Right knowledge

[Ground]

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born.
...
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
...

AN 3.65

The Kalama sutta is often taken as evidence by those who want to justify their private beliefs and pretend that their private beliefs are compliant with buddhism.

However at close inspection although the subject is right knowledge expressed as 'when you know for yourselves' the sutta actually is an appeal to belief.
Why?
Because there isn't any mention of how one may get rid of uncertainty and doubt by means of acquiring right knowledge.
From where does knowledge arise about what is skillful and unskillful? Skillful with reference to what aim?
From where does knowledge arise about what is blameworthy and blameless? Who rightly blames and who does not rightly blame something?
And finally from where does knowledge arise about who is wise and who is unwise or ignorant?

The Kama sutta actually is an appeal to believe that the one who speaks to the Kalamas is wise, to believe in him and what he says because all other possible sources of right knowledge are denied.

Luckily despite of such anti-rational sermons in early buddhism later buddhism has developed a tradition of logic and rational analysis. The most prominent figures in the context of buddhist logic are certainly the founders of this tradition: Dignaga and his follower Dharmakirti.

Due to its brevity the Nyayabindu of Dharmakirti - translated by Wayman in his A Millenium of Buddhist Logic - shall be the basis for this thread about critical analysis of what is called 'right knowledge' and its prerequisites and premises.

Chapter 1 is titled 'Direct perception' and the opening statement is:

The success of all human aims is preceded by right cognition. Therefore this (cognition) is here taught.

So right knowledge is based on right cognition and the successful pursuit of aims is based on right knowledge. Every scientific professional should be able to agree to this.

[Ground]

Then it goes on:

Right cognition is twofold: direct perception and inference.

Among them, direct perception is free from constructive thought and is non-delusionary.

Constructive thought is the cognitive dawning of an image able to coalesce with verbalism.

Cognition free from such (constructive thought), when not subject to disturbances such as eye-caul, whirling motion, embarking in a boat, and agitation is direct perception.

So direct perception on the basis of healthy senses and free from external disturbing conditions is also free from constructive thought and is non-mistaken as to its object of engagement.

Some have wrongly concluded that direct perception is absolutely passive cognition. But if direct perception would be absolutely passive then there wouldn't appear any object since the senses would only receive totally unstructured raw sense data not yet associated to phenomena/objects.
So even if direct perception is defined as free from constructive thought there must already be included some intentional kind of intuitive clustering of raw sense data in what is called 'direct perception' here.

Also some have wrongly concluded that full-fledged conceptual thought based on constructive thought cannot be non-erroneous in contrast to direct perception but that would be contradictory since inference has been defined as one of the two kinds of valid cognitions and inference necessarily is full-fledged conceptual thought.

So the difference is just that with inference a general image as intervening appearing object is involved so that it does not get directly at the particular object whereas direct perception is defined here to not have this intervening image involved which however does not mean that there is absolutely no - at least intuitive - construct involved.

Empirically this confirms the conventional experience that what one has seen with one's own eyes, heard with one's own ears, smelled with one's own nose, tasted with one's own tongue, touched with one's own fingers appears to be more reliable than what one is merely told by someone else. This is why direct perception is called 'right' or 'valid' cognition and the whole of science relies on direct perception.

Nevertheless conceptual inference - if it complies with the rules of logical syllogisms expounded in this treatise - is said to be right or valid cognition too although it is indirect cognition.
This again is compliant with science since although science is primarily based on direct perception secondarily general rules are inferred from these direct perceptions. However before these rules are considered to be valid they must be finally confirmed by means of direct perceptions.
The latter is valid also in the context of this treatise on logic: if the subject, predicate and signs of logical syllogisms are not accessible to direct perception then the syllogisms cannot be reliable. It is important here to note that although abstract conceptual objects as such cannot be accessible to the senses their definitions nevertheless can be directly perceived. And if we have a sequence of abstract conceptual objects depending on each other at the end of a chain of definitions there always have to be particular objects directly accessible to the senses independent of definitions.



So even if both, direct perception and inference, are valid means of cognition, finally it is direct perception on which valid cognition is based generally.

In this way this kind of logic mirrors that which is known as scientific approach to valid knowledge today.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Ground

Then it goes on:







So direct perception on the basis of healthy senses and free from external disturbing conditions is also free from constructive thought and is non-mistaken as to its object of engagement.

Some have wrongly concluded that direct perception is absolutely passive cognition. But if direct perception would be absolutely passive then there wouldn't appear any object since the senses would only receive totally unstructured raw sense data not yet associated to phenomena/objects.
So even if direct perception is defined as free from constructive thought there must already be included some intentional kind of intuitive clustering of raw sense data in what is called 'direct perception' here.

