Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chatterjee, A.K. - The Yogacara Idealism 2nd (1975) PDF
Chatterjee, A.K. - The Yogacara Idealism 2nd (1975) PDF
YOGA CA RA
IDEALISM
MOTILAL BANARSIDASS
Delhi Varanasi Patna Madras
First Published 1962
Second Revised Edition 197$; Reprinted 1987
MOTILAL BANARSIDASS
Bungalow Road, Jawabar Nagar, Delhi 110 007
Branches
Chowk, Varanasi 221 001
Ashok Rajpatb, Patna 800 004
120, Royapettab High Road, Mylapore, Madras 600 004
C MOTD..AL BANARSIDASS
ISBN : 81-208-0315-9
PRINTED IN INDIA
BY JAINENDRA PRAKASH JAJN AT SHRI JAJNENDRA PRESS, A-45 NARAJNA
JNDUSI'RIAL AREA, PHASE I, NEW DELHI 110 028 AND PUBUSHED BY
NARENDRA PRAKASH JAJN FOR MOTn.AL BANARSIDASS, DEI.Hl 110 007.
FOREWORD
The Yogacara-Vijnanavada Idealhm was the last great creative
synthesis of Buddhism and its position in that tradition is comparable
to that of the Ad vaita V edanta in the orthodox Hindu tradition. It
is perhaps the only original epistemological idealism to be formulated
on the Indian soil. Its impact on the other systems of thought was
trem::ndous. Even those philosophies that were completely out of
line with idealism, like the Nyaya, the Mimari:lsa and Jainism, had to
reckon with it. Considering the important role played by the Yogacara
Idealism in Buddhism and in Indian philosophical and religious thought
in general, ~t is surprising that there had been no full or reliable exposi-
tions of this philosophy. This gap in our knowledge is admirably
filled by the present work of Dr. Chatterjee.
The author deals with the Yogacara-Vijfianavada in all its aspects
a:t-1 b!a:ingl, historically, analytically and comparatively. The first
tw:> chapters of the book show, with great clarity and sufficient detail,
the origin and development of the Yogacara idealism as an outcome of
those fruitful and dynamic ideas associated with the previous schools
of Buddhism, especially with the Sautrantika and the Madhyamika.
The originality of the Yogacara synthesis of Buddhist teachings has
been clearly brought out, and the individual contribution made by the
philosophers of this school, such as Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati,
Digaaga., Dharma.kirti and Santarak~ita, has received adequate attention.
The subsequent chapters, which form the core of the work,
represent a constructive and critical exposition of the Yogacara meta~
physics, its idealism and absolutism as well as its spiritual discipline.
Dr. Chatterjee has utilised nearly all the sources available on t!Ie subject
and has given a faithful and persuasive account of this system of thought.
He has .not hesitated to go behind the literal meaning of the texts to
extract their real significance. There is a measure of risk in such a ven-
ture, and at some places one might choose to disagree with the author's
interpretation. However, the duty of a scholar is not just to reproduce
literally, but to re-interpret and to re-construct his theme.
Comparison of the Yogacara with other forms of idealism and
absolutism, Indian as well as European, has been undertaken in the
Vl FOREWORD
last two chapters of the work. This serves to bring out the affinities
and distinctions which are only too often blurred. These comparative
studies are among the best specimens of the author's keen analysis and
lucid exposition.
I cannot help feeling that the work of Dr. Chatterjee would have
gained considerably more in comprehension and authoritativeness if
the Yogiicara texts in Chinese and Tibetan or their translations in French
had been made use of more fully. I have no manner of doubt, how-
ever, that the work of Dr. Chatterjee, even as it stands, will prove
a valuable and outstanding contribution to our understanding of a very
important phase of Indian thought. It is an e1.cellent piece of philoso-
phical writing, both with regard to the range of problems covered and
the delightful manner of presentation. There is hardly any dull or un-
stimulating page in a work of 230 pages.
It is a matter of personal gratification to me that the line of thought
nitiated by" me in dealing with the basic philosophy of Buddhism in my
study of the Miidhyamika system (The Central PhilosopbJ of Buddhism,
George Alien & Unwin, London, 1955) has been largely accepted
and carried out by my student and friend, Dr. A.shok Kumar Chatterjee.
His study of the Yogiiciira Idealism may well be considered as a sequel
to my book on the Miidhyamika Absolutism which together constitute
the revolutionary" Mahiiyiina movement.
T.R.V.Murti
PREFACE
An attempt is here made to expound the metaphysics of the
Yogadira school of Buddhism and to analyse its logical implications.
It may not be rash to think that little apology is needed for making
~uch an attempt. The expository' literature on the Yogacara system
is plentiful, but unfortunately, not adequate. Scholarly studies on
the subject from the historical point of view are not lacking. There is
hardly any work, however, which treats of the system as an original
·contribution to philosophy. At best, it is construed as a phase
in the historical development of Buddhism. The account of theYoga-
cara philosophy given in the standard histories of Indian thought is
necessarily all too meagre. The details cannot be discussed with sufficient
fulness within the limited space in such works. Treatises devoted
·entirely to the exposition of Buddhism fare no better. The analysis is
som:times positively misleading. The Yogacira is described merely
.as idealism. For a correct appraisement of the system it is very' neces-
sary to remember that it is a form of absolutism. This is the central
problem in the Yogacara philosophy-the problem of effecting a logical
synthesis between idealism and absolutism. The Yogaclra is wise
enough to perceive that idealism, when pressed, yields an absolutism
by the sheer dynamism of its own inner logic. This point needs bring·
ing out with sufficient deductive clarity. In the existing accounts this
point is not utterly lacking, but it is hardly given that attention and
emphasis which.it demands. The late Stcherbatsky was a notable ex-
ception which only proves the general statement.
Other constructive details also of the system have not been fully
analysed. In the present essay I have simply tried to present a more
or less complete picture of the system, to collect the scattered details
into a coherent connected picture and to size it up, not merely as a phase
of Buddhism, but rather as an original and constructive philosophy.
Completeness has been with me more an ideal than an actual achieve-
ment. I have neither the soundness of scholarship nor the maturity
of judgment required for this. Certain omissions are however deli-
berate. The first chapter professes to be a historical introduction to the
Yogacara metaphysics, but history, in its popular sense of chronology
viii PRBPACB
of dates and events, will not be found there. Not that such a chronolo-
gical study is uninteresting or urumportant ; it is simply that in a
morphological analysis of any metaphysics, chronology of dates and
events is absolutely beside the point. In the present essay I have
attempted to show that the Yogacara philosophy is a logical elaboration
of the basic epistemological pattern of Buddhism. The :fir$t chapter
is a history of the gradual development of the fundamental logic of
Buddhism, culminating in the Yogacara idealism. The omission of
actual chronological details appeared excusable, and is deliberate.
For the same reason, minor doctrinal differences, if any, between
various Yogacara acaryas, have not been discussed. I have taken
Vasubandhu's Vijii~ptimiitratiisiddhi as the basic work on the system.
Other texts are consulted only as throwing light on the problems rais-
ed in that treatise. The other omission is· regarding the insufficient
space devoted to th~ 8th and 9th chapters, dealing with the discipline
and the religion of the Yogacara system. In a strictly metaphysical
essay, they could very well be deleted. I have said a few words only
for the sake of completeness. Here also the shifting of emphasis away
from these problems appeared to be justifiable, though I do not know
how far this point of view is really justified. All that I ask is to have
the essay judged purely on its merits as a philosophical analysis, and not
as a piece of historical survey.
As regards the plan of the essay, the first two chapters are more
or less historical. The first chapter discusses how the Yogacara school
emerged out of the inner dynamism inherent in Buddhism from the
very outset. The second chapter is devoted to the important acaryas ..
texts, '.lub-schools, and other such minor details. These two chapters
are in no way integrally related with what follows.
The third and fourth chapters analyse the epistemological basis
of the system. The third is concerned with the refutation of the cate-
gory of the objective, and in the fourth realistic arguments are consi-
dered f:wm the Yogacara standpoint. The fifth chapter sets forth the
elaboration of the Yogicara idealism as a constructive metaphysics,
and attempts to show how consciousness, the sole reality, is actually
diversified into the multi-dimensional forms of the so-called empirical
world. The sixth chapter is again a concession to the ideal of com-
pleteness. It deals with the Dharma-theory, a doctrine of central
interest in entire Buddhism, as adapted by the Yogacara.
PREFACE ix
A. K. Chatterjee
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
A. K. Chatterjee
CONTENTS
PAGE
Foreword v
Preface vii
Preface to Second Edition xii
Abbreviations xv
Ch. I A Historical Introduction 1
Ch. 11 The Development of the Yogliclira 24
Ch. Ill Refutation of Realism 45
Ch. IV Some Objections Answered 73
Ch. V The Three VijfiliQas 87
Ch. VI Dharma Theory in the Yogaclira 108
Ch. VII The Yogliciira Conception of the Absolute 126
Ch. VIII The Yogliciira Discipline 157
Ch. IX The Concept of the Tathagata 169
Ch. X The Yogliclira and Some Other Forms of Absolutism 178
Ch. X£ The Yogiclira and Some Other Forms of Idealism 204
Glossary 231
Index 23-3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
vikalpa Only the particular is given. The real is unique and discrete
(svalak~).
The Sautrantika puts the Anatma tradition on a logical basis. A
thorough-going Analytic is expounded, more or less on the Kantian lines.
The distinction between the thing-in-itself, the objectively given and the
thought-construct, the work of the a priori, is relentlesF ly dtawn, with
the full consciousness of all the implications of this metaphysics. It is
not that one detached element in experience is accidentally subjective;
it is rather that all experience is a synthesis obtained by superimposing
the a priori categories on the given. All empirical experience, there-
fore, is necessarily conditioned by the :subjective. Even the bare act of
naming a thing is not possible without construing it as an object, a whole
of parts, a particulu belonging t·:> a class, in short, without thought-
construction (kalpana). Unity, substantiality and universality are all
the work of the a priori; they are transcendental functions of the subject-
ive.
The stabilisation of the pattern of the Sautrantika metaphysic~ entailed
a detailed analysis of the constitution of empirical knowledge. On the
one hand there is the thing-in-itself, viz., the particular and unique
dharmas, a momentary and incessant flow of unrelated reals; on the other
hand there are the relations read into them by constructive imagination
(kalpanii). A relation is a subjective construction, an a priori category.
This analysis, well-known to us in its Kantian form, is undertaken by the
Sautriintika. Knowledge can be traced to two sources, belonging to
entirely different levels, viz., the thing-in-itself on the one hand which is
objectively given and the transcendental categories of synthesis on the
other, which are apriori functions of the subjective. Intuition of the
pure given is pratyak~a according to the Sautrantika. Manipulation of
the universal, which is a creature of the subjective, is anumiina. All
kn:>wledge is exhausted by these two pramih;tas, there being no third
kind. This pramiiJ;~.avii.da is the original contrihution of the Sautrantika;
the critical or the destructive work is merely the elucidation of the
implications of pudgalanairii.tmya.
The historical imp.:>rtance of the Sautriintika school is very great,
as it is this metaphysics which paved the way for the later Mahayiinistic
developments in the bi~tory of Buddhit.m. The transitior., from a philo-
sophical point of vievt, from the realistic Hinayana to the absolutistic
and idealistic Mahii}lioa was made possible by the Sautrant!.ka analysis
of experience. The Sautriintika prepared the way of the Madhyamika
A HISTOlUcAL INTRODUCTION 7
on the ot~e.hand and the Yogaciira on the other, and is, in a sense, the
parting of the ways.
B. Subjectivity, the a priori character of which had been demon-
strated by the Sautrantika, receives a still deeper interpretation in the
Ma:l.hyamika philosophy. The scope of subjectivity is infinitely widened
by demolishing the category of difference as well. The Sautrantika
had established a kind of nominalism. The unifying categories like
identity, permanence, universality, wholeness, substantiality, these were
all sh:>wn to be merely conceptual, lacking an objective basis. The
Ma..ihyamika completes the dialectical movement of criticism; he urges~
with great logical cogency and rigour, that difference fares no better.
Identity and difference are purely relative categories. One derives all
the significance that one has only in and through the other.
The Sautrantika had refuted the reality of the pudgala, but had main-
tained that of the dharmas. The pudgala was a thought-construct
projected upon the real dharmas which alone existed objectively. A
dharma was the ultimate existent and was a unique particular. The
list of dharmas included 75 in the Sarvastivada, but was cut down
to 43 by the Sautrantika. The Madhyamika continues this critical
process to its logical extreme and refuses to accept the reality of the
dharmas even. If an object is nothing apart from its various aspects,
nor are the a~pects to be arbitrarily grouped together without an
objective basis. The subject is not a predicate-less unity. The pre-
dicates on the other hand are not independently real ; they are not floating
universals but can exist only within the context of the subject. The
Ma.:l.hyamika Dialectic is simply the analysis of this relativity of thought.
Thought cannot take a stand on the category of particularity' and differ-
ence, after demolishing its contrary. All thought is relative ; pick a
hole at any point and the entire structure collapses. And this relativity
is not peculiar to any one fragment or one aspect of thought; it infects
thought or Reason as such.
This point is pressed with great dialectical skill in connection with
every traditional problem of metaphysics. It can be illustrated in the
case of the two most important ones, viz., the problem of causation and
the problem of self.
Like any other relation, causality& implies two things, viz., relation
and distinction. The effect must be related to the cause; otherwise the
cause would not be relevant to the effect. The latter must at the same
time be distinguished from its cause, or there would be no transition,
no novelty. Neither of these two aspects of causation can ever be dis-
pensed with, and yet they are mutually irreconcilable. Different meta-
physics try either_ to explain one aspect away or effect s.ome sort of impo-
tent compromise.
15. VMS, p. 16
A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 13
ed. The object of knowledge however does not enjoy the same indi.$-
putable status. That ~omething appears in knowledge and confronts
the subject is certainly not to be denied. But whether it is a term in-
dependent of the relation in which alone it is foWld, or it is exhausted
in that relation itself, is an open question. If it is, we have a realistic
theory of perception; if not, we have full-fledged idealism.
Early Buddhism was, as already seen, realistic. Though the subjec-
tive factor in the constitution of experience was recognised, the reality
of the object existing independently was maintained. The pattern is
closely akin to that of the Kantian Analytic. Kant also detects the pre-
sence of the a priori in experience. But experience is not all a prir;ri ;
there is an irre::lucible element of the given, the thing-in-itself, without
which no experience would be possible. There is however a very im-
portant distinction between these two· theories of knowledge. Kant
believes that the thing-in-itself is never known as it is. Whenever it
is given to knowledge, it is necessarily refracted through the catego-
ries of Understanding, so that what we know is always a categorised
object, and never the pure given. The possibility of our ever transcen-
ding these categ:1ries in empirical knowledge is not visualised by Kant.
"Intellectual Intuition" is impossible, at least for human beings. The
Sautrantika however holds that intuition of the pure given is possible.
There is one kind of knowledge where the bare object in all its parti-
cularity and uniqueness is cognised, without the operation of any
subjective construction.
The logic for the acceptance of this kind of cognition of the pure
given is very cogent. For the Sautriintika, as also for Kant, knowledge
has a two-fold root, viz., the given and the construction. This dis-
tinction itself is not possible unless the given is also cognised without
construction. Were the constructed object all that we ever could know,
we would not even have the suspicion of there being any construction
at all. Or, if the fact of illusion awakened us to its function, we would
go to the other extreme and deny any element of the given. That some-
thing is given and something constructed can be affirmed only when
both are known in isolation. Moreover, the Sautrantika asserts that
the p3.rticular alone is given and that the universal is a construction
(nam1jatyadi-yojana kalpana); this knowledge also cannot be had a priori
or by mere logic. We must know that the particualar lone is given which
must therefore be immediately perceived.
A lnSTORICAL INTllODUCTION 15
ing something absolutely given; being critical as well, the given is not
supposed to be just what appears in knowledge. Permanence and
stability is denied to the given; it is momentary. Being momentary,
the given cannot enter into any causal rdation to knowledge ; the hypo-
thesis fails to explain knowedge for which purp::>se alone it was posited.
The object is supposed to be the cause (ii.lambana-pratyaya) of its
knowledge. Its cognition is causally determined by its being given
to knowledge. Causality' however entails a determinate temporal
sequence. The cause, as Kant demonstrated, cannot be related to the
effect in any order; it must invariably precede the latter. The object
therefore must be antecedent to its cognition to which it is supposed to
stand in the causal relation. 19 But, being momentary, it will perish
by the time its cognition is produced. 2° Knowledge cannot reach
a momentary object.21 We have therefore the paradox that there appears
in knowledge something which is no longer existent. 22 But a past
moment is, according to the Sautrii.ntika, unreal. The content of per-
ception is thus unreal from the objective point of view, having no objec-
tive counterpart. This is idealism. Since knowledge is that of a non-
existent object, 23 the latter may very' well be dispensed with. If the
content is cognised even when it is no longer existent, then everything
past and future will be the content of knowledge.24
Perception of a real object and the m::>m'!ntariness of that object are
thus mutually irreconcilable. The object precedes knowledge and must
also endure, if the pitfal of idealism is to be avoided, till the completion
of the knowledge-process. This endurance militates against the Buddhist
hypothesis of momentariness. Theravii.da here offers a very ingenious
subterfuge. 25 According to the Theravii.da analysis the full process of
cognition takes 17 moments. Since realism requires that the object
empirical world and are net to be understood literally. These are neyiirtha.
and are equivalent to samvrti. There are other statements which speak
of the ultimate truth (paramiirtha). These were not delivered to the
ordinar:y people (prthagjana), being too deep for their comprehension~
This contention of the Mahiiyiinists is not to be summarily dismissed;
since it is known that Buddha had to appeal to the understanding of the
person he addressed, and could not therefore alwa)s exoress his inner-
most convictions. Later on, when Mahiiyiina itself was split up into the
Madhyamika and the Yogiiciira schools, this distinction between the
neyiirtha and nitiirtha utterances came as a h:mdyweapon of controversy.
When the Yogiiciira cited siitras to testify that Buddha taught the sole
reality of consciousness, the Miidhyamika could dismiss it by con-
struing it as having only a conventional significance. 2 This much
is cleer that .no school ever conten.ied that a particular theory was not
advocated by Buddha. This can only mean that no one was sure of
his actual teachings.
The problem gets still further complicated by the characteristic
dogma, mentioned at very many places in the Mahiiyiina canons, that
there is no doctrine which has been proclaimed by Bucdha. "Between
that night during which the Tathagata attained to e.nlighter:ment and
the night during which he will be completely extinguished, in that time
not one syllable was spoken by the Tathiigata, and he will not speak
a single syllable; the Buddha word is a non-word." 3 • Different con-
structions can be put on this paradoxical statement. Sin:Ce there was
no certainty that Buddha actually uttered a particular view, the Mahiiyii-
nists tried to brush aside all fruitless controversy regarding this by mak-
ing this peculiar construction. Or it might refer to Buddha's unwil-
lingness to discuss the ultimate problems (avyalqta) which lead to inso-
luble antinomies of Reason. He therefore kept silent about such pro-
blems. A literal interpretation of this statement is certainly not justi-
fiable.
