Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


IDEALISM IN YOGACARA BUDDHISM

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
83414på.jpg


By Sean Butler

Abstract

In the last fifty years or so, since Yogacara texts have been available to western academics, there has been a debate as to how Yogacara Buddhism should be interpreted. This article seeks to establish that Yogacara Buddhism is most properly interpreted as an idealist school of Buddhist thought. Specifically, it challenges the arguments that have been put forth in recent years that suggest a phenomenological interpretation of Yogacara Buddhism. The primary target of my argumentation is Dan Lusthaus but arguments of other scholars are also taken into account. In the process of defending my thesis I will explain the fundamentals of Yogacara Buddhism, provide the reasons why Yogacara Buddhism should be interpreted as an idealist school, provide reasons why some have interpreted Yogacara Buddhism as phenomenology, refute non-idealist interpretations of Yogacara Buddhism, and investigate the relation between Yogacara Buddhism and other forms of idealism. In order to achieve each of these goals I will utilize the original texts of Yogacara Buddhism, known as Trimsika the authored by Vasubandhu and the Cheng Wei-Shih Lun, authored by Hsüan-Tsang. I will also reference and expound upon the philosophies of George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant, and Georg Hegel along with recent scholars who have partaken in this debate. “All this is consciousness-only, because of the appearance of nonexistent objects, just as someone with an optical disorder may see nonexistent nets of hair.”1

Introduction

Yogacara Buddhism is often interpreted as an idealist school, a school of Buddhist thought that holds reality to be immaterial, or only mental2 This interpretation is sometimes disputed. Here I will demonstrate that Yogacara philosophy is most properly interpreted as idealism. I will then address some non-idealist interpretations of Yogacara, primarily, but not limited to, Dan Lusthaus’ claim that Yogacara is phenomenology, and demonstrate their failure. Lastly I will briefly explore the similarities and differences between Yogacara and various forms of idealist philosophies

Yogacara Buddhism

Yogacara Buddhism is an Indian Buddhist school “founded in the late fourth century CE by Asanga and his brother Vasubandhu, as the second of the two major Hahayana philosophical traditions.” “Yogacara” is a composite term of “yoga,” or “discipline,” and “cara,” or “practice.” Yogacara Buddhism, then, is essentially Buddhist practice of discipline. Like all Buddhist schools Yogacara aims at the cessation of dukkha, loosely translated as suffering, which is realized at the attainment of enlightenment. Because attachment is the cause of dukkha, and attachment is an activity of the mind, Yogacarans involve themselves in an exploration of the mind. The primary conclusions to which the Yogacarans arrive to explain the role of the mind are (1) everything is mind only; (2) that there is an alayavijñana, or store-house consciousness, which allows for continuity of a “self” despite universal momentariness; (3) vasanas, or subliminal inclinations, act as karmic seeds that are stored in the alayavijñana; (4) the manas, or ego consciousness, influenced by the vasanas, color or “perfume” our perception of the world; (5) the perceived world is vijnanaparinama, or a manifestation of the transforming of the consciousness; and (6) there are three forms of being, or svabhavas, the imagined, the dependent and the absolute. These primary tenets of Yogacara philosophy guide nearly all debate as to how Yogacara is most properly interpreted, ie. whether or not Yogacara Buddhism is idealism. All Yogacarans will generally agree with these six conclusions. There does exist disagreement internal to the Yogacara school; for example, practitioners disagree as to how one comes to escape from sa? sara, or the cycle of re-birth and redeath, how one gets rid of the vasanas in order to cease the production of karmic fruit, and whether or not the alayavijñana is overturned upon enlightenment. But the disagreements that are internal to the Yogacara school are not relevant to the task of this paper.

