• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.144
• /
• pp.167-203
• /
• 2017

In this paper I will investigate the problems of the Ego of Kant, Husserl and $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ from the standpoint of $trisvabh{\bar{a}}va$ and the transformation of the basis of $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$. Kant's Copernican revolution and Husserl's Phenomenological reduction are the keys to understanding their philosophies. We especially want to look into the comparison between the Ego of Kant, Husserl and $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$. According to Kant, we need the transcendental Ego as absolute in order to unite consciousness. Kant criticizes traditional metaphysics which had argued that the metaphysicians regard the transcendental Ego as substance. If they regard the transcendental Ego as an empirical object, this attempt will be in vain, because they seek to know unknown things. Husserl's phenomenological reduction is properly understood as a method designed to transform a philosopher into a phenomenologist by virtue of the attainment of a certain perspective on the world phenomenon. We will find the field of the transcendental, absolute ego through phenomenological reduction. Transcendental, absolute ego constitutes our whole world and gives meaning to the world. $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ argues that what our ordinary consciousness (the sixth consciousness) regards subjectivity and objectivity as separate, or that self and the world is an imagination that $alaya-vij{\tilde{n}}ana$, the mind more profound than the ordinary consciousness, created. $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra^{\prime}s$ $alaya-vij{\tilde{n}}ana$ creates the whole objects and the consciousness (the sixth), so we must regard them as illusionary. $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ insists that there are three natures of mind and we attain the transformation of the basis in mind. Based on this point of view, Kant, Husserl and $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ want to transcend and overcome the limits of the ordinary consciousness, and then they want to find the absolute truth (everything) and want to be a men of freedom.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.117
• /
• pp.35-55
• /
• 2011

This article purports to clarify the doctrinal characteristics of the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school's hermeneutic interpretations of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra" in the Saṃdbinirmocana-sūtra through early Indian $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ treatises such as the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}rabb{\bar{u}}mi-vy{\bar{a}}kby{\bar{a}}$ and the. $Vy{\bar{a}}khy{\bar{a}}yukti$. It will probe how these interpretations apply co the theory of two truths or that of three natures($trisvabh{\bar{a}}va$) among the main doctrines of the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school. Especially, the peculiar characteristic of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra" is such chat the thought of ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$ in the lineage of $Praj{\bar{n}}{\bar{a}}p{\bar{a}}ramita-s{\bar{u}}tras$ is regarded as incomplete, as the early school of Madhyamaka represented by $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna$ is conceived of as belonging to the second period of turn. Speaking of the further details of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra", the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school subdivides the realm of saṃvṛti satya in $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna^{\prime}s$ theory of two truths; that is, it divides the saṃvṛti into merely linguistic existence and actual existence, and the thus-created structure of the theory of three natures on the basis of ocher-dependent nature(paratantra-$svabh{\bar{a}}va$) makes it possible to establish the doctrinal system of the thought of ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$ that is not subject to "nihilism or ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$ attached to evil." In effect, the above hermeneutic interpretation of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra" is inherited into the structure of the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$ in the $Madhy{\bar{a}}nta-vibh{\bar{a}}ga$ so that, as seen in the commentary of Sthiramati, it is ascertained to apply to later doctrines through its secure establishment. To summarize its characteristics succinctly, firstly the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$ newly established as a saṃvṛti-satya is set up as the other-dependent nature, which is seen to have been set up particularly in order to sublate both the $Sarv{\bar{a}}stiv{\bar{a}}da^{\prime}s$ realist "view of being" and the Madhyamaka's "view of ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$" that impairs the ocher-dependent nature as a samvṛti-satya. In other words, according to the five kinds of views suggested in Sthiramati's commentary, the three natures are seen to be presented as the fundamental truth in order to unify all the doctrinal systems available ever since the beginning of Buddhism. Then, the theory of three natures is established principally on the basis of the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$, while the two truths of the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school are clearly ascertained to have been embedded in the structure of the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$. In fact, this might be understood to reflect the unique ontological view of reality or truth in the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ School.