Place of Rational Inquiry in Dharmic Worldviews

[sayak83]

IMHO, Buddha explained the process best in Kalama Sutta. Check everything.

I was thinking of quoting Kalama Sutta and a few other texts for comparison.
Note however that Buddha was also telling the Kalama-s that his worldview will be seen to be correct when checked in the proper manner. What is the proper manner? That's the issue isn't it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps not much. He was asking people to abandon prejudices. Like my view - advaita, may seem impossible unless the person has a certain knowledge of Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, Anthopology, History, Geography, Psychology, etc. - in all some 27 subjects are involved to understand it. (Big laugh)

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"sayak83, post: 4774668, member: 37415"]. Note this is not the Vatsyayana, the author of Kamasutra.

Namaste,

Well since you have mentioned Vatsyana Author of Kamasutra, it would be productive to this excellent thread if i try to add Kama Sutra of Vatsyana as a text at par with Artha Shastra, as the Kama Sutra is a part of the Purushastras as well.

Kama is love, pleasure and sensual gratification, may also be defined as virtue, wealth and pleasure, the three things repeatedly spoken of in the Laws of Manu.

The entire set out of the Kama Sutra is equivalent of the Artha Shastras and other Dharmah Shastras, there is a proposition then a objection and a rebuttal to the objection (Purva Paksha/Uttar Paksha/Sidhanta). The rebuttal is clearly based on Parmanas as seen by Vatsyana, for e.g: Vatsyana claims the importance of the study of Kama but when the objection to the study of Kama as not being important is raised, Vastyana counters the objection thus:

Sexual intercourse being a thing dependent on man and woman requires the application of proper means by them, and those means are to be learnt from the Kama Shastra. The non-application of proper means, which we see in the brute creation, is caused by their being unrestrained, and by the females among them only being fit for sexual intercourse at certain seasons and no more, and by their intercourse not being preceded by thought of any kind.

Here he uses his own Parmana to establish the importance of the study of Kama. And the entire task of the scientific study of Kama by Vatsyana and his predecessors involved critical thinking and debate. Of the many subjects that Vatsyana advises worthy of study includes Drawing inferences and reasoning.

The classification of different kinds of Union is according to dimensions, force of Kama and Time and is thoroughly debated, even there is the debate if females ejaculate or not. These may seem to many Hindus as Obscene but to me this work is probably the most scientific and unbiased look at sex and the art of Love making.

The Kama Sutra Concludes:

This work is not intended to be used merely as an instrument for satisfying our desires. A person, acquainted with the true principles of this science, and who preserves Dharma, Artha, and Kama, and has regard for the practices of the people, is sure to obtain the mastery over the senses.'
'In short, an intelligent and prudent person, attending to Dharma and Artha, and attending to Kama also, without becoming the slave of passions, obtains success in everything that they may undertake.'

Hope this enlightens and stirs inquiry.

Dhanyavad.

 

[sayak83]

Now that I have established the importance of systematized critical thinking as a normative school of thought (Nyaya) in and of itself. Let me briefly mention some the key texts of Nyayasutra...the central document of this school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of 16 categories.
a) Means of right knowledge (pramana)
b) Object of right knowledge (prameya)

c) doubt (sansaya)
d) purpose (proyojana)
e) observational data (drstanta)
f) established tenet (siddhanta)
g) the parts of a demonstration (avayava)
h) suppositional reasoning (tarka)
i) final conclusion (nirnaya)

j) truth-directed discussion (vada)
k) victory-directed debate (jalpa)
l) destructive debate (vitanda)
m) sophistical rejoinders (hetvabhasa)
n) quibbles (chala)
o) false reasons (jati)
p) defeat situations (nigrahasthana)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the 16 categories are not associated with any specific beliefs or worldviews, but rather the means and praxis by which truth about things can be ascertained. Thus the first two is about the methods that deliver correct knowledge and identifying the proper objects of knowledge. The next 7 is about constructing proper justifications for knowledge in public discourse and the final 7 are the various good and bad ways of going about conducting such a public discourse. Nyaya therefore is not a set of worldview positions but a systematic practice of properly striving after truth that is done in a community setting. Crucially the next verse asserts that honestly doing the practice of Nyaya will guarantee moksha.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pain, birth, activity, faults and misapprehension - on successive annihilation of these in the reverse order, there follows releasing.

