After discussing “How Do We Know What We Know” and the Kalama Sutta in which Buddha teaches the limits of using inferentially connected words in search of the unchanging Truth, in this post, we discuss Buddha’s two means of knowledge to understand both “knowing how things are experienced by us” and “knowing for sure how things stand in themselves,” as described by Dr. Fisch.
In Buddhism, the means of knowledge is known in Romanized Sanskrit as pramana.
Pramana (Chinese=量), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit, “means of knowledge.”
Buddha teaches two means of knowledge:
A) Anumana (Chinese=比量), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit and Pali, “inference.” Furthermore, “inference allows us to glean knowledge concerning objects that are not directly evident to the senses.”
Anumana is closely associated with another concept known as agamadharma (Chinese=教法), which, according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit, “scriptural dharma.” In contrast to adhigamadharma, it refers to the mere conceptual understanding of Buddha’s teachings through studying Buddhist sutras.”
These definitions, whether it is “inference” that “allows us to glean knowledge concerning objects that are not directly evident to the senses” for anumana or agamadharma to understand “scriptural dharma,” both terms clearly correspond to what Dr. Fisch describes as using “inferentially” connected words to understand an already conceptualized “the world that we experience.”
Buddha’s second means of knowledge is known as pratyaksa in Romanized Sanskrit.
B) Pratyaksa (Chinese=現量), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit, “direct perception.” Pratyaksa is “nonconceptual in the sense that it does not perceive its object through the medium of an image, as does thought.”
Pratyaksa is closely associated with another concept known as adhigamadharma (Chinese=證法), which, according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit, “realized dharma,” which “leads to the direct realization (Adhigama, Chinese=証), rather than mere conceptual understanding.”
Whether defined as “nonconceptual” in pratyaksa or described as “direct realization rather than mere conceptual understanding” in adhigamadharma, both terms clearly show that direct perception does not involve conceptualization to gain knowledge.
In his discussion of How Do We Know What We Know, Dr. Fisch states, “If you look into the dictionary, words are explained by other words. The conceptual scheme, the vocabulary at our disposal, by which we experience and by which we know, is inferentially connected.” “In other words, if this point is north of that, then that point is south of that. That is about the meaning of the words. This isn’t an empirical fact. This is about how these concepts relate to each other.“
In his statement, Dr. Fisch differentiates “the meaning of words“ from “empirical fact.“ Furthermore, he distinguishes “knowing“ from “feeling“ by saying, “What we can know, not what we can feel, is the function of the language of conceptual schemes, the concepts by which we conceptualize.“
So, if “knowing” is the function of the language of conceptual schemes,” what about “feeling?” What does “feeling” correspond to?
“Feeling” corresponds to “empirical facts.“By definition, empirical facts are facts that can be experienced, and the meaning of Dr. Fisch’s “feel.”
Experiencing empirical facts is what our senses, such as eyes, ears, noses, tongues, and bodily parts, do. When eyes see, ears hear, nose smell, tongue taste, and bodily parts touch, they experience “empirical facts” of nature. That is the first step in humanity’s interaction with the outside world. Dr. Fisch describes it as “the world impacts on us in a causal manner through our senses.”
However, according to Dr. Fisch, these empirical facts immediately become “reading in of the mind“ and get conceptualized “in ways we do not govern.“ The conceptualized images then get projected onto the “screen“ to be seen as “the world we experience.” Humans then understand “the world that we experience” using inferentially connected words.
In other words, words are used to understand an already conceptualized world, while empirical facts carry information from the outside world before they are conceptualized. Therefore, if empirical facts can be understood before they are conceptualized, they inform nature as it is.
Of course, if the conceptualization of the empirical facts can be prevented, then the empirical facts can be understood without distortion. Stopping empirical facts from being conceptualized is what direct perception does.
Direct perception is carried out through Samathavipasyana, the meditation Buddha teaches.
Samathavipasyana (Chinese=止觀), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “In Sanskrit, “calmness (samatha) and insight (vipasyana), a term used to describe a meditative state that combines clarity and stability of samatha with the understanding of the nature of reality associated with vipasyana.“ Furthermore, “The presence of vipasyana is the distinguishing feature of the wisdom that derives from meditation (Romanized Sanskrit=bhavanamayiprajna; Chinese=修慧).
The Chinese translation of Samathavipasyana is “stop and insight.“ In other words, Samathavipasyana must be carried until the mind is completely inactive.
The goal of achieving an inactive mind is to prevent the “reading in of the mind,“ which requires an active mind. When the “reading in of the mind” is prevented, conceptualization “in ways we do not govern“ is also prevented. By preventing them both, direct perception allows the understanding of empirical facts without distortion. Since the empirical facts are about nature as it is, they inform “how things stand in themselves,” in Dr. Fisch’s words,
In Buddhism, achieving an inactive mind is a milestone accomplishment because it signifies enlightenment.
According to the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, in the Astasahasrika-Prajnaparamita-Sutra (Chinese=道行般若波羅蜜經), Buddha defines enlightenment as the “thought of enlightenment is no thought since in its essential original nature thought is transparently luminous.“
Of course, an inactive mind is a “no thought“ mind. According to Buddha, it is an enlightened mind.
While Dr. Fisch uses empirical facts to signify facts that can be experienced, Buddha uses two other terms. As discussed in Post 2, an enlightened person can become a Buddha by encompassing “all objects of knowledge.“ Therefore, “all objects of knowledge” are empirical because an enlightened person must perceive them directly. Furthermore, in the definition of Samadhi, an enlightened person can access the “experiential content“ of Citta when their “no thought“ mentality becomes one at the time of enlightenment. Of course, “experiential content” is the definition of empiricism.
In Buddha’s cosmos, where there is “Nothing but Mentality, empirical facts, “all objects of knowledge,” and “experiential content,” all signify information embedded in the mental construct of all phenomena in the universe that any enlightened person can directly perceive. They represent three ways of informing “how things stand in themselves.”
In a doctrine known in Romanized Sanskrit as Buddhadhutu, Buddha teaches that all humans have the potential to be enlightened.
Buddhadhutu (Chinese=佛性), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit, “buddha-element,“ or “buddha nature;“ the inherent potential of all sentient beings to achieve Buddhahood.”
So, what are people’s potential to achieve Buddhahood? It is their active mind. Known as consciousness, every person has an active mind. When people can successfully calm their minds down to stillness, consciousness turns to awareness, and they are enlightened. However, while the potential is there, enlightenment is challenging. Many have tried since Buddha, but only a few have succeeded.
Adyashanti is one of those fortunate to be on the List of Enlightened People since Buddha. Born Stephen Grey, Adyashanti is a contemporary American who, upon his enlightenment, acknowledged his Buddha nature by realizing that “the Buddha I had been chasing was what I was.“ Furthermore, Adyashanti acknowledged the mental nature of his being by teaching “you are awareness,” “you and awareness are not two different things,“ and “resting in awareness is not a state of doing, it is a state of being.“ The details of his enlightenment experience can be found here. Undoubtedly, Buddha’s teaching regarding Citta, the Ultimate Reality, can be verified by anyone enlightened.
(If you like this post, please consider liking it and subscribing on Facebook so you will be notified when a new post comes out. Please also share to promote Buddha’s education.)
