddhahood (but this, like the following three, is not a predetermined or enduring limitation, and therefore persons at this level are encouraged to move ahead by eliminating their own hindrances to liberation.); (2) those who have attained to the level of the two vehicles; (3) those who have attained to the level of bodhisattva; (4) those who have attained to the level of buddhahood. Number five (5) is the indeterminate nature, which is transformed in the SPE to express the Chan belief in the possibility of the immediate attainment of enlightenment by anyone. Number six (6) those who in their self-delusion believe themselves to be enlightened, and thus deem themselves, based on their mistaken enlightenment, to be qualified to serve as spiritual guides to others. return

29. "Elimination" (斷) and "quelling" (伏) are technical terms with specific application in two hindrances discourse. In Yogācāra path theory, the main portion of the afflictive hindrances proper (i.e., leaving out the matter of seeds, habit energies and some subtle cognitive hindrances) are first "quelled" in the Path of Seeing, and then "eliminated" in the Path of Cultivation, or the Ultimate Path. Quelling refers to a subjugation of the hindrances, where their activity has been stopped, but they still exist in latent form. Elimination means final, complete eradication, comparable to uprooting, and then burning, the roots of a plant. We can see from this phrase that entry into the realm of the bodhisattvas is characterized by quelling of both, but at this stage there is no elimination. Weonhyo devotes an extensive section in the Ijangeui to the matter of "distinctions in elimination and quelling." In this section in the Ijangeui, the variations in quelling and elimination according to the type of practice, according to the text and so forth, are far more complex than is presented here in the SPE. For example, "entry into the realm of the bodhisattva" would have to be clearly defined in terms of a precise stage, and as to whether one started out on the bodhisattva path from the beginning, or, to borrow a phrase from Jan Nattier, "merged left" from a two-vehicle pathway. return

30. 善男子, 一切衆生由本貪欲發揮無明, 顯出五性差別不等. 依二種障而現深淺. 云何二障？ 一者理障, 礙正知見. 二者事障, 續諸生死. 云何五性？ 善男子, 若此二障未得斷滅, 名未成佛. 若諸衆生永捨貪欲, 先除事障, 未斷理障, 但能悟入聲聞縁覺, 未能顯住菩薩境界. 善男子, 若諸末世一切衆生欲汎如來大圓覺海, 先當發願勤斷二障. 二障已伏即能悟入菩薩境界. 若事理障已永斷滅, 即入如來微妙圓覺, 滿足菩提及大涅槃. 善男子, 一切衆生皆證圓覺. 逢善知識, 依彼所作因地法行. 爾時修習便有頓漸. 若遇如來無上菩提正修行路, 根無大小. 皆成佛果. return

31. Zongmi wrote seven commentaries on the sutra, the most comprehensive of which was called the Great Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (圓覺經大疏). He also wrote two commentaries on the AMF, a fact that is not surprising, given the close relationship between the two texts. Peter Gregory, in his study of Zongmi, devotes much space to explaining Zongmi's relationship with the SPE. See Tsung-mi and the Sinification of Buddhism. return

32. Zongmi's "formal aspect" is the same as Weonhyo's "exoteric" category. return

33. Weonhyo's "esoteric aspect." return

34. Weonhyo's "exoteric aspect." return

35. The sutra says: "Good sons, these sentient beings of the degenerate age who are practicing bodhi regard the ego's infinitesimal perception as their own purity, and are therefore unable to penetrate to the root of the self-trace. If someone praises their [mistaken] dharma, then they will be overjoyed and immediately try to save him. But if someone criticizes their attainments, they will be filled with anger and resentment. Hence, you can know that the trace of self is being firmly held to; it is concealed in the store consciousness and is playing freely throughout the faculties without interruption." (T 842.17.919c23; Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, p. 212.) return

36. Concern with this problem has direct bearing on the naming of the title of the sutra, with emphasis being placed on the fact that unless enlightenment is not total, or "perfect," it is really not enlightenment at all. Indeed it has been the Chan/Zen school that has, down to modern times, placed emphasis on the attainment of insight experiences (known to modern Zen practitioners by the popular term kenshō). This sutra repeatedly warns against deceiving oneself in regard to these experiences. return

37. 善男子, 一切菩薩見解爲礙. 雖斷解礙, 猶住見覺. 覺礙爲礙而不自在. return