empirical  basis, for  the pragmatic  test  of truth
　　   also  proceeds  in  reference  to  pure,  "sensible"
　　   experience.  To be proved  as  true, an intellectual
　　   operation  must  be  confluent  with  a wave  in the
　　   "finite stream of feeling":

　　   Only  in so far  as they  lead  us, successfully  or
　　   unsuccessfully, into sensible experience  again, are
　　   our  abstracts  and  universals  true  or  false  at
　　   all.(68)

　　   If James denied the existence of a world external to
　　   consciousness,  the  empirical  test  would  not  be
　　   possible.  If thoughts were things, then the thought
　　   of a fire would  be very handy  if one were stranded
　　   in a blizzard, but, as James points  out, some fires
　　   will burn sticks  and warm our bodies  and some will
　　   not:

　　   Mental  fire  is what  won't  burn  real  sticks....
　　   Mental knives  may be sharp, but they won't cut real
　　   wood....  With  'real'  objects,  on  the  contrary,
　　   consequences   always  accrue;  and  thus  the  real
　　   experiences  get sifted  from  the mental  ones, the
　　   things from our thoughts of them.(69)

　　   To put it simply, the pragmatic aspect of empiricism
　　   means  that when a concept  is true  its application
　　   will "work satisfactorily."(70)

　　　　  Arthakriyaa   can  be  translated  as  "to  work
　　   satisfactorily"  or  "workability."  Other  possible
　　   translations  are  "causal  efficacy, "  "successful
　　   action," and "useful  action."(71) The concept  does
　　   not  figure  in the  Madhyaantavibhaaga, but  it was
　　   developed by later Yogaacaara logicians--notably  by
　　   Dharmakiirti  in his Pramaa.navaarttika(72)--as part
　　   of pramaa.na  theory, the theory of the sources  and
　　   criteria   of  valid  knowledge.   Arthakriyaa   was
　　   designated  as the means  of distinguishing  between
　　   real  and  erroneous   perceptions.   One  classical
　　   Yogaacaara  example is that of fire.  One can have a
　　   valid perception of a fire, a mistaken perception of
　　   a fire, or merely a mental image of a fire. The test
　　   of validity  is whether  the fire can burn  fuel and
　　   cook food.(73) Another classical  example is that of
　　   a mirage.  One can have a perception  of water  when
　　   what one is in fact  seeing  is only  a mirage.  The
　　   test  in this  case  as in the case  of fire  is the
　　   consequences  of the cognition  when acted upon.  If
　　   one  can drink  and quench  one's  thirst, then  the