786 james l. ford
reconciled with the nondual teachings of esoteric sūtras. Hossō, on
the other hand, was faced with substantive doctrinal challenges. Here
I would like to summarize these tensions and highlight the doctrinal
reforms offered by Jōkei (1155–1213) and Ryōhen (1194–1252) as yet
another example of the impact of esotericism on Nara Buddhism.
The Hossō school traced its lineage to the Yogācāra (Yoga Prac-
tice) school in India founded by Asaṅga (ca. 375–430) and his younger
half-brother Vasubandhu (ca. 400–480). As suggested by its alterna-
tive title, Vijñaptimātra, or Consciousness-only, the school is often
characterized as idealist due to its emphasis on the fundamental role
of consciousness in our perception of reality. In terms of practice, it
stressed the importance of yogic contemplative exercises by which one
comprehends the ways one’s deluded mind (mis)perceives objective
reality.
The most influential transmission of Yogācāra to China was that car-
ried out by Xuanzang (ca. 600–664), who traveled to India in 629 and
returned sixteen years later to become perhaps the most preeminent
East Asian Buddhist of his generation. Xuanzang’s lineage was known
as Weishi (Vijñaptimātra) by its proponents, and as Faxiang (Hossō,
Dharma Characteristics) by opponents such as Fazang (643–712), the
third patriarch and key systematizer of Huayan. Faxiang offered elabo-
rate and rather sophisticated analyses of the different characteristics of
dharmas, all subject to karmic causality, without denying their underly-
ing nature of emptiness. In contrast, Fazang classified his own Huayan
school as Dharma-nature (Faxing ), inferring that it offered deeper
and ostensibly superior penetration into the reality of dharmas.
Most East Asian Buddhist schools accepted fundamental Yogācāra
teachings such as the eight consciousnesses, including ālaya-vijñāna,
the three natures, and mind-only. However, there were several Hossō
teachings that drew strong criticism from opposing schools, particu-
larly Tendai, and engendered considerable tension with esoteric teach-
ings. For example, Hossō was well known for its infamous taxonomy
of categorizing beings into five classes based on innate seeds that
determine one’s potential for awakening. The lowest class, icchanti-
kas (issendai ), are devoid of any seeds and deemed incapable
of achieving awakening. This teaching was at considerable odds with
the widely accepted universal enlightenment view (kaijo ) that
all beings are destined for realization, which, in turn, was based on
tathāgatagarbha ideology (i.e., the universality of buddha-nature).
Hossō scholar monks rejected this doctrine for being too metaphysi-