Clarifying Yogācāra "Idealism"

anon · February 1, 2011, 3:19pm

For the practicing Buddhist, as well as for anyone who seeks to understand Buddhist views, it is paramount that one always considers how to understand what has been taught - in what way is such and such teaching true?

Yogācāra is a school of Buddhism that teaches a certain view of reality as a basis for practice. According to most, if not all, of the current Buddhist schools which reference Yogācāra, this view of reality, though useful and advanced, is not ultimate - it is not “highest” view, but a useful tenet along a graduated path of understanding. Nonetheless, the Yogācāra school, which is also called the “mind only” school has been categorized and dismissed by many intellectuals as a form of idealism. According to Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, who is well qualified to help the educated modern student understand and put into context these ancient teachings, it is neither accurate nor helpful to characterize Yogācāra as idealism in the western sense. Here is an extract from a talk he gave on the Abhidharmasamuccaya in 1983. The portion quoted is from a question and answer session:

Q: Was atman one of the two notions that the Yogacarins had?
A: Atma. In a Hindu context, atma normally means self or soul, something like
that. Here, atma is related to any kind of subjective experience. We don’t have to
infer about our own subjective experiences, we directly experience them. Anything
that we have to infer, that we have to use inference for, is the objective side, which
is dharma.

Q: So the objective side is what actually happens?
A: What is experienced. We might have to use inference or we might not. It
depends on whether it’s taking place in our own mind. If we experience a table,
then that is outside our experience, in some sense. We directly experience a
toothache or a headache, but it is experienced, so there is some kind of objective
side. It could be physical or mental, depending on the situation.

Q: I missed the point of why of you referred to atma and dharma.
A: The whole process of the three levels of consciousness is related to atma and
dharma, subject and object. The interaction between the three levels of
consciousness is related to subject and object, through and through.

Q: The person and their world.
A: That’s right. The person and their world. At the same time, on the objective
level it includes a person’s thought process as well. Thought and what thought is
about. Aggression and what a person is aggressive about. Aggression on the
subjective side, what one is aggressive about on the objective side. The person and
their view of the world. The world is on the objective side, the person is on the
subjective side. That’s atma and dharma. The whole thing is explained as a
transformation of a conscious process.

Q: Atma and dharma come from the alayavijnana, so both are forms of
consciousness. They’re basically the same thing.
A: That’s right. We have to keep in mind that we’re not talking about chairs and
tables as they are. We’re talking about how we experience chairs and tables.
Sometimes people have interpreted Yogacara as saying that a chair is in your
mind, a table is in your mind, everything is in your mind. Yogacara is really
talking about how we experience these things. We’re not talking about how they
exist in themselves.

Q: But there is the Yogacarin statement of cittamatra, that there is mind only.
A: Yogacarins put so much emphasis on the mind because they are concerned with
practice. Some people have thought they were saying that everything is in your
mind. Some of these people were influenced by certain Western philosophies.
When Berkeley said “Whatever you see or hear is in your own mind, it’s all ideas”,
they thought “This really makes sense.” I think there’s a problem there.

Q: When you’re talking about everything coming from the mind, what you’re
talking about is our reactions and perceptions of things?
A: That’s right. We are not concerned about whether or not a chair exists. That’s
secondary. Why spend so much time arguing about whether or not a chair exists,
instead of learning how we experience and relate to the chair, and what sort of
experience we’ve got?

source (PDF)

JohnJones · February 1, 2011, 10:16pm

anon:

For the practicing Buddhist, as well as for anyone who seeks to understand Buddhist views, it is paramount that one always considers how to understand what has been taught - in what way is such and such teaching true?

