This paper is a comparative study on the communication process and its principle in Yogacara Buddhism and post-Wittgenstein theory. Yogacara Buddhism explains the process of language communication by analyzing the action of the mind. On the other hand post-Wittgenstein theory finds its principle by clarifying the relationship between language and object. The reason Yogacara Buddhism formed in the East and post-Wittgenstein theory in the West are able to be argued at the same place is that two theories all show the function of language, the universal feature of man. I find the common ground between two theories in this paper. The first is that two theories all criticize the world view that there is an entity behind the phenomenon. They regard the object of language not as an entity but as a being in the process of change. This is explained by the concept of anatman in Yogacara Buddhism and by that of ‘family resemblance’ in Post-Wittgenstein theory. The second common ground is that two all show the view that the meaning of language is determined whether the language conforms to the rules of the community or not. Yogacara Buddhism defines that the language and the rules of the community exist at vijnana in the form of abhilapavasanabija. Post-Wittgenstein theory shows that they belong to ‘life form’. Conclusionally I clarify that abhilapavasanabija in Yogacara Buddhism and ‘life form’ in post-Wittgenstein theory become to be the ground on which members of the community communicate with each other. I also find the difference between two theories. Yogacara Buddhism concretely explains the process of forming the subject and object of language through the division of vijnana. But post-Wittgenstein theory does not show this phenomenon.