Yogacara idealism

[birgit kellner]

Saturday, January 06, 2001, 2:25:32 AM, Satya Upadhya wrote:

SU> I am tempted to quote directly from several scholars i have read, who would
SU> disagree with what Mr/Ms Kellner says. It is tedious work, but i will try. I
SU> request Mr/Ms Kellner (forgive me, but i can't make out ur sex from ur name)
SU> and also other Budhist scholars (Stephen Hodge, etc) to comment on what
SU> follows:

The quotes you indicate do not in fact disagree with what I have said,
which once more suggests that you did not read carefully enough what I
wrote before.
As Hiriyanna states, "There is consequently no NEED to assume that they (sc.
thoughts and things) are distinct, and they may well be viewed as different phases of one and the
same factor" (emphasis mine). That is, from the
sahopalambhaniyama-argument itself, it follows that the assumption of
external reality is not NECESSARY in order to explain cognitions, but
from this argument itself it does not follow that it is not POSSIBLE.
Note also Matilal's rather cautious remark in this direction: "The notion of blue as external to our awareness
of it is thereby (sc. by the sahopalambhaniyama-argument) rendered
extremely DUBIOUS."
Now, whether the tenet that the assumption of external reality is
UNNECESSARY in order to explain human cognitive experience is counted
as "idealism" is a matter of one's standards for idealism, but it
should nevertheless be borne in mind that these arguments do not claim
that external reality does not exist.

---
Best regards,

Birgit Kellner (Ms.)
Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies
Vienna University