ABSTRACT

Contemporary accounts of early Mahayana Buddhist schools like the
Madhyamaka and the Yogacara tend to portray them as generally antithetical
to the Abhidharma of non-Mahayana schools such as the Theravada and the
Sarvastivada. This paper attempts to locate early Yogacara philosophical
speculation firmly within the broader context of Abhidharma debates.
Certain key Yogacara concepts such as alayavijnana, vijnapti-matrata and
citta-matra are discussed insofar as they relate to pre-existing concepts
and issues found in the Vaibhasika and Sautrantika schools, with specific
reference to the Abhidharmakosa and the corresponding bhasya of Vasubandhu.
Finally, some remarks are made about the benefits of approaching the
history of religious ideas without the benefits and distortions of
hindsight, particularly as this relates to the attribution of an idealistic
position to the early Yogacara literature.

Preliminary Remarks

Contemporary accounts of Mahayana Buddhist schools like the Madhyamaka and
the Yogacara tend to portray them as generally antithetical to the
Abhidharma of non-Mahayana schools such as the Theravada and the
Sarvastivada. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it often
reflects the tendency to conceive of internal Buddhist doctrinal
controversies as the source of schisms in a manner akin to the disputations
of Christian history. As Heinz Bechert has pointed out, the principle of
schism (sanghabheda) in Indian Buddhism was based upon disputes over
monastic code (vinaya) and not differences in doctrinal position [1].
Secondly, increasing examination of Tibetan commentarial materials has
allowed Buddhist scholars to provide a much fuller account of the history
of Mahayana thought. However, one consequence of this has been the tendency
to accept interpretations of Buddhist scholastic thought which often derive
from the work of authors with allegiances to other perspectives. In the
case of the Yogacara school, for instance, scholars have generally tended
to accept the accounts provided in Sankara's Brahmasutrabhasya or in the
commentarial works of Tibetan Madyamaka schools like the dGe lugs pa
without questioning the status of these accounts.

Working with the benefits of hindsight, it is sometimes difficult to see
the wood for the trees and it often proves fruitful to return to the early
stages of a tradition and its literature in order to gain a fresh
perspective upon the material. Indeed it would seem that the search for new
conceptualisations and understandings of original teachings is precisely
what the history of religious doctrine has been about. In the case of the
Yogacara school it is easy to follow established commentarial traditions in
interpreting this school's distinctive philosophy. In most cases this would
seem to be both the most pertinent, fruitful and humble course of action to
take. However, the danger of hindsight and allegiance to specific
hermeneutic traditions is that they quickly tend to become
institutionalized. As I have argued elsewhere, we should avoid projecting
later debates and controversies between Buddhist schools of thought (for
example between the Madyamaka and Yogacara trends of Mahayana Buddhism)
into the early literature of such movements [2].

One way to redress the balance in the study of Buddhist thought in India is
to make a simple point that is so often overlooked. Buddhist philosophical
debate in India took place within an Abhidharmic context. After all, in
what other theoretical and literary context could such debate have
occurred? Once one acknowledges that the differentiation between Buddhist
schools of thought was not a crucial factor in the schismatic development
of sanghas (sanghabbeda) one realises the sense in which this must indeed
be the case. When doctrinal disputations bring forth issues relating to
Buddhist monastic ethics and practice, schism, of course' may very well
result. However, in the history of Buddhist thought it seems that in most
cases philosophical disputations between rival schools left fundamental
issues of religious practice largely intact. For this reason, in India at
least, Mahayana and non-Mahayana adherents could remain members of the same
sangha without any fundamental conflict of interest or danger of schism.

It is clear that the portrayal of Mahayana Buddhists as generally
antithetical to the Abhidharma of non-Mahayana schools such as the
Theravada and the Sarvastivada remains something of an overstatement in an
Indian context. Abhidharma, broadly speaking, is Buddhist philosophy.
Madhyamika and Yogacara thinkers both established and contested their
theories from within a theoretical framework which was unquestionably
Abhidharmic in style, content and presentation [3]. This should not be a
surprise, particularly once one realises the sense in which the
group-identity of a given sangha is established by the Pratimoksa and the