3. Why Yogacara Is Idealism

It is not uncommon to interpret Yogacara as idealism. Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti, in their essay “Philosophy of Mind in the Yogacara Buddhist Idealistic School,” take the Yogacaran understanding of svabhavas to profess idealism: two of these natures (the dependent and the imagined) constitute the empirical reality, and the third one, the Absolute. To study these three natures is to study the empirical reality and the Absolute; to define the essence of these three natures is to define the essence of the empirical reality and of the Absolute; and to establish the relation which links both of them, and to show the mechanism by means of which the imagined nature comes forth from the dependent nature, is to show the process of how the empirical world is created from the mind

Their analysis of the three forms of being seems to yield not only a mind-dependant world but also a mind-created world. This conclusion is supported by Vasubandhu in verse 17 of his Trimsika: The transformation of consciousness is imagination. What is imagined B y it does not exist. Therefore everything is representation-only.8 This is also illustrated in verse 18:

For consciousness is the seed of everything. Transformation in such and such ways Proceeds through mutual influence, so that such and such imagination is born.9

Further, verse 17 is reminiscent of Kant’s transcendental idealism, which claims that empirical perceptions are only appearances.10 Verse 18 more closely resembles Berkeley’s idealistic claim that the world is mind dependant.11 In either case it is hard to imagine that these claims are not idealistic. Verse 17 explicitly categorizes all things as representations that are dependant on the imagination (a function of the mind) rather than the sensing of a real world. Verse 18 clearly establishes consciousness, or the mind, as the foundation for all things (including physical objects). The clear reaction to Vasubandhu’s writings is, I think, the one that Paul Griffiths summarizes well when he states,

The cosmos, then, is straightforwardly said to be nothing more than mental events, and, as Vasubandhu points out, mental representations do not necessarily (perhaps necessarily do not, though this interpretation is questionable) possess, or have as their intentional objects, physical objects external to the mind.12

In Yogacara Buddhism, priority is definitely given to the mind’s involvement in the world and, under some understandings of idealism, priority given to the mind is sufficient. The Dictionary of Philosophy defines idealism as:

[…] any system or doctrine whose fundamental interpretative principle is ideal. Broadly, any theoretical or practical view emphasizing mind (soul, spirit, life) or what is characteristically of pre-eminent value or significance to it. Negatively, the alternative to Materialism.13 Other understandings of idealism differ. For example, S. Trivedi distinguishes between three types of idealism (i) metaphysical idealism (the idealism put forward by George Berkeley), (ii) epistemic idealism (the idealism put forward by Emmanuel Kant), and (iii) absolute idealism (the idealism put forward by Georg Hegel).14

8 Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 291. Dan Lusthaus uses Richard Robinson’s translation. 9 Ibid., 292. 10 Emmanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason, ed. trans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 155. 11 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “George Berkeley,” WMU Library, http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/berkeley/ 12 Paul Griffiths, “The Attainment of Cessation in the Yogacara Tradition,” in On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem, (La Salle: Open Court, 1986), 80.

13 Dagobert D. Runes, The Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Citadel Press, 2001), 142. 14 A discussion on the similarities and differences between the philosophies of Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel, would be far too technical and lengthy a process to undertake here. Readers who are interested in

Trivedi understands idealism in its Western sense by the philosophers who are called idealists, namely Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel.15 Because Trivedi’s understanding of idealism is rooted in the systems of these Western philosophers, he concludes that Vasubandhu’s conclusions are not idealist conclusions. However, there is no good reason to consider idealism only in its Western context. Advaita philosophy, for example, is idealism; and while this sort of idealism resembles more closely absolute idealism, it is not identical to Hegel’s philosophy and would therefore, according to Trivedi’s criteria, not be idealism.

A criterion that idealism be rooted only in the philosophies of particular thinkers is an absurd criterion, for if it is the case that idealism is defined by similarity to idealist thinkers in history, then thinkers such as Kant, who is almost universally considered to be an idealist but whose philosophy was new and unique, would be excluded from the category simply because idealism existed before Kant did, thus excluding Kant’s new idealism. In other words the category of idealism, according to Trivedi, is temporally and culturally restricted, allowing for no new idealists in the future or outside of the Western tradition. It is fair to question whether or not Yogacara should be associated with the philosophies of idealists in the West, but not to question whether or not Yogacara is idealism, for it resembles too closely those philosophies that are unquestionably idealist and fits the criterion of giving priority to the mind. 4. A rguments F or A Non-Idealist Interpretation O f Yogacara

