Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (AF,, reconstructed Sanskrit title: *Mahāyāna-śraddhotpāda-śāstra[1]) is an influential Mahayana Buddhist treatise for East Asian Buddhism.
Though traditionally attributed to the 2nd century CE Indian master Aśvaghoṣa, no Sanskrit version is extant and it is widely regarded by many contemporary scholars as having been composed in China.[2] [3] The main theories of the authorship of the Awakening of Faith among contemporary scholars now point to either the 6th century Indian monk translators Paramārtha and Bodhiruci, or alternatively to one of their Chinese students.
While the text is traditionally attributed to Aśvaghoṣa, no Sanskrit version of the text is extant.[2] The two earliest existing versions are written in Chinese, and contemporary scholars widely accept the theory that the text was composed in China.[2] [4] [5]
As Alex Gardner notes, there is still scholarly debate on whether the work was composed in Sanskrit by an Indian, or whether it was composed in Chinese. Some scholars point to Chinese theories in the text, while others (like Jikidō Takasaki) see it as mainly drawing on classic Indian ideas found in the Indic tathāgatagarbha texts like the Ratnagotravibhāga.
Some scholars note that the AF could have an Indic precedent or at least be based on several Indian ideas. According to Christopher Callahan "the literary quality of the text suggests that its origins are not entirely Chinese". This is because:[6]
In comparison with other forged translations, the Qixinlun does not quote from known translations and has no known allusions to Taoist or Confucian texts. Moreover, the text is written in an extremely concise manner without literary embellishment, out of keeping with the ornate pianliti style that was popular in the sixth century. This evidence has led many scholars to conjecture that some form of the text was produced in either India or Central Asia and that the author or authors, perhaps even Paramārtha himself, rewrote the text in light of sixth-century Chinese intellectual concerns.D.T. Suzuki accepted the Indian origin of the Awakening of Faith (though he did not think Aśvaghoṣa was the author). He saw the text as being "inspired by the same spirit" as the Lankavatara, Avatamsaka, and Mahayanamahaparanirvana Sutras, and regarded its identification as a Chinese text as "not well grounded".[7]
Paramārtha (; 499–569) an Indian monk who became a translator in China, was traditionally thought to have translated the text in 553 CE. However, some modern scholars opine it was composed by Paramārtha or one of his students.[8] This thesis was defended by Japanese scholars like Hiroo Kashiwagi [9] Sally B. King also writes that Paramārtha may have composed the Buddha-nature Treatise as well as the Awakening of Faith.
Other experts dispute that it has anything to do at all with Paramārtha.[10] Keng Ching argues that the Awakening of Faith does not show any similarities with the other works of Paramārtha, and he notes the doctrinal differences between the works of Paramārtha's the Dilun school and the Awakening of Faith.[11] Keng Ching also argues that the attribution of the AF to Paramārtha was mainly due to the efforts of the Shelun scholar Tanqian (曇遷; 542–607).[12]
The authors of a recent translation of the AF (John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham, and Mark Strange) write that "there is now wide consensus that the author of the Treatise was strongly influenced by the terminology and language of Bodhiruci (d. ca. 535)." The Awakening of Faith draws on much of the ideas and specific terms found in Bodhiruci's translations, such as his Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and his translation of Vasubandhu's Commentary on the Ten Stages Sutra. As such "one theory is that the Treatise was written by someone in Bodhiruci’s circle."[13] According to these authors, one candidate for the authorship of the Awakening of Faith is Tanlin (曇 林), who was "an amanuensis of Bodhiruci and a scholar of Tathāgatagarbha material."
A later translation or reedited version was attributed to the Khotanese monk (; active 695–700). This version was edited and modified to make it more compatible with classic Yogacara doctrine of the school of Xuanzang which had been critical of the Awakening of Faith. But this new edition was never as popular as the earlier version of the Awakening of Faith, which was defended by the Huayan scholar and Sanskritist Fazang (643–712).[14] Fazang himself had worked with Śikṣānanda's translation team on other sutras, like the Lankavatara.
When it was discovered by Westerners at the beginning of the 20th century in 1907, Welsh missionnary Timothy Richard interpreted The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana Doctrine as a crypto-Christian text and new form of Buddhism.[15]
The term Mahayana points not to the Mahayana school, but to tathatā "suchness" or "the Absolute":
Charles Muller argues that the terminology "faith in" is misleading:
In other words, the treatise is not discussing "Faith in the Mahayana," rather it is presenting the Mahayana style of faith, which is faith in the true suchness of mind or the "One Mind". If this is accurate then a more apt title would be The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith.
