Yogacara idealism

[Stephen Hodge]

Satya Upadhya wrote:

> I am tempted to quote directly from several scholars i have read,
who would
> disagree with what Mr/Ms Kellner says. It is tedious work, but i
will try

The trouble with the scholars you say you have read, such as Hiriyana
here, is that they are not specialists (afaik) on Yogacara.  You are,
of course, perfectly entitled to reject the views of somebody like
Lusthaus but he does specialize in Yogacara and might therefore be
considered better informed.

> "Budhistic idealism also is of two types: The first of them is pure
> subjectivism...The followers of this view are known as Yogacara...In
fact in
> the triple factor commonly assumed wherever experience
arises--"knower",
> "known", and "knowledge"--the last alone is here taken to be true.
There is
> neither subject nor object but only a succession of ideas.
Your author mentions in his first line "pure subjectivism" and then
says "there is neither subject nor object" -- this seems a strange
form of subjectivism to me.   Moreover, where do the Yogacarins say
that "knowledge" is true ?   The term "ABHUUTA-parikalpa" is used
synonymously for "vij~naana" !

> The specific form which cognition at any particular instant assumes
is determined in this
> view, not by an outside object presented to it, but by past
experience.

Note: "the SPECIFIC form" is what is determined.   Have you come
across the common example given in a number of Yogacaara texts, such
as in Sthiramati's .tiikaa on the Madyaanta-vibhaaga (ad I.4),  about
a certain X which is experienced as liquid fire by hell denizens, pus
and excrement by pretas, water by humans and am.rta by gods ?   There
is also the analogy involving the illusory elephant given by
Vasubandhu in his Trisvabhaava-nirde`sa (vv27-30) where he
distinguishes between "vij~aana" and "tattva" (v30).   This seems
strongly to suggest that there is some kind of external "object"
though its _specific_ form is determined by the vaasanaas.

I won't comment on the remainder of your quote for lack of time but
perhaps the above is enough to contradict Hiriyana's presentation of
the Yogacaara position.

I would urge you, as has already been done, to read the primary
sources yourself, restricting your reading intitially to the
recognized classical Yogacaara authors (Maitreya, Asa`nga, Vasubandhu
and Sthiramati).  The position of both Dignaaga and Dharmakiirti is
problematic -- in the Tibetan tradition which directly inherited and
exhaustively studied their doctrinal lineage, they are considered more
as Sautraantikas.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge

PS:  If I may speak for her, Birgit Kellner is a she as far as I know
:)