This paper is being presented as part of a panel on the topic of Reformulations of
Yogācāra in Tibet. Particularly, it relates to Tibetan commentary on
Abhisamayālaṃkāra (
AA) I:39, in which it is taught that the foundation (
pratiṣṭhā) for religious practice is the
dharmadhātu and that since the
dharmadhātu is undifferentiated (
asaṃbhedā), there are ultimately no distinct
gotras corresponding to the
three vehicles. This teaching is usually interpreted as a Mādhyamaka justification for one final vehicle, as opposed to the three-vehicle theory, attributed to
Cittamātra/Vijñaptimātratā, and which is closely related to the doctrine of three gotras found in sutras such as
Saṃdhinirmocana and
Laṅkāvatāra and śāstras such as
Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. However, there are some Tibetan writers outside the influential
Gelug tradition who see the equation of
gotra with
dharmadhātu as an essentially
Yogācāra doctrine. This alternative viewpoint implies that
Yogācāra and
Cittamātra are not, as is commonly held to be the case, the same thing and brings to the fore the question of whether
Yogācāra is better understood as a tradition that transcends traditional doxographic categories. Through an analysis of Śākya-mchog-ldan’s explanation of
AA I:39, which includes a differentiation of two other terms that are also often held to be synonymous, namely
gotra and buddha-essense (or
tathāgatagarbha), I aim to highlight some of the ways in which his ‘reformulation’ of
Yogācāra implies a reformulation of certain
Cittamātra doctrines. Finally, I conclude the paper with a brief discussion on the extent to which doxographical discourse both restricts and allows for the formulation of an individual point of view. (Gilks, introduction, 1)