All these considerations tend to prove that no school can claim to
represent the original teaching of the Master. They all belong to one
spiritual genus however, viz., to the nairiitmyaviida tradition. This
tradition is unmistakably different from the Upani~adic one, and is the
emphasis~d again and again, that phenomena are unreal like a Jata morgana,
an illusion, a delusion. As in the Gau(iapadi_)'akarikiis, this work(V. 443)
also illustrates the ncnreality of the world by the simile of the circle of
fire, which originates when a burning stick is twirled round. Again and
again we come across the instances of the "horn of a hare," the."ring-
like apparitions before the shut eyes," and similar ficticns 2nd delusions
of the senses, which are intended to show that everything is only ill-
usion and that nothing is real, not even release6 (V. 623)."
"We could infer that Chapter X was written not long before 513
A. D. The philosophy of the Vijiianavada, which is taught in all the
parts of the Lankiivatiira, coincides with the doctrines of Maitreya-natha,.
Asanga, and the Mahayana .fraddbotpada, which may be ascribed to the
4th cent. A. D. at the earliest. It is, therefore, probable that the
La1ikiivatiirasiitra, even in its earliest form, was not in existence more
than 50 or, at its very most, 100 years before 443 A. D." 7
Then there is theBuddha-avatansaka Siitra which comprises two works=
(a) Dafabht7mikasiitras and (b) Ga1J{ia2!J'iihastitra. The first, kr:own as
Dafabhiimaka or Dafabhiimifvara 8 as well, is also found as ~n ir.dependent
work. "The subject-matter of this work is a discourse on the ten steps
( dasabhiimi) by which Buddhahood may be attained. The DdabhUmaka
is the most important work which treats of this doctrine." 9 Gt;.1J{ia-
vyiiha Siitra 10 is the other part of Avatanucka.
Some other Yogadira sutras are (1) Stmdhinirn;ccanasiitra, 11 explaining
gho~a II in about the 8th cent. A.D. who wrote this philosophical work,
which gives evidence of an adv.anced stage of development of Maha-
yana philosophy. The work has come down only in two Chinese ver-
sions.18 It is entirely unknown in Sanskrit,le and is not quoted either by
the great masters of the Mahayana or their commentators."20 It is how-
ever much studied in Japan, even at the present day. "In a biography
ofHsuan-Tsang,itis said that hetranslated it from Chinese into Sanskrit." 21
In a footnote he adds, "This account would speak in favour of the view,
held by a few Japanese scholars, especially S. Munakami, that it is a
Chinese, and not a Sanskrit work. There was a heated controversy on
this question in Japan."22
He adds further on, "The whole extremely complicated problem of
the authenticity of the MahayanalraddhotpiidaJastra has been fully dis-
cussed by Paul Demieville23 .... He sees no reason to deny the Indian
origin of the work which (he thinks) must be later than the Lankavatara,
but earlier than Asanga and Vasubandhu. Else it would be difficult to
explain why they are never quoted in the work. 2' On the other hand it
is strangethatthework, so famous in China and Japan, is never ~ttended
to in any Sanskrit text, nor in any Chinese or Tibetan translaticns of
Buddhist Sanskrit works." 26
Two sharply demarcated phases can be distnguished in the evo-
lution of the Yogacara system. "The Yogacara school is divided into
the ancient one, or the follcwers of A.ryasanga, and the new one, or the
followers of Dignaga. 1he first established their idealistic views on
a new interpretation of the old Abhidharma. .Aryasanga himself
composed a Mahayanistic Abhidharma (Abhidl:arma-Samuccaya) where
the number of elements is increased from 75 to 100. The alayavijnana
is here a new element .... However it is not the Absolute." 26 "In the
system of Dignaga the old Abhidharma is forsaken altcgether 27 ar_d
replaced by logic and epistemology. Dignaga started with the refc rm
of the Brahmanicallogic (Nyaya) and adopted it to the Buddhist ideas.
His analysis of cognition resulted in the ccncepticn cf an extrt:ILe con-
crete and individual (svalak~at;~a), the root, or, so to say, the differential
of cognition, a point-instant (k~at;~a) in which existence a!'.d cognition,.
object and subject, coalesce. "28
Hitherto it has usually been thought that the founder of the Ycga-
cira school was Asariga or Aryasariga.29 Considerable evidence has,.
however, been accumulating in favour of the view, gradually forcing
itself into acceptance, that the real founder of the system was Maitreya
or MaitreyaQitha. The tradition is that five of his works were revealed
to Asariga by Maitreya in the Tu~ita heaven 30 and this would jmply that
Maitreya was a mythical character, 31 rather than a historical personage.
It now appears however, that he was a historical person, the teacher of
Asailga, and the real founder of the Yogacara schooJ.32
33. HB, Vol. I, p. 53; Cf. also Obermiiler, op. cit .. He gives a sum.-
mary analysis of all these works, pp. 83-90.
34. Tl:.e Sanskrit text with commentary is edited by S. Levi (as
being the work of Asailga), Paris, 1907. Its Chapters have been sur-
veyed in Acta Orientalia, IX, 1931, pp. 84-86. There is a French trans-
lation by S. Levi.
35. The Sanskrit text, with the bha~ya and ~ika, is edited by S.
Yamaguchi, Nagoya, 1934. The first chapter is edited by Tucci and
V. Bhattacharya, Calcutta, 1932. The first chapter is translated into
English by D. L. Friedmann, Utrecht, 1937, and by Stcherbatsky, BB,
XXX, 1936. Cf. IHQ, IX, p. 1019 ff; MCB, V, p. 271 ff.
36. There is no edition of this work. Obermiler gives a summary
analysis in his translation of the Uttaratattlro, Acta Orientalia, Vol.
IX, 1931.
37. There is no Sanskrit edition. It is translated from Tibetan into
English by E. Obermiller, The Sublime Science of the Great Velicle of
Salvation, being a manual of Buddhist Monism, the work of Arya
Maitreya with a commentary by Aryasanga, Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX,
1931, pp. 81-306.
38. The Sanskrit Karikas are edited by Stcherbatsky and Obermiller,
BB, XXII, Leningrad, Vol. I, 1929. Cf. E. Obermiller, The Doctrine
of Prajliaparamita, Acta Orientalic:., Leiden, XI, 1933, pp. 1-133 ;
334-354. Obermiller has also published an analysis of the same, Acta
Oric,:talia, I, 1933, pp. 106; II, 1936, pp. 275; IJI, 1943, PP· 404; IV.
Cf. Tucci, Aspects. Haribhadra's Aloka, which is at once a commentary
on the Abhisamayalankara and the A!tasahasrikii, has been published
by Wogihara, Tokyo, 1932-5, and by G. Tucci, GOS, 62, Baroda, 1932.
'l'HE 'DEVELOPMEN'l' OF 'l'HE YOG.~CARA 33
India (now Pakistan). They probably lived in the 4th century, and were
all three originally adherents of the Sarva.rtivada school. The youngest
was not prominent in literature."42
His most important work is the Yogiicara-Bhiin:ili.rtra. 43 Winternitz
thinks that it is the work of Maitreyanatha. "(It) is among the works
which are supposed to have been revealed to Asailga by the mythical
Maitreya;« probably however it is one of Maitreyanatha's works. It is
a prose work after the style of the Abhidharma texts. The Bodhi.rcttva-
bbiimi45 is the 15th of the 17 steps taught in this large work; the last·
step is that in which no trace of the karman remains .... The Tibetans
attribute the Yogacarabhiimiiii.rtra to Asanga. " 46
Besides this great work, Buston mentions two summary works of
Asanga,47 viz.,(1) the Ablitlbarma.ramuccayc.48 and (2) Mahayana .ramgraha. 49
The category of the objective is refute-d with great dialectical skill, and
the sole reality of consciousness vindicated. Vasubandhu has also
written a commentary on the VinJatikii. The other six works mentioned
by Buston arethePaiicaskandha-prakaraf)a11 , Vyiikhyayukti, the Karmasiddhi-
prakarava72 and the three commentaries on the Mahayiinasiitralankiira,
the Pratitya-samutpiidasiitra73 and the Madhyiintavibhanga. 74 He wrote
many other commentaries including those on the Dafa-bhiimikiisiitra,
MahiiJ•iitJasatigraha, Dharmadharmatiivibhanga, Ak{ayamatinirdefa, Gayiifir{a,
Sanmukhadhiiraf)i, Caturdharmaka, etc.
One important tract, Trisvabhiivanirdefa75 , is not mentioned by Buston.
Winternitz also makes no reference to it. It consists of 38 verses, eluci-
dating the doctrine of the three Truths, viz., parikalpita, paratantra,
and parinispanna. -
H. R. Rangswamy Ayengar78 and G. Tucci 77 hav.:: proved that the
can be reserved. The most important names in this new school are
those of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. Their essential teaching was that
ofthe Yogaclra as is evident from Dignaga's Alambanaparik!ii and
Dharmakirti's section on the Vijnaptimiitratii-dntiiin his Pramii{Jatiirttika.
But their main interest being in logical elaborations, this aspect of their
thought was allowed to remain uncultivated. The ultimate reality
(paramarthasatya) was according to them consciousness alone ; but
for logical purposes they accepted the svala~at).a as empiticallJ real
(paramarthasat). This was the second phase in the development of
Buddhist idealism. The first phase of pure- idealism, represente-d by
Maitreya,Asanga, Vasubandhu and Sthiramati, can be calld the Yogii-
cara school; the second pha.;e of idealism-cum-critical realism, repre-
sented by Dignaga and Dharmakirti, can then be called the Vijfianavada
school, and the whole development, the Yogacara-Vijfianavada.
''The greatest and most independent thinker among the successors
ofVasubandhu is Dignaga, the founder of Budchist logic, ar..d one of
the foremost figures in the history of Indian phiksophy." 84 Accord-
ing to Buston he belonged at first to the Vatiputriya School85 whch
maintains that the ego is neither identical with the groups of elements,
nor Cifferent from the~, and that it has a quasi-permanent reality. But
he was soon dissatisfied with this teaching and became a pupil of Vasu-
bandhu. He is said to have written as many as 100 miscellaneous works,B1
including commentaries on the Abhidl:armakofa, on the Gm;taparyanta-
stotra and others. The .Alambanap&rile!ii87 is a very small tract, consis-
ting of only 8 verses with a short commentary, which examines the
object of cognition and refutes the reality of the external world from the
Yogacira standpoint. Dharmapala has written a commentary on this.
"But as these treatises were mere fragments (without any system) he
resolved to compose the Pramif}asamuccqya88 in which (all the small
treatis~) would be united in one." He also wrote a commentart on
this great work, which initiated a new era in the history of Buddhism.
His other important smaller works are Trikila Pari/u.i, HeiiiGakra-
nirf)IJya,at Nyiyamukhr/~o and l:'fyiyapravefu.91 ( ?) •
The most famous of his successors is Dharmaklrti. His teacher was
ISvarasena, the pupil of Dignaga. His celebrated work is Pramif}a.-
virltika,92 which is a sort of running commentary on the Pra~~~if}asa
muccqya. According to Buston he wrote seven logical treatises. "The
seven treatises consist of three main works-and four supplementary.
The first are the Nyiyabindu,t3 Praminavinikqya, and Pramif}a.llarllika-
( The subject of) inference is treated in detail by two works-the
88. Partially restored with vftti, tiki and notes by H.R.R. Iyengar,
Mysore, 1930.
&9. Translated from Tibetan by Durgadas Chatterji, IHQ, IX, 1933,
pp. 266-72 and 511-4.
90. Cf. G. Tucci, Hdbg., 19,30, MZKB.
91. It is reconstructed in SlUl&krit by N. D. Mironov, T"cllng-Pao,
XXVIll, 1931, pp. 1-25. The Tiberan text is edited by V. Bhatt-
acharya, GOS, XXXIX, Baroda, 1927, and the Sanskrit text by A. B.
Dhruva, GOS, Baroda. The Sanskrit fragments which are available
in quotations have been collected and translated by H. N. Randle,
Fragments from Digniga, ,London, 1926.
Nyiiyapravefa, attributed to Dignaga, is really the work of Sankara-
svimin. Cf. JRAS, 1927, p. 7; IHQ, IV, 1928, pp. 14-22 ; Ill, 1927,
pp. 152-60.
92. It ~s been edited with the Manorathanandini by R.ahul Sankftyi-
yana, JBORS, XXIV and XXV, Patna, 1938-39. He has also published
parts available of Prajiiakaragupta's Pramif}avirttkilankira in the same
journa,l, and ~rt;lagomin's commentary on the chapter on Svarlhiillll-
. mina, along with auto-commentary of Dharmakirti, Allahabad, 1944..
93. The Sanskrit text has been edited by Peterson, BiPiiotheca Indica,
1889-90 ; by Stcherbatsky, BB, VII, 1918; also published from
ChowkJlamba, Banaras. The Tibetan text is edited by Stcherbatsky,
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE YOGAC!:a.A 43
102. Obenniller gives this quotation, HB, II, p. 136 n. ; and also
p. 135. Cf. Obermiller, The Snblime Science, p. 83; The Dottri'le of
PrajiiaparanJita, p. 90 n.
103. He lived between 705-762 A. D. For a discussion of the dates
and the life of this great teaeher see B. Bhattacharya's Foreword to
T atwasangraha.
104. The Sanskrit text is edited by Embar Krishnamacharyain GOS,
Nos. XXX-XXXI, Baroda, 1926. Tbe entire work_is translated into
English by G. Jha, GOS, 1937-9. Cf. Satkari Mukherji, Bntklhist
Philosophy of Univer1al F lnx, Calcutta, 1935.
CHAPTER. III
REFUTATION OF REALISM
The Sahopalambhaniyama
The Yogacara holds that consciousness is the sole reality. The
empirical world reduces itself, according to him, to ideas1 which are, so
to speak, so many vibrations in consciousn<:ss. The indepet:dence of
the external object confronting consciousness is only apparent. 2 The
distinction naively mz.cle between the percept and its content is illusory.
The blue and the consciousness of blue are identical (sahopalambhani-
yamad abhedo nila-taddhiyc\l.).a
Since the external object is invariably perceived along with the con-
sciousness of it, its independence is not tenable. To establish the differ-
ence between two things it is necessary to perceive them apart. If two
things are invariably found in conjunction they cannot even be enumerat-
ed as two. The relaticn of difference-granting that difference is a
rel~tion-presupposes the separateness oftherelata; there must befound
cases where one is present without the other. Otherwise their distin-
ction remains chimerical. This principle js applied by the- Yogacira
to prove the unsoundness of the rc:alistic hypothesis.
Realists hold that the content perceived is independent of the act
of perception.' Perception does not in any way alter the content per-
ceived. It remains identical and emerges unaffected out of the proceEs
of perception. Perception can be compared to light; it does not make
or unmake the things upon which it shines, but merely reveals or ois-
covers what was before hidden in darkness. The change that occurs
nous entity through whose transparence objects pass in and out without
suffering the least modification. In itself consciousness is entirely
formless, ~eutral. The forms we perceive are those of the objects,
directly and immediately revealed by consciousness. Since the idealist
has no other reality but consciousness, the forms perceived must pertain
to consciousness alone, there being no external object17. Consciousness
creates its own forms. The content of consciousness is not imported
from outside, but is inherent ih the states of consciousness them-
selves18. The issue between the idealist and the realist is whether
consciousness is sakira, i.e., has a prakira (content) of its own or
whether it is nirakira, is contentless in itself.
The realist derives his strength from his criticism of the 'ego-centric
predicament' which, however, proves nothing as seen just now. We
need not also discuss the argument that the forms perceived cannot be-
long to the objects, since they are never percehed apart from cons-
ciousness, as this brings us back to the sahopalambhaniyama. And this
moreover would land us in a form of agnosticism. What is required
is that the idealist should put forward cases where the creativitv of cons-
ciousness is definitely evident. Illusion and hallucination furnish such
cases. Of other mental states memory may be discussed to show that
consciousnes: is- not entirely formless, does not merely reveal, but
has an activity ofits own, i.e., is sakira.
Memory As Subjective
What is the content of memory ? What is the nature and status
of that content ? The realistic hypothesis requires that it should
be as external and independent as the content of perception. The ob-
ject remembered should enjoy the same status as the object perceived.
Recognition is another enigma to the realist. If consciousness were
nothing but pure transparence what happens when we are said to recog-
nise a thing, with the added consciousness of having cognised it before?
The object certainly does not inform us of the fact of its having been
is its real size ? The notion of oneness of the object precludes the
hy?othesis of its being merely a collocation of different sizes, or to put
it in general terms, of different sensa. Again, no two percipients per-
ceive any object in an identical manner. "How can the object be identi-
cal when the so-called revelations of it are mutually conflicting ?"Ill
The realist might retly th11t though the perceptions are thus varying,
the object remains identical because there is a ccmmon meani~g and an
identical reference in these perceptions17 • But this identical reference
itself is never perceived, and hence the alleged identity remains always
problematical.
It may be said that these difficulties do not affect the fw:damental
contention that knowledge is discovery. The elliptical appearances ot'
.a round coin or the bent appearance in water of a straight stick are due
merely to an optical predicament; these facts are not sufficient to estab-
lish the opposite theory, viz., knowledge is a construction. The appea-
rances are not in any way mental; they are not imported into the
perceived data by the mir:.d. The elliptical coin is as objective as the
circular coin.118
.Though this is far from being a satisfactory reply, there yet remains
the stubborn fact of the illusory content which refuses to fit in any reaEs-
tic framework. The elliptical coin is not a mistake in the sense that it
could not be perceived otherwise. Hence the act.ivity of mind may not
be directly evident here. But where there is a positive confusion, it
cannot similarly be brushed aside. Were consciousness purely revela-
tory, the passibility of mistake, i.e., taking one thing for another, would
be entirely precluded. We shall always see a rope as a rope and never
as snake. Bu1 we do sometimes see a snake when there is none and this
entirely upsets the commonsense theory.