Commentry (Vatsyayana):
Misapprehension, faults, activity, birth and pain, these in their uninterrupted course constitute the cycle of samsara. Release, which constitutes in the self getting rid of the world, is the condition of supreme felicity marked by perfect tranquility and not tainted by any defilement. A person, by the true knowledge of the 16 categories, is able to remove his misapprehensions. When this is done, his faults, viz. affection, aversion and apathy, disappear. He is no longer subject to any activity and is consequently freed from transmigration and pains. This is way in which his release is effected and supreme bliss secured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it extremely interesting (and cause for good cheer) that intellectual striving after truth through rational discourse is considered to have the same salutary effect on the Self as devotion to God, self-less action and self-realization through yoga. It is a testament to the extremely broad vision Hinduism has as to what exactly constitutes leading a holy life.



What do you guys think? Do you agree with this idea of dharmic practice through intellectual sadhana? Thoughts?

Of the 16 categories of study in Nyaya the first is the study of the means of knowing (pramana). The first and most important method of knowing is through sense-perception. Much of Nyaya (and indeed Indian) philosophy is devoted to understanding perception and how it gives us reliable knowledge about the world.

Nyayasutra 1.1.4 defines perception as:-
Perception is an awareness which, produced from the connection between sense-organ and object, is non-verbal, non-errant, and determinate in nature.


Certain things immediately stand out.
1) Perception is a from of conscious awareness.
2) It is not a propositional awareness that comes from hearing or speaking sentences. Hence the term non-verbal. Thus hearing the words "there is a cow in your garden" does not create an awareness of the cow that can be called "perception" of the cow.
3) Instead it is a physical/psychological awareness caused by "contact" between the perceiving faculty (eyes, ears etc.) and the object. Only then can one say that a seeing, a hearing, a tasting sort of perception has occurred.
4) The awareness must be a true, non-errant and determinate (i.e. not vague) in order to be called a perception. Thus Nyaya, defines that only true forms of awareness created by sense-faculties can be called perceptions. Illusions, mirages, vague sightings can't be called perceptions.

Vatsayana in his commentry gives two kinds of sense-faculty induced awareness that are not perceptions,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the summer the flickering rays of the sun intermingled with the heat radiating form the surface of the earth come in contact with the eyes of a person at a distance.
Due to this sense object contact, there arises an awareness of water. Such an awareness can be mistaken as perceptual, hence the clause non-errant.
An errant one is of that wherein it is not. A non-errant one is of that wherein it is - this latter is perception.

Perceiving with the eyes an object at a distance, a person cannot decide whether it is smoke or dust. Such an indecisive awareness resulting from sense-object contact might be mistaken as perceptual, hence the clause "determinate in nature."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many other schools, including the Buddhists would argue that in cases of seeing a mirage, we are still perceiving something...only we are falsely attributing the features we are perceiving (shimmering rays of light) to an object that is not there (water). But such a move entails that perception is a post-hoc rational reconstruction of some deeper sort of awareness caused by the sense-faculties "below" our consciousness where the "true" perception is hidden. Buddhists love that idea and Nyaya hates it. Thus for Nyaya,, its a far more reasonable move to cut of the head of the serpent right there and then and state that people are simply mistaken that they are perceiving something when they "see" a mirage for example.

Dr. Ganeri in his analysis of Nyaya ideas of perception explicated the idea in terms of the following logic:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A person S's perception is of an object X if and only if:

(4) For some (object or property category) F, S does see X as an F, where

S sees X as an F if and only if :
(1) S's perception stands in relation R with x.
(2) This relation R is physical/psychological (non-verbal)
(3) F(X) is true. (i.e. X is indeed an F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus we have a technical and well-fleshed out definition of perception as a form of clear seeing and that which is free of all interpretations and propositional constructions.

It would be interesting to compare this account of perception with more modern ones in western philosophy. Anybody has any idea?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You see, Sayak, the fabric of 'perception' is full of loop-holes. 'Advaita' is built solely upon them. I am sure Nayyayikas must have discussed it. They tried to be thorough. So, what remains of 'perception' when it is whittled down by discrimination (viveka, I suppose)?
Sorry can't understand S, F, X, etc.

 

[sayak83]

You see, Sayak, the fabric of 'perception' is full of loop-holes. 'Advaita' is built solely upon them. I am sure Nayyayikas must have discussed it. They tried to be thorough. So, what remains of 'perception' when it is whittled down by discrimination (viveka, I suppose)?
Sorry can't understand S, F, X, etc.

