Relative to the attention the work of the founders and key philosophers of Yogācāra has received, the commentarial tradition has attracted far less recognition in Yogācāra scholarship. This panel aims to remedy this by shedding light on and appreciating the role of commentators in establishing Yogācāra as a distinctive tradition and in shaping the school’s doctrinal orientation. The papers in the panel focus on a variety of topics related to the role of Yogācāra commentarial literature, including distinguishing features and sources of Yogācāra hermeneutics, the commentarial strategies used by Yogācāra commentators to interpret the root texts and construct narratives, the power commentaries have in transforming the meaning of the works on which they comment, and how commentators understand their task as commentators. The papers cover a wide range and diversity of commentators and commentaries from India to Korea, from the 4th to the 8th century.
Drawing on The Proper Mode of Exposition (Vyākhyāyukti), this presentation examines Vasubandhu’s critique of an interpretive approach that evaluates new texts by aligning them with established canons. Through numerous examples and citations, he argues that all Buddhist texts are fragmented and inconsistent, with conflicting doctrines and prescriptions — discrepancies present even within Yogācāra texts. This presentation interprets The Proper Mode to argue that Vasubandhu rejects canonical contextualization due to its flawed mereological assumption of a canon as a unified whole composed of texts bearing a distinctive marker of canonicity. This argument draws an important parallel between Vasubandhu’s hermeneutics and ontology by interpreting his critique of a coherent canon as an extension of his ontological position against unified wholes. It also explores the implications of his position, specifically regarding the proper uses of fragmented Buddhist texts in commenting on Yogācāra treatises.
While the early proponents of Yogācāra did not necessarily see themselves as representing a radically new tradition, later commentators such as Sthiramati had a much clearer vision of it as a distinct school. Accordingly, he faced the difficult task of consolidating the school’s identity and bringing together ideas from the diverse and often contradictory earlier materials. This paper focuses on various commentarial strategies Sthiramati adopted to overcome these challenges in his commentary on Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā, the Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya. The paper first examines the tripartite narrative framework Sthiramati gives for explaining the overarching aims of Vasubandhu’s text, and offers some reflections on the methods he uses to defend, legitimise and create a paradigm for the interpretation of a key Yogācāra source. The talk also highlights the major difficulties Sthiramati as a commentator encountered in his attempt to reconcile interpretations from different layers of Yogācāra, and explains how he dealt with them.
An influential commentary on the fringe of the “classical” Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda tradition is the Ratnagotravibhāga. A noteworthy feature of the text is that while the prose, commentarial layer of its structure undeniably exposits Yogācāra doctrine, the earlier, root verses that they expand upon – devoted foremost to exploring ideas about “buddha-nature” – do not. While this and other features of the Ratnagotravibhāga have been well-studied, this paper puts front and centre our earliest witness to the text: its early sixth-century translation into Chinese (Baoxinglun 寶性論). This version is noticeably different to our surviving Sanskrit and Tibetan versions – and, conspicuously, features yet more evidence of Yogācāra influence in its composition. We will look at what how the commentarial stratum of the Ratnagotravibhāga transforms the text into a Yogācāra work, and will give special attention to features and passage of the Chinese version that exhibit still greater investment in specifically Yogācāra doctrine.
Since the time of Śākyamuni Buddha, Buddhism has undergone diverse doctrinal developments across different historical periods and geographical regions. As Buddhist teachings diversified, commentators faced a crucial hermeneutical challenge in addressing the relationships among the various doctrinal frameworks, which at times appeared to be in conflict. This paper examines the commentarial approach of Silla Yogācāra monk Daehyeon (ca. eighth century), in which he sought to reconcile the seemingly contradictory doctrines of “nature” (i.e., tathāgatagarbha) and “characteristics” (i.e., Yogācāra) through his interpretation of the Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun). Contrary to the prevailing exegetical tendencies of the time, which often displayed antagonism toward opposing theoretical frameworks, Daehyeon adopted a hermeneutical approach aimed at integrating both perspectives. Through an analysis of his commentarial work, with particular focus on his interpretation of ālayavijñāna, this study explores how Daehyeon sought to demonstrate the doctrinal coherence between tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra.