1.3. The Buddhist View

When a man is called trustworthy the things said by him are experienced by us to be same what he said and which are not made incorrect later on. Similarly, in the field of knowledge that knowledge is considered to be valid when it makes us reach the thing indicated by it and which does not involve contradiction in experience.^[1] For instance: when one has the vision of water from far, he assumes it to be water and try to arrive it. After arriving if one discovers the water is there, his knowledge turn out to be right. But if he does not find water, his knowledge is not right. Thus, the criteria of right knowledge that it should make us reach to the object that it did point to. The other criterion of valid knowledge of an object is when we have a reasonable ground for the expectation of the desired outcome coming out from it. For instance: when a farmer commences seeding with the belief of reaping satisfactory crops in general conditions and which is not disturbed by rain and thunder. His knowledge of the act of seeding is valid as it indicates the chances of reaching the expected result. According to Kamalasīla, knowledge is regarded as valid when it reaches to a possible successful action and not to its actual accomplishment.^[2]

We consider that an object which is present in front of consciousness. It is present either in a direct manner or indirect. The object which is directly presented to the consciousness is known as the object of perception whereas the object that is not directly presented to the consciousness is known as the object of inference. In space and time the object of perception is already localized while the object of inference is conceived through the mark and becomes localized later. Thus, there are only two kinds of object i.e. object of perception and object of inference. Thus, the knowledge whether valid or not depends upon these two sources i.e. perception and inference. The knowledge which is different from these two sources cannot be called as true. An attainable object indicated by right knowledge and it can be attained by senseperception and inference. Hence, the knowledge which produces by some different ways other than perception and inference is not valid. Such knowledge is always unreal. Another important feature of right knowledge is that it points an object which is able to generating an activity which is purposeful because men want to achieve only that thing which will provide satisfaction to their need. Thus, knowledge that points an object which makes our needs fulfilled is only be called right knowledge and efficient knowledge.^[3]

According to Dharmakīrti, “All successful human action is necessarily preceded by Right knowledge; therefore we are going to investigate it.”^[4] With the help of this statement Dharmakīrti expounds the scope and the aim of Epistemology in his work Nyāya-Bindu. According to him, human actions are of two types–either Positive or negative, desirable or undesirable. Purposive or positive action is that which comprises in achieving the desirable and avoiding the undesirable. Right knowledge has efficacy which causes successful action in the sense that it results in the achievement of the desirable aim and avoidance of the undesirable one. Cognition or knowledge which leads one to wrong direction and which deceives the human beings is error or wrong knowledge. Error and doubt are a kind of wrong knowledge. Doubt is again of two types: -first kind of a doubt is complete doubt which includes no knowledge, because it does not include any judgment. This type of doubt is not succeeded by any purposive action. Second kind of a doubt is when there is a possibility of some success or a conception of some failure and it is succeeded by a judgment which is similar to right knowledge.^[5]

For Buddhist, “Right knowledge is knowledge not contradicted (by experience).”^[6] Knowledge is right and correct when it points to some object. Knowledge never creates any object and never offers it to us, but it only makes our attention to the object. Thus, knowledge is right when it makes us reach to attainable objects, when it points to reality. Cognition that enables us to reach an object which is different from the real one is false cognition. An object has many forms and it also depends on many spatiotemporal locations. So, cognition that reveals only one sided of an object or only one form of the object cannot be called true knowledge. Again, cognition cannot be called true if it reveals wrong place and time of an object.^[7]

In Pramāṇavārtika, Dharmakīrti defines knowledge as cognition which is not in a state of discord with its object (Pramāṇam avisamvādi jñānam).^[8] He further states that a cognition which is in harmony with its object will also be considered by novelty (Ajñāta artha prakāśo vā).^[9] It is revelatory of an object that have not yet known because the object is transitory in nature and only that knowledge will in harmony with the object which emerging at that moment when the object is also in existence. As according to Buddhist, everything is in a state of flux. Everything is momentary. So, Dharmakīrti denies continuous cognition. According to him, continuous cognition cannot be true or valid, because it is not anything new but recognition only. For him, knowledge thus stands for cognition that reveals the real nature of an object. Knowledge must reveal the object as it is.^[10]

Dharmottara, the famous Buddhist philosopher, who was the author of an authoritative commentary of the Nyayābindu, defines right knowledge as that knowledge that can be verified. In other words, knowledge is right when it agrees with the objective reality. The aim of knowledge is completed when it pointed to an objective reality in its true nature.^[11] According to Dharmottra, right knowledge has two kinds: -instinctive and discursive. Instinctive knowledge is that which comes from inside. And discursive knowledge is that when it makes our attention towards an object with the help of the senses. According to him, when we attain right knowledge we must make sure that what we have seen before because memory encourages our will. Will makes action and that action attains the aim. So, it is a kind of indirect cause (viz, a cause without any intermediate chain of causation). On the other hand when purposive action is done directly and aims are directly attained (instinctive knowledge) cannot be analyzed in Buddhist logic. So, Dharmottra gives much importance to discursive knowledge.^[12]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Avīsaṃvādi jñānaṃ, samyag-jñāṇam. Nyāyabindu-ṭīkā p.4.

[2]:

C.L. Tripathi, Problem of Knowledge in Yogacara Buddhism, p.35.

[3]:

Ibid.

[4]:

Th. Stcherbatsky, op.cit., Vol. I, p.59.

[5]:

Ibid.

[6]:

Th. Stcherbatsky, Vol. II, op. cit., p.4.

[7]:

S. R. Bhatt & A. Mehrotra, op. cit ., p.12.

[8]:

Ibid.

[9]:

Ibid.

[10]:

Ibid.

[11]:

S. Mookerjee, The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux, p. 35

[12]:

Stcherbatsky, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 61.