Buddhist fundamental principle
attached to the beliefs that there are two and only two sources of
knowledge, one is our senses and the other is our understanding.
One is the source of Reality and the other, Ideality. The first is
running and the second is stable. The first is point-instant the
second is concept or simply Logic. Reality is unintelligible and
unutterable, it is consists of particulars. Ideality is indirect,
or conditional, a reflex of Reality in Concepts and Images and an
expressions of the Universals. Judgment is a function that link
together Reality and Ideality. The unutterable reality can
nevertheless be designated indirectly in Speech and by Names. But
names can only touch reality dialectically. This is the act of
Buddhist Nominalism, which is also termed the act of 'Buddhist
Dialectical Method’ by some.
What is indeed the part of
language that is in our cognition? Is it a real source of
knowledge? Is it different from the senses and the intellect? To
the Buddhist logicians, language is not a separate source of
knowledge and names are not the adequate or direct expressions of
reality. Names correspond to image or concept and they are the
expression only of the Universals. They are not the reflex of
Reality itself since reality is consists of particulars and not the
universals. The universals cannot be reached in purposive actions,
just as in concepts and names they are indirect, a conditional
reflexes of reality, not real but is logical. Knowledge can be
direct or indirect, either originating from the senses or in the
intellect, either perception (sensation) or inference (conception).
Knowledge derived from language and words are not direct, it is not
sensation, it is indirect knowledge through inference and an
indirect mode of cognition of reality.
The senses are affirmation the
intellect is dialectical and is always negative. The word 'white
does not communicate the cognition of all white objects. They are
infinite. It refers to a line of demarcation between white and the
non-white, which is cognized in every individual case of the white.
The white is cognized through the non-white and the non-white
through the white. The negation is mutual. To have an Origin means
the negation of Eternity and Eternity means the negation of Origin,
so does the opposition of good and bad, hate and love, etc.
Everything that is created by the understanding is created in
couples. They are relative to each other and mutually negate each
other. A jar and a piece of cloth are opposed indirectly to each
other inasmuch as the cloth falls into the category of non-jar, We
might asked, why is the name of Negation given to image which does
not seem to be negation at all? This is because image itself
appears only owing to its being distinguished from other images and
is a negation of them. The connection between the real thing and
the name is indirect and causal. We first experience internally the
thing as it is presented to our senses. A word is then indirectly
connected to the external thing which is an indirect way of
cognizing the particular object by distinguishing it from all
dissimilar things.
Reality alone is affirmation,
it is non dialectical. As stated above, there are two sources of
knowledge, from our senses and our intellects, they are not only
related direct and indirect they are also related as affirmation
and negation, as a non-dialectical and a dialectic source.
According to Dignaga, names are
negative due to the natural dialectic of the human Intellect.
Conceptual thought are namable thought, names originate in concepts
and vice versa, concepts can originate in names. All concepts and
the names expressing them are negative because they express their
own meaning through a negation of the contrary.
One of the reasons, the Theory
of Names come about is as a critique directed against opinion that
the Universal (concepts, thoughts) is a real entity residing in a
particular and can be cognized directly by our senses. To the
Buddhist logician, the Universal embraces an infinite number of
particulars, which cannot be cognized directly. These Universals
existed only in our head and are the product and construction of
our productive imagination which is essentially negative, relative
and dialectical.
When Speech and Names have the
characteristic of religious veneration, where Word was an eternal
positive Entity existing in an eternal union with the things
denoted by it, where Word was first of all the word of the Holy
Scripture; It becomes impossible for a follower of such belief
system to accept a theory which reduces names to mere conventional
negative signs of differentiation. No would someone who believes
that the positive meaning of words was established by God, look
approvingly or favorably upon it too. Fortunately, for a Buddhist,
concepts, words, and names are just tools and means, i.e. an aid
for the faithful to get onto the right path to Nirvana and on
reaching it, discarded.