In 1968, Dr. Yoshifumi Ueda and Dr. Gadjin Nagao argued about the doctrine of the three self-natures in the philosophy of consciousness-only (唯識三性説). This is called “the argument of Ueda and Nagao (上田・長尾論争)” by Japanese scholars. The fundamental difference between the opinion of Nagao and the opinion of Ueda is whether “parikalpya” exists between the subject of cognition and the object of cognition. When referring to the Trimsikakarika (17, 20, 21), “parikalpya”, which has a character of existence as the paratantra-svabhava during the subject of cognition (vikalpa) and the object of cognition (yad vikalpyate), seems not to exist. However, Asanga says that “parikalpya” which has a character of existence as the paratantra-svabhava exists between parikalpya and parikalpita-svabhava in the Mahayana-samgraha. The purpose of this paper is to point out the following:
“Parikalpa limited to manovijñana” which Asanga mentions in the Mahayanasamgraha and “vikalpa” which Vasubandhu mentions in the Trimsikakarika are heterogeneous. One of the causes of the argument between Ueda and Nagao is that they assumed that “parikalpa” and “vikalpa” were homogeneous.