By: Ms. Chandana Banarjee
Dharmakirti’s
logic is an excellent weapon for a critical and a dialectical refutation
of all beliefs unwarranted by experience. He wanted to achieve valid
knowledge through causal-sequence in our experience.
The
idea of perception has taken a new turn in Buddhism when Dharmakirti
says that the reality rather “ultimate reality” can be known only by
penetrating deep into the nature of things.
In
Nyaya Bindu -
“Pratyaksa
means the sense-organ is approached, reposed upon. Kalpana or
Imagination is function of constructive thought which results in
Pratyaksa. So the perception may be defined as “Saksat-kara-Vyapara -
Vikalpena anugamyatte”.
Perception,
Scripture and Reasoning are regarded as the usual ways of knowing object
in this period. As Buddhism arises from phenomenology therefore
perception of object is important. To establish the logical validity of
universal proposition (Vyapti) which reveals a concomitance between hetu
and anumeya (sadhya), perception of object is necessary because the
above concomitance is impossible unless both are in principle of
observables (indriyo gochar). Such perception of object is present in
our experience in a causal chain. Though the separate elements (dharmas)
are not connected with one another by spatio-temporal structure but
there is a connection between them. Their manifestation is subject to
the laws of causation.
Dharmakirti
introduces imagination when he defines perception as a process where
sensation is followed by construction (imagination). He says that
perception which is derived from senses etc. is free from pre-conception
(Kalpana) and devoid of error (abhranto).
In
Nyaya Bindu imagination or Kalpana primarily means “arrangement” (Yojana)
and “Vikalpa” which means choice or dichotomy is used in the sense
of imagination.
His
idea of imagination is connected with his theory “apoha”. As
Dharmakirti says that perception which is free from pre-conception or
error only can refer the experience or perception of object, so he
distinguishes imagination and perception. For him perception of object
is only possible by negating false perception, i.e., imagination.
Dharmakirti
explains the entry of imagination in perception. Construction is the
function of imagination when we have a perceptual judgment concerning
the presence of an object. Our synthetic or constructive thought
conceals its proper functions and gives prominence to the function of
direct presentation. Therefore wrong perception which is the result of
imagination according to Dharmakirti comes before real perception of an
object and stand for a cause of “non-object” or non knowledge or
‘aprama’ (invalid knowledge).
When
we are free from such wrong perception or imagination by our
understanding (Vidya) then only real object (vastu) appears to us. Thus
eliminating this imaginative perception we can see real object.
Therefore
perception or P = ~(~p). (Here (~p) is non object or imaginative
object.)
Though
the negative meaning of ‘apoha’ directly meaning a concept or a
universal, indirectly refer to the particular real thing. It is
“negation” in the sense that it is a “negation” of the whole of
the unreal object. For the Buddhists unreal is non-efficient. It is
fiction. Pure fiction of productive imagination is not ultimate reality.
For example - A fire which is absent which is imagined and neither
really burns nor cooks - nor shades any light is an unreal fire. It
produces a vague, abstract, general image. When an image is objectified
and identified with some point of external reality, it receives an
imputed reality.
From
this point of view the objects can be distinguished in real and unreal
substances, and in real and unreal attributes. The objects which are
unattainable by space and time, are uncognisable.
Understanding
is the unsensuous source of knowledge according to Dharmakirti and it
includes only different kinds of constructions which are dialectical or
self-contradiction. In Buddhist logic knowledge is possible only through
direct perception.
P
= (~~p)
Thus
the ultimate test of truth of reality is the absence of contradiction.
Dharmakirti
introduces theory of “apo-ha” as a key to knowledge of real object.
So the knowledge of object is the outcome of the theory. According to
Dharmakirti appearance is not reality and apprehension of object is
possible through valid knowledge which is the result of the
co-ordination between hetu and anumeya.
To
be conscious of an object means to be conscious of its image which has
been evoked by the object.
For
him Pramana is Pratyaksa and pratyaksa means non-constructive as well as
non illusive. Non-constructive means not to have the nature of an
arrangement and non-illusion means ‘real’ which is opposite to
illusion. Here ‘illusion’ means that the object is not reached upon
the mind.
Thus
‘real’ in perception is being interpreted by Dharmakirti by
dissociating or negating Kalpana.
In
Nyaya Bindu “negation” is explained as ontological negation (arthamaka)
which is the positive substratum of a negative concept. They can express
something only dialectically, i.e. in couples of mutual negation.
Therefore “negation” of unreality means that pure reality which is
without the slightest bit of imaginative construction and is established
on a firm foundation of objective reality and is called phenomenal
world.
In
Buddhism, negation stands for “eradication” of the object or
annihilation. It is not like ex-nihili-nihil-fit
(French word which means out of nothing comes). Here nothingness is the
cause of something real.
As
our cognition of fictitious objects are derived from conceptual
construction or (Vikalpa) so it must be erroneous.
The
Buddhist theory of error is known as asatkhyativada whether the Nyaya
theory of erroneous cognition is known as anyathakhyativada. For them
the object of erroneous is not totally fictitious.
But
according to Buddhists an error consists in making an unreal appear as
real. So they apply the theory of ‘apo-ha’.
The
elimination of desire is related with the theory of “apo-ha”.
Because as the Buddhists believe that all suffering comes from craving
and that we shall cease to crave and thus may be free from illusion.
Craving
is the attempt to have what we do not and can not possess; and to be
what we are not and can not be. Such craving is exclusively one’s own.
It can be eliminated through one’s own free act-and without the
continuing support of craving, suffering would soon cease. According to
Buddha the exhaustion of craving is Nirvana.
Therefore
in Nyana Bindu positively the real is efficient or arthakriyakari and
negatively it is non-ideal (Winikalpa).
Thus
the perception is “Saksat-Kara-Vyapara-Vikalpena anugamyatte”.
Select
Bibliography
-
A
History of Indian Logic
Satis Chandra Vidya Bhusan
Motilal Banarsidas. Delhi, 1921
-
Buddhist
Logic
Eng. Trans. Th. Stcherbatsky. Two volumes
Newyork: Dover Publications, Inc. 1962.
-
Dynamic
Facets of Indian Thought
Anil Kumar Sarkar. South Asian Publications, New Delhi, 1987
-
Essentials
of Buddhist Philosophy
Takakusu. (Garden City, Newyork) 1970
-
A
History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy
Barva, Benimadhab, Delhi (India_
Motilal Banarsidas, 1921.
-
Outlines
of Indian Philosophy
M. Hiriyanna
London: George Allen & Unevin Sixth impression - 1967
Back to top
