Difference between revisions of "Theory of valid cognition in Buddhism"
(Created page with " <poem> {{Wiki|Theory}} of valid cognition is a discipline that analyses statements of others by means of logical {{Wiki|deliberation}}. And the same is true reg...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | <nomobile>{{DisplayImages|4342|1360|2368}}</nomobile> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <poem> | ||
| + | {{Wiki|Theory}} of valid [[cognition]] is a [[discipline]] that analyses statements of others by means of [[logical]] {{Wiki|deliberation}}. And the same is true regarding [[Buddha]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We should analyse statements of [[Buddha]] by means of [[logical]] {{Wiki|deliberation}} and {{Wiki|theory}} of [[cognition]] if they are correct or not. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If a [[teaching]] is correct it should withstand threefold criteria of [[truthfulness]]: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
1.Validity in regards to authoritative [[scriptures]]. | 1.Validity in regards to authoritative [[scriptures]]. | ||
2.Validity in regards to {{Wiki|deductive}} enquiry. | 2.Validity in regards to {{Wiki|deductive}} enquiry. | ||
3.Validity in regards to direct enquiry. | 3.Validity in regards to direct enquiry. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
We cannot just take the [[teachings of Buddha]] and believe to them. Even the one explaining them is a very good [[person]], we have no warranty he does know how to teach others to be like him. | We cannot just take the [[teachings of Buddha]] and believe to them. Even the one explaining them is a very good [[person]], we have no warranty he does know how to teach others to be like him. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 23: | ||
[[Buddhists]], on opposite, cannot approach it so irresponsibly. They have to [[logically]] test the teachings they are [[taught]]. And it has to be done by means of {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] (or [[Tsema]] in [[Tibetan]]). | [[Buddhists]], on opposite, cannot approach it so irresponsibly. They have to [[logically]] test the teachings they are [[taught]]. And it has to be done by means of {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] (or [[Tsema]] in [[Tibetan]]). | ||
| − | There are 2 types of | + | There are [[2 types of right cognition]]: |
| + | |||
1.Direct valid [[cognition]]. | 1.Direct valid [[cognition]]. | ||
2. {{Wiki|Deductive}} valid [[cognition]]. | 2. {{Wiki|Deductive}} valid [[cognition]]. | ||
| − | And when you | + | And when you analyze [[Buddha’s teaching]] by means of these two types of true [[knowledge]], what is correct or what is incorrect, when you make certain it is correct, you may realize also that the one who [[taught]] it, [[Buddha]], was correct. |
| − | Such [[Buddhist]] notions as “[[emptiness]]”, “[[non-existence]] of “I”, [[soul]], [[inner self]]” one should definitely prove to him/her-self by methods of valid [[cognition]]. But the [[absolute truth]] is impossible to examine by means of [[logic]] alone. [[Logical]] or | + | Such [[Buddhist]] notions as “[[emptiness]]”, “[[non-existence]] of “I”, [[soul]], [[inner self]]” one should definitely prove to him/her-self by methods of valid [[cognition]]. But the [[absolute truth]] is impossible to examine by means of [[logic]] alone. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Logical cognition]] or [[deductive cognition]] deals only with [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], [[thought]], [[ideas]], notions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For this [[reason]] the [[absolute truth]] should be examined by direct inquiry, when we [[practice]] and realize it is really the way we [[thought]] it should be. | ||
So we can conclude the most important difference between [[Buddhists]] and non-Buddhists is that theories of [[Buddhists]] are based on [[logic]], while theories of non-Buddhists are not based on [[logical]] {{Wiki|deliberation}}. | So we can conclude the most important difference between [[Buddhists]] and non-Buddhists is that theories of [[Buddhists]] are based on [[logic]], while theories of non-Buddhists are not based on [[logical]] {{Wiki|deliberation}}. | ||
| Line 27: | Line 40: | ||
The other [[reason]] why [[Buddhists]] learn {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] is because most [[ordinary people]] are not {{Wiki|aware}} what is a [[consciousness]] that all [[beings]] have, what are the [[objects]] of [[consciousness]], what is [[perception]] and how it related to [[objects of perception]], what are notions and their meanings and how they can be related with each other. | The other [[reason]] why [[Buddhists]] learn {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] is because most [[ordinary people]] are not {{Wiki|aware}} what is a [[consciousness]] that all [[beings]] have, what are the [[objects]] of [[consciousness]], what is [[perception]] and how it related to [[objects of perception]], what are notions and their meanings and how they can be related with each other. | ||
| − | [[Buddha Shakyamuni]] didn’t have a separate [[Sutra]] regarding the | + | [[Buddha Shakyamuni]] didn’t have a separate [[Sutra]] regarding the [[valid cognition]], but his teachings and statements about the valid [[cognition]] could be found in many [[Sutras]]. |
| + | |||
| + | In 6th century a [[student]] of great [[Buddhist scholar]] [[Vasubandhu]], his [[name]] was [[Dignaga]], [[gathered]] together everything that he could found in [[Buddha]] [[Sutras]] regarding valid [[cognition]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | From this point onwards [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] started as a separate [[discipline]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | A [[student]] of [[Dignaga]] – [[Dharmakirti]] – very profoundly studied the {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] and [[Buddha’s teachings]] and condensed the most important teachings on the [[subject]] in 7 [[books]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | At his [[time]] it was a huge impact on other [[Buddhist]] and [[non-Buddhist]] [[scholars]], soon many others started to learn and research {{Wiki|theory}} of [[cognition]] seriously. | ||