An example would be illustrative. "S" stands for the subject who is seeing. X is the object being seen. F is the category in which S sees the object to be as. So suppose I (the subject S) see a long windy thing (an object X) on the floor and recognize it as a rope (i.e. object X, the long windy thing, is perceived to be belonging to the object class F==Rope). "R" is the physical/psychological contact relation between my sense organ (eye and visual cortex) and the object (the rope) that I am perceiving. Now does the statements make better sense?

A person S's perception is of an object X if and only if:

(4) For some (object or property category) F, S does see X as an F, where

S sees X as an F if and only if :
(1) S's perception stands in relation R with x.
(2) This relation R is physical/psychological (non-verbal)
(3) F(X) is true. (i.e. X is indeed an F)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Tried many times earlier but failed, as also at present. But do not try too hard to make me understand this. I prefer an illustration like rope and snake and the perceiver. Technical philosophy is not my thing.

 

[sayak83]

Tried many times earlier but failed, as also at present. But do not try too hard to make me understand this. I prefer an illustration like rope and snake and the perceiver. Technical philosophy is not my thing.

Cool.

 

[Osal]

I was thinking of quoting Kalama Sutta and a few other texts for comparison.
Note however that Buddha was also telling the Kalama-s that his worldview will be seen to be correct when checked in the proper manner. What is the proper manner? That's the issue isn't it?

The Buddha gives 4 criteria to judge by...
Is it good, not blameable, praised by the wise, and when undertaken lead to benefit and happiness..

The KS is often referred to as a charter of free inquiry. I belive that to be wrong. Rather, I see it as specific instruction on method of inquiry. You are not free.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I belive that to be wrong. .. You are not free.

What is good, what is not blameable, who is wise, and what does it lead to, etc. all this is subjective. One has to decide it on his/her own.

 

[Osal]

What is good, what is not blameable, who is wise, and what does it lead to, etc. all this is subjective. One has to decide it on his/her own.

If you want to take that degree of scepticism as some sort of spiritual path, i guess that's entirely up to you. It's your karma ☺

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is what Buddha said. If you accept some guru/person as wise, remember that Buddha said 'samaṇo no garū'. Was Buddha satisfied with a limited search? Will Buddha advocate a limited search? Why do we have a saying like 'Kill the Buddha' in Zen?

 

[atanu]

Now that I have established the importance of systematized critical thinking as a normative school of thought (Nyaya) in and of itself. Let me briefly mention some the key texts of Nyayasutra...the central document of this school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of 16 categories.
....Release, which constitutes in the self getting rid of the world, is the condition of supreme felicity marked by perfect tranquility and not tainted by any defilement. ...
What do you guys think? Do you agree with this idea of dharmic practice through intellectual sadhana? Thoughts?

What do you think about perfect tranquility requirement?

 

[Osal]

Was Buddha satisfied with a limited search?

But it's not about searching, for one thing. The Kalamas asked how to determine if a teaching was sound and worth following. The Buddha instructed them to employ 4 criteria.

Why do we have a saying like 'Kill the Buddha' in Zen?

I don't know. Maybe so people can waste countless hours trying to convince others in what they, mistakenly, think it means?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I thought Buddha would want us to check these things as a matter of routine to separate grain from chaff. Don't we do that in life? Do we accept what any one says without questions in our mind?

 

[Osal]

I thought Buddha would want us to check these things as a matter of routine to separate grain from chaff. Don't we do that in life? Do we accept what any one says without questions in our mind?

The Buddha didn't say to figure things out any way you wanted. He didn't say to say your idea of good, the wise and so on. He offered very specific critria. Abide in it or don't. It's up to you. It's your karma.

The thing is, you can rationalize to the point where things loose all meaning, being lost in a barrage of quasi-rationalism. All it does is shore up the ego. This is not good, not praised by the wise, blameable and abiding in it will not lead to true happiness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But Osal, who decides what is good, what is not blamable, who are wise and what is true happiness? You or someone else? You have to do it yourself.

 

[Osal]

But Osal, who decides what is good, what is not blamable, who are wise and what is true happiness? You or someone else? You have to do it yourself.

Who decides what time it is?

Again you rationalize to the point where the Buddhadharma will become meaningless. You might as well just toss it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I have not. If you exclude individual inquiry, then a Buddhist is no better than any other 'ahle-kitab' (people of the book). You will go by the Tipitaka. I know, Buddha is my guru.

 

[Osal]

If all the was to do was to just figure it out for yourself, then the Buddha would have stopped teaching after the 4NT, and you would have no need for any guru.