Giving a new translation and interpretation of the basic works of Vasubandhu, the author shows that Yogacara metaphysics is basically the same as that of the early Buddhism. The texts included herein are: (i) Madhyanta Vibhaga Karika Bhasya, (ii) Trisvabhavanirdesa, (iii) Trimsatika, and (iv) Vimsatika.
This is a surprisingly rigorous analysis of Vasubandhu’s primary writings. Kochumuttom argues quite incisively, against the vast majority of scholarship, that Vasubandhu was a realist, or at best a Kantian, and not a Berkeleyan subjective idealist. His argument, however unintuitive it may seem to us, is difficult to reject summarily. But I’ll mention one possible response here: Vasubandhu, as a Buddhist philosopher, must maintain that the ultimate nature of reality is devoid of all concepts. Hence, ultimate reality can only be described as “thusness” (tathatā). If so, how can we argue, with Kochumuttom, that Vasubandhu’s system may as well be compatible with ‘pluralistic realism’? Wouldn’t that amount to imposing a concept of our understanding – what is plural, what is real? – on ultimate reality, which is by definition, ineffable and nonconceptual?