Vasubandhu

← Encyclopedia

Vasubandhu was an Indian Buddhist philosopher of the fourth or fifth century CE, remembered as the foremost systematizer of the Yogacara school and the author of one of the most influential surveys of Buddhist doctrine ever written. He came out of Purusapura — the city later called Peshawar, in the old country of Gandhara, in the northwest of the Indian world, where the Buddhist scholastic academies were thickest and the argument between schools ran hottest. His name attaches to two bodies of work that point in different directions, and the relation between them is the central problem of his biography. One name, two minds: the realist anatomist of mental events who wrote the great Abhidharma compendium, and the master who undid the outer world into consciousness alone. The tradition keeps them one man, converted; modern scholarship has wondered whether they were ever the same person at all.

The realist and his commentary

The tradition tells of a scholar trained in the realist Abhidharma of the northwestern schools, who composed the Abhidharmakosha — a verse compendium of that system, followed by his own prose commentary criticizing it from a more skeptical standpoint. The full work, the Abhidharmakoshabhashya, is one of the strangest and most demanding texts in the Buddhist corpus: roughly six hundred verses laying out, in clean order, the whole machinery of the Sarvastivada-Vaibhashika analysis — the catalog of dharmas, the irreducible momentary factors into which experience is taken apart, the workings of karma, the architecture of the cosmos and of the contemplative path — and then a running prose auto-commentary that turns on that very system and presses it from the standpoint of the rival Sautrantika school. The verses build the cathedral; the commentary interrogates the masonry. The Vaibhashikas of Kashmir held that the elementary factors of existence are real across the three times, that what is past and what is future are not nothing; Vasubandhu’s prose worries this doctrine relentlessly, defending a leaner account on which only the present moment of a factor is real and the rest is causal residue. The realists of Kashmir are said to have answered him, and the controversy ran on for generations after all of them were gone.

The Abhidharmakosha became a standard textbook across the Buddhist world and is still studied in Tibet and East Asia. In the Gelug curriculum founded by Tsongkhapa it remains one of the five great treatises of the monastic course, memorized and debated centuries after its composition; in the Chinese tradition it was rendered twice into Chinese and grew its own school of commentary. To survey the dharma-analysis of early Buddhism at all is, very largely, to read Vasubandhu surveying it — which is why the dispute over who he was matters beyond the antiquarian: it is a dispute over the spine of a whole literature.

The conversion and the turn to mind

Later, the accounts say, Vasubandhu was won over to the Mahayana by his elder brother Asanga and turned his analytic gifts to the defense of Yogacara, the school whose name means “the practice of yoga” and whose teaching is often rendered “consciousness-only.” The conversion story has the shape of a parable in the traditional biographies: the formidable younger brother, who had ridiculed the Great Vehicle, is brought around by the elder, and on grasping his error proposes to cut out the tongue that had slandered the teaching — and is told instead to spend that tongue praising it. Whatever lies under the legend, the writings gathered under his name in this second phase did, in fact, give Yogacara its classic doctrinal form. He is counted, with Asanga, among the founders of one of the two great philosophical currents of Indian Mahayana — the other being the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, with its teaching that all things are empty of own-being. Where Nagarjuna’s tradition works by dismantling every fixed position from outside, the Yogacara that Vasubandhu shaped works from inside experience, asking what is actually given when anything is given at all.

To this period belong the short, dense treatises that fixed the school’s classic form: the Vimshatika, twenty verses arguing that the objects of experience need no external world to account for them, and the Trimshika, thirty verses mapping the layers of mind, including the storehouse consciousness in which the seeds of past action are held. The Vimshatika is built as a sustained refutation: against the objection that perception must be caused by external things, it answers that a dream presents a fully ordered world — places, times, bodies, consequences — with no outer object behind any of it, and that the felt solidity of waking experience proves nothing the dream does not also seem to prove. Its sharpest passage turns on the atom: the indivisible material particle that the realist schools made the ground of the physical world. Vasubandhu argues that the atom cannot do the work asked of it — that it can be neither truly partless nor capable of aggregating into the extended objects we seem to touch — so the external object it was meant to underwrite dissolves under analysis, and what remains is the structured appearing itself.

The Trimshika turns from refutation to architecture. It is here that the mind is given its depth-structure: not one consciousness but a layered system, crowned by the storehouse — the substratum consciousness that carries forward the seeds of past deeds, ripening them into fresh experience and so binding one life’s actions to the next moment, the next mood, the next rebirth. This is the engine that lets karma work without an enduring self to carry it: a stream of conditioning, storing and discharging, with no owner behind it. Over this storehouse runs a second, self-regarding consciousness that mistakes the stream for an “I,” and over that the familiar six consciousnesses of the senses and the discriminating mind. The whole apparatus exists, on the Trimshika’s account, in order to be seen through and stilled — the path it describes is a reversal in the depths, where the storehouse is emptied of its defiled seeds and the construction of an inner subject facing an outer world falls away. The doctrine is at once a metaphysics and a map for meditation; the school never separated the two, which is why its name is the practice of yoga and not a theory of knowledge alone.

Consciousness-only and the question of idealism

What Yogacara taught, on Vasubandhu’s exposition, was not that nothing exists, but that what is given in experience is a transformation of consciousness rather than a report on things standing outside it. The ordinary sense of an external world confronting an inner observer is itself, on this reading, something consciousness produces; liberation lies in seeing through that construction. The technical term is vijnapti-matra — “representation-only,” or “cognition-only” — and the stress falls on the matra, the “only”: not that there are no appearances, but that appearance is all the way down, with no separate stuff hiding behind it to be the cause of how things look. The three-natured analysis that Yogacara sets beside this — the constructed character of things as we falsely fix them, the dependent character of how they actually arise in conditioned flow, and the perfected character of how they show once the falsification drops — is offered as the diagnosis underneath: suffering is rooted not in the world but in a habit of mind that splits the field of experience into grasper and grasped and then takes the split for reality.