We have already partly explored one objection to Yogacara as idealism. It is appropriate now to reinterpret Trivedi’s objection in its full context, as well as other objections to Yogacara as idealism, such as that raised by Lusthaus. I have already established that Trivedi’s criterion for idealism is absurd, but his criterion is not at the heart of his argument. Trivedi’s primary objection is that Vasubandhu’s position has been taken out of context and made to seem more like idealism than it actually is.16 Trivedi suggests that Vasubandhu’s Yogacara has been influenced by Tibetans. When Buddhists were forced out of India by Islamic invaders, Buddhism essentially left India and lost its historical and cultural context. Trivedi argues that this would be like studying Kant as though he were a Frenchman. We could not, he claims, do justice to Kant’s philosophy from this perspective. Philosophies, rather, must be understood contextually.17

To reinforce his objection, Trivedi targets Garfield’s conclusions that Yogacara is metaphysical idealism, instead suggesting that Yogacara is phenomenology. His position is based on the fact that Vasubandhu did not make any ontological claims. Trivedi’s argument resembles one of Dan Lusthaus’s arguments against the idealistic interpretation of Yogacara. Lusthaus quite plainly argues in favor of a phenomenalist interpretation of Yogacara. Whereas Trivedi’s focus is solely on Vasubandhu, Lusthaus’s arguments are inclusive of later Yogacarans. He also makes the argument that idealism requires ontological commitments that Vasubandhu and other Yogacarans

15 Saam Trivedi, “Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism,” Asian Philosophy 15 (3): 231. 16 Saam Trivedi, “Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism,” Asian Philosophy 15 (3): 244. 17 Ibid.

have demonstrably avoided. Lusthaus takes Hsüan-Tsang’s Ch’eng wei-shih lun to make the epistemology of Yogacara explicit: “remote alambana [[[objects]]] are ‘external hyle [raw sense material].’”18 Lusthaus interprets this passage as a rejection of the knowable outside of raw sense material; he takes this to be evidence for Trivedi and Lusthaus’s claim that the epistemic conclusions put forth by Yogacarans have been misinterpreted as ontological when they actually avoid ontological commitments.19 Essentially the argument in favor of phenomenology is that the epistemic claims made by Yogacarans do not commit them to any ontological claims.

Furthermore, Lusthaus sees another rejection of idealism in the Ch’eng wei-shih lun having to do with an externality to consciousness. The Ch’eng wei-shih lun affirms the existence of other minds. Lusthaus takes this to be fatal to the idealist interpretation. He states, “once and for all a very common misconception concerning Yogacara as an idealism can be put to rest. Yogacara does not posit any single overarching ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ as the source or solitary existent of or in the world.”20 Lusthaus takes metaphysical idealism to be necessarily solipsistic and, if he is correct, then the Ch’eng wei-shih lun has indeed delivered the fatal blow to interpretations of Yogacara as an idealism. The power of Lusthaus’s argument is best expressed in his own words:

Nothing whatsoever, especially if it can be appropriated by conversation or cognition, can properly be said to be radically separate from consciousness. This does not entail the absurd consequence that my consciousness and my consciousness alone has thoroughly and utterly constructed the entire Livedworld in which I locate myself as a self. While there are things that operate in ways that are significantly independent of my consciousness, their independence does not imply externality. I perceive other minds as moved by wills and intents other than my own. But I perceive them. Does this nonexternal “external” mind establish a perceptual pattern that might equally be applied to other things? […] If so, then all shreds of metaphysical idealism will have been precluded from the Yogacara position.21

The third and final argument Lusthaus offers against Yogacara Buddhism being interpreted as idealism is that idealism commits itself to the mind, whereas Yogacara seeks the mind’s destruction. Recall that the aim of all Buddhist schools is the cessation of dukkha. To accomplish this goal Yogacarans have explored the consciousness because of its direct involvement in causing dukkha. Lusthaus offers two arguments: Yogacara (yoga practice) doctrine received that name because it provided a “yoga,” a comprehensive, therapeutic framework for engaging in the practices that lead to the goal of the bodhisattva path, namely enlightened cognition. Meditation served as the laboratory in which one could study how the mind operated.22 And moreover,

