EPISTEMOLOGICAL IDEALISM

IN CONTEXT OF DHARMAKIRTI AND KANT

SHRUTI SHARMA
RESEARCH SCHOLAR
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
 ABSTRACT

Epistemology is the science of knowledge. It is a science which enquires into the

nature, origin, range and conditions of knowledge. It means the theory of valid knowledge, an
important division of philosophical theory, the doctrine of man’s ability to cognize reality, on
the sources, forms and methods of cognitions, the truth and the ways of attaining it.
Knowledge in general is analyzable into ideas- ideas about things of the external world, about
men and about one’s own self. Idealism is a philosophical theory which is frequently
associated with the term “idea”. Epistemological idealism is a subjectivist position in
epistemology that holds that what one knows about an object exists only in one’s mind. It
suggests that everything we experience and know is of a mental nature- sense data in
philosophical jargon. In this paper I will discuss on epistemological idealism in context of
Dharmakirti, A well known Buddhist philosopher of Buddhist school of Yogacara-
vijnanavada in Indian philosophy and another on Immanuel Kant, A German philosopher,
who is one of the most influential philosophers in modern western philosophy. I will first try
to clarify the epistemic idealism of both philosophers i.e., Dharmakirti and Immanuel Kant. I
shall then focus on similarities and dissimilarities in them. My attempt will be that I’ll try to
suggest that, though Dharmakirti’s idealism is somehow close to Kant’s idealism but there
are major fundamental differences in their philosophies. It can be said that though
Dharmakirti’s idealism is similar to Kant’s epistemic idealism in some ways, but it must be
viewed as its own form of idealism.

Key words: Epistemological Idealism, Dharmakirti, Immanuel Kant, knowledge, self,

external world.
 EPISTEMOLOGICAL IDEALISM

IN CONTEXT OF DHARMAKIRTI AND KANT

Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy. Epistemology means the theory of
knowledge. It is a science which enquires into the nature, origin, range and conditions of
knowledge. It means the theory of valid knowledge, an important division of philosophical
theory, the doctrine on man’s ability to cognize reality, on the sources, forms and methods of
cognition, the truth and ways of attaining it. To study and generalize the sources and
development of knowledge, the transition from non-knowledge to knowledge is dealt in
epistemology. Knowledge in general is analyzable into ideas- ideas about things of the
external world, about men and about one’s own self. Idealism is a philosophical theory which
is frequently associated with the term “idea”. I want to distinguish here very briefly between
Metaphysical Idealism and Epistemological Idealism. Idealism could be seen as a system
within the field of metaphysics because the dominating theme within Idealism is the claim
that reality is dependent upon the mind rather than independent of the mind. Thus as the mind
and soul are unobservable aspects of reality, idealism is a metaphysical system. While
Epistemological Idealism, In contrast, Claim that we know things not as they really are rather
as they are given to us by our ideas, concepts or categories. In other word, we can say that we
know things not as they are but rather as we are. In this sense, I am going to compare
between these two philosophers, viz. Immanuel Kant and Dharmakirti.

DHARMAKIRTI’S IDEALISM

Dharmakirti wan an influential Indian Buddhist philosopher and one of the key scholars of
epistemology in Buddhist philosophy, and is associated with the Yogacāra Vijñanavāda
School. According to this school Consciousness alone exists, In its fallen state, it is
impersonal, Ideal and absolute .while in its pure unblemished state, It is devoid of any
content, or at least any that is endowed with the sense of being either internal and
subjective(grāhaka) or external and objective(grāhya). In its fallen state, however it identifies
itself with the contents characterized by a sense of subjectivity. It feels that it is many
subjects- in effect; we enlightened beings – confronted by a shared, physical world. To put
things differently, for Yogacara philosopher’s external world is but an Imagined (parikalpita)
projection of thought. In other words, our knowledge about the object is merely the
expression of our consciousness as objectified part which appears through the process of self-
differentiation of consciousness, because many objects in our knowledge are merely the
experience of interpreted one. They deny, at the outright, the reality of external objects and
treat them in the projection of the momentary vijnana. The objectivity is only a mode of
consciousness. When this illusory idea of objectivity is removed, the subjective
consciousness also ceases to exist (grahyabhava grahakabhavat).

Now, we will discuss the view of the three truths, which is known as the doctrine of
three natures (tri-svabha). The three svabhas are- Parikalpita, Paratantra and Parinispanna.
The word ‘Parikalpita’ itself indicates that it is merely an imagined truth. It has no intrinsic
existence of its own. Parikalpita being purely imaginary cannot be said to be eternal and that
which is not eternal cannot be existent ultimately. Therefore this satya has no truth at all.
Second, ‘Paratantra’ is so called because it is dependent on casualty. It includes the whole of
phenomenal reality. It is real on the empirical level. Though it exists for all practical
purposes, yet it is not the highest truth. They exist as illusory or as appearance. It is Paratantra
in the sense of projecting non-existent world on the pure consciousness. It applies to the
phenomenal world of subject-object duality, manifested by the creative consciousness
(alaya). The word ‘Parinispanna’ literally means well established truth (paritah nispannah). It
is called ‘Parmartha satya’ It is the nature of highest truth. It is equated with ‘Dharmadhatu’,
i.e., essence o nature of things.

