Buddhism - How to know the universe

Is there such knowledge exist which can be conceived without knowing the empirical universe, material objects and without sensory data?

Is it possible to know the mystery of universe without keeping faith on sensual information and without the help of intellect?

And Buddhist already set up that reality do not exist out of the sphere of consciousness and in reality there is no objective or material world then how can one have a knowledge of object or of universe?

Yes and Buddhist tried their best to form such knowledge not based on empirical things. They said that the mediate (Adhyavasaya) type of knowledge is that knowledge whose validity is independent of all sense expressions. It is, thus, a logical law which guides the intellect and is not dependent on the empirical sense data.

They explain the inferential aspect of such knowledge through Apoha (view of meaning) and in that Buddhist evoked the principle of Adhyavasaya (mediate) knowledge. The knowledge of the particular things such as (A) or (cow) is not possible without being determined by the exclusion of all other things which is (Not non-A) or not non cow. Therefore ‘all other things’ or (Non A) or (non cow) referred to anything in the universe except (A) or (Cow). The cognition of (Non A) or (non cow) is a humanly impossible feat and for all the cases of (Non A) or (non cow) scattered all over the universe cannot be grasped empirically. They can, however, can be inferred. This is the work of inference, otherwise inference become purposeless.

Buddhist emphatically desired that there can be any real thing in dissoluble connected with other things and provide the logical ground of anything in the universe. And, since this relation is not a sense datum, the relationship of reason and sequence does not depend on the external world. The relationship of attribute and subject is a creation of the intellect. The ideas thus obey the law of connexions and not imposed by empirical objects but by the function of our own thoughts and this are a priori in character.

 

The Apoha theory and the Buddhist view of relations and inferences are so intrinsically connected with the principle that without it, the Buddhist cannot resolve many logical difficulties in the system and nor can be defend from the realist criticism.   . Now the application of the principal of Adhyavasaya (mediate) knowledge gave a new impetus to the investigation of problem of knowledge and logic in Hindu philosophies. And this is a remarkable contribution of the Buddhist philosopher Dignaga and Dharmkirti School.

The chief exemplification is very much and truly seen in the logic and mathematics with a simple form and without any empirical knowledge. The equation that 7+9 is equal to 16. And this we can know by the simple numbers and by thinking which is not depending on empirical or sensory information. In this school of Buddhist logic it is described knowledge as of two kinds of Savalaksana and Samanyalaksana and by this two ways one can attain cognition.

Savalaksana is the ultimate real and for it alone is efficient whatever is causality efficient is real. Reality is being and things are different names for the same efficient and also momentary. The opposite of this is fictional and non-efficient. Whether it be pure fiction or productive imagination, all thoughts construction is non-empirical and thus is not the object of observation, of the sense perception. In this view, only this ‘present,’ here and now- only the atomic-Event s considered to be real. Therefore all past and future, mental or notional, general or universal constructions, belonging to language and logic are different from the real. And similarly all relations that are mere logical concepts. Reality, therefore is scribed to the moment of flux of the physical world, corresponding to these two kind of objects – real and formal, empirical and conceptual, knowledge is of two kinds, it is either immediate or mediate, it is either a means of grasping the momentary atomic even or it is a source of apprehending formal facts, the constructed world of the mind, the immediate one is simple sense- stimulus (Pratyaksa). While the second one is the indirect or mediate knowledge and it is conception termed as inference (Anuman).

 

Now immediate is a passive reflex (pratibhasa) and the mediate is a conditioned reflux (Kalpana) - constructed cognition (Adhyavasaya).

Now what is the object of knowledge- it is of two kinds again as identified by Ratankiriti and it is explained beautifully in a real very scientific method and in simple notion. First, it is directly grasped or and secondly through logically constructed. Whatever is reflected in the intellect through sense objects and through sense contact is directly grasped. But that which is even though not being grasped empirically forms and on the basis of our own prepositional attitudes constructed in a logical construction.

(Dvividho vijnanam visayal grahyo dhyavaseyasca pratibhasanano j rajyaj agrbitopi pravrttivisaya dhyanvaseyah.

Now critics came out against this Buddhist Apoha of (non A) or Non Cow) and argued that since the reason (hetu) is said to be merely its being the negation of the thing (A) or (cow) itself, is a priori ascertained with reference to which we can cognise a case of (Non A) or (Non Cow) and since the thing is a priori ascertained, there is no point in knowing cases of the other. The non A’s or non cow’s what then, is the necessity of Apoha? And therefore for the purpose, the exclusion of all that which is non A or non cow, is not important.

The cognition of cow is determined by the exclusion of non cow and vice versa. The cognation of non cow is dependent on the cognation of the cow. Thus the verse term Apoha cannot be defined as the differentiation from the other non A because the very definition of a universal non A or non cow involved the cognition of A or Cow.

Further it is also questioned that whether it is the individual or the universal which is to be cognised in the exclusion of non cow or non A, that is, are individual horse, elephant or the classes of horses or elephants to be excluded by the term non cow.

Again to understand Cow from non-cow we exclude cow in black, cow in brown or cow in white to know the cow or we exclude horses, elephant, and goat as non cow to understand the cow.

The law of opposition

Buddhist philosophy is a negation and based on the a priori opposition (virodh) of unique momentary particular entities. Dharamkirti said that all negation are rooted in opposition which can be divided into two classes.

Efficient opposition or incompatibility- when one fact has duration or as long (as long as) the sum total of its causes remains unimpaired and it (then) vanished as soon as another (the opposed) fact appears, it follows that both are incompatible or efficiently opposed just as the sensation of heat and cold.

logical opposition or contradiction- when there is also opposition between two terms when their own essence consist in mutual exclusion, as between the terms like eternal and non eternal, reality and unreality, existence and non existence blue and not blue.

The proposition of opposition however poses many logical difficulties which are also discussed by Buddhist philosophers. Incompatibility of efficient is negation of terms or entities as of sensation of heat and cold and contradiction or logical opposition is negation of proposition as of blue and non blue existence and non existence.  

These seers maintained that every term or proposition is the negation of its own negation. Even affirmative proposition entails the exclusion of its negation and a given proposition is true if and only if its contradictory is false. Dignaga beautifully further said that the term for instance, the ‘blue lotus’ not only excludes the lotuses that are not blue but also excludes those blue thing which are not lotuses. Thus negation is not only for the lotuses which are not blue but all blues that are not lotuses.  

Buddhist theory of negative inference corresponds to the simple negation and entails the implicative negation. The Apoha theory corresponds, primarily to the negation by implication concept. Ratnkirti said that negation by implication is found rooted in the immediate knowledge of the things as this therefore commonly applied to both affirmative and simple negative propositions. That means that there can be neither a pure affirmation and nor a pure negation. This is the reason why one does not go and tie a horse or a dog when asked to tie a cow. Apoha is the basis of discriminatory behaviour in everyday life and differentiation is the prime factor of all reflective thinking. Thus he Buddhist would conclude that it is differentiation that is manifested by words and reason and apprehended through language and logic.