Consciousness (vijnana) is not the ultimate reality or solution, but rather the

18 Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 504. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 487. 21 Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 491. 22 Ibid., 533.

root problem. This problem emerges in ordinary mental operations, and it can only be solved by bringing those operations to an end.23 For dukkha to be overcome, the whole system of Yogacara needs to be halted. Yogacara explains how the mind operates in samsara, but this is precisely what is to be avoided. Yogacara simply cannot be an idealism if its ultimate goal is to overcome itself.

The last objection which I will offer is that of John M. Koller. Koller argues from the same position put forth by Lusthaus. Yogacara is not idealism, claims Koller, but rather a middle path between idealism and realism.24 Because Yogacarans acknowledge that “there is a basis for the constructions of object and subject and that this basis can be known directly, they avoid the idealist error of claiming that persons and things exist only as ideas in the mind.”25 This is to say that Yogacarans understand that their efforts to understand the functioning of the mind are meant only to explain how dukkha arises from “selves” that exist outside of their idealistic structure. In other words, there is a foundation in the world from which the Yogacaran system arises that is not contained within consciousness. We can infer from this claim that upon reaching enlightenment, or the cessation of dukkha and therefore the cessation of the Yogacaran system, one will have attained an existence that is not described by Yogacara, one that is not involved in the conditioning of the world by the consciousness.

5. Refuting Non-Idealist Interpretations O f Yogacara

Here I will argue that, though the above objections to interpreting Yogacara as idealism may sound convincing, they are flawed. I will address each of the objections outlined above. Additionally, although some of the above arguments are interrelated, I will do my best to address them each individually. Trivedi has argued that an idealist interpretation of Yogacara fails to recognize the context in which Yogacara was first put forth by Vasubandhu. He claimed that Yogacara has been inappropriately colored by a context of which it is not a part. He claimed that Western and Tibetan interpretations are flawed in the same way that understanding Kant in the context of the French existentialists would be.26 While it is true that context is valuable in understanding historical philosophy, Trivedi seems to give it too much weight. Studying Kant in a French context would surely change the way we view his philosophy, but not to the extent that we would no longer call him a transcendental idealist. Kant would still have a categorical imperative. We would surely be able to recognize his arguments for the world of appearances and the a priori cause to believe in a world beyond our appearances. I concede that certain aspects of how Kant is understood might change; for example, we might not recognize him as being the inspiration for Fichte, but those claims that are internal to Kant would remain untouched so long as the translations represented them accurately. Furthermore, Yogacara has been viewed in its historical and cultural context and is still understood

23 Ibid., 533. 24 John M. Koller, Asian Philosophies (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), 102. 25 John M. Koller, Asian Philosophies (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), 102. 26 Saam Trivedi, “Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism,” Asian Philosophy 15 (3): 244.

as idealistic. Karl H. Potter, in his book Presuppositions of India’s Philosophies, investigated the various schools of thought in India and their relations to each other.

Yogacara, Potter reports, is an idealist Buddhist school influenced by Advaita and Madhyamika, among others. Trivedi argues that we have misunderstood Yogacara. It seems obvious that, if he is correct, it is not simply because of the context in which we study it.