Also some have wrongly concluded that full-fledged conceptual thought based on constructive thought cannot be non-erroneous in contrast to direct perception but that would be contradictory since inference has been defined as one of the two kinds of valid cognitions and inference necessarily is full-fledged conceptual thought.

So the difference is just that with inference a general image as intervening appearing object is involved so that it does not get directly at the particular object whereas direct perception is defined here to not have this intervening image involved which however does not mean that there is absolutely no - at least intuitive - construct involved.

Empirically this confirms the conventional experience that what one has seen with one's own eyes, heard with one's own ears, smelled with one's own nose, tasted with one's own tongue, touched with one's own fingers appears to be more reliable than what one is merely told by someone else. This is why direct perception is called 'right' or 'valid' cognition and the whole of science relies on direct perception.

Nevertheless conceptual inference - if it complies with the rules of logical syllogisms expounded in this treatise - is said to be right or valid cognition too although it is indirect cognition.
This again is compliant with science since although science is primarily based on direct perception secondarily general rules are inferred from these direct perceptions. However before these rules are considered to be valid they must be finally confirmed by means of direct perceptions.
The latter is valid also in the context of this treatise on logic: if the subject, predicate and signs of logical syllogisms are not accessible to direct perception then the syllogisms cannot be reliable. It is important here to note that although abstract conceptual objects as such cannot be accessible to the senses their definitions nevertheless can be directly perceived. And if we have a sequence of abstract conceptual objects depending on each other at the end of a chain of definitions there always have to be particular objects directly accessible to the senses independent of definitions.



So even if both, direct perception and inference, are valid means of cognition, finally it is direct perception on which valid cognition is based generally.

In this way this kind of logic mirrors that which is known as scientific approach to valid knowledge today.

not really. scientific approach as applieds requires that multiple people agree about observations, so that they can be verified. But when this fact is used as an excuse to avoid observations that one doesn't like, in order to prevent them from being verified, the whole thing falls apart.

So while an individual practicing the parts of scientific verification that don't apply to being in agreement with others may (or may not) get somewhere usefule, science as practiced in gaining agreement, is by its very nature limited in what can be determined. Because, people defy each other and sometimes just won't be agreeable for any price.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Ground

Then it goes on:







So direct perception on the basis of healthy senses and free from external disturbing conditions is also free from constructive thought and is non-mistaken as to its object of engagement.

Some have wrongly concluded that direct perception is absolutely passive cognition. But if direct perception would be absolutely passive then there wouldn't appear any object since the senses would only receive totally unstructured raw sense data not yet associated to phenomena/objects.
So even if direct perception is defined as free from constructive thought there must already be included some intentional kind of intuitive clustering of raw sense data in what is called 'direct perception' here.

Also some have wrongly concluded that full-fledged conceptual thought based on constructive thought cannot be non-erroneous in contrast to direct perception but that would be contradictory since inference has been defined as one of the two kinds of valid cognitions and inference necessarily is full-fledged conceptual thought.

So the difference is just that with inference a general image as intervening appearing object is involved so that it does not get directly at the particular object whereas direct perception is defined here to not have this intervening image involved which however does not mean that there is absolutely no - at least intuitive - construct involved.

Empirically this confirms the conventional experience that what one has seen with one's own eyes, heard with one's own ears, smelled with one's own nose, tasted with one's own tongue, touched with one's own fingers appears to be more reliable than what one is merely told by someone else. This is why direct perception is called 'right' or 'valid' cognition and the whole of science relies on direct perception.

Nevertheless conceptual inference - if it complies with the rules of logical syllogisms expounded in this treatise - is said to be right or valid cognition too although it is indirect cognition.
This again is compliant with science since although science is primarily based on direct perception secondarily general rules are inferred from these direct perceptions. However before these rules are considered to be valid they must be finally confirmed by means of direct perceptions.
The latter is valid also in the context of this treatise on logic: if the subject, predicate and signs of logical syllogisms are not accessible to direct perception then the syllogisms cannot be reliable. It is important here to note that although abstract conceptual objects as such cannot be accessible to the senses their definitions nevertheless can be directly perceived. And if we have a sequence of abstract conceptual objects depending on each other at the end of a chain of definitions there always have to be particular objects directly accessible to the senses independent of definitions.



So even if both, direct perception and inference, are valid means of cognition, finally it is direct perception on which valid cognition is based generally.

In this way this kind of logic mirrors that which is known as scientific approach to valid knowledge today.

