The investigation into Buddhist
epistemology starts with the statement that ‘All successful human
action is necessarily preceded by right knowledge. Human aims are
either positive or negative, either something desirable or
something undesirable. Purposive action consists in attaining the
desirable and avoiding the undesirable.
In the context of the Buddhist teaching, we
may asked, is the Buddhist Dharma right knowledge? Do the actions
we are taught to practice from these teachings such as the practice
of purification of virtues, of concentration eventually lead us to
attaining the desirable, i.e., the insight into the reality of the
world and ultimate reality? If it does, than Wisdom, Bliss,
Enlightenment, liberations taught by the Buddha are all
Truths.
What is reality? The definition of
Existence or Reality which are terms convertible and also means
ultimate reality in Buddhist logic of Dignaga.
To the Buddhist logician, Existence, real
existence, ultimate existence is nothing but efficiency. Whatsoever
is causally efficiency is real. What is non-efficient is unreal.
Whatever that is of productive imagination or thought construction
is fiction, it is not ultimate reality. A fire which burns and
cooks is a real fire. Its presence is physically efficient. A fire
which is absent, which is imagined, which neither burns or cooks is
an unreal fire. Only the present, the here, now are real.
Everything past, everything future is unreal. Ultimately real is
only the present moment of physical efficiency. Beside the ultimate
or direct reality there is also an indirect one, an inferred one.
Such as when we see smoke, we can assume that there is a fire there
as well. It is an imputed reality.
The above description is a description of
Reality consisting of constructed images. It is a reality
that is endowed with a position in time, space and with all the
sensible and abstract quality. It is a conditioned, phenomenal or
empirical reality. The empirical thing is a thing constructed by
the synthesis of our productive imagination on the basis of a
sensation.
There is also another reality termed
Pure Reality in which there is not the slightest bit of
imaginative construction. It is the reality of the bare
point-instants which as yet no definite position in time, neither a
position in space, nor have they any sensible qualities. It is
Ultimate or Pure Reality. The ultimately real is that which
strictly corresponds to pure sensation alone. We can only cognize
the imagined superstructure of reality, but not reality itself. It
has no extension in space and no duration in time, although it can
be localized in time and space. However, this localization is
already the work of the understanding which locates the object in a
constructed space and in an imagined time.
Pure Reality is pure efficiency which
stimulates the understanding and the reason to construct images and
ideas. It is non-empirical, it is transcendental and unutterable.
There is no other reality than this, as all other reality is
borrowed from it. An object which is not connected with a
sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure imagination, or a
mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is synonymous with
sensible existence. It is opposed to Ideality, generality and
thought construction.
I noticed the
qualifying heading - The Buddhist Logicians' Views. In other
words, truth and reality is what the Buddhist logicians
perceived. In this respect, its view
must be a confined one and therefore narrow. I am not going to say
the views are right or wrong but I will say there are
flaws.
First, I thank you for presenting the
view. I could draw something out of
‘ultimate reality’ here than in the many posts of my
thread. Real or reality is tied to
existence. If I may simplify, what
exist is real. This is easy enough for
a lot of people to understand. The sun
exists, it is real whether we can sense it or not (i.e. own
experience). It existence is
‘efficient’ because there is a productive purpose. It is not imagination or fictional
construct. These reasoning are
perfectly sensible not just logical. In
fact, they are not necessarily Buddhist logicians’
reasoning. Everyone who has a common
sense will say this.
However, to say that the present is real
and not the past is flawed. If the
present is real and then the ‘present’ becomes the past, why is the
same ‘present’ became unreal? I won’t
even mention future.
There is no such thing as an ‘absent’ fire.
I also won’t even mention imaginary fire. A real fire is one that is burning and its
‘efficiency’ depends on what the fire is used. I do not equate a spontaneous bushfire as
‘efficient’ though it is real. While it
is raging (present), it is real. When
the fire dies, that bushfire does not exist. The incidence is past. Does it mean the bushfire was not real?
The proof is the destruction
caused. The Buddhist logicians’
definition of reality i.e. only the present is real is too confined
and distort the general meaning of reality.
Reality is also not images or imaginations
or mental constructions. If I construct
in my mind the concept of God, there will be images and attributes
(quality) of God that I imagined. They
cannot be real for the simple reason – I made it all
up! I do no even have to mention the
senses or sensation.
The Buddhist logicians’ use of images or
mental construct to explain reality is unnecessary.
The second last paragraph on ‘Pure Reality’
which is also linked to ‘ultimate reality’ talks about pure
sensation. Honestly, I can’t make a
thing out of ‘pure sensation’. Is it
because I cannot imagine?
The last paragraph is somewhat a throw-back
to the real meaning of reality:
//An object which is not
connected with a sensation, with sensible reality, is either pure
imagination, or a mere names or a metaphysical object. Reality is
synonymous with sensible existence.//
To a large extent we depend
on our senses to establish reality.
However, we have to recognize that our senses are
limited. So, if we can’t sense
something (not necessarily an object), does it mean it is not real
even if it exists or existed? Because
of our limited vision (sense), we cannot observe life-form in
planet Mars. Does it mean there is no
life existence in Mars? And this
question is not about an imagination or mental construct or images
of Martians!