Yogācāra is a school of Buddhism that teaches a certain view of reality as a basis for practice. According to most, if not all, of the current Buddhist schools which reference Yogācāra, this view of reality, though useful and advanced, is not ultimate - it is not “highest” view, but a useful tenet along a graduated path of understanding. Nonetheless, the Yogācāra school, which is also called the “mind only” school has been categorized and dismissed by many intellectuals as a form of idealism. According to Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, who is well qualified to help the educated modern student understand and put into context these ancient teachings, it is neither accurate nor helpful to characterize Yogācāra as idealism in the western sense. Here is an extract from a talk he gave on the Abhidharmasamuccaya in 1983. The portion quoted is from a question and answer session:

Q: Was atman one of the two notions that the Yogacarins had?
A: Atma. In a Hindu context, atma normally means self or soul, something like
that. Here, atma is related to any kind of subjective experience. We don’t have to
infer about our own subjective experiences, we directly experience them. Anything
that we have to infer, that we have to use inference for, is the objective side, which
is dharma.

Q: So the objective side is what actually happens?
A: What is experienced. We might have to use inference or we might not. It
depends on whether it’s taking place in our own mind. If we experience a table,
then that is outside our experience, in some sense. We directly experience a
toothache or a headache, but it is experienced, so there is some kind of objective
side. It could be physical or mental, depending on the situation.

Q: I missed the point of why of you referred to atma and dharma.
A: The whole process of the three levels of consciousness is related to atma and
dharma, subject and object. The interaction between the three levels of
consciousness is related to subject and object, through and through.

Q: The person and their world.
A: That’s right. The person and their world. At the same time, on the objective
level it includes a person’s thought process as well. Thought and what thought is
about. Aggression and what a person is aggressive about. Aggression on the
subjective side, what one is aggressive about on the objective side. The person and
their view of the world. The world is on the objective side, the person is on the
subjective side. That’s atma and dharma. The whole thing is explained as a
transformation of a conscious process.

Q: Atma and dharma come from the alayavijnana, so both are forms of
consciousness. They’re basically the same thing.
A: That’s right. We have to keep in mind that we’re not talking about chairs and
tables as they are. We’re talking about how we experience chairs and tables.
Sometimes people have interpreted Yogacara as saying that a chair is in your
mind, a table is in your mind, everything is in your mind. Yogacara is really
talking about how we experience these things. We’re not talking about how they
exist in themselves.

Q: But there is the Yogacarin statement of cittamatra, that there is mind only.
A: Yogacarins put so much emphasis on the mind because they are concerned with
practice. Some people have thought they were saying that everything is in your
mind. Some of these people were influenced by certain Western philosophies.
When Berkeley said “Whatever you see or hear is in your own mind, it’s all ideas”,
they thought “This really makes sense.” I think there’s a problem there.

Q: When you’re talking about everything coming from the mind, what you’re
talking about is our reactions and perceptions of things?
A: That’s right. We are not concerned about whether or not a chair exists. That’s
secondary. Why spend so much time arguing about whether or not a chair exists,
instead of learning how we experience and relate to the chair, and what sort of
experience we’ve got?

source (PDF)

In this race Wittgenstein and Kant may be level, if not overtaking. I too could inform Mr. Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche.

anon · February 2, 2011, 12:24am

What race are you referring to, JJ?

without-music · August 16, 2011, 11:55am

This is brilliant. It seems phenomenological, in direct opposition to the metaphysical. I wonder at the similarities between an Eastern phenomenology of this type and a Western philosophy like Husserl’s.

anon · August 16, 2011, 12:02pm

It’s definitely in opposition to metaphysical dabbling. I’ve wondered about Husserl, but I never got very far in trying to figure Husserl out.

without-music · August 16, 2011, 12:05pm

I like that.

I think it might be rather productive to draw out the parallels and differences between the two approaches. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the phenomenological tradition.

anon · August 16, 2011, 12:08pm

Very true. Now you’ve got me thinking about studying Husserl a bit…

without-music · August 16, 2011, 12:12pm

The graduate school I’m hoping to attend next year specializes in a comparative approach between Eastern and Western philosophies. This might be something for me to keep in mind. Thanks!

anon · August 16, 2011, 12:13pm

Damn, perfect for you then! I’m jealous.