The text is divided into five sections, and often summarized as “One Mind, Two Aspects, Three Greatnesses, Four Faiths, and Five Practices".[2] Following two introductory chapters dealing with the oneness of mind and motivations for the text's composition, part three focuses on two aspects of mind to clarify the relationship between enlightenment and ignorance, nirvana and samsara, or the absolute and the phenomenal. Part four describes five practices that aid in the growth of faith, emphasizing calmness and insight meditation. Part five describes the benefits that result from cultivating the five practices.[2]
According to the Awakening of Faith:
‘Consciousness has two aspects which embrace all states of existence and create all states of existence. They are: (1) the aspect of enlightenment, and (2) the aspect of nonenlightenment.’Written from the perspective of Essence-Function philosophy, this text sought to harmonize the two soteriological philosophies of the Buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha) and the Eight Consciousnesses (or Yogacara) into a synthetic vision[16] [2] based on the "One Mind in Two Aspects" doctrine. According to Whalen Lai, this doctrine holds that "self and world, mind and suchness, are integrally one. Everything is a carrier of that a priori enlightenment; all incipient enlightenment is predicated on it."
Paul Williams explains the main teaching of the Awakening of Faith thus:
The Awakening of Faith itself takes the tathagatagarbha as the substratum of samsara and nirvana. This Mind has two aspects – the Mind as Suchness or Thusness, that is, the Absolute Reality itself, and the Mind as phenomena. Between them these two aspects embrace all there is....The essential nature of the Mind is unborn, imperishable, beyond language. Differentiation (i.e. phenomena) arises through illusion, fundamental ignorance of one’s true nature...The Absolute Reality is empty, ‘Because from the beginning it has never been related to any defiled states of existence, it is free from all marks of individual distinction of things, and it has nothing to do with thoughts conceived by a deluded mind’. Nevertheless, to avoid misunderstandings, ‘the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore it is called “nonempty.”’[17]
Although often omitted from lists of canonical Buddhist texts, the Awakening of Faith strongly influenced subsequent Mahayana doctrine. It reflects an important stage in the synthesis of Indian and Chinese Buddhist thought, and the elevation of the tathagatagarbha doctrine to a central place in Chinese Buddhist soteriology. Commentaries on the Awakening in Faith were composed in China, Japan, and Korea by numerous exegetes.
The Awakening of Faith had a great influence on Chinese Buddhism.[18] It is particularly important for the Huayan school and Chan Buddhism. One of the reasons for this is the status of the influential commentator Fazang (法藏) as state preceptor (Guoshi) and third patriarch of the Huayan school.[19] Fazang wrote an extensive Commentary on the Awakening of Faith (Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 44, No. 1846 大乘起信論義記 Dasheng qixinlun yiji) and placed the treatise at the highest class of his doctrinal classification system.[20] Other figures like Guifeng Zongmi (probably written between 823 and 828) and Jingying Huiyuan (Taisho no. Vol. 44, No. 1843 大乘起信論義疏 Dasheng qixinlun yishu) also wrote commentaries on the Awakening of Faith.[21] The Awakening of Faith thus had an key role in the teachings of the Huayan school.[2]
The view of the mind in the Awakening of Faith also had a significant import on the doctrinal development of the East Mountain Teaching, an 8th century tradition of Chan Buddhism.[22] It is also considered to have strongly influenced the Chan doctrine of "seeing one's nature and attaining Buddhahood" (jianxing chengfo).
The great Korean scholar Wonhyo wrote two commentaries: Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 44, No. 1844 起信論疏 Gisillon so and Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 44, No. 1845 Daeseung gisillon byeolgi. In great part due to the commentaries by Wonhyo,[23] the Awakening of Faith ended up having an unusually powerful influence in Korea, where it may be the most oft-cited text in the entire tradition. It also provided much of the doctrinal basis for the original enlightenment thought found in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment.
In Tendai, it is often used to explain the original enlightenment thought (doctrine). Medieval Tendai Original Enlightenment Thought is established. It indirectly influenced the sects of the Kamakura period.[24]
Mou Zongsan (Chinese: 牟宗三) has used this and Tien Tai to develop his school of thought related to Confucianism, in particular about how to tie between two different aspects of the world.
The translations by Hakeda and Jorgensen et al. are based on Paramārtha's version of the Chinese text (Taisho No. 1666) while Suzuki's translation is based on Śikṣānanda's version (Taisho No. 1667).
Vorenkamp's translation of Fazang's commentary includes a translation of Paramārtha's version.