Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c20.s1: 1. The Doctrine of Knowledge

Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c20.s1

Language
English

1. The Doctrine of Knowledge

c20.s1.1

In the Madhyamaka appears a new conception of kinds of truth which advances far beyond the simpler ideas of the Hīnayāna. In the latter we find only a simple distinction between the absolute truth, which is contained in the dogmas of the denial of the self, the reality of the chain of causation, and of the operation of the act, and a form of truth which may be called conventional or relative (*saṃvṛti-satya*), which is indeed absolutely false since it asserts such ideas as the self or person, but which may be admitted as truth because it passes as such in ordinary life, is useful, and is sometimes employed by the Buddha in his teaching. The Buddha, it is recognized, employed in his discourses two forms of instruction, the one conforming to absolute truth (*pāramārthikā*), and the other provisional and introductory (*ābhiprāyikī deçanā*).¹

c20.s1.2

¹ Cf. Mil., p. 28; KVA., pp. 33 ff.; Poussin, JA. 1902, ii. 250; 1903, ii. 360; KV. v. 6, brings out clearly the distinction; cf. JPTS. 1913-4, p. 129.

c20.s1.3

In the Madhyamaka ² the matter is carried one step further; the absolute truth is a negativism or doctrine of vacuity (*çūnyatā*), established by the application to the ideas accepted by the Hīnayāna as absolute truth of a logic, which insists that any contradiction is an infallible proof of error, and which finds contradiction in every conception, and, determining a priori what is impossible, denies its existence on that ground in the face of facts. Inferior in essence to this is the knowledge of obscurity or inaccuracy (*saṃvṛti-satya*), which is knowledge based on the facts of experience, and which may be reckoned as true, both because appreciation of this truth is a necessary element in the acquisition of the absolute truth, and because it corresponds to the actual facts of thought and reality. Both are indeed in the ultimate analysis unreal and cannot be sustained, but they are solid facts which cannot be ignored. This form of truth may be subdivided into the knowledge of Yogins or sages, who interpret correctly the nature of existence in the sense adopted by the Hinayāna, and that of the world (loka-saṃvṛti) which does not appreciate the true character of such matters as the momentary nature and misery of things, and believes in entities such as god or the soul. This latter form of knowledge is false from the point of view of that of the Yogin, and even among Yogins there are differences in accuracy of knowledge. From another point of view this realm corresponds with the sphere of things casually produced (pratītya-samutpanna), above all the momentary series of ideas which constitute the self. These things are not indeed real, but they have the seeming of reality and of producing effects. They are thus contrasted with the third form of knowledge, which is of imaginary (parikalpita) things, a term covering such false interpretations of experience as the water seen in the mirage, or the nacre mistaken for silver, or the rope thought to be a snake. Ordinary perception and reasoning are enough to rid us of these delusions, and the riddance at once enures to our practical advantage. But it is a matter for deep investigation (vicāra) to shake ourselves free from the delusion of the knowledge of obscurity, and at first sight we do not seem to gain anything by learning that it is not in reality true knowledge at all, although later we recognize that such recognition is the necessary preliminary to full enlightenment. Yet there is here an obvious difficulty, not disposed of by the school; a dream, let us say, is imaginary; none the less it cannot be denied to have been caused, and still less can it be asserted that such an imaginary thing cannot lead to action; the rope mistaken for the snake evokes the backward movement as surely as the reptile itself.¹

c20.s1.4

² BCA. ix. 2 f.; v. 62. For the two truths see MK. xxiv. 8, discussed Çlokavārttika, p. 218; MA. p. 70; BCA. ix. 107-11, 139 f.; Wassilieff, Bouddhisme, pp. 328 ff.

c20.s1.5

¹ Poussin, JA. 1903, ii. 381, n. 5.

Cites (6)