The second objection Trivedi puts forth is the same as that of Lusthaus; Yogacara, they argue, is not idealism but phenomenology. First of all, there is nothing inherent in phenomenology that precludes idealism. Usually phenomenology is distinguished from idealism in that it deals only with what is presented to the mind and makes no ontological commitments, however, the lack of ontological commitments does not preclude idealism. Trivedi and Lusthaus are right to acknowledge the phenomenological aspects of Yogacara, but are incorrect in believing that Yogacara is only phenomenology. The doctrine of cittmata, or “all is

mind only,” is read in two ways. First, it can be read as the ontological claim that all existing objects are minddependant, the one that Griffiths takes to be blatantly idealistic. It holds that the entire cosmos to be composed of mind “stuff” and nothing else. The second way to interpret cittmata, the interpretation that Lusthaus and Trivedi favor, is that consciousness cannot transcend itself, that all events that are brought before the mind involve the mind’s participation. This second interpretation makes no claim outside of what is brought before the mind and is therefore phenomenological. I argue that these two claims are not mutually exclusive. If we are to assume there is something other than mind then the second interpretation precludes the first, however, if there is only mind, then there is nothing beyond phenomenology to make claims about, and phenomenology becomes idealism. For this reason it would be premature to take cittmata as either an idealistic or a phenomenological claim in and of itself. Whether or not cittmata is a doctrine of idealism or phenomenology hinges on whether or not there is anything other than mind.

The task of discovering whether or not there is anything other than mind is a difficult one because Yogacarans do not talk about anything outside of the mind. In fact, anything outside of the mind must be considered to be “unreal,” because in order for anything to be outside of the mind there must be unconditioned dharmas; however, dharmas are by definition conditioned, thus unconditioned dharmas are unreal.27 If anything outside of the mind is “unreal” then what is real is mind-only. This conclusion agrees with both the idealist and the phenomenalist interpretation of cittmata.

To make the point clear let us look at how a Western idealist approaches the issue. George Berkeley has an argument that commits the phenomenological conclusion to idealism. Berkeley first establishes a mind-only principle and concludes from this principle the impossibility of objects outside of a mind: That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas formed by the imagination, exist without the mind, is what everybody will allow. And it seems no less evident that the various sensations or ideas imprinted on the sense, however blended or combined together (that is, whatever objects they compose) cannot exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving them. I think an intuitive knowl-

27 Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 528-9.

edge may be obtained of this, by anyone that shall attend to what is meant by the term exist when applied to sensible things. The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it. […] For as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their esse is percipi, nor is it possible they should have any existence, out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.28

The power of Berkeley’s argument lies in the necessity of one’s cognitive involvement in the world; this Lusthaus admits to. When considered linguistically, or what we mean when we say X, the phenomenological interpretation of cittmata commits one to the idealist claim. What is meant by ontology is that which is, was, or will be presented to the mind. Thus phenomenal claims are ontological claims; this logically follows from the recognition that the mind cannot escape itself. So we see that though Yogacarans have not explicitly made this argument, the positions to which they adhere commit them to the ontological interpretation of cittmata. With the ontological claim established, we see that Trivedi, Lusthaus and any others who interpret Yogacara as phenomenology may do so, so long as they do not mistakenly take this to mean that Yogacara is not also idealism.

Having established the failure of the argument for a phenomenology that precludes idealism, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on how it is that Lusthaus in particular came to reject idealism. Lusthaus seeks to reject idealism is because he finds it repugnant; Lusthaus believes that idealism necessitates solipsism. Recall that Lusthaus claims that the recognition of other minds in the Ch’eng wei-shih lun “does not entail the absurd consequence that my consciousness and my consciousness alone has thoroughly and utterly constructed the entire Lived-world in which I locate myself as a self.”29 It is common for idealism to be misinterpreted as solipsism, especially the metaphysical idealism of Berkeley which we have likened to Yogacara. Berkeley has often

been interpreted as a solipsist because of his tenet “esse is percipi.” Certainly the claim that “to be is to be perceived,” from the perspective of the individual, yields a sort of phenomenological solipsism, however, Berkeley’s full claim is not expressed in this tenet. The full claim is “esse is percipi aut percipere,” or “to be is to be perceived or to be a perceiver.” Because Berkeley is a metaphysical idealist, and not a solipsist, we can conclude that metaphysical idealism does not require solipsism. Lusthaus is simply wrong to think that the existence of other minds entails the rejection of idealism. Furthermore, the absolute idealism of Hegel requires other minds, so even if Berkeley were a solipsist, the existence of other minds would not preclude every type of idealism.