An .!asy way out of this difficulty is to reject the transparence of
consciousness and to hold that consciousness does not directly reveal
the object but that it can perceive only its own 'ideas.' We have no long-
er a tw.:>-tcrm theory of knowledge but replace it with a three-term
theory. According to this hyp::>thesis consciousness is mediated by its
and for us then this conceiv(d but denkd thing is an essence .... An
essence is anything definite capable of appearing or being thought of ;
the existence of something possessing that esser..ce is an ulterior question
irrelevant to logic and to aesthetics."42 An essence is neither true nor
false. The essence perceived in the so-called illusory cognition is as
much true as any other essence. It is not in space or time, is
neither inside nor outside ou:: consciousness, has no depth beyor:.d
what it :~eems h in short just what appears. If we rigorously ar.d
consistently confine ourselves just to what is literally perceived
we arrive at the realm of essence. The empirical objects as
well as empirical concepts are so many constructions posited
by our 'animal faith,' an irrational instinct. The essrnc's are
symbols or signs for the external world which is never reallt
perceived but is always posited. What we do perceive are merely the
essenc;::s, w:1ich constitute a pictorial alphabet as it were,with which we
spell the dark. w Jrld c:lnfronting us. This world is to be established
not by an app;::al to the testimony of our senses,but rather is to be taken
for gran~e:l, as p Jsited by the 'animal faith.' "Matter is in flux; spirit~
w:1ile existe.:ltially c1rried along in that .movement, arrests some datum,
lending it an ideal unity, fixity, and m:>ral colour such as ne:ther the
organ of sensation nor the stim~1lus can p'Jssess in themselves. We
are, in the texture of our impressions, in the realm of essence ; ar.d it
is oaly in the langu:tg.:: of essence that sp:rit can describe its fortunes." 43.
If the content of our sense-perception or conception is taken to be real
objects and not pare essences, scepticism would disslove every shred
of that objective world. Our perception invariably refers to what is
not giv.!n, i.e., invariably involves a construction. What is actually-
given might be just a patch of blue, but we perceive a blue object in its
stead. Scepticism would go so far as to assert that ·the patch of blue is
not even sensed by the senses, since the mechanism of sensation itself
has to be established first. The conclusion is that the essence is not
even presented to the senses, but is som;::how directly intuited by cons-
ciousness.
creation, it does not in any way tamper with the objectivity of the rope,
whose reality in fact made it possible for the make to appear. Hence
the Yoglidi.ra takes that class of illusion as his norm where the object
is nothing ; dreams supply this norm.
In dreams we get a petfect semblance to the real world which yet
has no grounding in objectivity at all. That dreams are illusory there
can b'! no doubt, since they are cancelled on waking.44 And yet dreams
present, not one appraently realeventin a world of real events, as the
perception of the rope-snake does, but a whole world, complete in itself,.
having events of its own and regulated by its own laws. Wh~n the
rope-snake is cancelled, the world remains as it was ; merely one ele-
ment is detached which explodes into nothing; that is to slly, it borrows
the reality of the external world. But the dream-world is a unique
achievement of the creativity of the subjective ;it is a complete world in
itself; it evinces its own certitude as long as it endures. Its apparent
plamibility does not lie in the existerce of the real object on which it is
superimposed, as that oft he snake depends on the existence of the rope,
but its existence lies solely in its being projected. The idea of objec-
tivity is certainlv there but it is never more than an idea. The
fundamental point in this an.alysis is that the apparent reality dreams
possess is not derived from any concrete objective world b~t inerelt
from the idea of objectivity.n
The realist wculd object that this idea, though efficient in crea:ing
the illusion of objectivity, is itself derived from our consciousness of
an objec:ive and real world. Even to mistake for the objec:ive world,.
we must have come across the real objective world. Had we never
experienced any real world, we could not have even the idea of ob-
jectivity. The Yogaclira answers that this icea is not empirical at all::
its origin is sought in experience in vain. 46 The more pertiner.t objec ion
is that though creativity in the sense of novel arrangement may be ad-
mitted, yet the content or the details of the dream-worl~ are all supplied
by our waking expe.rience. The objectivity of the individual elements
as such. The argument that the world is a dream 51 is, it might be said,
an unwarrented universalization of what is applicable only in a limited
sphere. Illusion is due to specific and determinate causes and cannot
be universalised. Hence it must be shown by an aM lysis of the object
itself that it is by its very nature unten;tble. Sahopalambhaniyama supplies
an epistemological refutation of realism ; to show that the concept of
the object is rlddlecl with inherent contradictions, even apart from its
relationship to the knowing consciousness being unintelligible, is to
refute realism on metaphysical grounds. The question as to how the
idealist becomes first aware of the fact of the whole of experience
bdng of the nature of a dream is a different problem altogether and is
to be tackled in a different context.s2
The Category of the Object is Self-Contradictory
What is the content of perception ? What is it that we actually
sense ? Obviously the everyday empirical objects, the realist answers.
These objects exist independently of their own right, irrespective of
their being perceived. The idealist urges that the notion of this object
is not tenable. An object can be conceived either as a substar.ce with its
attributes cr. a whole of parts. 53 Mere sense-data ar.e not sufficient to
explain the notion of an object. ln the perception of sugar, for instance.
the senses convey the impressions of whiteness and sweetness. They
are conveyed by different senses and yet the object perceived is identical.
To connect these different sensations and to impart the sense of uPity,
the r.!alist posits a substance over and above the attributes. The St!bs-
tance is not a construction but is actually perceived, and perceived br
the same sense as conveys the corresponding impression of sense-data.
A coloured objectis perceived by the sense which perceives colour. But,
the idealist asks, what is the substance apart from the various attributes
which go to constitute the concept of an object ?54 This concept is in-
deed riot Lockian ; substance in the Lockian system is never perceived
but is postulated. Realists hold that substance is perceived along with
its attributes. It is not intdligible, however, how the senses can see an
object. The eye can see a blue object, but never a blue and an object.
Hence this distinction is not perceptual and it is not tcld how
it has been acquired. It mav be said 5 5 that the same object which is
seen to be white, also tastes sweet and hence the distinc<ion. Butit is
not easy to understand how one thing can be white as well as sweet-
i.e., not white-at the same time. It is not that some part of it is
white and the other sweet, butthe same thing is both; and vet whiteness
and sweetness are not identical and one must repel the other.
If substance were conceded to be a subjective fiction, all the diffi-
culties are, it might be held, at an end. Along w~th substance go all
other forms of unity', viz., extension, duration etc. The real splits
itself into p:>int-instants or unique particulars (sv: lak~a[_1as) on which is
superimposed the substance-construction. This is a kind of atom sm
which we shall call the 'attributive atom;sm' to distinguish it from
another kind of it to be mention'ed hereafter. The substance is noth;ng
and the attributes are atomised, or rather the attributes themselves
are the substances, in the sense of self-existence.
Criticism, once started, cannot be stopped in the midway. What
are these attributive atoms or point-instants or unique particulars ?
These are never encountered in our empirical perception. If the creati-
vity of consciousness be granted to such an extent as to produce the
ideas of thinghood, universality etc., it can as well produce those of
particularity, uniqueness. If construction as wc.ll as objectivity be both
admitted side by sidc;56, it cannot be c.xplained why consdousness should
group certain particulars alone and create the idea of a substance, to
the exclusion of other particulars which have all ontologically the same
claim. Such grouping cannot be governed by the laws of the parti-
culars themselves, and yet, on the other hand, it cannot be arbitrary ;
hence, if the laws of the creativity of consciousness be admitted, they
alone may be admitted and the doctrine of particulars be discarded as
superfluous.
Nor can the object be held to be a whole of parts. If there be one
universal whole of which the empirical objects are parts 57, the.n it must
be asked whether the latter are identical with the whole or not. If not,
they cannot be created out of the latter, being different from it; if identi-
cal with it their mutual difference cannot be maintainec. If the object
is a whole made up of its own parts 58 , it must be asked what th's whole
(avaya.vi) is apart from its parts 59 (avayavas). Where is the cloth when
the threads constitt1ti.vg it have been separated? 60 How is it related
to the t~reads ? Where does it exist ? Does it exist wholly in each of
its parts or only partially so ? If the former, o.r:e part wou!d be identical
with the whole, and the rest superfluous. Then, is the whole identical
with the par:s er different from them ? If identical, with wh:ch part ?
And moreover, if it is identical with its parts, it cannot be a separate
existent apart from them. But if is something different from the parts,
it cannot be related to them, like any other set of two differents. Again,
some parts have some features while some have other contradictory' ones.
A part of the cloth is in the sun and the rest in the shade. Which should
be supposed to pertain to the whole ?61 Both cannot pertain to the
same whole at the same time, for how can that be one which has opposed
characteristics ?62
The wholes cannot be conceived as UPJque thingssa, each existing in
its own right irrespective of its parts, since in that case, they' would lack
a common measure, each being unique, and no two objects (wholes)
can be compared to each other. Nor can the whole be a mere name
(sanr.ivesa-parikalpa)64 for the aggregate of the parls,since if the colloca-
tion does not add anything new to the parts, the very purpose of the
collocation is defeated. If the cloth be nothing over and above the
threads, nobody would care to make cloth. Moreover, the whole can-
not simply be another name for the togetherness of the parts, since these
parts again have further parts, and so on, so that each intermediary in the
series would be a whole in its turn and so nothing apart from its own
thought and are therefore real and objective according to the realistic
principle. If a plurality of real categories were not accepted, one or
the other of these m·1st be given up as m ::rely subjective, as mere thought-
construction, and this would be giving up realism altogether. Hence
the necessity for a pl!.!ralistic metaphysics.
But there is a still deeper reason for the acceptance of pluralism by
the realist. Pluralism is necessary for the discovery of the subject.
Were the object absolutely one, the experience would be one of uniform
manatonous going-on-ness, with no succession or change. In that case,.
it would be known not even as one; in fact it would not be a case of
knowledge at all. 70 The subject would not be dissociated from the
object ; only when one exp;!rience ceases and another begins are we
aware of a third factor whose continuity71 is not affected by the change
of content. Consciousness itself may not be admitted to be continuous_
but its e~istence is evidenced only by a change in experience. When
our experience is of the form 'I know A' and again 'IknowB', only
then are we aware of the 'I' which is distinct from both A and B.
The discovery of the subject is not the same as that of the subjective.
since nothing is subjective for the realist. In fact, only when the sub-
ject has been extricated, can we speak of its work being strictly limited
to revelation. The subject must first be discoyered and analysed as
such in order to be shorn of any trace of creativity .
..
The discovery of the subject is utilised for realistic purposes. The
subject being denuded of all activity except that of bare revelation, it
loses its place of supremacy and takes its rank as one more object in the
dernacracy of objects. The spirit has nothing spiritual left in it; it is
justlikeany other object. Thesubjectofknowingand the contentknowa
bath b:long to the same category, viz., the objective. Everything is
an object. The one does not enjoy any special privilege that the other
does not have in the kingdom of things. The subject can even be made
76. lbid, 1.
77. TSP, I, p. 559 ; PVA, p. 6.
78. See Chapt. 7.
70 THE YOGACA:a.A. IDEA.LISM
Thus the crux o( the problem is the wa.y in which atoms combine.
They must c''lmhine in order to produce the gross objects p::rceived,
and yet their nature as som::thing uni~ary and impartite precludes their
combination. It is not easy to understand how one atom is to be con-
j:>ined to another92 or how atoms corneinto contact with each other. All
contact is of parts with parts. ea M atom being absolutely pa,rtless can-
not come into contact with another atom. M a~om has either further
parts or it c!oes r.ot have : if it ha~_, it can no longer be called one and
cannot really be an atom. It would become a whole. On the other
hand, an absolutely unitary atom would always lead a solitary monadic
life. To give rise to extension they must be arranged side by side. One
side would be in contact with one atom, another with another. And
that which has sides must have parts.D4 Contact is either wholly or
partially; if it is partial, an atom is not impartite and indivisible, i.e.,
it is not an atom. 95 But if one atom is wholly conjoined to another,
the resultant too would be but atomic, as tl;ere would he no increase
in size. If one atom touches another atom at the same point as a third
one does, there would be no increase in size.96
In order to get rid of these difficulties the critical r_ealist (the Sau-
trantika) might contend that ~toms are in reality ever discrete; the
whole is only a construction (vikalpa) superimposed upon these by
constructive imagination (kalpar.i). But this is a treacherous pcsiticn
to take, as it unwittingly leads to idealirm. The constructicn of the
whole is admittedly not due to any objective factor ; and if construc-
tion is granted to be purely subjective, the hypothesis of atoms is
rendered superfluous, as the whole is all that is required for empirical
purposes. Moreover if subjectivity is constructive enough to posit
the whole, it can, with equal plausibility, posit tl:e parts. If a basis
for construction be required, consciousness itself wculd serve the
purpose. It is thus seen that the concept of objectivity is a futile one
and must be cancelled without compunction. It is consciousness alone
that makes its own creation appear as though they were outside it
(yadantarjfieyarupam tu bahirvad avabhasate).
tions of the subjective. Even then we cannot cause any particular event
to happen in the dream-experience. Nobody likes to have bad dreams,
yet bad dreams do happ::n. In fact J.reams are governed by th::ir own
laws, different indeed from those which govern the so-called empirical
world, bu.t none the less exact for that. Our conscious or waking wlll
has ordinarily no jurisdiction over the dream-experience. Seeds of the
dream experienced at the present moment have possiblY' lain dormant
for a considerable time till they were ripe enough to burst into efflore-
scence of the variegated dream. The cause of it lies deep in the inner-
most recesses of consciousness where ordinarily we cannot exercise our
will and which is generated by our past experiences.
Now we can se~ ~hy the empirical world, in spite of being a con-
struction, can yet not be m:>dified or affected b}" our empirical will. We
cannot choose thf' objects of our experience. One can avert one's eyes,
but if one sees at all, one cannot help seeing the empirical objects as they
are. These latter indeed seem almost to force themselves upon our sen-
ses. That willin fact which constructs the empirical world is the Trans-
cendental Will. No system of philosohpy can afford to tamper with the
least factor of the empi:ical experience. To reducf. the whole of experi-
ence to a subjective construction is indeed a radical departure in meta-
phy:>ics,and yet it leaves all our empirical activities entirely unaffected2.
The Yogliclra is an idealist only transcenJentall y; in empirical matters he
has no quarrel with the realist. All philosophical issues lie between the
conflicting interpretations of facts and not between the facts themselves.
It is not the case therefore that idealism violates the empirical activities.
EfBciency is The Mark o£ The Real
Waiving these considerations aside, is it possible for a mere idea
to do the work of the real objects ?3 Can an idea be efficient ? Efficiency
or arthakriylikliritva is the pragmatic test of reality. 4 Whatever has
no efficienc:r can lay no claim to reality. It is obvious that ideas cannot
have efficiency; ideas cannot feed and clothe us. Even if fantasies do seem
to have som::: efficiency, in that they can elate or depress, no amount of
ideas can fill an empty stomach6• Moreover, even this limited efficiency
is itself possible because of the existence of real, physical objects. An
imaginary amour can entice one only so long as it is mistaken for reality.
Were an idea to be steadily realised for what it is, it loses all power to
fascinate us. Its apparent efficiency is a borrowed one.
An ideal feast would not be objected to ifit were clearly distinguished
from one enjoyed by the empirical imagination. The objec ion pre-
supposes that the dittinction between the imaginary' and the real has
been overlooked,6 whereas the idealist is very much aware of the dis-
tinction. As has been said before, to reduce everything to idea!ity
makes no empirical change. 7 That our experience is madfold and vari-
egated cannot be gainsaid; the point is whether the content experienced
is wholly within it, or enjoys an exister:.ce even when not experienced.•
Even if it does not, experience as such remains what it would be were
the content real. If the feast and the satisfaction therefr:>m were both
ideal or real, it matters little; the incongruity will arise only if the feast
Were ideal and the satisfaction real, not otherwise. 9 Experien€e would
remain the same. What is required is that this ideality should be sharply
distinguished from the empirical one.
It is not true to say that an idea has no efficiency. 10 Who has not
suffered from the horrors of nightmares ?-a suffering not a whit less
poignant than the suffering engendered by real horrors. The fright of
a rope-snake is not seldom potent enough to kill a man. Efficiency it-
self is a mere idea.n If it be said that here the apparent e~cier.cy does
not belong to the idea as such, but is acquired only when it is mistaken
for reality, the idealist answers that this mistake is all that is required.
He never maintains that an idea, even when realised as such, will sdll
be efficient. An idea can bind, only when the illusion of objec ivity
is present. But it is never more than a mistake. Hec.ce the ideal efficiency
Since even an idea can serve as bondage, the objection that idealism
cannot establish a discipline is futile. Suffering, it is said, is caused by
the want of desirable things and by the contact with the undesirable
ones. Somebody wants wealth but is prevented from acquiring it, and
therefore suffers. Were there no real wealth, there would be no suffer-
ing. Spiritual discipline serves to create a feeling of indifference towarc's
all worldly objects. It is not however true to say that the m.::re existence
of obj'!cts creates suffering. So long as one does not hold them as desir-
'rble or undesirable they have no power to bind. Spiritual discipl"ne
causes no change in the status of objects. Only the wrong idea, that
what is really dross is yet held desirable, is to .be eradicated. Ultimately
all discipline is to modify our idea of things, and not the things them-
selves. Not only is the idea a bondage, it is the sole bondage. This
much granted, objects do not m.atter, since an idea can bind even in
the absence of objects, as evinced by nightma~es.
78 niE YOGACARA IDEALISM
tion of the sublation of dreams, and yet the former itself is sought to
he proved unreal on the strength of the latter 20• Were the waking
exp!tience unr.!al, we lack the only m:ans for realizing the unreality of
dream>, a~d this therefore cannot serve as an index of the unreality of
the former~
The Yogacara contends that these considerations do not affect his
idealism. As to the argument that since the waking experience is never
sublated21 it cannot be unreal, he replies that the unreality of an experi-
ence cannot be realised so long as the experience is actually enjoyed.
The com.mon folk who are under the sway of the Cosmic Illusion are not
expected to find the empirical world illusory. Only the elect who, after
practising a strenuous discipline, literally sees everything as subjec-
tive, can realise the illusoriness of the empirical experience and to him
alone is the world but a dream.22 In fact, were the world real no disci-
pline would ever be needed.
Because it is ideal it does not mean that the empirical world is subject
to no laws. 18 ldeality should not be construed as chance or lawlessness.
Dream-objects are admittedly ideal, yet they are governed by their
own laws. That an empirical object is determined by a fixed space
and time is no proof of its reality, since even a dream-event does not
happen anywhere and at any time. As said before, creativity belongs,
not to our em?irical imagination, but to the transcendental will. Past
ideas and experiences leave their impressions in the Alaya-Vi jiiana, which
are the seeds ripening into the present ~deal experiences. Simply be-
cause all eflici~cy (arthakriyakaritva) is transferred to the ideal realm, it
does not detract one whit from their rigour and precision.
That there does obtain a difference between the dream and the wak-
ing experience, it is not in the interest of the idealist to deny. He does
make a distinction between them though he may assert their natures to
be identical. The sublation of dreams by waking experience means,
not that the latter must be accepted as real, but that respective subjecti-
vities of the two experiences are ·of different orders. Dreams are relative-
ly more unreal than the other; their ideality is more easily recognised.
indeed in all respects, but in some important respects, wit~ that of ano-
ther ; this produces the semblance of the world. What obtains in reality
is an infinite pluulity of worlds,2 6 i.e., of experiences, each experience
being objectified into a world ; the objective world is not a reality. The
partial coincidence of the various experiences results in a harmony ;
and since one cannot jump out of one's skin and see the other people's
worlds, the slight differences in the various worlds remain unnoticed,
there being no way of comparison. It is as though two persons were
to suffer from the same or similar hallucination.27 The experience
of each is peculiar to him and yet their . similarity seems to be a
corroboration of the objectivity of the contents projected by the
hallucinations.
