Instantaneous Being - A Buddhist Logic

Aik TC SG

The Buddhist logician agues, that there are only two ways in which we can obtain our knowledge, through our senses and our understanding, i.e. one non-intelligible and the other an intelligible source. Just as there are two source of knowledge, the external world is also double it is either the Particular or the General. The Particular is the object corresponding to our senses cognition and the General is the object corresponding to our understanding or our reason. Example; 'This is a cat'. 'This', would represents the 'Particular' perceived by the senses, 'Cat', would be the 'General' after our intellect has process the information and arrive at the conclusion of what ‘This’ is. Thus we have a double world, one from our senses and the other, a thought constructed one, the intelligible.

Also, what is percept by the senses are momentary flash of energy only. The permanent, eternal Matters are imagined. All things without exception have the character of being instantaneous, of being spit in discrete moments, and they disappear as soon as they appear. Even the simple stability of our everyday objects is something constructed by our imagination. What is ultimately real in this world is instantaneous.

Whatsoever existed exists separately from all other existing things. It has its own existence which is apart from other existing things. If its existence merges with the existence of other things, it is a mere name for those other things, or a construction of our imagination. e.g., the Soul does not exist apart from mental phenomena. Matter does not exist apart from sense-data. Since they are not apart, they do not exist at all.

Everything, necessary must have an end, whether it is a knowledge deduced by observation or by deduction without the help of our sensory experience. We would have notice by observation, that such thing as fire, changes every moment, so do our thoughts, even our body is constantly changing, and by a broad generalization, not just the body, but everything, is older by a moment in every succeeding point instant. There is no need of thing to be dependence on special cause for it to end, as if that is the case, then we would have empirical objects which never would have an end and would have an eternal existence.

Existence, real existence means efficiency, i.e. it has to keep producing an effect, meaning it has to change at all time. What is absolutely changeless is also absolutely non-efficient and does not exist. To be static means to be motionless and eternally unchanging. Not to be static means to move and to change every moment. There is motion always going on in living reality, but of this motion, we notice only some special moments which we stabilized in imagination. The deduction is that, change is existence, what does not change, does not exist.

Buddhist Logic does not claim to know about the transcendental. It only deals with the phenomenal world and how we can make senses of what is going on around us. The understanding of its logical explanation should give us a better grasp and knowledge of some of the Buddhist teachings, such as impermanence, causation, and no-self.

Amitayus48 SG

Buddhism mentioned that it is wholesomely an energy that can replicate depending on its degree of vibrancy based on condition of the "chemical affinity: at that particular moment.

An Eternal Now SG

Well written article, thanks.

Aik TC SG

Here is another interesting point on the same subject.

Everything that existed, are just point instants of energy. According to Santiraksita, in every next moment, not the slightest bit is left of what has been existent in the former moment. Everything represents its own self annihilation. An everlasting matter is declared to be pure imagination, just as an everlasting substantial Soul. In fact the logic go as far as to declare Space and gross time as non-existence, only the subtle time of the point instants are considered real. But of course, they also self annihilate the moment they appear. The logic may sound rather unreal to some, but how much of what we see are really real, or are just our thought construction?

Aik TC SG

Found these comments on “Buddhism without Boundaries” on the above subject of Instantaneous Being.

Title: Re: Instantaneous Being - A Buddhist Logic
Post by: plogsties

Matter does not exist apart from sense-data. Since they are not apart, they do not exist at all.

If I read this right, this is a very old point of view - dating back, I believe, to Kant. I believe modern and post-modern philosophy posits that those things "exist" that one's "group" accepts, by group convention, to exist. Of course, one could even go further and claim that the idea of "existence" doesn't exist :) - but the information content of such statements is probably zero. One could even take this to its most extreme form and claim that communication isn't really possible because of the shifting meanings of the sounds and symbols that we use, which are not "sense-data" and, therefore, do not "exist".

Regardless of all of this, I know a car door "exists" when I slam it on "my" finger!

As far as "matter does not exist apart from sense data" - we have the question "If a tree fall in the forest and no one is there to observe it, does it make a noise when it falls"? The answer has to be no.

That said, if the word "exist" is used only in the personal microcosmic sense - that ONLY those things exist that I sense - in the here and now - then the above makes sense. In some way, in that case, only those things exist that I want to exist! - I simply ignore all the rest.

I'm beginning to believe that my education in science and logic is a disadvantage. I'll keep on reading, though, because the basic principles of Buddhism strike me as right.

Title: Re: Instantaneous Being - A Buddhist Logic
Post by: Former Buddhist Monk

Do you know that the car door exist as an external entity, or do you know that you interpreted that experience in that way?

I'm reminded of Samuel Johnson refuting Berkeley's phenomenology: "I refute it thus!" and kicking a stone. He didn't realize that he had accomplished nothing in that statement and action. He had not proved the existence of either his foot or the stone. He only demonstrated what Berkeley had been getting at: the world of immediate, fleeting experience is the only world available to us. The material world 'out there' is a hypothesis, and one that can never be proven due to the phenomenological veil. You just can't step outside of experience for a peek behind the curtain.