These two categories can be seen as a distinctly Buddhist way of articulating what Buddhism takes to be the basic problem of the human condition: (1) that we suffer from a wide range of emotive imbalances, such as anger, jealousy, pride, lust, dishonesty, and so forth, which are able to come to be based on the fact that (2) we live in a state of continuous misapprehension of reality, reifying and attaching to conceptual constructs that indicate our own existence as an autonomous 'self,' along with the assumed intrinsic, 'as-is' reality of the objects that surround us. Although the division of all mental disturbances along the general lines of afflictive vs. cognitive is generally associated with Mahayana Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha, we find an analog to the hindrances in Abhidharma texts, where the afflictive hindrances are established in contrast to the hindrances to liberation 解脫障. In this case the afflictive hindrances 煩惱障 refer to the manifestly active afflictions which serve to obstruct the production of undefiled wisdom, and thus obstruct attainment of liberation through wisdom 慧解脫. Even if one overcomes these hindrances and is able to attain liberation through wisdom, one may still be obstructed by the subtler hindrances to liberation, which impede the attainment of the concentration of total cessation 滅盡定. Thus, the latter type (also known as the 'cessation hindrances'  定障) are said to impede both types of liberation 倶解脫. The prior are seen as being constituted by defiled nescience 染汚無知, and the latter by undefiled nescience 不染汚無知 (see 二無知). In the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra 大毘婆沙論, the first two of the four right eliminations 四正斷 remove the first kind of hindrance and the second two remove the second kind of hindrance. 〔阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 T 1545.27.724b29〕

As articulated in Yogâcāra works, the term afflictive hindrances refers primarily to the mental factors 心所 that are of unwholesome 不善 quality, which bring suffering and anxiety to sentient beings. Included here are the factors enumerated in such categories as the six fundamental afflictions 六煩惱 and twenty derivative afflictions 隨煩惱, along with their derivatives. In the most standard Yogâcāra definition (as one will find in such texts as the Yogâcārabhūmi-śāstra, Cheng weishi lun, etc.), the afflictive hindrances are said to have their origin in the view of the reality of a self (我執 ātma-grāha). They are said to operate within the first seven 'forthcoming consciousnesses'  轉識 and can be eliminated by the gradual practices of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. The cognitive hindrances are derived from the fundamental error of understanding dharmas ( 'phenomena' ) to exist intrinsically (法執; dharma-grāha). They are conceptual errors, the most subtle of which are contained in the base consciousness 阿賴耶識 and can only be permanently eliminated by bodhisattvas who have a direct experience of emptiness. They serve as the basis for the afflictive hindrances. The five paths of Yogâcāra practice 唯識修道五位 are distinguished in terms of the bodhisattvaʼs ability to quell and eliminate the active manifest forms, seed forms, and karmic impressions of these two kinds of hindrances. In Yogâcāra, these two kinds of hindrances are further subdivided into those that are produced by discrimination 分別障 and those that are innate 倶生障, with the former residing in the mental region of waking consciousness (the first six consciousnesses 六識) and the latter residing in the subconscious region of the mind (manas 末那識 and ālayavijñāna).

The system of the two hindrances did not develop only in Yogâcāra, as texts from the Tathāgatagarbha strain contain roughly parallel discussions from an early date. In a very general sense, the two hindrances serve the same role in both Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha systems, of distinguishing between affective and cognitive problems. Both systems also generally agree that the afflictive hindrances can be remedied by the practices of Hīnayāna adherents 二乘, whereas cognitive hindrances can only be removed by the compassion and insight into emptiness possessed by bodhisattvas. Nonetheless, the radical differences in approach to be seen between these two systems also shows itself in the way they understand the problem of the hindrances.

Huiyuanʼs 慧遠 (523–592) chapter on the two hindrances, entitled Erzhang yi (contained in his Dasheng yi zhang 大乘義章; T 1851) contains the earliest available sustained discussion of the topic.2 The most comprehensive treatise on the hindrances, entitled Ijang ui (二障義 'System of the Two Hindrances' ), was written by the Korean monk Wonhyo 元曉 (617–686), who analyzed the difference in the respective interpretations given to the two hindrances by the Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha textual families. He uncovered the existence of these two distinct approaches in the course of composing his commentaries to the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith [AMF] 起信論.3 In explicating the AMF, Wonhyo was forced to come to grips with a teaching of 'two obstructions'  二礙 (i.e. 煩惱礙 and 智礙), which at first blush seems to be equivalent to the standardized Yogâcāra model, but which is, in fact, based on a radically different articulation of how delusion occurs in the mind. The afflictive obstructions in the AMF, which impede the fundamental wisdom of thusness 眞如根本智, are equivalent to the same textʼs defiled mind 染心, which has six progressively subtle aspects 六染心. The most significant difference seen in the afflictive obstructions in the AMF is the fact that they are defined as 'the inability to perceive thusness,' which means that they show a markedly cognitive dimension, beyond their Yogâcāric definition as emotive turbulence. According to Wonhyo, the AMFʼs interpretation of the afflictive obstructions subsumes everything contained in both hindrances in the standard Yogâcāra explanation. The cognitive obstructions in the AMF are also interpreted differently from the Yogâcāra model. As the basis for the AMFʼs definition of nescience 無明, they refer specifically to the inability to properly discriminate objective phenomena. Thus, it is the bodhisattvaʼs so-called 'phenomenal wisdom' (世間自然業智, 世俗智,—the function used in teaching others) that is obstructed. (Cf. the Tiantai 塵沙惑)

In his Ijangui (borrowing extensively from Huiyuanʼs previous work), Wonhyo traces back a current going from the Awakening of Faith to earlier Tathāgatagarbha texts such as the Śrīmālā-sūtra 勝鬘經 and Benye jing 本業經 which, as Huiyuan had already shown, is based the explanation of affliction and nescience on the framework of the four/five entrenchments 五住地惑. Wonhyo labels the AMFʼs interpretation of the hindrances as the 'inexplicit' interpretation 隱密門, and the standard Yogâcāra explanation as the 'explicit' interpretation 顯了門.