This is not all, the realist urges. The existence of other minds is
itself not compatible with the idealists' doctrine of sahopalambhaniyama.
The same consideration which does away with the objective world makes
short work of other minds as well. If whatever is experienced has no
existence apllrt from the experience of it, other minds also must be re-
duced to so many ideas in '":Y mind-other minds returning the compli-
ment to me. There is no justification in distinguishing between the
objective world a..11d other minds; both are in the same predicament.
This doctrine entails therefore the absurdity that 'I' am the sole exis-
ting being, everything else, including other minds, being just so many
creations of my own ideas. The logical conclusion of idealism is a
solipsism of an extreme type, and theidealist wanders about, poor and
solitary, with nothing more substantial than his ghostly phantasmagoria.
As to who this privileged 'I' is to he, the minds, if any, may quarrel
with one another ; each 'I' will think this quarrel itself as purely ideal.
Here we shall make two points ; first that solipsism is not as con-
temptible a doctrine as realists try to make it ; and secondly, that the
Yogacarais not a solipsist.
As to the first contention. Since the subject evaporates along with
the object, it is wrong to urge that the subject or the ego alone remains.
The 'I', if not as unreal, is as unstable as the object. The experience
of the seemingly independent object can alone sustain the subject-object
relation. Hence even solipsism might serve as one of the approaches
to the Absolute28 • Nor is any of the empirical activities violated by
solipsism. If we can dispense with the intra-subjective world, the other
minds can as well be dispensed with. Whether the whole of the empiri-
cal experience be real or ideal, the facts themselves are not changed.
Only their metaphysical status is affected and that too fundamentally.
Hence no empirical activity nor any discipline need be any the worse
for solipsism.
Granting even thl.t solipsism a!' s metaphysical doctrine is seriously
inadequate, it is no charge against the Yogacara, since his idealism does
not entail solipsism. To be involved in the subject-object relation
presupposes a lapse on the part of pure Will, which lapse car. not be fur-
ther explained; it has to be taken for granted. Once this is clearly
grasped, the question whether the number of the subjects should be
one or many would seem a fruitless one. The subject is a subject only
so long as the false duality ofthe subject and object (grahadvaya) is
superimposed upon pure Will, i.e., so long as it suffers under an illu-
sion. There can be no necessity in Cosmic Illusion. The very essence
of illusion is that it is something arbitrary, a freak out of nothing as it
were. Just as there is no justification for the undivided conscious-
ness even to assume the role of a solitary subject, so it may as well
become many, due to the same transcendentallapse. 29 ~o the plurality
of subjects may not be established on epistemological grounds and
may yet be granted on metaphysical considerations. Taking this
ultimate arbitrariness into consideration, the Yoglicara is not re-
pugnant to the existence of other minds.
Svasamvedena is Unintelligible
A very fundamental objection is raised by the realist against the
Yogacara. Knowledge by its very nature is knowledge rf someth:ng
outside know ledge. The 'of'-relation is a real relation. Were cot'scious-
ness the sole reality, knowledge cannot even arise. If the idea of blue
be the only reality, and the blue be identical with it, then the idea has to
perform two functions at once: 30 it has to project the blue appearing as
its form or prakara and at the same time to know it as blue. It has to
be both the subject and the object and thes' tw-o are incompatible with
each other.31 An idea cannot turn upon itself and view itself as the
other. How can one thing become the knower and the known at the
same time ? It is as plausible as an axe cutting itself. That which
operates and that which is operated upon are two totally different,.
if not opposed, things and cannot be reconciled in th' bosom of the same
entity. Were knowledge to know itself, its mode would be 'I know
knowledge' and not 'I know blue.' This latter is possible when the
blue is something distinct from the experience of it.
sta..'lds self-revealed.32 Were it the case that knowledge did not know
itself, it would have to depend upon another to be made known,and this
would lead to aninfiniteregress. 33 Moreover,if one moment of conscious-
ness is to be cognised by another, the former can no longer be said
to be consC:ousness ; it becomes for all intents and purposes an object.
In fact, the subsequent moment cannot know the rrevious moment at
all, since the latter is dead by the. time the former arises 34 • The knower
has to know and cannot therefore be in tht. necessity of being know.n.
It is because knowledge is self-evident, that it can make other things
evident.3 5 If knowledge were not self-revealed, it woul.-l be on a par
with the object. 36 Light reveals objects, but if it had itself to be revealed
by another factor, there would be no end to the process, with the result
that nothing would b~ revealed after all. 37 That which does not know
itself, cannot know anything else. 38 Even if, per impossible, it does know
other things, it would not be aware ofits knowledge, and that is the same
thing as not knowing it at all. To kno'I."V is at the same time to be con-
scious of knowing; unconscious knowledge is a contradiction in terms.
' case of know-
It is not that the subject is explicitly refetred to in each
ledge; the subject stands self-revealed.
Realists cannot accept this. 0.1.ce it is admitted that objects depend
upon another to be evidenced while consciousness is self-evident,
the latter must necessarily be put in a higher category than the object,
and the main plank of realism, viz., everything is an object, is demolish-
ed. The place knowledge occupies in the kingdom of things becomes
unique and the relation to knowledge becomes a necessity for all objects,
thus losing their independence. Realists therefore reduce knowledge
just to one object among other objects. Knowledge itself is known,
like any other object, by a further knowledge (Nyaya) ; or, awareness
of knowledge is deemed impossible (Bhana). In either case knowledge
Alaya-Vijiiana
The first and most fundamental of these three is the Alaya-Vijnana.
It is the first phase in the process of differentiation of pure Vijiiiina. It is
called Alay'a,1 as it is the place or the receptum in which are contained
the seeds or impressions (vasana) of any karma whatsoever, good, bad or
indifferent. All dharmas ensue from it as its effects or evolutes. 2 It is
called therefore 'sarva-bijaka,' being the cause of everything empirical.
It is vipaka because any kind of karma, done by the individual in any
sphere of existence, leaves its trace in the Alaya.
Thus the Alaya. serves two functions in the cosmic process. It is
the receptum of the impressions of past vijiliinas, while in its own turn
it gives rise to further vijftanas by maturing those impressions. a The
whole order is cyclic. The cosmic evolution has therefore two aspects :
first, the replenishment of vJ.sartas in the Alaya, and secondly, the frueti-
.fication of these into further vijnanas, which again lay their ow:n seeds
in the Alaya and so on.
The accumulation of seeds of vijftana in Alaya is called the hetu-
pariJ,lama, while their actualisation, the phala-paril,liima.4 Both are pari-
J,l.iima, since the A! aya incessantly undergoes change; it is momentary.
Hetu-pari1,1.ama is the development and matudty of vasanas in the Alaya,
and phala-pari1,1ama is the emerging into existence of their respective
effects. Vasana is to be understood as the motive force 6 governing the
evolutionary process. It is of two kinds. 6 : 1. Vipaka-vasana
the Sankhya is to reconcile the unity of Prakrti with the plurality of its
composition. The three guQas cannot be separated in it, each being
Prakrti itself, and yet the mystery is that one is not the other. Though
each of them is continually evolving, the evolution is only of its own
kind. When the impact of puru~a disturbs their equilibrium so ~hat
one is mixed up with the other, the creation of the world begins.
The differences between the concepts cf Prakrti and Alaya are st'll
more fundame-ntal and are characteristic of the two systems. The
Sankhya system is realistic though it is not realism, and hence its con-
ception of evolution is bound to differ from that of the idealist. For
the Sankhya, whatever changes is not consciousness and consciousness
does not change. Consciousness then·fore is pure or contentless and
cannot give r:se to evolution. The evolution is that of the objec'ive
alone. But the i.:le1list accepts no other reality than conscicusm:s~-'- and
all contents are projections of consciousness. The initial impulse that
gives rise to the process of evolution is in both the systems an illusory
idea, but the evolution itself is not illusory in either. For the Sankhya,
evolution pertains to what appears before the changeless consciousrress
while the idealist maintains that consciousness or the subjective alone
can evolve.
The A.laya therefore represents a stage where the sense of ego has
not yet arisen. The closest parallel to this conception in the Brab-
manical systems is that of the Sik~i in Advaita Ve::lanta. The S~i
is pure consciousness as covered by indeterminate ignorance
(avidyivacchinna) and is sharply distinguished from the empirical
subject ( pramata). Consciousness has not yet been individualised by
mind ( anta}.lkaraJ;J.a ). Ignorance here performs only its obscuring
function ( ivaraQ.a ). It is just undifferentiated darkness. The
similarity in nature between this indeterminate veil and the indetermi-
nate objectivity confronting the Alaya should be noticed. The
veil is still a "whole," and has not started importing difference
to the Pure Being. Both the A.laya and the Sik~i are the first
p~1enom::nalisation of the Absolute. The defilement determining the
Absolute is in both cases still pure, i.e., not empirical. The duality of
the Sak?i is not knowil as such, and that for the same reason that the
bare objectivity confronting the A.laya is not known as an other. It
is pare contemplation. The nature and functron of the Sak~i is dis-
covered by a regressive analy3is of the state of consciousness in deep
another entity must be posited between one of the original terms and this
ttrtium quid, and this clearly leads to an infinite regress. This only
means that ultimately two distinct terms cannot be accepted as separately
real. The consideration here is that the acceptance of two entails that
of a third as well, and for empirical pw.poses this complex must be
granted. Theoretically any duality requires the intervention of a third
entity, including the duality between a term and this third entity itself;
practically, the acceptance of three serves all purposes, but three at least
must be accepted. Hence the necessity for manas.
Manas is so-called because the process of intellection (mananar~~ is
always going on in it. The content of A.laya is indeterminate objecti-
vity. As soon as this content is known as an other, its indeterminate-
ness gives place to empirical determinations. And known it must be;
pure contemplation of the other cannot last for ever. The transition
from the act of willing of this fundamental content to those of the deter-
minate contents is the work of manas. It breaks up the monotony of
the indeterminate objectivity by projecting the latter through cate-
gories; its essence is categorisation. The bare otherness is indeed
itself a category, the most fundam-::ntal one; but it has not been differ-
entiated into categories of empirical knowledge. It is only in the case
of a self-conscious awareness of objectivity, that these categories are
brought into play. The pure objectivity is not categorised, except by
itself. This work of determinate categorisation is done by the mana~.
It actualises the empirical contents which are implicitly contained in
the pure objective. Manas is not the consciousness of these contents
but is the function of this actualisation itself. The 'other' can b.
realised only as a determinate other and the splitting up of the pure
form into determinate forms resulting in the precipitation of matter or
content is intellection. The bare 'other' is certainly itself matter,
but is so only in relation to the transcendental consciousness of the
Alaya ; in relation to empirical objects it is their form. It is so bare
that it cann'>t be distinguished from its form, i.e., from its awareness.
Only after consciousness is determinately categorised, does the aware-
aess of the distinction between form and matter, or consciousness
and its· content, characteristic of empirical knowledge, arise. Maoas
is not the r~sult of this process, which are the several object-know-
the subject b:tck up:>.n itself, i.e., when the subject is consciously dis-
sociated from the content. Here the knower turns back upon himself;
the former 'I' is a presupposition while the latter a reflex. The two
forms of the "I" are radically different, but m.ay. be comprised in a
common concept of ego. The notion of ego is thus the alpha and
omega of all empirical knowledge in a literal sense. The dawn of
ego-consciousness indicates that the process of categorisation of
the objective has started, since an uncategorised objective would
be indeterminate which cannot yield any reference to the ego. The
twin processes of the Cl!-tegorisation of knowledge and the dawning
of the notion of ego are very vitally connected with each other and
are rather two ways of looking at the same function of manas.
The ego is real neither in this system nor in the Advaita Vedanta.
In both, it is a construction; -yet a construction in fundamentally diffe-
rent senses. In the Yogicira, it is a construction superimposed upon
the incessantly fleeting states of .Alaya-m.oments, while the Vediintin
thinks it to be ascribed to the un·changing pure Sik~i consciousness.
Though the ego is unreal according to both the systems, it is so for
opposite reasons. In Vedinta it is unreal, because it veils the univer-
sality and the ubiquity of consciousness; it is unreal because it imports
change into the unchanging real. In the Yogidira the reason for its
unreality is precisely antipodal to this. The ego masquerades as some-
thing permanent and stable, while in ~eality the Alaya is a continuous
series. It is unreal because it imports permanence to the changing
series. Experience requires both analysis and synthesis. Metaphysics
picks up one p1ttern and universalises it to such an extent as to ex-
plain the other away. The function of manas is more synthesis. It binds
together the different states under the common concept of the ego.
It supplies the requisite element of stability which makes discursive
knowledge possible. In common with the whole Buddhist tradition,
the Yogicara is initially prejudiced in favour of impermanence. The
other aspect of knowledge is explained away as an illusory construc-
tion. The pram.ati, on the other hand, makes room. for analysis, i.e.,
change and succession, which the Real, as .unchanging consciousness,
cannot render explicable, and which is yet required to make experience
possible.
The activity of ml.nas is directed towards the actualisation of the
p:>tential forces stored in the Alaya; it is the .Alaya therefore which
THE THREE VIJNANAS 105
Pravrtti-Vij fianas
The third stage of the evolution of consciousness is the determi-
nate awareness of the object. This is the only consciousness which
matters in empirical discourse. This alone is empirically known ; the
former two form its submerged base as it were. For all practical
purposes this constitutes our universe, since it includes everything
whatsoever as can be presented before the empirical consciousness.
This consciousness is not a unity but 1\ class, comprising six kinds of
consciousness, a,ll of which are grouped togt>ther because of their
common empirical nature. These six kinds of consciousness can be
classified into : (1) External; (2) Internal. The former includes the
.five consciousnesses corresponding to the five sense-organs which
give us all the information we have about the so-called external
world. The five senses make possible the awareness of matter (riipa),
sound (sadba), smell (gandha), taste (rasa) and the tactual data
(spraHavya). The sixth or the internal consciousness is mano-
vijfiana, the knowledge of ideas (dharmas). Though these ideas are
"internal' they are as much objects of consciousness as riipa etc are.
Dharma is a miscellaneous category which includes whatever confronts
c:onsciousness, except in the objective way. This manovijfiana is not
to be confused with the kliHa manas; the latter is a transcendental fun-
ction, while the former is merely the knowledge of empirical ideas.
There is one point about the five sensual consciousnesses that needs
clarification. The senses give us, the Yogacara holds in accordance
with the Buddhist tradition, merely the sense-data, and the resultant
consciousness also is of this alone. Colour is a sense-datum; the colour-
ed object is not. The consciousness also is of colour alone. Then how
is it that one has the knowledge of a coloured object at all ? If con-
sciousness is identical wih the object known, consciounsess itself should
be of a coloured object, and not of a bare colour. It has been said before
that though the object known is identical with the knowledge of it, yet,
owing to the cosmic Illusion, it appears as independent and as object-
ively present. So, though in reality there is merely the consciousness of
colour, that colour, when objectified,is known only as a coloured object.
The concept of substance is a category through which the form of know-
ledge, when objectified, must be cognised. We cannot perceive an
9bjectivity which is bare colour; it would invariably be an object merely
by the fact of its b:ing objectified. To invest the sense-data with this
THE THREE VIJNANAS 107
30. VMS, p. 33
31. Alambana Parik1a, 8.
32. vasanatasca tajj.fianam bhavet tebhyasca vasana; PVA, p. 22.
CHAP'I'Ell VI
We have 'seen-in the first Chapter that the Y oglidira accepted the
phenom~nology of the early realistic Buddhism, and yet radically modi-
fied it so as to incorporate it within the folds of idealism. Being a con-
structive system, it does speculate about the dharma-theory-their
number and the nature of each-but never forgets their merely pheno-
m~nal reality. From the transcendental point of view, consciousness
alone exists ; the rest is appearance.
The problem. aris~s as to the relation idealism bears to the dharma-
theory. O.J.ly consciousness is real, objectivity is an appearance. Ob-
jectivedharmas are therefore in the same predicament as all things ob-
jective are ; their independence is Illusor}". But the diversification of
consciousness itself is because of the illusion-because something, as
though external, confronts it as ~ other to· it. The natural state of con··
sciousness is a 'pure Act'. unchecked by an}" content. Dharmas are not
real then even as pertaining to consciousness. Pure consciousness
harbours no dharmas. And granting even that consCiousness does get
diversified, it 'is bifurcated into the subject-object duality: where do the
dharmas come in then ?
Since objectivity is an illusion there can be no objective dharmas.
If there is no substance apart from the consciousness of it, nor can the
external modes be accepted as real. Hence if the dharmas are admitted
at all, they can be accepted only as qualifying the subjective, as sustain-
ing its internal diversity~ The transcendental Will as pure Act has no
dharmas. They enjoy therefore only a phenomenal reality ; they pertain
to the Will-Consciousness when it is no longer a pure Act, but is actually
creative. When consciousness gets phenomenalised by being infected
with the idea of objectivity, it acquires various forms or modes. It
then becomes particular and discrete; its universality is broken up into
moment into sharp relief against all others. Moreover, the whole of
the objective world is reduced to consciousness, in the sense that the
object is a form of appearance of the latter. Hence the objective dis-
tinctions between the various sense-data, between visual sense-dil.ta and
sound for instance, must be incorporated as the distinctions between
different moments of consciousness. Consciousness itself appears in
these forms and therefore the respective moments are distinguished
only by these. Here these forms, i.e., riipa etc., are the dharmas.
That is to say, though the whole of ocjective reality is reduced to
consciousness, the objective distinctions between riipa etc., can yet be
accepted as so many dharmas qualifying the respective moments of
consciousness. It is now clear how riipa etc., inspite of appearing as
something objective and external, are in reality dharmas qualifying
consciousness.
I.---------~'--------------------------~I
samskfta (phenomenal) asarilsk~a
I
. I I
Clttasamprayukta (related to consciousness) cittaviprayukta
I
I I
arupa rupa (objective)
I
citta caittas
I. The first class of dharmas is constituted by consciousness itself.
It is rathet intri!?Jlling that consciousness is classified as one of theulti-
were not made. They are five in number, viz., sparsa, manasklira,
vedli.tli, samjiii and cetani.
(a) Spar/a is defined as trikasannipata. In every case of knowledge
there are three factors present-the content cognised, the instrument
of cognition, and the c:>gnising consciousness. These three must flash
simultaneously in a causal relation. Consequently the instrument or
the sense-organ is excited in a certain way and gets a particular form
(viklira), evoking a feeling, pleasant or unpleasant as the case may be.