Hence it is clear that these philosophers admit the existence of phenomenal world on
empirical level. They think, phenomenal world is transformation of the pure Vijnana only.
The Absolute transcends everything, but tainted with ignorance, it manifest itself as subject-
object duality. Yogacara philosophers analyze the entire process of phenomenalization of
pure consciousness in following manner.

‘Alaya-Vijnana’ is the first product of parinama out f pure consciousness (citta). It is

seed of all phenomena. K.D. Sinha, in his book Nairatmyavada, noted that –“Alaya-Vijnana
is the ground of the subject and the object of the empirical world.” It is called Alay because it
is the place or the seeds or impression of any karma. It is called Vijnana because of its ideal
form while it is called vipaka, because any kind of karma done by the individual in any
spheres of existence leaves its trace in the Alay. In other words, it is the store house of
different forms of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana further manifests itself in two forms. It takes
the form of an individual subject or ego (klist-manovijnana). And secondly, it manifests itself
in the form of various mental states and the so- called external object (visaya).In the three
stages in the evolution of consciousness, the second is Mana-vijnana. It is called ‘Manas’
because the process of intellect always goes on it. It is not dependent of consciousness. The
determinate awareness of the object is the third stage of consciousness, which is called the
‘pravrtti-vijnana’. This stage of consciousness matters only in empirical discourse and it is
known empirically only. “The alaya is the ocean; pravrtti vijnanas are the waves just as that
stirred by the wind- dance on the ocean and similarly the manifold individual vijnanas stirred
by the wind of objects which are the creation of ignorance, dance on the alaya. Once this idea
of objectivity is eradicated, all the three vijnanas revert to the pristine purity of
Vijnaptimatrata: the only reality of pure consciousness.

Vijnaptimatrata holds that only consciousness is the sole reality, “Vijnapti” means
‘representation’ and it denotes the mentally generated projections of subject and object that
are falsely believed to exist. Consciousness creates its own forms as the content of
consciousness is not imported from outside. By creativity of consciousness, it does not mean
that consciousness creates real physical objects. Its creativity lies in being diversified into
man modes; modes of consciousness. One idea generates another idea and not external
objects. For Dharmakirti the ultimate reality of this world is independent of mind. The so
called external object is only the object co-ordination of consciousness. It is internally
cognize by introspective and appears as external object. Dharmakirti states that we never
perceive or infer the external objects; what we perceive is only the sense-data. Our mind
received sense data and analyzes this data according to their own forms. Therefore, it is said
that all is mere mental creation, only the mind exists.

KANT’S IDEALISM

Immanuel Kant, the great German thinker of the 18th century, developed his critical
philosophy out of the careful and penetrating study of the two rival theories dominating the
philosophical field at that time. Empiricism with its theory of mind as ‘tabula rasa’ tried to
explain all knowledge in terms of its experienciability and consequently declared universality
and necessity unattainable in the field of knowledge, while rationalism upheld the superiority
of reason and declared that nothing was beyond the reach of human reason. Being a follower
of rationalistic tradition himself, Kant never questioned and suspected the ability of reason
until Hume, by his denial of certainty in Human knowledge aroused Kant from his
“Dogmatic Slumber”.

Reacting against Humean declaration Kant started philosophizing all over again,
recognizing the due claims of both experience and reason and at the same time denouncing
their one-sided assertion about the nature of knowledge. Both rationalism and empiricism
were dogmatic and uncritical since they started with their own dogma and, in a bid to
establish it, underestimated all that did not comply with it. It is then not surprising that Kant’s
new phase of philosophical career was dominated mainly by the problem of knowledge viz
the capability of human reason. In the preface to the first edition of his great work ‘Critique
of Pure Reason’, Kant refers to his new task saying, “It is a call to reason to undertake a new
the most difficult of all its tasks, namely that of self-knowledge and to institute a tribunal
which will assure to reason its lawful claims and dismiss all groundless pretentions, not by
despotic decrees, but in accordance with its own eternal and unalterable laws. This tribunal is
no other than the Critique of Pure Reason.

Recognizing the importance of experience in human knowledge Kant says, “There

can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience”, but the rationalist in him
adds immediately, “ But it does not follow that it all arises out of Experience. Kant clarifies
his point of investigation by asserting that our knowledge is a composite entity constituted of
impressions coming from without and forms and concept supplied from within. This analysis
of knowledge by Kant has resulted in some wonderful discoveries. In the first place , it has
been found that knowledge is a joint product of experience & reason, that is to mean that
knowledge is not entirely derived from experience in the form of external impression, nor
from reason in the form of a priori ideas & concepts. On the contrary, knowledge exhibits a
unique combination of both a posteriori and a priori elements. What is supplied from outside
has to be moulded in our subjective form and to be conceived according to the principle of
understanding. Kant here offers his own theory of space & time as subjective forms in which
alone we can receive anything that affect us either externally or internally. Our mind not only
receives but also conceives or understands.

