Fig1 BuddhaBrot fractal an illustration of dependent origination, what appears to be a structure that appears to have a form   actually is a fractal a recursive functional  dependent structure.

Hi. I am Mahamaya. I am an aerospace engineer. I live in NY for now, but brought up in Hyderabad. My parents are from West and East Godavari districts of Andhra Pradesh. My blogging interests include philosophy, physics (there is a link between the two 🙂 ), beauty of Andhra, and current events. My first post will be on philosophy and begins with a story.

On coming to know that an Indian Buddhist teacher is visiting his kingdom, Wu, the king of Southern kingdom of China, invited the Indian monk to his court. Wu showcased his benevolence towards his subjects and asked Bodhidharma the Indian teacher, how much merit he had gained through his acts of benevolence. On hearing Bodhidharma replied “No merit what so ever”, on hearing the king thundered, “who is that speaking to me thus?” to which Bodhidharma answered “I don’t know”. Interestingly with just three words, Bodhidharma had explained the essence of Buddhism to the king, yet king Wu couldn’t realize nor was he able to comprehend that what Bodhidharma had just said was one of the profound concepts of Buddhism – Sunyata.

Existence and Sunyata are duals in dharmic darshanas. Both form one of the main pillars of dharmic darshanas.  Suffering and pain, ubiquitous in life, motivated dharma masters like  Buddha and Adi Shankara and many others to understand the nature of oneself. This inquiry led to distinct trajectories of thought which formed Buddhist and Sanaata Dharmic darshanas.

In the case of Buddhist schools, the sriti-dristi gaze turned to proclaim that one doesn’t exist, that there is no actor behind the doing, that there is no thinker behind the thinking, that everything is void. Another way of stating the same is through dependent arising. Since one has no independent existence, one exists only because of the other. This is also called conditioned existence. Even though many in the West misunderstand and misinterpret this as nihilistic, the great Andhra Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna explains how this is erroneous:

 Objector: If all this void, then there would be no creation or destruction?

Nagarjuna : If all this weren’t void then there would be no creation or destruction.[1]

Thus emptiness or voidness far from being nihilistic is the basis for relative existence. Because Buddhist darshanas find no concrete objects to grasp but are only “shadows of shadows” as put by Sakyamuni Buddha, one’s own mind becomes the instrument of cognition, therefore they contend that one’s own intellect is enough to know dharma.

This view contradicts astikas’ view point, where in they use the same sristi–dristi gaze to proclaim the supremacy of the Vedas and that there can no other authority to know dharma and this position is vehemently is defended by Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta, who forms a formidable defense in Slokavartika to invalidate the Buddhist stand. Interestingly shunyavada or maya is similar in both the traditions, each essentially talks about the impermanence of the self and non existence of it in the former case, but the reasons they propound are completely different reasons and understanding.

Sakyamuni Tathagata Buddha first laid the foundation of sunyata when he expounded on “self” and showed that the 5 aggregates  (form, sensation, perception, volition, discernment) have no basis for one’s existence to his disciples. If one has to understand sunyata, it is imperative that one first understands the concept of perception, which forms the bedrock of sunyata as will be described later.

Sunyata which perplexed many a westerner posits that anything and everything has no real basis of existence what so ever and that the cognition of a particular is only transitory at best. Because nothing actually has a real existence, one’s suffering is due to false apprehension of the self which has no real existence than of a dependent arising through apprehension of aggregates which depend on particular basic elements, thus lacking a real self . Because nothing has an existence and exists of its own, one falsely assumes that one exists and this false understanding leads one to cling to certain vairagyas and vasanas making one bound to the karmic cycle of rebirths as dictated by the 12 steps of conditioned genesis.

In the case of Buddhist schools, the sriti-dristi gaze turned to proclaim that one doesn’t exist, that there is no actor behind the doing, that there is no thinker behind the thinking, that everything is void. Even though many a western misunderstand and misinterpret this as nihilistic, the great  Madhyamika teacher, Najarguna explains how such thinking is erroneous.