The contentis accordingly determined by consciousness, and this definite
awareness of the object, which touches as it were the sense-organ, but
in reality is a determination of the object, is spada. Its action is to
excite feelings.
(b) Mt~narleara is that by' which citta is attracted towards the object
(cetasa libhoga).& It is attention, which holds citta towards the object.
This last clause in the definition is necessary because manasklira or
attention functions, not in a single moment of consciousness, but in
the series. One moment of citta does certainly go to some object or
other, and there would be no case of inattention. Attention means, not
the attention of a single moment which is exhausted in that very moment,
but the directing of the citta again and again, to the same object.
(c) Vedana is affection or reaction of consciousness (anubhava-sva-
bhava). towards its contents. It can be of three kinds according as the
reaction is pleasant, painful, or merely indifferent. The object however
being in reality non-existent, these different feelings are due to one's
past karma, good or bad. Pleasant feeling means having pleasure in
coming in contact with the object and pain in being separated from it.
So painful feeling is pain in contact with, and pleasure in separation
from, the object.
(d) Samjna is specifying or defining the object by its characteristic
marks (nimittodgrahat].a) . It is of the form, "this is blue, not yellow."
It is the conceptualising activity of the mind-marking and defining the
object by means of a concept. In Buddhism, things are discrete
and particular, and therefore unrelated.- Knowledge however cannot
even begin without ju:igment, i. e., without relating things by naming
them. This function is served _by samjiia, which thus accompanies
that of Reason ; but Reason again is itself bifurcated into this oppo-
sition, because of its inherent necessity. T~e 'other' can never be
dispensed with ; hence the assertion that the 'other' is a projection
remains dogmatic. The counter-asseertion that the subject itself is a
projection of the 'other' would in that case be equally justified. To
substantiate the formrr statement what is required is that the subject
should be shown as existing without projecting the 'other'. Only then
can it be known as the basic reality, and the 'other' as a mere creation.
To envelop the whole of phenomena in an all-comprehensive Reason
leaves the relation b.:!tween the subject and object entirely unaffected.
The subject does not create the object, but rather both are creations
of the universal Reason. They are related through a third entity-
Reason ; in themselves they should have nothing to do with each
other. Curiously enough, this position is little different from that
of the rank realist. He also maintains that both are ultimate, and
that the object cannot be dispensed with. The Hegelian position is
certainly not realism, since here the object has no independence ;
it is esse.:1tially related to the subject. Nor is it pure ideali9m, since
the subject is not primal and the object is not its own creation. Hegel
stops short with relativity ; his system may be described as Rational
Idealism, since both the terms are projections of Reason ; it is not,
howev!r, E)i>temJbgical Ide1lism which makes consciousness the
sole reality. The Hegelian Absolute is also consciousness, but it has
no absoluteness in it ; it is a mere system of determinate relations.
The Yogacara is wise enough to perceive that if the object is to be
rejected, it cannot be retained even as a form of consciousness. If cJn-
sciousness is invariably confronted by an 'other', be it by its own form,
the sublation of the object is meaningless. Knowledge is the only
index for us of phenomenal existence, and if the object persistently
raises its head in knowledge, it matters little whether it does not object-
ively exist. No change has been effected in our knowledge by the nega-
tion of the object.
Is it possible for consciousness to be aware of an 'other' which is
not e.:ternal to itself ? In reality, externality is an illusion ; what exist
are only the forms of consciousness. But can these forms be known
as the 'other' even when their objective projection is lacking ? If
the object is not an other to consciousness, it is not an object at all.
Consciousness is a consciousness of something : that 'of'-relation may
niB YOG!ClllA CONCBPTION OP niB ABSOX.ttrB 129
subject is known only as contrasted w:th the object; here this distinction
is lacking, and it is indifferent to the surd, whether it is an object or
not. Again, consciousness of blue is not blue consciousness, since
cJ.l.sciousness cannot b:: b:udened wlth physical attributes. Therefore
the 'of' here is a real 'of' ; blue is merely a form. which can be maintained
o.:tly by b::ing projected as the 'other'. The subject knows the object ;
brushing the question aside whether this object is a form of conscious-
ness or an e:s:ternal reality, if the dhtinction itself is done away with.
it m ut know itself to b:: entitled consciousness. Even the distinction
of aspects is repudiated here; the same thing is both subject and obj_ect
at once. B:~t this is an im.nssible feat : even the mJst expert acrobat
c1nnot clim~ his ow.1 shoulders. The sam:: finger cannot touch itself.
nor can an axe cut its OW-l self. A thing can turn back upon itself only
when it is arrested in its forward movement; the subject is aware of its
ow.1 fu!lction by realising theotherness of the object. Here this reflex
is an im.;_JJssibility ; but dll it h~s to know itself, since there is nothing
else to be known.
MJreover, without m1king a di;tinction of aspects how is the con-
sciousness of blue to be di~tinguished from. that of yellow ? Each is
a surd and is what it is ; then why are both called consciousness ?
Waatis the com'llJn ground underlying both, which prevents each being
m !rely a blue or a yellow, but makes both of them consciousness ?
These questions cannot be m,;:t if form,3 of consCiousness, which are yet
not 'other' to it, are accepted.
Idealism must therefore find a consciousness which is absolutely
free from. any tuce of objectivity. Merely making it internal is not
su..'li:ient to e3tablish idealism,. It is indeed the first step, but a further
step m '.1St be taken. The object is so identical with consciousness, that
it cannot be distinguished even as -its form. It loses its individuality
entirely and without any residue. The forms of consciousness are there
m!rely because of the illusory reflection of the unreal object. With the
sublation of the external object, the forms are automatically merged in
cJnsciousness. This does not mean, however, that an identical or con-
tinuous p:ue co.:l.Sciousness underlies the various forms of blue and
yellow7 • Consciousness itself is diversified into these forms and when
identity is established b:!tween the object and its consciousness, the
7. MSA, p. 61.
132 Tlm YOGACAB.A IDEALISM
lODDS are completely lost in it. We may not call this consciounsess
pure, in the sense of transparence, but it is pure in the sense that the
fonns cannot be distinguished in it.
These considerations apply with equal force to the doctrine of mc-
mentariness of consciousness as well. When the specific fonns are lost
in consciousness, even the different moments cannot be distinguished.
This does not make consciousness identical; it means only that difference
is no longer perceptible. The same argument which establishes Identity
between blue and its consciousness, makes away with the distinction
bet\veen consciousness of blue and that of yellow. Each is so com-
pletely identical with consciousness that neither can be maintained
apart from it, and hence their mutual distinctions also lapse. Moments
are distinguishable so long as difference of content holds ; a pure diffe-
rence is no difference, there being no novel emergence.
We arrive therefore at the conception of a consciousness which is
not diversified into the empirical form::. 8 , and of which momentarines
cuw.ot be predicated. Consc!ousness acquires these forms because of
an illusory 'other'. When the blue is sublated, even the consciousncs
of blue must go.' It might be urged that even after the cancellation
of the illusory snake, the snake-consciousness, which is real by itself,
remains. Hence it is possible that when the objective world as a whole
is negated, its consciousness might still persist. This possibility is ruled
out because there is a difference between the negation cf the snake and
that of the world. When the snake is negated, the-world as such suffers
no loss. The idea of objectivity reigns unchallenged. The forms of
subjectivity, which are sustained and nourished by their projections,.
are still there. When objectivity as such is negated, there being nothing
to -confront consciousness, it cannot serve even as the subject.10 Even
to know a form as subjective, it must be distinguished from the objec-
tive, which indicates that the negation of the latter has been merely
-verbal. The consciousness of there being nothing objective entails the
entertaining of this objectivityll before consciousness. It has not been
ftduced to mere naught.
is itself one more object. It has no unique position of its own. Con-
sciou;ness is helpless before the object which is absolutely indifferent
to the former. Knowing is the knowing of something objectively given.
The subject has nothing which it can call its own, i.e., which is not given
to it by the object. It is pure awareness. Hence when the subject
is nothing, consciousness is understood as knowledge, whereas when
the object is nothing, it is will.
It is a paradox that the willed content is the negation of that will.
When a contends willed, it becomes an accomplished fact and conscious-
ness loses all hold over it. It becomes in fact a content known, though
by its origin it is a willed content. When I will to do a particular deed,
my consciousness rem1ins will, only so long as it is not realised. As
soon as the action is done, no am::>unt of will can undo it again. It
can only be known, as it has already taken its place in the comity of
thing;. The will is re;:dled by the actualised willed content which
constitutes a limitation or negation of it. 2o
Action is generally taken to be the jurisdiction of the will conscious-
ness. Our information about the so-called external world is supposed
to be received by our knowing consciousness. Metaphysics is interest-
ed in ab::>lishing this dual conception of consciousness. If action, which
is accepted as the realisation of will, yet constitutes a negation of it,
consciousness of the external world is a far greater negation of it ; here
there is not even the faintest consciousness of willing. Thewill has
been completely paralysed here.
The paradox is that consdousnecs can be termed will only when it
wills contents, but the latter negate it at the same time. That very
characteristic by which will is recognised constitutes its negation. The
reason is that no em?irical consciousness can be obtained in its absolute
purity. Every em?irical case of will is subdued by the knowing func-
tion ·of consciousness which is its nego1.tion. Even in the highest flight
of productive im1gination where will as the subjeetive reigns supreme,
there is yet an alien element of knowledge. When I imtgine that I go
to· a dream-land and do all kinds of fantastic things, I am conscious of
the fact that this is all within my mind, without the least vestige of ob-
jective truth, and to this extent it is a case df will. I am not taken in
by it, and the corrective self-consciousness is there all along. But still
it is not free from the knowing function, and is not therefore a case of
pure will. Can anybody imagine anything whatsoever which is not
imagined objectivdy, i.e., as occurring in space and time ? One may
certainly be aware that this is all subjective, but so long as one imagines
at all, one does it only as though the content were objective. That is to
say, there is no case of will which is not still-born, not waylaid
by knowledge.
The same is the case with knowledge as well. By definition the
knowing consciousness is one where the subject is nothing apart from the
revealed object. It must not oppose itself to the object. But in any
- case of knowledge, however transparent consciousness might be, it
will yet be an other to the object ; it will contemplate the object only
from outside, and not reveal the inner nature or essence of it. Strictly
speaking, knowing an object must be being 21 it; there is no other\ ·ay of
knowing it. lbwever negligible the subject might be, it will yet C0n-
stitute an op?:->sition or dualism, and as such negation of the object.
Consciousness can will a content, only by ceasing to be will; hence,
paudoxically again, the pure will wills nothing. 22 As soon as it wills
a particular CQntent, the latter is instantaneously precipitat,d into a
known content. In all empirical consciousness there is this perverse
confusion of the subjective functions, so that one annuls the other.
To reach the purity of the will we must go beyond phenomenal
consciousness. Pure Will is the Absolute, where all dualism 23 of the
will and the willed content is done away with. The Absolute is the pure
activity of Will, unobstructed by the willing o.f any content.
No empirical will is pure. Its will aspect, if made pure, will become
the Absolute. This aspectis the only reality. The other aspect, which
is invariably associated with it and makes forits defilement, is the know-
ing aspect ; this is unreal. Knowledge makes its object independent
of the act of knowing ; hence this idea of an independent 'other', or of
objecti vlty in general, is the falsification of will. Objectivity is the
transcendental illusion, and is the work of Avidya. What is really
knowledge, and will lose its creativity. Since the forms are ider..tical
with the creating will, the latter cannot be a dead inert Being, but must
evolve into the diversity of forms. Avidya defiles the Real ; this
defilement itself is unreal in Vedanta, whereas, according to the
Yogadira, the Real is really entangled, though that can be helped.
Pure will gets defiled when it falsely takes what is its own form
as something objective. The transcendental Illusion consists in
confusion between the subjective and the objective, and its cancella-
tion is the analysis or distinction between these two. But the ques-
tion arises : why can we not stop with this distinction ? Only the
ascription of the objective on the subjective is false. For the correc-
tion of this illusion all that is required is the denial of this ascription
or false relation between the two. The negation of objectivity as such
seems unwarranted. Both may be real in their own places ; their
confusion gives rise to all the trouble, and only this much need be
condemned. The two terms are individually real ; only their relation
is false. 29
This contention is based upon a wrong understanding regarding
the nature of negation. The negation of the illusory will itself show
that the two terms are not on a par. With the problem of the nega-
tion, that of reality also is intrinsically cor.riected. When the illusory
is negated, the real is perceived in its true form. The issue is there-
fore as to which of the terms is taken as basic, and the other the falsi-
fication of it. The 'other' may be real in its own right, but that which
appeared herein place of the real is totally negated. That it is real some-
where else has nothing to do with its appearance here. All negation
involves an evaluation ; one is preferred to the other. The negation
cannot be false without one of the terms being false. 30 When the
appearance of the snake is sublated, the sublating consciousness is
that the objective snake is absolutely nothing ; it never existed. That
the snake is somewhere else objectively real is irrelevant to the present
ap?earance. Its objectivity is cancelled once for all. It cannot be urged
"should we evaluate at all ?", since evaluation is the very form of
which the term 'subjective' is used. First, the subjective means the
epistemic, i.e., the knowing of a thing, not the thing itself. Secondly.
the subjective is taken to be the false, as it imports to the objective
what is not there. In the Vedanta, these two meanings are equated
what is subjective is false, and vice versa. The Yogacara keeps these
two separate. The subjective is the only reality ; it is epistemic, and
yet exists ontologically. It is at the same time the locus of unreality,
since Avidya cannot exist anywhere else. The subjective thinks itself
to be something other than what it is ; this thinking itself is subjective.
In this sense there is a subjectivity in the subjective, and the former
is the falsification of the latter.
There is however no contradiction involved in this. A vidya has
1:his peculiar nature that it exists in the Real, and yet is nothing. The
two are in fact not of one order, but belong to different planes altoge-
ther. They cannot be put side by side, and compared. Avidya exists
only so long as the Real is not know:1. This apparent contradictbn
exists in the Vedanta as well. Subjectivity is unreal ; universal objecti-
vity or the pure Being is the only reality. But since subjectivity is no-
·thing in itself, and yet must somehow exist, it can exist only in the Pure
Being, i.e., in the objective. It seems that there are two objectives
then, one ontological, and the other epistemic. The contradiction
can arise, only when they are on a par. But the epistemlc, in the sense
-of falsification, is a fact in neither of the two systems. It is, as we have
.said, parasitical, and can exist only by exploiting the reality of the Abso-
lute. The difference b::com::s clear when we co!ltrast the idea of ob-
jectivity with other ideas. Both are subjective, but the former can exist
only through the projection of the real subjective facts. There is no
idea of objectivity as such, compuable to the ideas of blue or yellow.
It is in fact only the form of the app!arance of the latter. The distinc-
tion is that of the transc::ndental function and its empirical product.
the objectifying tendency and the object 'blu-::'. This ap?earance being
unreal, the form also must be denied.
Whatis the genesis of Avidyli ? How is it that the Absolute for-
gets its pristine purity, and gets phenomenalised ? It is difficult to con-
ceive how the Absolute becomes ignorant all at once. There is no
-reason why it should change its natural unruffled existence for a defiled
one. If it was not ignorant at any one time, it can never be so. Igno-
-rance must be pos:ted as alr!a-:ly defiling the Absolute. There is no con-
142 THE YCGACARA IDEALISM
the subject and the object. These two factors of all experience are not
of an equal status. There are thus three, and not merely two, Truths.
First, there is the paramartha which is called parinitpanna in this system.
This is the Absolute. Secondly, there is the phenomenalized aspect
of the Real. This is known as the paratantra which denotes the
subjective. The third is the object, which has no reality whatsoever,
apart from the consciousness of it. It is merely imagined to exist ; it
has no intrinsic existence of its own ; it is therefor:! only parikalpita.
The parat. ntra and the parikalpita together constitute our emp!rical
t..tperience (samvrti), while consciousness as non-conceptual is the
Absolute (paramlirtha).
The Advaita Vedlinta provides another spi!culative approach to the
Absolute. It also has a constructive theory of phenomena, a norm of
explana'ion for all things. Phenomena of themselves however do not
indicate why they should be interpreted in a particular way. Different
kinds of patterns are exemplified in our empirical experience. Specu-
lative metaphysics stresses one at the cost of all others, and universalizes
it to the extent of fitting all experience without exception to it. Iden-
tity as well as difference are required to make an} knowledge possible.
Why the Vedlinta should prefer identity to difference and make it basic,
while explaining the other aw ~y as illusory, is inexplicable. This much
initial dogmatism is intrinsic to all speculative metaphysics.
The pattern which is thus universalized is therefore taken from the
empirical experience itself. If the whole of phenomena is but an appear-
ance, this universalization also must be shown to be an extension of
a particular factor of empirical exp:!rience. The w::>rld-illusionis inter-
preted analogically, as illustuted by the parallel case of emp!rical illu-
sion. Empirical illusion therefore must be distinguished from the
transcendental illusion, since the latter is established on the strength
of the former. Both the Vedhta and the Yogliclira employ the analogi-
cal argument, but their interpretaton of the empirical illusion itself
is from radically oppJsite standpoints.
This gives us two degrees of the illusory which are know.1 in the
Advaita Vedli.:tta as the prltibhlisika and the vyliva.hlirika. It involves
no distinction of kind. The vylivahlirika is equally unreal as the other
is; butit enjoys a relative stability, while the other is illusory even empi-
rically. They must be distinguished because the prlitibhlisika provides
the pattern for exphining the vylivahadka, i. e., the w .lrll-ill u si on.
THE YOGACARA CONCEPTION OF TilE ABSOLUTE 149
the former. The real aspect in the Vedanta analysis is identical with
the absolutely Real; the latter has suffered no change in being imposed
upon. Since the paramarthikais the Real par excellence, the two aspects
in all cases of illusion, empirical or otherwise, need not be distinguished
separately. The unreal aspect certainly admits of degrees-the vyava-
harika and the pratibhasika. But in the Yogacara the Real cannot
remain indifferent to its appearance. Hence in spite of the real aspect
of the illusion being essentially one with the Absolute (parini~panna),
it is yet a defiled form of the latter. There are thus two phases of exis·
tence of the Real-first, in its absolute purity' (parini~panna) and
secondly, as defiled by' phenomena (paratantra). The unreal aspect is
the parikalpita. Though the doctrine of three Truths is common to
the Vedanta as well as the Yogaclira, the Vedanta has only one real and
two unreals, while the Yogacara has two phases of reality, and does not
analyse the unreal further. Appearance, whether empirical or not,
has a common structure. Only the defilment (pariQama) of the Real
need be noted.
