The Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra), a compiled translation of Indian commentaries on Vasubandhu’s (ca. fourth or fifth centuries CE) Triṃśikā, centering on Dharmapāla’s (ca. sixth century) exegesis, is well known as the foundational text that offers the doctrinal basis of the East Asian Yogācāra school—the Dharma Characteristics school (Ch. Faxiang zong, K. Pŏpsang chong, J. Hossōshū 法相宗). In his commentary to the Cheng weishi lun, Kuiji 窺基 (632–682), the de facto founder of the Dharma Characteristics school, considers Dharmapāla’s criticism in the Cheng weishi lun toward those adhering to “emptiness” as aimed at such a Madhyamaka scholiast as Bhāviveka (ca. 500–570). Kuiji’s interpretation has tended to be generally accepted under the backdrop of the contemporary controversy revolving around the distinct doctrinal views between Dharmapāla and Bhāviveka. However, just as the question of whether Madhyamaka and Yogācāra over the long history of Mahāyāna Buddhism were philosophically consistent with each other cannot find an easy answer, we cannot simply conclude based on the “orthodox” explanation that these two scholiasts were doctrinally antagonistic. Indeed, the Silla Yogācāra monk Taehyŏn 大賢 (ca. eighth century) introduced three distinct interpretations by contemporary scholar monks on this matter. This paper examines East Asian commentators’ interpretations on the relationship between Dharmapāla and Bhāviveka as presented in Taehyŏn’s commentary of the Cheng weishi lun, and further discusses how Taehyŏn explains doctrinal conflict between the seemingly contrasting notions, such as ‘the conditioned’ (saṃskāra) and ‘the unconditioned’ (asaṃskāra), by observing his interpretation of such a concept of ‘the immaculate consciousness’ (amalavijñāna).