As an intuitive reading all this, its just like a big mash of over loaded jargon (valid jargon of course)trying to speak something that could be conveyed in more simple terms (perhaps) for those less able to take in the whole stream of knowledge versus direct intuitive awareness. Plus, your point is lost in this as I am trying to see you in all this which would help the whole picture more so..What are you really trying to convey of yourself and the point less infused by in all this in simple terms please and thanks if you can.


Signed.

From someone who is trying to find your point, but in the process (as a predominate intuitive) cannot fully relate or see it yet..

[Ground]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

not really. scientific approach as applieds requires that multiple people agree about observations, so that they can be verified.

yes, correct. That is why I said it mirrors the scientific approach, i.e. the approach as such which consists of direct perception, inference from direct perception provided the premise that the inferred thesis must be verifiable by direct perception.

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

But when this fact is used as an excuse to avoid observations that one doesn't like, in order to prevent them from being verified, the whole thing falls apart.

'Not liking' isn't really compliant with scientific approach. Emotionalities in the context of objects aren't really compatible with a scientific approach. But to turn objects into objects of investigation is a scientific approach and entails valid knowledge.

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

So while an individual practicing the parts of scientific verification that don't apply to being in agreement with others may (or may not) get somewhere usefule, science as practiced in gaining agreement, is by its very nature limited in what can be determined. Because, people defy each other and sometimes just won't be agreeable for any price.

The one who merely seeks agreement with others isn't qualified to be a good scientist. The one who applies scientific approach to things will often be in conflict with other who are not qualified for scientific approach since they rely on beliefs and emotions.

Since even the buddha merely appealed to belief as shown in the opening post then it is laudable that the buddhist tradition nevertheless gave rise to a tradition of rational and logical investigation that may be generally applicable since it mirrors today's scientific approach.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

yes, correct. That is why I said it mirrors the scientific approach, i.e. the approach as such which consists of direct perception, inference from direct perception provided the premise that the inferred thesis must be verifiable by direct perception.


'Not liking' isn't really compliant with scientific approach. Emotionalities in the context of objects aren't really compatible with a scientific approach. But to turn objects into objects of investigation is a scientific approach and entails valid knowledge.

The one who merely seeks agreement with others isn't qualified to be a good scientist. The one who applies scientific approach to things will often be in conflict with other who are not qualified for scientific approach since they rely on beliefs and emotions.

Since even the buddha merely appealed to belief as shown in the opening post then it is laudable that the buddhist tradition nevertheless gave rise to a tradition of rational and logical investigation that may be generally applicable since it mirrors today's scientific approach.

You used mirror as the direct perception that is too childish way of approaching scientific research.

Science is something that you should understand them thoroughly then you can find out the truth of it. It didn't to be any concern or not concern. If you not understand that field then you're the layman of it.

Buddha Sakyamuni teaching is to teach others to be good and he will help him to learn more . It's the same as my case. So it's hard to follow you methods here. Why? They are out of logic , not real and not the real way to learn Buddhism. Universal Dharma is understand of what you are belong to : what or how high your capacity that you can accept it. Your idea is not the completed one. Lacking of many factors to carry on the learning of spiritual abilities or using the scientific approach to search for the true evidence.

[Ground]

There will be comments and/or debates occuring in this thread. Therefore in order not to lose the main thread of the investigation into right knowledge which will consist of postings directly referring to established buddhist logic I will now start to link those postings together and label them Step n

So far there are two postings which are part of the main thread.
1. opening posting
2. 2nd posting

Now let's continue ...

Step 3

Next Dharmakirti lists the categories of his model of direct perception:

It is fourfold -
1. Sense-organ cognition.

2. Mental perception
(which) is engendered by the immediately preceding condition, to wit, the cooperating sense-organ cognition as an object that immediately follows its own (partite) sense-object.

Now this is important here in Dharmakirti's model! Sense direct perception is necessarily followed by a mental direct perception. That allows for assigning a more active role to the sequence "sense direct perception -> mental direct perception" since - as mentioned already above - a total passive reception of mere unstructured raw sense data would make it impossible to posit a directly perceived object/phenomenon. The locus for structuring and clustering raw sense data can now be assigned to mental direct perception as a kind of conditioned intuitive intentional perception which at least causes the structured appearance of nameless and meaningless objects/phenomena out of the chaos of the unstructured raw sense data of a nameless and meaningless sense impression which is the multipartite sense object of mental direct perception.

3. Introspection
(which) is of every thought and mental.

It is a wise move of Wayman to choose the word 'introspection' here since it may be widely accepted that there is something that is rightly called 'introspection'. Others choose the word 'apperception' which however is a word that in some circles causes painstaking but irrelevant epistemological debates.

and 4. yogin's cognition
(which is) born of the vivid fulfilment from contemplating the true end.