The three Truths must now be explained individually. 48 (1) Pari-
kalpita is that which has no authentic existence. It is only' imagined to
exist (kalpanamatra). It is an object projected by the creative conscious-
ness. This includes whatever confronts consciousness as an ether to
it, i.e., the external object, and the interna.l ideas4 9, percepts, images, etc.
which are no less external to consciousness. The object is unreal be-
cause causality does not operate in the objective realm. Causal inter-
action or efficiency (hetupratyaya-pratipadya-svabhava) is the mark of
reality. Whatever is not produced by causes and conditions is unreal. 50
The object is not a cause of the consciousness which is said to be caused
by it. A post is perceived as a man by one person, while another mis-
takes the same for a ghost. One entity cannot generate so many percep-
tions at the same time. 51 These various perceptions are not caused by
the post at all. Hence it is a mere construct, like a barren woman's
son.
48; VMS, pp. 39-42 ; MSA, XI, 38-41 ;TSN; MVSBT,pp. 19-20;
LAS, X.
49. VMS, p. ~9.
50. VMS, p. 39.
51. PV, II, 356 ; VMS, p. 39.
THE YOGACARA CONCEPTION OF TltE ABSOLUTE 151
Still its negation is not on a par with that of the barren woman's
son. Though it is unreal in itself, consciousness does appear having
this form. The negation of the external object must be significant.
There is no consciousness of the barren woman's son, and its negation
is therefore meaningless. The empirical object is identical with such
fictitious entities in its essential nature, but with the significant distinc-
tion that it does appear in consciousness. 62 That is the peculiar status
of the illusory, that though it is nothing, yet it is not an absolute blank.
It must however be reduced to nothing, and that is possible only when
it is ontologically nothing; i. e., it has no real existence, butis merely
imagined to exist. Its existence is only through this constructive ima-
gina~ion. Negation pertains only to its apparent independence.
(2) Parat~:ntra is that which appears as the subject-object duality.
The form of appearance is unreal (parikalpita); but the stuff which
pt:ojects the appearance is real. Paratantra is consciousness as diver-
sified into the various forms. 53 It is called paratantra because it is caused
by causes and conditions.54 Causality operates on the. subjective side.
An idea is produced, not by any external cause, but by a previous idea.
Pratitya-samutpada51i is the mark of reality. This functions between the
various moments of consciousness themselves. 66 One idea generates
another idea, because of its own inner dynamism. The moments of
comciousness therefore are causally efficient and as such are real
(pratityas~mutpannatvad vastusat). Paratantra is not an uncaused freak,
like the barren woman's son, but is pratyayadhi.la.
Paratantra includes the whole of phenomenal reality ( cittacaittas
tnidhatukal;t). The external object is unreal and is parikalpita. The
v-arious forms of the subjective alone are real, all of which are designa-
ted by this Trt:th. -It therefore denotes all the eight vijiianas, Alaya~
the Manas and the six pravfttivijiianas. It is real but not ultimate, a
paradox which can be resolved, as we have seen, by interpreting
consciousness as will. It is a real diversification (pari~ama) of the wil-
ling consciousness. As the seat of the creative imagination projecting
the unreal object, it is called Abhutaparikalpa57 (abhiitasya pari-
kalpo yasmin). That which is imagined is unreal. But consciousness
itself, the basis of that imagination, is real, and this is parataatra. The
constructive imagination is only the transcendental category of
objectification which stirs consciousness into disruption.
(3) Parinitpanna58 is the Absolute. It is pure Consciousness uncle-
filed by the least trace of objectivity. When paratantra (the subjective)
is purified of the false duality imposed upon it by the parikalpita (the
constructed object), it becomes the parini~panna.59 It is called parini~
panna as it is not subject to the vag:uies of the constructiveimagina:icn;
it is ever the same (avikaraparini~pattya sa parini~panna:Q.). Ccnscious-
ness gets modified only because of the presence of the illusory 'other'.
Hence when the idea of this 'other', i.e., parikalpita, is eradicated out
of the subjective (paratantra), it reverts back to its natural quiescence.
To negate the object is not to experience it ; then the form of appear-
ance of comciousness (paratantra) also is dissolved and its absolute-
ness realised. 60 This is the parini~panna state of the Will.
No ultimate distinction can be drawn therefore between the par:ni~-
panna and the paratantra. The parini~panna becomes the paratantra
due to the infection of the parikalpita; this last is utterly unreal. The
subjective aspect of experience however is real. It is the Will itself
that gets defiled. Were the paratantra (i.e., the subjective) different
from the parini~panna which is ultimately real, the former would
then be unreal, and there would be no ground for distinction be,ween
the paratantra and the parikalpita (the object). Consciousness
can never be freed from its objective entanglements, and the demand
57. MVSBT, I, 2.
58. MSA, XI, 41 ; LAS, X, 174.
59. ya abhutaparikalpasya dvayarahitata sa parini~panna:Q. svabhava-
bhava:Q., MVSBT, p. 19 ; also MSA, IX, 78 ; VMS, p. 40.
60. TSN, 32, 33.
THE YOGACA'R.A CONCEPTION OF THE ABSOLUTE 153
for p~ilosophy as spiritual discipline would not even arise. The object
c1n1:1ot even be known as illusory, as it would invariably persecute con-
sciousness by its persistent presence. So the p.1ratantra cannot be
held to be differentBl from the Absolute. But nor are they completely
identical.82 In that case, either the p.1rini~pa..'lna will always be defiled,
or the paratantra would have all along been pure, so that there is
nothing to purify; spiritual discipline would again be futile in both
the cases. Hence it is said that the pautantra is neither identical with
nor different from the p;uini~p:~.nna. Essentially they are one. Their
difference is because of an illusory infection. Once this false idea
is got rid of, the paratantra completely lapses into the Absolute (plri-
ni~panna).63 To start with, the distinction between them must be made;
without realising the parini~panna the paratantra cannot be known. 64
There is no other way for being conscious of the difference in nature
between the paratantra and the puikalpita, than by keeplng in mind
the norm (the parini~panna) as the absolute reality of consciousness.
Hence it is that the same term Ab~ii.tapJ.rikalp.l is applied both to
p.1rini~panna and the pa.ratantra. It is both the Absolute as well as
phenomena. It is the Absolute, since sunyata, i. e., the negation of
the subject-object duality (grahadvaya), entailed by the sublation of
the object, pertains to it. It is again phenomena, because Abhiita-
parikalpa, construction of the false, defiles this sunyata,-i.e., the
utter absence of the subject-object duality. If the stress be up:>n
parikalpa, the creativity of consciousness, then it is phenomena
(paratantra). But this construction is of abhiit,z, of what does not
really exist, and as such the construction itself C.lnnot inherently be-
long to consciousness. It is therefore the Absolute.
The paratantra therefore is real, being pratity.1-samutpanna, and
yet does not onstitute a different order of truth than the parlni~panna
(the Absolute). The Yogacara would very strongly disc)untenance the
so-called doctrine of "Degrees of Truth and Reality," advocated
by Hegel and his followers. According to this th(' whole alone is
wholly true ; nothing short of the Absolute Idea, the all-embracino- o
NirvlQa is Freedom
Philosophy can have only a spiritual value. To think of it as serv-
ing any empirical purpose is grossly to miss its essential significance.
It has been held that philosophy satisfies one's intellectual curiosity.
But there might be other and better means of satisfying it. The demand
to know the ultimate nature of things cannot be an empirical demand.
No contingency ever arises in empirical discourse where ultim.::.te
questions must necessarily be asked. Our practical way ofli ving would
not be least affected one way or the other by the settlement of the quest-
ion whether the world is made of atoms or is a construc~ion of the
subjective. And to suppose that philosophy is a display of intellec-
tual gymnastic is to make little difference between a metaphysical system
and a particular theory of chess. The very consc=ousness that the
answer to the ultim:1.te questions is highly pertinent, or that there are
ultimate questions at all, presupposes a certain discouent regarding
the em?irical. The fact that the ultimate problems are insoluble and
that the attempt to answer them gives rise to the antinomies of Reason
is a different matter altogether. Here we contend merely that if philo-
sophy, be it dogmatic or critical, has no spiritual value, it has no other
value at all.
The value of philosophy as a spiritual discipline consists in free-
dom-freedom from pain or evil. Pain cannot be got rid of by mundane
means1 ; it must be realised that pain is not one factor among others,
cor:stituting empirical experience, but that the whole of experience
is pain. 2 It must be universalised. Just as, on the theoretical side,
illusion is not taken as a stray case, ~ut rather the whole of experience
is condemned as illusory, so also on the practical side, existence as
5. MVSBT, p. 29.
6. klimasokabhayonmadacaurasvapnady upaplutli]:l., abhiitlin
api pasyanti purato' vasthitan iva ; PV, 11, 282.
7. MSA, XI, 32 ; also XIX, 49.
8. MSA, XI, 49.
160 'l'HB YOGAC:AR.A, IDEALISM
at the same time posited.8 This is klesa, along with its attendant
satellites.'
This is the defilement of Will. The object is a negation of will.
When an object is projected by w.ill-consciousness, it loses its hold
over it. It becomes merely a p1ssive spectator, helpless before the
cJntent which, thouGh willed, is crystallised into a known content.
The object is thus an obstruction or limitation of will. It ceases to be
will, when c:>nfronted by the object.
Liberation is the regaining of the soverdgnty of Will by negating
the object and breaking down its obstinate externality. When will
pnjects a content, it becomes limited by the latter. The conscious-
ness of blue cannot be that of yellow at the same time. But when the
blue is negated and its essential identity with consciousness established,
the latter is no longer determined by the blue. Consciousness be-
comes uaiversal. 1 0 It is not the consciousness of any p1rticular con-
tent. This universal Will is the Absolute. Nirva!).a is the realization
of this u.,iversality.u It is the freedom of consciousness from the
duality of the subject and the object.l2 It is the retracting of Alaya
fr::>m its forward movement (asrayaparavrtti)1 3 • .Asrayaparavt:tti is the
disap?earance of the unreal object, and the realisation of Tathata ;
a:1d this is freedom (m:>k~a) 14. Impelled by the Transcendental
Illusion of the idea of objectivity, it goes on projecting the forms of
the so-called empirical objects, giving rise to various pravt:ttivijiianas
which, in their own turn, replenish it further. The .Alaya is thus
the support (asraya) of the entire phenomenal world. A vicious
c:rc!e is started from which there is no escape. The .Alaya creates an
<other' to consciousness and the 'other' makes it create still further
forms. C'lnsciousness loses its equanimity and forgets its essential
nature. This is samsara. But when the unreality of the object is real-
ised, there is nothing to govern the forward movement of the Alaya.
1. Cf. Ch. 7.
170 THE YOGACARA IDEA,LISM
that the total failure of all devices to render the object intelligible sets
the norm of explanation is not satisfactory : this presupposes a prior
prejudice in favour of the subject. Once this basic concept is given
the rest of the dialectic of idealism can be worked out by reason : but
what reason cannot account for is how this "basic concept or pattern
itself is given. This problem as to why one particular Analytic is
chosen in preference to other possible Analytics equally plausible is
inherent in all speculative metaphysics. It indicates an alogical source
though working by means of logic. A -being rooted in phenomena
can ha-ye no inkling even of the existence ofthe Unconditioned2; or,
if the demand for the Unconditioned be a natural disposition of mind,
as Kant would have it, he cannot have the faintest conception of the
positive content or character of the Unconditioned. That can only
be revealed by a person already in the possession of such a know ledge.
That person can certainly not be any one of us; the problem as to how
he comes to know of it would remain unsolved. The person can only
be that who was never ignorant, who is not phenomenal at all. God
or the Tathagata is such a person.
But the necessity for the Tathagata in the Yogacara metaphysics
would be of no avail if the concept were inherently unstable. The next
step in the argurhent is to show the logical tenability of the concept of
Tathagata. Consciousness, as we have already seen, is creative. This
creativity has two aspects 3 ; first, when it is governed by the idea of
objectivity, it goes on projecting an 'other' ; the 'other' is in reality
only the form of consciousness, but is yet invariably perceived as some-
thing obje::tive. This is the C()smic Illusion under which the will suffers.
When the illusory 'other' is sublated, Will reverts back to its natural
state of pure A.ct, where it wills only itself. This is the se'tond aspect
of its creativity. But the possibility of an intermediate state between
those two aspects must be recognised, where the Will is self-conscious
of itself. Here the 'other' is still present, but its apparent externality
is realised to be illusory. It is a transitional stage from ignorance to
knowledge. It is neither pure Will nor again defiled will. 4 It is
not pure since it is still a consciousness of the 'other'. Nor is it defiled
5. Cf. Ch. 7.
6. Cf. VMS, p. 42-3.
7. This concept is even stabilised and raised to an ultimate
status in the Pratyabhijiia system (Kashmir Saivism). In this
system there obtains an inexpressible and non-relational identity
between the principle and the person, i.e., between the Absolute
and its creativity (between Siva and Sakti). Its creativity is not
therefore due to Avidya as in the Yogacara, but ensues out of
its consciousness of freedom itself. Siva is free to create or not to
aeate. Here the Absolute and God are identified.
172 THE YOGACARA IDEALISM
this fact alone that lends significance to our spiritual aspirations. But,
speaking from the ultimate point of view, He is not many because
He has no body. That is to say, He never identifies Himself with the
particular body that He has freely assumed for the time being. He is
one like ikisa.
All the usual powers and excellences associated with the notion of
God-head are ascribed to Him. But His most important aspects are
two, viz., Praj"iii and KatuQi. The first makes Him one with the
Absolute while the latter keeps Him in phenomena. The first is spoken
of under four heads :U. 1 . .Adadajiiina, 2. Samatijiiina, 3. Pratyave-
k~ijiiina and 4. Kftyanu~thinajiiana. The first is the basic one and
is invariable while the other three depend upon it and are variable.
(a) Adarf:Jjniina is that knowledge which is not limited to any
personality ( amamam ). It is spatially undifferentiated and temporally
all-comprehensive. That is to say, this knowledge extends to every-
thing existing in all- three times. It is not therefore obstructed by
anything knowable, as it is free from all obscurations. Such a know-
ledg~" is infinite because it is indeterminate, and not because it depends
up:>a anything knowable. All other knowledges spring out of it;
it is their fountain as it were, because it reflects the Tathagata and
His knowledge like a mirror.
(b) Samatajiiana is the knowledge of the essential identity pervad-
ing all existence.
(c) Pratyavektiijiliina is that knowledge which perceives all things
without confusion. That is to say, it is by virtue of this knowledge
that the Tathagata has a correct knowledge of each individual thing
without confusing one with the other. It indicates the vibhiiti of the
Lord, i.e., His omniscience, and removes all doubt.
(d) K.rtyanut!hiinajnana is the knowledge meant for the projection
of His apjnritional bodies, infinite in number and variegated in naturf',
for the purpose of b::nefitting mankind. Such a projection cannot be
rationally worked out ; it depends on the different purposes to be
served by it ; hence the number to be projected and the place where it
is to take place cannot be determined a priori.
I
Advaita Vedinta
stood as the creation of the subjective, and secondly, the subjective it-
self is understood as real, the substrate, where th.e unreal constructs
are imagined. These two are closely interrelated, though the latter
need not follow from the first.
Can the two factors, which, when synthesised, are called knowledge,
be separately real ? Illusion is, as we have seen, the confusion of these
two functions. .There is no mistake in knowing a willed content as
willed. The rope-snake is analysed into the objectively given and the
subjective construction, both of which are actual facts and as such
are to be understood as separately real. This contention is based on
a misconception of th~ nature of these two functions and their relation.
If both were separately real, they would exist merely side by side.
The possibility of their being confused with each other would be utterly
precluded. One would not constitute the falsity of the other. Mere
differents are not confused with one another. They belong in fact
to different planes altogether. While the one (object) is on~ological,
the other is not. The subjective is mistaken for the objective only
because it is nothing in itself. Its whole force is entirely exhausted
just in being mistaken. It cannot exist but as exploiting the other,
as the falsification of the other. When the snake is sublated as an
objective thing, it is not reinstated as the subjective fact. The centre
of interest shifts towards the real objective, the rope. The subjective
nature of the snake is cognised, but it is realised at the same time that
it has only a sort of vampire-like existence. Analysis not only clears
the confusion, it reduces the subjective to naught.17 The subjective
is parasitical in nature; it is nourished only by a mistake, only as super-
imposed on the object.
The Advaita Vedinta is thus by no means an idealistic system.
If it is called idealism at all, it is so in the same sense in which Kant
or the Sautrintika is an idealist. It is a species of transcendental or
c;ritical idealism. The presence of the subjective factor is recognised ;
but this subjectivity creates falsity and is itself false. For Kant and the
Sautrantika, the given is the unique particular ( svalak~~a ), the
pure difference; subjectivity consists in unifying, relating, synthesising
what is utterly discrete. In the Advaita Vedinta the situation is
certainly false, and to this extent it agrees with the orthodox school as
opposed to the Yogacara, but it is so only because it unagines things as
though objective. When these latter are sublated, will itself ceases and
only the substrate, pure consciousness, remains. It does not admit
change in consciousness, as pure ideali~m of the Yogaclira type does;
but its approach to the Real is nevertheless by way of the sub-
jective. The phenomenal wol41d is explained after the pattern of
the dream-e:xperience where the emphasis is on subjective, rather tban
after the illusory rope-snake where the reality of the objective
oominates.
Since all experience is reduced to so many ideas in the mind of
the knowing consciousness, 26 the other minds also suffer a similar fate.
The plurality of egos cannot be maintained, 28 as their existence outside
my co~sciousness of them is denied, because of the same consideration
that.the existence of real objective things is denied. Consequently
there can be no intra-subjective world and we have an extreme fcrm
of solipsism (ekajivavada). Isvara, whose existence is accepted in
the orthodox school in order to sustain the intra·subjective world, is
similarly denied, and the vyavahlirika sattli of things goes along with
this. There are only two truths, viz., the prlititika and the
paramarthika. 21
This excursion should serve to make the realistic epistemology
of the orthodox school more evident. We are now in a position to
differentiate the respective standpoints of the Advaita Vediinta and the
Yogliclira. Both the systems are agreed in admitting that knowledge
is not a unitary affair but is the synthesis of two factors, or rather, two
functions of the subjective, viz., knowing and willing. Knowing is
the revelation of the given, while the other is the projection of its own
construct. Illusion is the confusion of these two functions and analy-
sis not only clears the confusion, it also demonstrates that at least one
of them is parasitical in nature, so that when left to itself it just eva-
porates into naught. They belong in fact to different orders altogether
and both cannot be said to exist in the same sense. One of them is
unreal, the whole being of which is totally exhausted in being superim-
posed upon the other, and which, apart from the latter, is simply nothing.