To understand Sunyata or even to understand why Vedas weren’t considered pramaana (basis or recognized source) for dharma by the Buddhist schools, and to understand how Kumarila Bhatta trounced Buddhist philosophers like Dinnaga and Dharmakirti, one must first understand Perception. Perception as the basis of pramaana forms the basic thrust of these philosophers. The Buddhist and Vedic epistemological positions of Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna, Dinnaga, Dharmakirti to that of Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta is very subtle and yet very profound that one is left mesmerized at the depth of their respective positions. Concept of sunyata as well as the Mimamsakas upholding the supremacy of Vedas depends on the proper understanding of pramaana perception.

Epistemological underpinnings of Sunyata

Buddhist and Vedic philosophers dealt with the proper definition and what forms the basis for perception. Perception can be either conceptual or non-conceptual. In the former case, conceptualized perception can be understood as cognition of an object and identifying the object as this particular type or that having specific attributes and properties.

On the other hand, non-conceptualized perception is when there the perception is not of that object that is present, but an image of the object formed in one’s mind or can also be a yogic experience, but never the object that is present. The whole edifice of Buddhist thought rests on the argument that perception is non-conceptual. And because of the Buddha’s understanding of the self negates any real existence in the five aggregates, Buddhists understanding of perception requires that the perception be non-conceptual in nature. Dinnaga and later Dharmakirti expand this stand. Since cognition is always non-conceptual according to them, object cognized as such are mere images in the mind apparatus. Since this perception is that of an image of a real object, but never the object , what is perceived and apprehended is a non-conceptual in nature.

Dinnaga reduced the number of genuine pramaanas to perception and inference, for him, perception and inference don’t apprehend the same object. Perception apprehends a concrete particular while inference apprehends universals, which are not  real but imaginary, that is, mentally constructed. Thus for Dinnaga perception is a cognition devoid of conceptual construct. Secondly, perception need not arise from the contact of a sense faculty with an object, that means that the object that appears in a perpetual cognition may not be external physical object,  but in fact a merely a form of which itself becomes aware[2].

Dharmakirti who gave commentaries to the work of Dinnaga expanded and fortified the concept of non-conceptual perception. According to Dharmakirti, something is real if it is capable of causing a certain effect – pleasure or pain, the realization of some purpose. This pertains to the svalaksana, the momentarily existing, concrete object, an aggregate of atoms, which is initially manifest to us as a bare sensum or more precisely, a series of which- we then interpret as a single, conventional object- a pot, a chair, a human and so forth. It is not the conventional object, itself a kind of universal, which we imagine as an enduring object possessed of certain properties[2]. Thus true perception of true is “without conceptual construction”. Dharmakirti’s critique of conceptualized perception can be summarized in 3 main points:

I. Conceptualized perception is not caused by the object as there is a delay after the initial contact of the sense faculty with the object before the conceptualized perception arises. Moreover, memory intervenes that means that what the mind apprehends is not the object but its image.
II. It is self evident that perception is devoid of conceptual construction.
III. Object of perception is generally recognized as being a particular. Words, however, apply to universals, hence it cannot be a true perception.

As one can see from above definition the emergence of contours which form the basis of Buddhist philosophy of Maya/Sunyata/emptiness. On the onset, it appears as if the Buddhist masters built a formidable defense of sunyavada canon. Because perception forms the basis of one’s existence they argued, an object exists only when it is perceived, but what is inferred is not the object but the image, an universal not a particular. And since universals are aggregates made of basic elemental building blocks, one grasps a mere universal image not particular, therefore, objects are objects that which lack a real existence whatsoever. And because of this voidness, it is nothing but foolishness to hold on to objects as if they are real, being aggregates they lack an identity as the mind perceives.

How Kumarila Bhatta demolishes this defense is will be the subject of perhaps another article. He nevertheless demolishes, and reestablishes the preeminence of Vedas as the sole pramaana of dharma and that one’s intellect is incapable of grasping the dharma.

References:

1. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti: A Mahayana Scripture by Vimalakirti, Robert A.F.    Thurman Aug  2003

2. Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology by John Taber 2005