A second misunderstanding of idealism that is common amongst those (Lusthaus included) who find it repugnant is that idealism entails a rejection of the reality of the world. It is easy to see how one would come to this conclusion. When the waking world is equated with the dreaming world, as is done explicitly in Yogacara and is

28 George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, ed. Kenneth Winkler (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982), 24.

29 Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 491.

suggested by other idealisms, one could easily take this to entail that the unreality of the dreaming world is now the unreality of the waking world. This is no more correct than a materialist concluding that the material reality of the waking world entails the material reality of the dreaming world. Idealism does not claim that the world does not exist; idealism claims that materialists misinterpret existence to require materiality. The world still exists for the idealist, just not materially. I take Lusthaus to be a victim to this misunderstanding when he says, “If they [[[Yogacarans]]] are not idealists, what are they? What do they posit as real, if anything?”30 If this misunderstanding is corrected I think that scholars like Lusthaus and Trivedi would not be so eager to reject an idealist interpretation of Yogacara.

That being said, Koller’s objection is now much easier to address. If the phenomenological interpretation of Yogacara is really an idealistic interpretation, then what is left to address about Koller’s objection is the idealistic mistake “that persons and things exist only as ideas in the mind.”31 Koller maintains that the foundation for cognition precludes the possibility of persons and things existing only as ideas. This objection carries weight against the absolute idealism of Hegel but fails to properly understand the idealism of Kant or Berkeley. Kant’s transcendental idealism does not preclude a foundational existence; in fact it embraces the foundation and calls it noumena. Berkeley also recognizes the foundation of thought as being something other than ideas. Berkeley claims that there are not just ideas, but also minds or spirits that perceive the ideas (which are not ideas themselves). It seems that Koller is simply mistaken to think that idealists, or at least idealists other than Hegel, treat perceivers as ideas in the mind.

I have now shown that the compelling arguments offered by Lusthaus, Trivedi, and Koller ultimately fail and the interpretation of Yogacara as anything but idealism either fails to understand idealism or mistakes phenomenology as necessarily excluding idealism. I will now move to a discussion on the similarities and differences between Yogacara and various kinds of idealism.

6. What Sort O f Idealism Is Yogacara?

Having established that Yogacara is in fact idealism, it is now appropriate to investigate the question: what sort of idealism is Yogacara? It is not necessary for Yogacara to fit Western models of idealism, but it will be useful to see in what ways Yogacara parallels each of these. Of course a sufficiently thorough investigation is too large a task to undertake here, but establishing some similarities and differences will prove useful. We can eliminate an interpretation of Yogacara as absolute idealism up front. Absolute idealism, the idealism of Hegel, is unique to a particular method. Hegel uses a dialectical method or logic that is nowhere to be found in the Yogacara tradition. Furthermore, in the absence of this method, Koller’s objection outlined above suggests that a view of idea-only is not compatible with the Yogacaran requirement for a foundation from which the consciousness can operate. There is, however, one impor-

30 Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 6. 31 John M. Koller, Asian Philosophies (Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), 102.

tant similarity between Yogacara and absolute idealism: the concept of the self. Being a Buddhist school requires that Yogacarans maintain a denial of a distinct self. In Hegel’s philosophy there is a self that is created through the recognition of the other. The process for the creation of the “self” in Hegel’s philosophy closely resembles the interdependence of the “self” in Buddhism. In Buddhism it is not so much a denial of the self but rather a denial of an individually existing and independent self. Hegel’s self is similarly not distinct but dependant upon its involvement in the world.