This logical outline of the nature and structure of illusion 2B is com-
mon to both the forms of absolutism. Their unanimity ceases however
when they come to the details. The general principle that illusion is
a false relation, and that a relation cannot be false without at least one
of the terms being so, is employed by both. But as to which of the
two terms should be retrieved as real a.s:td which other be condemned
as unreal, there is a world of difference between them. For the Vedanta
it is the knowing function of the subjective which is real, that is to say,
which reveals reality. The real is the given, the thing-in-itself. But
all our empirical knowledge is vitiated by the other factor, viz., the
will-function which makes for falsity and is in itself false. It is in fact
the relatedness to the knowing subject, when this relatedness becomes
essential to the thing known, which is false. Noting can be real which
is merely in knowledge and is exhausted within that relationship ; for
a term which is made by a relation can be nothing in itself and is there-
fore false. In the Yogadlra however, as already seen, the situation is
exactly reversed. It is the knownness of the content that is merely
apparent, is false. Objectivity is unreal and it is the independence and
ex:ternality of the content known that is to be denied. The givenness
of things is false, since there is nothing given to consciousness. Con-
sciousness is self-legislative and depends upon nothing other to it. If
anything is to be real at all, it can be so only as being identical with
consciousness. The will alone is real and knowing is its falsification.
The content as a wllled construct is perfectly real, but when it appears
·as though objectively outside, it becomes false. ··
The difference between these two standpoints can be illustrated in
the case of an empirical illusion. In the familiar example--"That
is a snake,''-the Vedanta analysis makes the snake unreal for the reason
that it is peculiar to this particular situation. Being is prior to being
known and cannot be dependent upon the latter. The snake however
is posited in its being known and is not to be independently had. The
other term is the 'this'. The this-ness of the snake does not really be-
long to it ; it is borrowed from another order of existence. It is not
made by being related to the snake, nor is it unmade when such rela-
tionship is cancelled. It is real because it enjoys an independent exis-
28. For this and other allied problems, see CPB, Ch. 13.
YOGACARA AND O'IHER FORMS OF ABSOLUTISM 189
II
The Madhyamika
But such a procedure is, from the very nature of the case, not pos-
sible in metaphysics. Here we are not interested in explaining a parti-
cular phenomenon ; our ambition is rather to interpret the totality of
phenomena as such. In claiming absolute universality for a particular
explanation, the p:>ssibility o£ an appeal to the senses is necessarily
precluded. My system of metaphysics claims to interpret the totality
of phenomena, hence there remains no neutral fact which can decide
between two opposed systems. And the opposition is so total and
absolute as to make it impossible for them to be synthesised in a higher
system, without losing their individual identity. The consciousness
dawns that the opposition is not due to any other cause than the inherent
conflict in Reason itself. Speculation claims to be universal, and yet
it can never be universal, so long as it sets up, as the norm of expla-
nation, one category in preference to all others. A combination of
categories is no solution, since that itself becomes one more complex
category along with the previous ones. This consciousness marks
the transition from construction to criticism.
The basic attitudes of thought are two, viz., affirmation and nega-
tion. 34 Their ontological counterparts are identity and difference. All
metaphysical views can be grouped according to these two and their
two derivatives, formed by conjunctive affirmation of the basic attitudes,
and the disjunctive denial of them. Criticism exposes the fundamental
self-contradiction inherent in each of 'them, and proves their utter in-
competence to give reality. All views of the Real are merely views
and, as such, false. Thought is relative and relativity is the mark of
unreality. as A depends upon B for its own reality and Bin its turn is
itself not established without A ; both are therefore to be rejected.36
The rejection of thought entails the rejection of all metaphysical
systems constructed by thought-categories. 37
The Madhyamika is the champion of pure criticism. For him
criticism itself is philosophy. 38 Criticism of systems is itself not a
system; negation of a fact is itself not a fact. 39 It is the self-cons-
ciousness of thought, thought become self-aware of its own unreality.
Both the Advaita Vedanta and the Yogacara are, as contrasted with
the Midhyamika, speculative systems. They give constructive accounts
of phenomena, each from its own stan.:ipoint. The Madhyamika is, in
this sense, not a system at all. The two speculative systems interpret
the world as an illusion, but they understand the Cosmic Illusion
analogically; the theory of this illusion is modelled after their interpre-
tation of the empirical illusion. But in this procedure there are two
dogm1tic elements involved, viz.-first, as regards the analysis of the
empirical illusion, and secondly, the applicability of this analysis to the
world as a whole.
A.s there are two, to leave the rest for the time being, interpreta-
tions of the e:npirkil illu>ion, ea.ch thoroughly self-consistent, and yet
each being the exact converse of the other, there is nothing to decide
between the two. Each analysis is satisfactory from its own point of
view, but both cannot be the truth about this illusion. The conflict in
Reason, characteristic of dogmatic metaphysics, is present from the
very beginning. The analysis is not punctuated by the facts them-
selves, but is motivated by the speculative tendency of Reason. The
preference of one over the other depends upon one's initial prejudice ;
this is dogmatic to the core.
But the application of a particular analysis of the empirical illusion
to phenomena as such is still more dogmatic. The world does not pro-
claim itself to be illusory ; the awareness of the Transcendental Illusion
remains an unsolved enigma. The empirical illusion is resolved with
its consciousness, as the consciousness of the illusory is incompatible
with the existence of the illusory. And there the matter should end.
A stray case should not be held as the pattern for all cases ; an accident
cannot be generalised ; an exception must not be mistaken for a rule.
The colour-blindness of one individual does not prejudice the vision
of the rest. The world might be an illusion ; that is not in question.
What is not accounted for is how one becomes aware of this. Neither
the illusory nor the world itself supply this information.
The cue for this extension comes from elsewhere. Here is shown
the strength of the Vedanta metaphysics, which is supposed by many
to be its weakness. Here the procedure is not first to analyse the empi-
rical illusion and then to universalise it. The illusoriness of the world
is rather known beforehand and the empirica1 illusion is offered merely
as an illustration. We start with the knowledge of the Real, and be-
cause of this knowledge our empirical experience is accounted as false.
The Realis not arrived at as the conclusion of any enquiry ; it is given
as the starting-point, but for which the enquiry w0uld not have arisen.
Rooted in phenomena as we are, we could not have even an inkling of
anything transcending it. The knowledge of the Real can therefore
only be revealeJ.40 The cue is alogical, not logical.
the former only the subjective aspect of things is false. But the "this-
ness" (sattii.) of things is not false ; only its relation to the subjective
need be negated (samsargato mithya, not svariipatal.t). For the other,
it is the apparent inaependence of things that is false. Consciousness
as the creative will cannot be false. In both the systems there is one
factor which, though working within phenomena, yet transcends them
and is not exhausted in its relationship to the phenomenal. The other
aspect however is so exhausted and is therefore illusory.
For the Madhyamika there is nothing in phenomena whch is not
phenomenal.U He does not ;:ountenance any theory ofthing-in-itself;
he does not believe in any two-layer metaphysics. Even at the last
stage, he urges, one meets with opposed views, and the thing-in-itself
is therefore not beyond the categories of Reason. As long as there is
-speculation about the nature of the Real, the Real has not been reached.
What is opposed in its stead is only a view. 45 The Yogacira's quarrel
with the Vedantin does not stop even when discussing the notion of
the Absolute ; hence none of their views can be said to be ultimate, as
none is beyond the pale of predication. The Absolute is not residual
in its nature, precipitated when one aspect of phenomena is sublated.
The consciousness that all views about the Real are unreal is itself the
Absolute. 48 That is to say, the Absolute is Reason itself become self-
conscious. To know the emptiness of Reason is to transcend it. What
is required of Reason is not speculation about the Real, but rather the
exposition of its own hollowness. The real is the utter silence of Rea-
son (paramirtho hy aryiQam tli~J}imbhiva eva).47 Philosophy is not the
construction of thing-in-itself, butis pure criticism. It is not an exercise·
of the inveterate philosophising tendency of Reason, but rather its:
condemnation, resulting ultimately ·in its suicide. The Real is not
anything beyond Reason, but is the self-criticism48 of Reason itself:
To speak in Kantian terminology, it is reached, not through Analytic
but through Dialectic. Any Analytic, i.e., the elucidation of the con-
If there can be no object without the subject, nor can there be any
subject without the object.61
It is not a plea for accepting the reality of both ; when one term
makes the other meaningful but is itself not _established without the
latter, both of them should be rejected as false. 5 2 It certainly means
that in phenomena themselves we cannot pick and choose. No ele-
ment in it can be preferred to any other. Empirically speaking, both
are real ; or rather, the question of their reality does not arise. Trans-
cendentally speaking, both are equally unreal. Their empirical reality
is not incompatible with their transcendental ideality. The position is
the same as that of Kant in his "Refutation of Idealism" where he
strongly denounces the idealists' contention that the existence of the
subject is in any way more certain than that of the object.
On the idealistic hypothesis of the sole reality of consciousness,.
the diversity of empirical experience cannot be accounted for. The·
Madhyamika vehemently criticises the theory of consciousness turning
against itself (svasamvedana). Consciousness cannot act upon itself.5 3·
The knowing agent and the content of knowledge cannot be identical.
One entity cannot have manifold aspects, and if.it has, it can no longer
be called one.
It must not be supposed that the hypothesis of a real external object
fares any better. Is consciousness different ffom its object, or is it
not ?54 If it is not, there is no knowledge, as there is nothing to be
known. A sword cannot cut itself, nor can a finger be touched by its
own tip. If it is different from its object, then we shall require two
consciousnesses, viz., one to cognise the object and the other to
know that the former is different from the object cognised.
If consciousness cannot be cognised by itself, nor can it be known
by any other consciousness. 66 It cannot be known by a previous one,
as it has not yet arisen ; nor by a subsequent one, as it has already pe-
Ideas are not a substance ; the only substance that exists is spirit which
cognises the ideas. Ideas can be produced only by an active spirit.
Though the activity of consciousness is thus established, the apparent
fact that the objective world perceived in our waking experience is in
no way dependent upon our perception of it cannot be denied. It
must not be supposed that when I go out of my room, all the things
there go out of existence, l not being there to perceive them. Since
they are not independent, and yet since they do not exist in the mind
of any created spirit, "they must subsist in the mind of some spirit." 18
"When in broad daylight I open my eyes it is not in my power to choose
whether I shall see or no, or to determine what particular objects shall
present themselves to my view ; .•. the ideas imprinted on them are
not creatures of my will. There is therefore some other will or spirit
that produces them."l7
A distinction therefore must be drawn between the creation of pro-
ductive imagination, and the ideas constituting the empirical world,
between "ideas" and "real things." But they are nevertheless alike in
that none of them can exist without the mind. The distinction is bet-
ween different orders of creativity. Objectivity in general cannot
be my individual creation . . Hence the activity of an eternal and univer-
sal spirit must be posited. This spirit is God, who is creative par
excellence. The mundane spirits are themselves created, and their crea-
tivity is of a limited extent.
This in brief is the form of idealism as Berkeley presents it. Its
-affinity to the Yogacara idealism is obvious. The impasse of thinking
a thing when it is not thought of is made much of in both the systems.
Sahopalambhaniyama is the main plank on which any form of idealism
must rest. To assert the existence of an object outside knowledge is
to transcend the given data ; the assertion will necessarily remain dog-
m atic.
In Berkeley's argument however there lurks some confusion. His
main interest is apparently to deny something which does not enter the
knowledge-situation at all. Matter as an 'I know not what' is never
perceived through any sense ; it lies at the back of everything known
without itself being ever known. It is a kind of thing-in-itself, not only
because it is existent by itself, but also because itis the unknown and un-
knowable. Sahopalambhaniyama is applied to banish this abstrac-
tion. But the denial of object is a different matter altogether. Berkeley
imagines that as soon as an unknown material substratum of sensible
qualities is denied, everything sensed becomes ideal. His argument in
fact is based on a confusion between "matterism" 18 and realism. The
r~alist would welcome Berkeley's contention that a matter which can
never be brought within the ken of knowledge is a fiction. This doct-
rine of matter entails the acceptance of the theory of representative per-
ception and a three-term theory of knowledge, which is as repugnant to
the realist as to Berkeley. Berkeley however starts with the assumption
that what are actually experienced are only the sensible qualities. He
takes for granted that his denial of "matter," in the Lockian sense,
is the same thing as the denial_ of substance. But the realist, though
agreeing with Berkeley in rejecting an unknowable matter, would very
much insist on the reality of substance. Reality has no secrets from
knowledge. Substance must be accepted to account for the sense of
unity in the object, but it is not an unknown something. Substance
is as much perceptible as are the sensible qualities. A self-conscious
realist would hold that it is perceived by the same sense as cognises the
respective sense-data. 19 Against this theory of a perfectly transparent
object Berkeley's criticism loses all its force. According to realism,
though the object need not be known, yet when it is known at all, it
is theoretically capable of being known in its entirety, leaving no resi-
dual 'I know not what.'
Granting even that Berkeley's argument is applicable to the doct-
rine of substance also, and that there is no substance apart from the
particular sense-data, that does not make the latter subjective. It
makes the sense-qualities, if anything, still more objective. It would
be the substance which is subjective construction imposed upon the
objective sense-data. This theory is certainly not pure realism, but nor
is it in any way idealism. Berkeley makes both substance and attributes
subjective, but does not make out the fundamental distinction between
their respective orders. According to him, substance is a mere name,
having no reality whatsoever ; the sense-qualities are on the other hand
18. This word has been coined in the absence of a better one.
19. This, for example, is the Nyaya theory of perception.
YOGACARA AND SOME OTHER FORMS OF IDEA.LISM 209
real "ideas" existing solely for mind. But this is not enough. Even
though the substance be a mere name, the fact that the content perceiv-
ed is cognised as an "object" or a "thing" cannot be gainsaid. The
substance therefore is a subjective form or category under which the
attributes, which are real subjective ideas, are necessarily perceived.
Substance is the form of the objectification of sense-data. There are
thus two orders of subjectivity, as already discussed above.2o The sense-
data are real subjective facts ; but they are realised only as objectified,
and substance is this category of objectification. It has no ontological
status at all ; it can be called subjective because consc,iousness is its basis
on which it functions. It is the Avidya, or Transcendental Illusion
of the Yogacara, of which illusion Berkeley has not even an inkling.
In spite of his premises being faulty Berkeley's real intention is ob-
vious enough ; it is to deny the object as such. He raises all this dust
about "matter" because he takes his cue from the Lockian realism which
is not a basic type of realism at all. All the contents of experience are
reduced to so many "ideas" whose essence is to be perceived. The
status of an idea is however far from being clear. That its existence lies
solely in its being perceived does not make much sense. Berkeley
strongly insists on the distinction between the preceiving mind and the
perceived idea. 21 If the one is creative, active, dynamic, the other is
dead, passive, inert. How this sharp distinction is to be reconciled with
the utter dependence of an idea on mind ''Ternains unintelligible.
Difference can be maintained only between distinct existents. The
separate existence of an idea is however vehemently denied. If the
idea is different, why should it not enjoy an independent status ?
Whatever is distinct from consciousness is an 'other' to it, and once this
distinction is factually admitted, there is an end of idealism as such.
Although the Yogacara does not deny the idea of an 'other'-in fact
no theory of knowledge can do that-still it stops with the mere idea.
The distinction itself is within consciousness, and not between cons-
ciousness and something other than it. The esse of an idea is percipi
only because it is identical with the perception of it, is only a form of
consciousness. 22 Its apparent otherness is the way in which conscious-
20. See Supra, Ch. 7.
- 21. Principles of Human Knowledge, p. 186.
22. Berkeley explicitly denies this. Ibid. p. 136, "not by way of
mode or attribute, but by way of id~a."
14
210 TFlE YCGACARA IDEALISM
of :KliHa Manas. 2 3 The ego as well as the object are both mere forms of
consciousness; just as there is no object apart from the idea of it, so also
the ego has no real existence apart from the idea of it. Consciousness
is creative, and it creates the ego as also the object, though the
creation remains always ideal.
So also Berkeley's contention that the spirit is known in a different
way than the ideas are is not acceptable to the Yogadi.ra. Berkeley
holds that a spirit is not known by way of idea, and that we can have
only a "notion" ofit. 24 For the Yogacara, consciousness is diversified
into the various ideas, each of which is a unique and individual unit
(svalak~aJ;Ia) of consciousness. An idea knows itself in knowing the
content ; no separate act of know ledge-in the way of notion-is required
to make it known.
The reason as to why Berkeley does not have an inkling of svasam-
vitti is obvious. All knowledge is constituted by the ideas, which
are the contents of a min.:!. The mind, being the knower of the ideas,
cannot itself be known in the way of an idea, as that would require
another mind to cognize the new ideas and so on ad infinitum. The
Yogacara escapes this regress by abolishing once for all any distinction
between consciousness and something other than it. Consciousness,.
if it is to be known at all, 25 can be known only by itself.
The Yogacara would contend that any "spirit" over and above the
ideas cannot be accepted, since the latter are consciousness itself split
by the category of objectivity. Ideas play a double role in "Berkeley's
system. They are the immediate sense-presentations before the mind,.
and as such are distinguished, first, from an independent and external
object which has however no real existence ; in this sense they are
more or less subjective facts : secondly, the ideas are distinguished
from the subject, i.e., are objective contents before it. They are thus
both subjective as well as objective facts in the same breath ; the
Yogacara would urge that one cannot thus play fast and loose with the
ontological status of a thing. If the distinction between the ideas and
the spirit were made rigid, no scope is left for the creativity of con-
sciousness. It is by virtue of this creativity that an idea is precipitated,
which h~s no separate existence at all, not even a "passive" existence.
The distinction is within consciousness.. If ideas enjoy a distinct
existence, consciousness becomes then helpless before them, and idea-
lism is done away with. The content created cannot be absolutely
separated from the creative act.
The creativity of consciousness is the basic bed-rock of idealism.
That Berkeley is· not sufficiently aware of the implications of this doct-
rine can be shown by some other fundamental considerations. Though
Berkeley m.::~.kes much of the activity of consciousness, he gives it up
at the most crucial roints. In spite of consciousness being essentially
creative, the apparent fact that the external sense-data seem to force
themselves upon us cannot be denied "When in broad daylight I
open my eyes, it is not in my power to choose whether I shall see or
no, or to determine what particular objects shall present themselves
to my view .... the ideas imprinted on them(the senses) are not creatures
of my will." This apparent independence of the content experienced
milita~es against the idealistic epistemology. Metaphysics consists in
explaining all phenomena according to a consistent pattern. The idea-
listic solution of this realistic predicament should be the acceptance of
a different order of creativity. That will, which projects the world
of our waking experience, is not empirical at all. This is the Transcen-
dental Subjectivity of the Yogliclira. But instead of arriving at this
proper conclusion, Berkeley gives it such a twist, that it practically
ceases to be idealism. His argument for the existence and activity
of a supreme spirit, viz., God, is very much realistic. If the contents
of my experience are not the creation of my will, they are independent
of my will, whatevef their ultimate origin might be. My conscious-
ness has no jurisdiction over them; for me it is realism pure and simple.