How far this amounts to an idealism in the European sense, and how far to a disciplined account of how experience is structured, has been argued by interpreters for centuries. One line reads Vasubandhu as a metaphysical idealist who denies the existence of matter outright, a near cousin to the later European thesis that to be is to be perceived. Another reads him as making a narrower, epistemic point — that the external object is logically idle, that nothing in experience requires it, and that the discipline is to stop reaching past the given for a referent that explains nothing. The difference is not merely academic: it decides whether Yogacara is a claim about what exists or a therapy for how attention is misdirected. The later Buddhist traditions of Tibet and East Asia inherited the dispute and never fully closed it; in Tibetan Buddhism the relation of “mind-only” to the emptiness-teaching of the Madhyamaka became one of the standing questions of the philosophical curriculum, ranked and reranked by school after school. A Hindu parallel sharpens the point from outside: Gaudapada, the early Advaita Vedanta thinker of the Mandukya Karika, argued a non-origination and a dream-analysis close enough to the Yogacara that the question of who borrowed from whom has occupied scholars for a century — and yet his non-dual brahman is precisely the kind of single underlying reality that Vasubandhu’s analysis refuses. The resemblance is in the method of dissolving the object; the destinations are not the same.

The two Vasubandhus

Modern scholarship has added a complication the tradition did not record. In 1951 Erich Frauwallner proposed, in a short monograph published in Rome, that the sources had merged two distinct men of the same name — an older Vasubandhu, brother of Asanga and a Yogacara master, and a younger author of the Abhidharmakosha — separated by perhaps a century. The argument leaned on discrepancies in the traditional biographies, on the differing royal patrons named, and on a reading of the early Chinese accounts; its appeal was that it made the strangeness of the corpus go away, assigning the realist’s textbook and the idealist’s treatises to different hands rather than one improbably versatile life. The thesis has been influential and is also widely contested. Within a few years Padmanabh Jaini, working from a Sanskrit Abhidharma text recovered in Tibet, the Abhidharmadipa, argued that its author treated the Kosha and its author as a single, recent opponent, undercutting the century-wide gap; later scholars have noted that several of the Chinese documents Frauwallner relied upon are of doubtful authority. The dates that would settle the matter cannot be fixed with precision, and the question of one Vasubandhu or two is no longer the live battleground it was at mid-century, though no single resolution commands the field.

What is not in doubt is that the writings gathered under the name shaped the course of Indian, Tibetan, and East Asian Buddhist thought. They traveled the length of the Mahayana world: carried into China by the great translators and built into schools there, transmitted to Japan, and made foundational to the philosophical training of Tibetan Buddhism, where the Abhidharmakosha sits in the monastic core to this day. The same northwestern academies and sea routes that moved Yogacara also moved the tantric currents that figures like Vajrabodhi would carry by ship to Tang China — a later and distinct stream, but one that drew on the consciousness-analysis Vasubandhu had fixed. Across all of it the teaching of the Buddha, as Buddhism carried it outward, was handed on partly in the vocabulary this one philosopher had forged.

The texts and their study

The Abhidharmakosha survives whole in Sanskrit and in two Chinese versions and one Tibetan; its standard modern presentation is the great French translation by Louis de La Vallee Poussin, L’Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu (6 vols., 1923–1931), made from the Chinese of Xuanzang and rendered into English in turn by Leo Pruden as Abhidharmakosabhasyam (4 vols., 1988–1990). The Yogacara treatises are most accessibly gathered, with translation and a careful biographical reconstruction, in Stefan Anacker’s Seven Works of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor (Motilal Banarsidass, 1984), which prints the Vimshatika and Trimshika among the works it judges securely his.

The authorship question turns on a small library of close studies. Erich Frauwallner’s On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu (Serie Orientale Roma III, IsMEO, Rome, 1951) is the founding statement of the two-Vasubandhus thesis; Padmanabh Jaini’s On the Theory of Two Vasubandhus (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 21, 1958) is the sharpest early answer to it. On the philosophical core — whether the Vimshatika establishes an idealism or something weaker — the most thorough recent treatment is Birgit Kellner and John Taber, Studies in Yogacara-Vijnanavada Idealism I: The Interpretation of Vasubandhu’s Vimsika (Asiatische Studien / Etudes Asiatiques 68:3, 2014), which re-argues the strong idealist reading against a generation of interpreters who had softened it into phenomenology. The biographical tradition itself rests on Paramartha’s sixth-century Chinese Life of Vasubandhu and the seventh-century travel record of Xuanzang, both of which the modern debate reads against the texts.

To read the Trimshika to its end is to be brought to the place its whole analysis was built for: the moment when the consciousness that has been manufacturing a subject and an object all along turns and recognizes the manufacture. There is no further fact lying behind the recognition, no outer world finally confirmed or denied — only the appearing, seen now as appearing, the seam between grasper and grasped no longer mistaken for a wall. Whether a single hand wrote both the Abhidharmakosha and the Trimshika, or two near-contemporaries were later gathered under one name — the question Frauwallner pressed in 1951 — the writings did their work either way. The analytic vocabulary of the Kosha and the consciousness-only turn of the Trimshika together became the working apparatus of Mahayana scholasticism, carried into Tibet and East Asia as the standard account of how a mind is taken apart and what is found when the taking-apart is done.

→ Related: Vajrabodhi · Gnosis · Mahayana · Nagarjuna · Buddhism · Buddha · Karma · Tibetan Buddhism · Tsongkhapa · Gaudapada · Meditation · Reincarnation