Dharmakirti's treatise wouldn't be a buddhist treatise if there wouldn't occur the last category of direct perception, i.e. a yogin's cognition which is the direct cognition of a meditator meditating on 'the ultimate'.

So whereas introspection is called 'mental' and therefore actually is a sub-category of mental direct perception a yogin's cognition isn't called 'mental' and remains dubious at that point.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Ground

There will be comments and/or debates occuring in this thread. Therefore in order not to lose the main thread of the investigation into right knowledge which will consist of postings directly referring to established buddhist logic I will now start to link those postings together and label them Step n

So far there are two postings which are part of the main thread.
1. opening posting
2. 2nd posting

Now let's continue ...

Step 3

Next Dharmakirti lists the categories of his model of direct perception:



Now this is important here in Dharmakirti's model! Sense direct perception is necessarily followed by a mental direct perception. That allows for assigning a more active role to the sequence "sense direct perception -> mental direct perception" since - as mentioned already above - a total passive reception of mere unstructured raw sense data would make it impossible to posit a directly perceived object/phenomenon. The locus for structuring and clustering raw sense data can now be assigned to mental direct perception as a kind of conditioned intuitive intentional perception which at least causes the structured appearance of nameless and meaningless objects/phenomena out of the chaos of the unstructured raw sense data of a nameless and meaningless sense impression which is the multipartite sense object of mental direct perception.


It is a wise move of Wayman to choose the word 'introspection' here since it may be widely accepted that there is something that is rightly called 'introspection'. Others choose the word 'apperception' which however is a word that in some circles causes painstaking but irrelevant epistemological debates.



Dharmakirti's treatise wouldn't be a buddhist treatise if there wouldn't occur the last category of direct perception, i.e. a yogin's cognition which is the direct cognition of a meditator meditating on 'the ultimate'.

So whereas introspection is called 'mental' and therefore actually is a sub-category of mental direct perception a yogin's cognition isn't called 'mental' and remains dubious at that point.

I noticed you didn't help me out in my asking above.
Perhaps if I suggest it this way it might open you to actually respond. Pretend your a teacher and I am a student trying to take all this in and comprehend what this is actually trying to convey and share here. But, I am struggling here trying to understand fully what this is all about, how would you go about supporting me to understand all this?

Do you feel this is important in this whole "right knowledge" topic? Or is it only about landing the knowledge and not being aware of others understanding it?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I noticed you didn't help me out in my asking above.
Perhaps if I suggest it this way it might open you to actually respond. Pretend your a teacher and I am a student trying to take all this in and comprehend what this is actually trying to convey and share here. But, I am struggling here trying to understand fully what this is all about, how would you go about supporting me to understand all this?

Do you feel this is important in this whole "right knowledge" topic? Or is it only about landing the knowledge and not being aware of others understanding it?

Sorry but I will not pretend to be a teacher. Why? Because a teacher is a person who intends to make his audience believe. However I do not intend to make anybody believe anything.
What I do intend here is to delineate the route to right or valid knowledge.

Right knowledge is knowledge that is valid as to all the diverse experiences in human life. Right knowledge does not accept some experience in life but reject others. Right knowledge is not belief but is based on rational analysis and rational analysis requires logical thinking. Therefore a buddhist treatise about logical thinking is taken as starting point for the route to right knowledge.

Everybody is free to think about what I am writing, to comment, to ask questions, to investigate themselves the sources that I am referring to or to ignore it or even reject it.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

Sorry but I will not pretend to be a teacher. Why? Because a teacher is a person who intends to make his audience believe. However I do not intend to make anybody believe anything.
What I do intend here is to delineate the route to right or valid knowledge.

Right knowledge is knowledge that is valid as to all the diverse experiences in human life. Right knowledge does not accept some experience in life but reject others. Right knowledge is not belief but is based on rational analysis and rational analysis requires logical thinking. Therefore a buddhist treatise about logical thinking is taken as starting point for the route to right knowledge.

Everybody is free to think about what I am writing, to comment, to ask questions, to investigate themselves the sources that I am referring to or to ignore it or even reject it.

What you said isn't it contradictory. You said about can meet the scientific proof. And you said, not accept experience ........ Isn't not a knowledge is based on rational experience and experiments done by people? I don't think you understand what's the right knowledge at the first place. When you sell the right knowledge that's even a small kid also know what it's, but you confused others as you explain on and on...... I think no one not muddled by you at the beginning and up to the end.

Experience is the real and right knowledge. Only wrong experience or misunderstanding may not meet the right knowledge.