The contention that the activity of consciousness is evinced in dreams
goes for nothing ; it can be made acceptable even to the realist. The
relation.that consciousness bears to the contents of its waking experi-
ence is the vital issue at stake. And here Berekeley is tragically one
with the realist.· Whether the ideas are imprinted by an independent
and external God, or they are produced by an independent and external
object, it does not make m·.1,ch difference. The one hypothesis is not
nearer idealism, than the other. O.:tce grant that the object is not
YOGACARA AND SOME OTHER FORMS OF IDEALISM 213
give rise to another, being itself exhausted in its being projected, the
Yogacli.ra cannot find fault with the statement. All ideas being momen-
tary, the concept of causality is here radically modified. An idea is
merely an occasion for the occurrence of another. Though an idea
dies an instantaneous death, it yet deposits its seed in the Alaya, which
produces further ideas in its turn. The governing factor is not an ex-
ternal God sitting above, but transcendental subjectivity i~pelled by
the category of objectivity. This requires an elaborate constructive
·theory about the different strata of consciousness of which there is
not a trace in Berkeley.
The most fundamental divergence between the two systems lies how-
<:ver somewhere else. However ill-worked out Berkeley's idealism may
be, that his real intention is to demolish objectivity cannot be doubted.
But since he is not aware of the full implication of this doctrine, he can
by no means arrive at the logical conclusion to which idealism tends,
-viz., absolutism. Any form of idealism which is not an absolutism can-
not even be a consistent idealism. The negation of the object cannot
be complete there, and an incomplete negation is no negation. In
Berkeley we find that the ideas take the place of the objects. If objec-
tivity is to be totally rejected, the first step is to make it a form of the
creativity of consciousness ; this, as we have seen, Berkeley has failed
to do. The second and more important step is to realise that the
""other' can:10t be retained even as a form; the creativity of conscious-
ness must be so purified as to be purged out of all traces of an 'other',
be it its own form. 31 Berkeley has not even the faintest notion about
1:he Absolute of pure Will. His system can at best be regarded
as containing some idealistic suggestions, but it is not pure
idealism. Since he makes an absolute distinction between spirit and its
idea>, the creativity of the former is very seriously checked; and the
cpe;tion as to whether the ideas themselves, even as mere forms of
C:J:l>ciou;!le>s., can be ultimate, does not even arise in Berkeley. His
ide1lism itself is half-hearted and can by no means yield an absolu-
tism. The Yogacira however, as we have already seen, is nothing if
he is not an., absolutist.
Il
Hegel
Hegel has been called the "prince of idealists." He is generally
supposed to represent the most perfect type of idealism in comparison
to which other types of idealism are all found to be defective in some
respect or other. It is incumbent to see how the Yogadira compares with
Hegel and what are their spiritual affinities and differences. Our account
of Hegel is necessarily very summary and is therefore somewhat
arbitrary. But in a comparative account not only is it excusable, it is
arther inevitable.
The key to the understanding of the Hegelian system is provided
by the logic of unity-in-difference. Neither identity by itself nor pure
difference is sufficient to render a thing intelligible. If a thing is suppos-
ed to be constituted by bare identity of the form 'A is A,' it is hardly
distinguishable from its negation. A thing must be a determinate
something, and "all determination is negation" as Spinoza said long
before. It must contain therefore negation as well as affirmation in its
constitution, and its complete explanation cannot dispense with either.
To posit a thing, it must be differentiated from all other things in the
universe ; otherwise, it would not be able to maintain its identity.
Identity, if it is to be significant, must be supported and defined by
difference. The norm of explanation is this identity-in-difference;
it is not abstract identity, but rather unity mediated by difference, iden-
tity as expressed in and through difference.
This logic is realised in the concept of the 'concrete universal.'
Truth is the whole, but this whole is not to be had apart from the
parts which constitute it and whose organic totality is the whole.
Ordinary consciousness perceives things as merely different :scientific
consciousness at the level of "understanding" perceives things
as relative to each other where one essentially depends upon ano-
ther for its reality. But even "understanding" is not the complete
truth of things: it leaves tb.ings in an unreconciled contradiction.
Understanding is to be transcended by Reason or the philosophic
consciousness. Here things are not merely particulars relative to each
other, but rather particulars permeated by this universal, the unity
underlying at the back of the differences, and which is the reality of
the partciulars. This universal is however concrete. A universal,
YOGACARA AND SOME OTHER FORMS OF IDEALISM 217
whiCh ·is realised apart from the particulars of which it is the univer-
sal is an abstraction and defeats its very purpose of functioning as a
universal. It cannot be different from its particulars. Nor is it com-
pletely identical with them ; it enjoys a mediated identity, or unity
in difference.
If relativity is the nature of things by which their apparent opposi-
tion is to be resolved, still more is it true of the most fundamental
opposition, that of the subject-object duality. A complete explana-
tion of a thing is not furnished until it is shown to be essentially re-
lated to the knowing subject for which it exists. The hypothesis of an
independent object existing unrelated to consciousness is refuted by
the logic of relativity. This has two implications. First, there can
be no irreducible surd, no unknown and unknowable thing-in-itself
outside knowledge, which cannot be made transparent to know-
ledge. Secondly, even the known object is shown to be necessarily
known ; being known enters into its being but for which fact it
would not be what it is.a2
But the other aspect of the concrete universal is equally true. The
subject is as much relative to the object as the latter is to it. If there
can be no object without the subject, nor can there be a subject unre-
lated to the object. Pure will is an abstraction. To will only itself
is to will nothing at all. There cannot be a knower without there being
something to be known.
Thus the opposites, thought and its content, are not left apart but
are reconciled as being relative to each other. But this is not enough
to establish idealism. An essential interrelation between the subject
and the object does not give the subject a prefer-=nce over the
latter. At best it would be a philosophy of indifference. All
difference presupposes a basic unity which alone makes the differents
intelligible. The subject-object opposition also must therefore be re-
solved and transcended in a higher unity. But this unity is not one of
the opposites. It has no nearer affinity to the subject than it has to the
object.
Hegel escapes this objection by making the ultimate reality, not
indeed bare consciousness, but self-consciousness. The two terms of
the epistemological duality are not on a par. Though the subject is
apparently just one of the terms as the object is the other, it has this
peculiar nature that it is at the same time conscious of the opposition.
The distinction between the subject and the object is a conscious
distinction ; its opposition to the object is an opposition for itself.
The subject therefore transcends or 'overreaches' the opposition.
The full elucidation of the nature of self requires that its opposition
to the not-self also be included in itself. It is one of the terms of
the opposition and also its spectator, the opposed term as well as
the reconciled unity.
The distinction between these two aspects of consciousness is not
a factual one ; it is purely logical. The subject as one of the opposed
terms does not exist in its solitariness ; it is an abstraction. All reality
is me:liated ; hence the reality of consciousness is self-consciousness,
where it is not asserted by itself but has been made· concrete by over-
reaching all opposition to itself. The object is therefore just a
moment in the life of the subject. It is necessary for the latter to go
out of itself only in order to return to itself with all possible richness.
As has been said before, the awareness of the objective is the
necessary condition for consciousness to pass into self-consciousness. 33
The relation between the subject and the object is not pure identity;
it is one of identity-in-difference, the most ultimate form of which is
illustrated in self-consciousness. The unity of consciomness does not
do away with the reality of the object. If the object were not an existent,
consciousness would not be mediated self-consciousness and would
cease to be even consciousness. The difference between the subject
and object is to be maintained. It remains to be seen in what sense they
are identical.
The object is a determinate existent among other determinate objects.
Hegel accepts the K.antian analysis that all determination is categori-
sation by the intelligence. The object has two aspects, viz., one is its
apparent discrete existence, and the other is its organic existence where
it shades off as it were into other objects. The first is its particularity
as the second is its universality. The latter is its essential nature
and here consciousness recognises its own counterpart. Reflection
pene~rates through the external surface to the iP..ner reality and
finds this to be ideal in nature.
So also in the case of the subject itself the two aspects must be care-
fully distinguished. The merely subjective is constituted by the ideas
peculiar to each individual. It may be quite important in the history
·of a particular person but it is important in that respect alone. Unless
•consciousness rises above the subjective and accidental associations
and takes the objective attitude it must bid farewell to all real intellec-
tual discourse.
The unity to be discovered between the subject and object is made
possible by the dual nature of each of them. When it is recognised that
the categories and forms of thought which constitute mind are also the
categories determining the object, the consciousness dawns that the
.reality of the object is spiritual. It is only necessary to remove the ex-
ternal accidents which hide this spiritual core and the unity would
be revealed in all its concreteness. Mind can take an objective
attitude only because it finds itself in the object. "Nature is the
extreme self-alienation of spirit in which it yet remains one with
itself." And the object is a necessity in the life of the subject because
~'the reality is the universal, which goes out of itself, patticularises
itself, opposes itself to itself, so that it may reach the deepest and
most comprehensve unity with itself.''
The Absolute is the most conctete "Idea" where all oppositions
.are reconciled. It necessarily breaks forth into the subject-object duality
in order to attain self-consciousness. The object is not a creation of
the individual consciousness. It is given to it, and consciousness is
not creative in the ordinary idealistic sense. Its cteativity consists in
:5triving to make the object its own. What is really creative is the Idea,
the universal Reason, which enters into the utmost opposition to itself
.and yet maintains its identity. The subject is not simply identical
with the object. Their distinction is to be scrupulously maintained and
the Idea realises itself only through this distinction. Its creativity
is an expression of self-determination. What is not determined is
indistinguishable from nothing and yet the ultimate reality cannot
be determined by an 'other,' for the simple reason that it includes all
oppositions within itself ; it is therefore determined by itself, and in
all its determinations it cannot go out of itself. The object is proved to
be a determination of spirit by the fact that what necessarily exists for
intelligence must be a manifestation of intelligence.
The Idea could not be the Absolute if it did not exist for itself.
220 THE YOGACARA IDEALISM
There are other unities exemplified in nature, e.g., life, which cannot
yet said to be ultimate as they exist for another, for a conscious
subject. It is only self-consciousness that exists for itself and it is by
the light of this that we must explain itself and all other things. It is
by virtue of self-consciousness that all-individual subjects partake
of ~he being of the universal Reason, the Absolute, whose creativity is
renewed in every conscious subject. '
Hegel therefore is not an idealist in the ordinary sense of the term,
unless the term be so defined as to rob it of all definiteness as a specific
theory. The Yogacara is a true idealist. For him reality is the subjec-
tive, the creative consciousness. Hegel however aspires to go beyond
the merely subjective and penetrate to the core of it which is a universal.
Creativity does not belong to the individual and discrete moments of
consciousness but to the objective Reason. But here the Yogacara
would urge that either thought is creative or it is not, and if it is not my
thought which is creative it matters little what else is. If the Yogacara
is c1lled a psychological idealist, the Hegelism system can by contrast
be termed logical idealism ; it is the system of logical categories,
culminating in self-consciousness, which is creative. Creativity is in-
terpreted as differentiation and integration in a higher level. But
this differentiation must be on the part of my thought. Hegel however
would brand this theory as subjective idealism.
These difficulties arise because llegel would not accept the reality
of simple consciousness. For him ail reality is mediated, hence cons-
ciousness must pass into self-consciousness in order to be real. Though
the Yogacara also accepts self-consciousness (svasamvedana), it is so
only because it cannot be helped. When consciousness itself is the sole
reality, it must take the place of both the knower and the known. But
he is conscious of the instability of the position. The object, though
only an illusory one, is still present there, and hence the illusion on the
part of consciousness of knowing something other than itself persists.
With the sublation of this illusion the emptiness of self-consciousness
is exposed; and consciousness again rests in itself (cittasya citte sthanat).
But Hegel accepts self-consciousness as the highest reality, even higher
than consciousness itself. The latter is merely a moment, as the object
is another, for the realisation of this reality. For the Yogacara, con-
sciousness is necessarily self-consciousness as there is nothing else to be
known. For Hegel, the latter is a return to consciousness, from the
YOGACARA AND SOME OTHER FORMS OF IDEALISM 221
simple 'abstract' unity of the mere subject to the mediated 1Ulity trans-
cending the subject-object duality.
Hegel's insistence on concreteness as the mark of reality would be
utterly unintellgible to the Yogacara. It is all very well to say that
reality must be mediated. A thing must be something in itself to be me-
diated even. The necessity for conceiving the unity or universal as
concrete is felt, since it cannot be realised apart from the particulars.
This however is not a correct appraisal of the Yogacara or the Vedanta
p:>sition. How is such a universal to be related to its particulars ?
That it cannot be different from them has been proved by He gel himself.
Nor can it be identical with the latter, as it would cease then to be their
universal. But identity-in-difference fares no better. The differents
cannot be reconciled with the identity. What is the relation between
the differents when they are opposed to each other and when they are
reconciled in the identity ? How to trace their identity in these two
states ? It is said that in the latter position their abstraction is removed.
But abstraction is the very soul of a particular. With the removal of
this it is changed beyond recognition. Hence it cannot be asserted
that the same particular enters into the unity even when without its
abstraction. The conclusion is that the universal can in no way be re-
conciled with the particulars if the reality of both be insisted upon.
The universal can be retained only if the particulars are given up.
Particularity is an illusion and the universal is their reality. 34 It is re-
alised, not through the particulars, but by negating the particulars.
This brings us to the fundamental difference of approach in the
Hegelian and the Yogacara analyses. The Yogacara bases his absolu-
tism on the negative judgment. The object is negated totally and
absolutely ; it is not retained even as a form of consciousness.
In Hegel the object is a necessity ; without it the subject would
not be a subject. Negation finds no place in Hegel, in the sense
that nothing is rejected in his system. The negation that is there
is better called difference ; it is simply on a par with affirmation.
Difference-it is not even an absolute opposition-is merely a
prelude to a greater and more perfect affirmation. But negation,
one at the cost of the other is to fail to understand the true nature of the
Absolute. It is the reality of phenomena, itself not being pheno-
menal, which can never be realised without making phenomena an
illusion. To retain pheomena withont their abstraction is unmeaning.
When two differents are reconciled in a unity, does the removal of their
abstraction effect any change in them or not ? If not, they remain still
unreconciled, and their unity is a chimera. But if it has, can we still
speak of the same differents being present in the unity ? Some other
thing is concerned then, and the former have been totally cancelled.
Aga.in and again Hegel stumbles against the fundamental fact of illusion,
but in his attempt to retain all the differences he refuses to profit by it.
Notwithstanding his violent protest to the contrary, his Absolute
remains just a system of relatives ; it cannot realise its absoluteness
without giving up being involved in the latter, i.e., without ceasing
to be 'concrete.'
Ill
Gentile
Gentile comes nearer to the Yogadi.ra in his theory of the mind as
'pure Act' than Hegel. Hegel as we have just seen is har.dly a true
idealist in the strictest epistemological sense. His system is be,tter
termed logical or rational idealism. In Gentile we again meet with a
full-fledged idealism, pleading for the supremacy of the subject,
and doing full justic~ to its creativity.
Reality is conceived by Gentile as process or act. "Nothing but
the c::>nstructive process is." 38 Though thought is reality for Hegel,
there is yet a very important difference between him and Gentile. Hegel
concentrates on the objective thought, i.e., the logical content of
thought, its meaning ; the actual process as to how this is being thought
is dismissed by him as inessential. Gentile restores to thought its idea-
listic prerogative. There is no thought apart from thinking. In
Hegel the dialectic "is understood as a dialectic of thing thought,"
whereas the true dialectic "can only be conceived as a dialectic of the
thinking outside which there is no thought." 29 When reality is con-
<:eived as being a thing thought of, it becomes abstract and loses
its dynamism. The thought in Hegel is like the Platonic Idea from
which "it is impossible to redescend to the individuals of na.ture."40
Hegel cannot solve the problem of individuation.
"Idealism is the negation of any reality which can be opposed to
thought as independent of it and as the presupposition of it ...41 No
better definition could be given by the Yogacara even. "Speaking
strictly, there can be no others outside us, for in knowing them and
speaking of them they are within us. To know is to identify, to over-
come otherness as such." 42 Again, "we know an object when there is
in that object nothing immediate, nothing which our thought finds there
already before we begin to know it, real therefore even before it is
known." 43
How do we know that the object cannot exist independent of the
knowing consciousness ? We again meet with the sahopalambhani-
yama (ego-centric predicament) which is the argument for idealism.
"Becaust", whatever effort we make to think or imagine other things or
other consciousnesses outside our own consciousness, these things
or consciousnesses remain within it, precisely because they are posited
by us, even though posited as external to us. The without is always
within. " 44 It is impossi hie to offer a better statement of the Yogicara
position. It is remarkable that Gentile does not fight shy of solipsism.
Like a true idealist, he is wise enough to perceive that the other minds
also sail in the same boat as the other objects do. 45
But the positing of the 'other' does not alienate it from mind. That
is because it is never posited finally, once for all. Spiritual activity
continues in the actuality of positing it. It is never posited but always
is to be posited.46 It is posited afresh in every moment.
If the object is a creation of the constructive process, the subject is
not less so. Nothing is real other than the actual act of thinking.
"Mind according to our theory is act or process not substance." 47 It
is not the subject of an activity of which it is independent. "Mind
Madhyamika, 7, 19ff, 147, 192ff. Obermiller, 2, 32, 33, 37, 44, 162,.
causality, according to, 7. 165, 173.
self,· according to, 9. object, objective, objectivity, 12,.
Miidhyamikakiirika, see under 15ff, 62fl, 90, 103ft, 127, 128,
abbreviations. 140ff, 159, 179ff.
Madhyamikiiloka, 44. occasionalism, 18.
Madhyantatibhatiga, 32, 39, see also On fome Aspects of tl:e DGctrir;a of
under abbreviations. Maitreya (natha) and Asanga, 31.
Mahayana, 25ff. Otto, 176.
Mahliyiinaungraha, 34, 39, 88. Outlines of Mahayiina Budd.bisnJ, 29.
Mahayan~Jraddhotpadailistra, 28, 29ff. Pancaskandhaprakaraf}a, 39.
Mahiiylinasiitriilankara, 32, 39, 163, Paratniirthasaptati, 38.
167, seealso underabbreviations· paramita, 166ff.
Mahiivastu, 167. paratantra, 14-8, 149, 151, 153.
Maitreya as anHisto.rical Personcge,31· parikalpita, 148, 14 9, 150.
Maitreya,asfounder ofYogacara,31. parini~paona, 148, 152ff.
historicity of, 3t. perception, distinguished frcm
Manual ofBuddhist Phil,sophy 3, 111. inference, 85.
McGovern, 3, 111. Peri, N., 36.
memory, SOff, 85. perm-anence, 4.
Mironov, 42. Perry, 45, 48, 68.
Mukherjee, S., 4, 44. Peterson, 42.
Mukhopadhyaya, S., 39. phenomena, 142ff.
nairatmyavada, 26. Philosophy of Leibnitz, 81.
negation, 126-27. physical world, the reality of, 73ff.
~New Realism, 45, 46, 48, 68. Pou&sin, 28, 34,38,88.
nim.ittabhaga, 90. Pradhan, P., 34.
nirvlit;~.a, 160 ff. prajiiaparamita, 163, t67.
236 'I'JtE YOGACARA IDEALISM