The next two idealisms to which I will compare Yogacara are the epistemic idealism of Kant and the metaphysical idealism of Berkeley. Yogacara shares a great deal of similarity with both of these forms of idealism. The vasanas or “perfumings” in Yogacara are reminiscent of Kant’s categories. For Kant there is a structure in each of us, a way in which we must perceive the world. This structure determines how we perceive the world. For example, Kant challenges the reality of absolute space and time and reduces them to a sort of rational set of goggles that each of us wears which forces the world of appearances into a structure of time and space. This is similar to Yogacara in that, within that philosophy, our karmic seeds or vasanas determine how the world is presented to

us. Also, according to Kant’s idealism, the perceived world is really just the mind in much the same way that Yogacarans use a mirror analogy to express the seeming externality of the world which, for them, is really internal. Another analogy that can be drawn is that freedom from samsara in Yogacara, seen through Kant’s eyes, would be an attempt at recognizing the world in itself, what Kant would call the noumenal world. Kant prescribes a priori reason as the vehicle to the noumenal world, whereas Yogacarans believe that through a thorough investigation into the world of appearances, one can learn how to differentiate or stop one’s attachment to appearances and come to know ultimate reality. In both philosophies the ultimate reality is beyond the mind’s grasp but is nevertheless accepted as real. Yogacara parts paths with epistemic idealism when it comes to their respective views of the self. Whereas Yogacarans’ view of the self more closely resembles absolute idealism, epistemic idealism presumes a distinct self. There are other places in which these philosophies fail to meet, but it is sufficient to establish that Yogacara cannot be epistemic idealism due to the different notions of the self.

Metaphysical idealism and Yogacara will also part paths in their understanding of the self. For this reason, Yogacara cannot be equated with metaphysical idealism, though we should also acknowledge where these two philosophies concur. Metaphysical idealism and Yogacara agree that the “selfexperiences the world as mindonly. The objects of consciousness according to both philosophies are mental events. Berkeley maintains that these mental events are ideas, whereas Yogacarans maintain a less strict and slightly more complex explanation for the objects of perception. Berkeley will also diverge from Yogacara in the understanding of particulars. The Yogacarans adhere to the Buddhist doctrine of interdependent arising, which requires a more interconnected explanation with regard to any particular. Berkeley, on the other hand, maintains particulars in the form of minima sensibilia, or the minimal object of sense, which act as the building blocks for the whole phenomenal world. Yogacara has some vital commonalities with metaphysical idealism, but alas, they do not completely coincide.

7. Conclusion

The congruences and departures between Yogacara and idealism are vast in number. Though I have not been able to explore the issue thoroughly here, what is important to note is that Yogacara, though similar in many regards with idealisms in the West, must be viewed as its own form of idealism. That it is idealism can no longer be denied, yet it obviously does not fit into our traditional Western models. This should not, as Trivedi has suggested, exclude Yogacara from the category of idealism, but instead be an impetus for change in the Western understanding of the term.

Bibliography

Berkeley, George. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Edited by Kenneth Winkler. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982. Berkeley, George. Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. Edited by Robert Merrihew Adams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979.

Griffiths, Paul. “The Attainment of Cessation in the Yogacara Tradition.” In On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem, (La Salle: Open Court, 1986). Inwood, M. J., ed. Hegel Selections. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Koller, John M. Asian Philosophies. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

Lusthaus, Dan. Buddhist Phenomenology. New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002. McMichael, James, “Idealism in Yoga-Vasistha and Yogacara Buddhism.” Darshana International. Vol. 17 (Moradabad, 1977). Ornan, Rotem. “Vasubandhu’s Idealism: An encounter between philosophy and religion.” Asian Philosophy Vol. 3 No.1 (1993). Potter, Karl H. Presuppositions of India’s Philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers PVT. LTD. 2002.

Riley, Shirley. Marxism and Phenomenology. London: Croom Helm, 1986. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “George Berkeley,” WMU Library. http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/ Timalsina, Sthaneshwar. “Consciousness in Indian Philosophy: The Advaita Docterine of Ekajiva,” New York: Routledge, 2009. Tola, Fernando and Dragonetti, Carmen. “Philosophy of Mind in the Yogacara Buddhist Idealistic School.” History of Psychiatry, 16 (4). Trivedi, Saam. “Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism.” Asian Philosophy, 15 (3) (2005): 231-246. Wayman, Alex. “The Yogacara Idealism.” Philosophy East and West Vol.15 No.1 (1965): 65-73. White Beck, Lewis, ed., Kant Selectons. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1988.



Source