| + | |||
In [[Tibet]] the founder of research in {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] was [[Chapa Chökyi Sengé]] in 12 century. He introduced {{Wiki|rules}} and regulations of [[debates]] the way they are performed also in our days. | In [[Tibet]] the founder of research in {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] was [[Chapa Chökyi Sengé]] in 12 century. He introduced {{Wiki|rules}} and regulations of [[debates]] the way they are performed also in our days. | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | Nowadays very often the {{Wiki|theory}} of valid [[cognition]] in [[Tibetan Buddhism]] is learned from the [[book]] of a great [[Buddhist scholar]] of 13th century [[Sakya Pandita]] – [[Tsema Rigter]] ([[Treasury of Logic]] and Valid Cognition]] ([[Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter]])). | |
| + | |||
| + | He brought together all the most important [[knowledge]] in [[books]] written by [[Dignaga]] and [[Dharmakirti]] and created a very authoritative treatise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | “[[Treasury of Logic and Valid Cognition]]” by [[Sakya Pandita]] is the most authoritative [[book]] on {{Wiki|theory}} of [[cognition]] in [[Sakya Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Kagyu]] [[recognizes]] the authority of both – this [[book]] and [[books]] by [[Dharmakirti]], while [[traditions]] of [[Gelug]] and [[Nyingma]] rely only on [[books]] by [[Dharmakirti]]. | ||
</poem> | </poem> | ||
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://redzambala.com/buddhism/philosophy/theory-of-valid-cognition-in-buddhism.html] | [http://redzambala.com/buddhism/philosophy/theory-of-valid-cognition-in-buddhism.html] | ||
| + | [[Category:Sakya]] | ||
[[Category:Buddhist Philosophy]] | [[Category:Buddhist Philosophy]] | ||
Revision as of 09:51, 24 October 2015
Theory of valid cognition is a discipline that analyses statements of others by means of logical deliberation. And the same is true regarding Buddha.
We should analyse statements of Buddha by means of logical deliberation and theory of cognition if they are correct or not.
If a teaching is correct it should withstand threefold criteria of truthfulness:
1.Validity in regards to authoritative scriptures.
2.Validity in regards to deductive enquiry.
3.Validity in regards to direct enquiry.
We cannot just take the teachings of Buddha and believe to them. Even the one explaining them is a very good person, we have no warranty he does know how to teach others to be like him.
For instance, what is the difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists? Non-Buddhists use to say: We have received our teachings from a God, or from Brahma, and because our God is good, his teachings are good. But who knows his teachings are really true and correct? - Nobody. That’s what their arguments are worth of.
Buddhists, on opposite, cannot approach it so irresponsibly. They have to logically test the teachings they are taught. And it has to be done by means of theory of valid cognition (or Tsema in Tibetan).
There are 2 types of right cognition:
1.Direct valid cognition.
2. Deductive valid cognition.
And when you analyze Buddha’s teaching by means of these two types of true knowledge, what is correct or what is incorrect, when you make certain it is correct, you may realize also that the one who taught it, Buddha, was correct.
Such Buddhist notions as “emptiness”, “non-existence of “I”, soul, inner self” one should definitely prove to him/her-self by methods of valid cognition. But the absolute truth is impossible to examine by means of logic alone.
Logical cognition or deductive cognition deals only with concepts, thought, ideas, notions.
For this reason the absolute truth should be examined by direct inquiry, when we practice and realize it is really the way we thought it should be.
So we can conclude the most important difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that theories of Buddhists are based on logic, while theories of non-Buddhists are not based on logical deliberation.
The other reason why Buddhists learn theory of valid cognition is because most ordinary people are not aware what is a consciousness that all beings have, what are the objects of consciousness, what is perception and how it related to objects of perception, what are notions and their meanings and how they can be related with each other.
Buddha Shakyamuni didn’t have a separate Sutra regarding the valid cognition, but his teachings and statements about the valid cognition could be found in many Sutras.
In 6th century a student of great Buddhist scholar Vasubandhu, his name was Dignaga, gathered together everything that he could found in Buddha Sutras regarding valid cognition.
From this point onwards Buddhist theory of valid cognition started as a separate discipline.
A student of Dignaga – Dharmakirti – very profoundly studied the theory of valid cognition and Buddha’s teachings and condensed the most important teachings on the subject in 7 books.
At his time it was a huge impact on other Buddhist and non-Buddhist scholars, soon many others started to learn and research theory of cognition seriously.
In Tibet the founder of research in theory of valid cognition was Chapa Chökyi Sengé in 12 century. He introduced rules and regulations of debates the way they are performed also in our days.
Nowadays very often the theory of valid cognition in Tibetan Buddhism is learned from the book of a great Buddhist scholar of 13th century Sakya Pandita – Tsema Rigter (Treasury of Logic and Valid Cognition]] (Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter)).
He brought together all the most important knowledge in books written by Dignaga and Dharmakirti and created a very authoritative treatise.
“Treasury of Logic and Valid Cognition” by Sakya Pandita is the most authoritative book on theory of cognition in Sakya Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
Kagyu recognizes the authority of both – this book and books by Dharmakirti, while traditions of Gelug and Nyingma rely only on books by Dharmakirti.