Kant here discovers another formal element of human knowledge namely, the pure concepts
of understanding. These discoveries of Kant make it very clear that mind is not a passive
receptor in knowledge rather it actively participates in the act of producing knowledge from
sensation. Kant says, “There are two stems of human knowledge, sensibility &
understanding.” Sensibility is the faculty which receives the sensations that affects the mind.
Space & time in which sensation are received belongs to sensibility. Understanding is the
other faculty of mind by which the received sensations are conceived with the help of the
pure concepts. Anything known must confirm to these forms & concept of mind. From this it
follows that the object as known is always modified & conditioned by the laws of mind.
These laws are what Kant calls the a priori elements without which no objective knowledge is
ever possible.

Kant regards the role of a priori elements in knowledge to be vital enough to dedicate
the entire philosophical speculation in the critique of pure reason in solving the problem of
the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge which according to him entertains the
characteristics of being universal, necessary and at the same time novel.

In Kant’s philosophy the prominent dualities are of:

a) sensibility and understanding

b) forms & matter of appearance
c) percept & concept or intuition & thought
d) inner & outer
e) appearance & reality or phenomena & noumena

Kantian duality of matter and form of appearance may be viewed as having been conceived
from the point of view of their origin Kant says, “that in the appearance which
correspondence to sensation I terms its matter; but that which so determinate the manifold of
appearance that it allows of being ordered in certain relations I term in the form of
appearance.” Paton suggests that Kantian doctrine of forms & matter must be looked at from
the point of view of the distinction between empirical & universal.

The duality of percept and concept or intuition or thought is another significant innovation we
came across in Kant. Though percept & concept are distinct from each other in respect of
nature & origin they are complementary to each other in respect of their function Kant makes
the point clear. “Thoughts without content are empty, intuition without concepts are blind”.

Another very important duality entertain by Kant is a duality of inner & outer sense. Kant
regards the outer sense as a mental property by which we represent to ourselves objects as
outsiders and all without exception in space. In the same way the inner sense is another
mental property by which the mind institutes itself and other mental states.

Now the fifth one of appearance & reality or phenomena & noumena is a metaphysical
duality grounded on the epistemological ones. Kant naturally lead us to a kind of dualism
between that which is knowable with those powers of our own and that which stands beyond
the grasp of such power and hence are knowable. Phenomena & Noumena are those two
concepts.

From the explanations above we can say that Kant’s epistemology constitutes the most vital
aspects of his ontology. That’s why I take up Kant’s epistemology with occasional references
to its bearing on his ontology.

Final Assessment on both philosophies:

From the above mentioned explanations we found that there is some similarity between
Kant’s & Dharmakirti’s theory of knowledge where they choose two elements as the source
of knowledge as Dharmakirti has accepted ‘Svalaksana’(inference) &
‘Samanyalaksana’(Perception) as his two sources of knowledge and on the other hand Kant
has stated faculty of sensibility & faculty of understanding as his two sources of knowledge
wherein knowledge of phenomena is possible with the application of the categories of
understanding whereas knowledge of noumena is possible with the application of content of
sensibility.

Secondly, Buddhist theory of knowledge has resemblance with Kant’s transcendental

idealism. In Kant’s transcendental idealism it is not the mind that approaches the nature
rather; it is the nature which approaches the mind in order to be known. Mind gives its
relation, attributes and other elements through which the object is known. Thus whatever we
perceive through the categories of understanding. Hence, the things we perceive are ideas not
thing in themselves.

At last we can conclude that where Dharmakirti holds that consciousness is the only reality
and defines self as the root problem of miseries and pain , Kant accepts sensibility and
understanding as the two sources of knowledge and limit knowledge to make a room for
faith. he has asserted about the self that in its ultimate and nominal nature it is a free moral
agent.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Sharma, C.D. “A critical Survey of Indian philosophy” (1994), Motilal

Banarasidass Publishers, Delhi.
2. Trivedi, Saam. “Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism” Asian Philosophy,
(2005): 231-246.
3. Wayman, Alex. “The Yogacara Idealism” Philosophy East and West
Vol.15 No.1 (1965).
4. Kant, Immanuel. “Critique of Pure Reason” Translated and edited by Paul
Guyer and Allen W. Wood, New York: Cambridge university Press,
1998.
5. Baillie, J.B. “An Outline of the Idealist Construction of Experience”
Macmillan and Co., New York (1906).
6. Stcherbatsky, Th. “Buddhist Logic” (1994) Vol.1, Motilal Banarasidass
Publishers, Delhi.
7. Jayatilleke, K.N. “Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge” (1965), George
Allen and Unwin, London.
8. Ewing, A.C. “Short Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”
(1950), 2nd ed. London.
9. Paton, H.J. “The Categorical Imperative” (1963), London: Hutchison &
Co. LTD.
10. Tripathi, C.L. “The Problem Of Knowledge in Yogacara
Buddhism”(1972), Oriental Publishers, Varanasi.