Huiyuan, in his commentary to the AMF, devotes several pages to the explication of the hindrances (starting at T 1843.44.188b29), working exclusively within the Tathāgatagarbha texts that share closely in their doctrine with the AMF. He explains (like Wonhyo, but in slightly less developed form) that the definition of the hindrances varies according to the approach of the particular text.

Tiantai masters such as Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597) and Zhanran 湛然 (711–782) were also interested in the theory of the hindrances, incorporating it into their own three-truths system, in the process offering new interpretations. If Zhanran was aware of the Yogâcāra/Tathāgatagarbha bifurcation identified by Wonhyo, he does not seem to indicate this clearly, and his definitions of the hindrances are derived from the sources in the AMF/Tathāgatagarbha tradition, including references to the five entrenchments 住地惑. He understands the mental disturbances of views and perceptions taken together 見思惑 to be equivalent to the afflictive hindrances 煩惱障, with the mental disturbances of innumerable details and nescience taken together 塵沙無知惑 (cf. 三惑) to be equivalent in meaning to the undefiled nescience 不染汚無知 taught in Abhidharma, and the cognitive hindrances 所知障/智障 of Yogâcāra. While on one hand, this equivalence leaves out some of the nuance provided by Huiyan and Wonhyo in their analyses of the hindrances, Zhanran provides his own nuance by distinguishing the cognitive hindrances into the dimensions of principle 障理智 (roughly equivalent to the AMFʼs afflictive hindrances) and phenomena 障事智 (equivalent to the AMFʼs cognitive hindrances). Zhiyi makes a distinctive contribution to the discussion by attempting to grapple with the problem of the subject vs. objective character of the cognitive hindrances.4 (T 1717.33.868c12–16)

The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment 圓覺經, an influential text in the formation of early Chan doctrine, also utilizes a framework of two hindrances in its fifth and sixth chapters, which seems to show awareness of all the above approaches. We can see in this text a clear influence from the East Asian essence-function 體用 logic as manifested in the Huayan li-shi 理事 paradigm, as the two hindrances are referred to as the 'phenomenal hindrances'  事障 and 'hindrances of/to principle'  理障. The phenomenal hindrances refer to karmic restrictions, habituations (thus, equivalent to afflictive hindrances)—whereas the hindrances of principle refer to conceptual errors (cognitive hindrances). Reflecting the SPEʼs overarching theme of special emphasis on nonattachment to oneʼs religious insights, the hindrances of principle are especially pointed out as being obstructions that develop as a result of oneʼs clinging on to what one has 'realized.' In his Large Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, Zongmi 宗密 takes up the explanation of these hindrances, basically following the distinction made by Wonhyo into Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha/AMF interpretations. (Z 243.9.333–334)

A useful compact summary of four major approaches to two-hindrances theory is found in the Yugaron gi 瑜伽論記 at T 1828.42.488c24–489a24.

References

Anacker, Stefan. 1984. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. Delhi:  Motilal Banarsidass. (pages 221–230)

Muller, A. Charles. 2004-1. “The Yogâcāra two Hindrances and their Reinterpretations in East Asia.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27 : 207–235.

----. 2006. “Wonhyoʼs Reliance on Huiyuan in his Exposition of the Two Hindrances.” Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University 14 : 1–16.

----. and Cuong . Nguyen. 2011. Wŏnhyoʼs Philosophy of Mind. Honolulu:  University of Hawai`i Press.

----. 2007. “Explanation of the Essence of the Two Hindrances through Ten Canonical Texts.”  In Korean Buddhism in East Asian Perspectives. Seoul:  Jimoondang. 191–213.

----. 2014. “A Pivotal Text for the Definition of the Two Hindrances in East Asia: Huiyuanʼs “Erzhang yi” Chapter.”  In A Distant Mirror: Articulating Indic Ideas in Sixth and Seventh Century Chinese Buddhism. Hamburg:  Hamburg University Press. 217–271.

Shastri, Biswanarayan. 1984. The Role of Jñeyâvaraṇa in the Concept of Nirvāṇa of Yogâcāra. In Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference. vol. 32 361–362.

Shastri, Biswanarayan. 1988. Two Obstacles in the Way of Nirvāṇa and Buddhahood. In Nature of Bondage and Liberation in Buddhist Systems. Proceedings of a Seminar held in 1984. Gorakhpur:  41-46.

Swanson, Paul L. 1983. “Chih-Iʼs Interpretation of jñeyâvaraṇa: An Application of the Three-Fold Truth Concept.” Annual Memoirs of the Otani University Shin Buddhist Comprehensive Research Institute 1 : 51–72.