The present series of articles is not in
response to the article by Prof. Carlo Fonseka on “The differences between the
Arts and the Sciences that appeared in “The Island” on the 6th of
September 2014. However, it touches on certain matters that Prof. Fonseka
mentions in his article, especially regarding science as a discovery as opposed
to creation and Einstein’s work as a refinement of Newton’s Physics. I am more
interested in knowledge in general and I approach the subject as a Sinhala
Buddhist brought up in that culture as a child and returned to Sinhala Buddhism
after roaming as a student of western science and Marxism. Some learned people
may consider Marxism as a Science (Western) but Popper would not agree with
them as the latter is of the view that Marxism cannot be falsified thus
violating his criterion that identifies science being consisting of theories
that can be falsified. The irony is that in Sri Lanka there are learned people
who are Popperians, Marxists and Scientists at the same time!
However, I must admit that my Bududahama
is not be the same as that of Budunvahanse and I believe that only another
Budunvahanse and not even an Arhant can “know” the Bududahama of Budunvahanse.
Arhant Mugalan Thera wanted to go in search of the end of the world clearly
demonstrating that the Ven. Arhant’s Bududahama was different from that of
Budunvahanse. My Bududahama is my interpretation or better my creation and it
is unique to me. In my Bududahama all knowledge is due to “Avidya” whatever it
means and knowledge is constructed due to “Avidya”. The concept of “I” that has
been created due to “Avidya” is the biggest stumbling block in attaining
Nibbana and “I” believe that in attaining Nibbana “one” “discards” all
knowledge that had been created through “Samsaric” journey.
I start with Avijja paccaya sankara in
Paticca Samuppada however, I must admit that I do not what is meant by avijja
for the simple reason that Paticca Samuppada according to the commentary is
applicable to Arhants as well up to Phassa paccaya vedana. Thus if we believe
in the commentary then even the Arhants also “possess” avijja and it could be
concluded that “avijja” does not mean not knowing of four noble truths.
However, we could ignore the commentary and state that Paticca Samuppada is not
applicable to Arhants. Then one could question as to how Arhants live until
Parinibbana is attained or Nirupadisesa Nibbana is attained, as they also feel
(vedana) as a result of contact (phassa). The problem is to explain Sopadisesa
Nibbana that Arhants have attained while they live in this “bhava”. It may be
that “vijja” in this instance means something else and we may have to create a
meaning for “vijja” consistent with other knowledge. In this connection I am
reminded of the word “seppadavijja” that had been used by Yagu Kauranas or
people of Yaksha tribe.
There is no satisfactory explanation of
knowledge in western philosophy to my knowledge and it is said that
Wittgenstein gave up his quest for knowledge of knowledge as he could not come
out with an explanation on what is meant by knowledge. There are some people
who attempt to distinguish between knowledge and myth and it is in this
category we find the western philosophers of science or philosophers of western
science. To be precise they should be called western philosophers of western
science. In Sinhala Buddhism relative to me knowledge is all myth or “lies” or
“musa” (false) as stated in Dvyatanupassana Sutta. As far as Arhants are
concerned according to this Sutta the concepts, theories etc., knowledge in
general of “prthagjanas” are lies.
What appears below is an excerpt from
Dvyatanupassana Sutta translated by Ven. Thanissaro Thera.
"Now, if there are
any who ask, 'Would there be the right contemplation of dualities in yet
another way?' they should be told, 'There would.' 'How would that be?'
'Whatever is considered as "This is true" by the world with its
devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty
& commonfolk, is rightly seen as it actually is with right discernment by
the noble ones as "This is false"': this is one contemplation.
'Whatever is considered as "This is false" by the world with its
devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its
royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen as it actually is with right
discernment by the noble ones as "This is true"': this is a second
contemplation. For a monk rightly contemplating this duality in this way —
heedful, ardent, & resolute — one of two fruits can be expected: either
gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of
clinging-sustenance — non-return."
However, it does not mean that we have
to discard all our knowledge as lies (or false) created by the “prthagjanas”.
There are Sammuthies (not sammuthi sathya) or conventions (not conventional truths)
which we have adopted and an individual may belong to one or more sammuthies as
the case may be. Some of the sammuthies may be in contradiction with each other
but many people are not bothered of the contradictions and may belong to
contradictory sammuthies. The western science is only one such sammuthi, and
often the western scientists belong to other sammuthies as well. Some of these
other sammuthies may be in contradiction with western science but that is
immaterial as far as the western scientists are concerned. It is due to this
one could be a Popperian, Marxist and western scientist at the same period.
The knowledge is constructed by any
individual (prthagjana) relative to the five sense organs, mind and the culture
of the individual. The cultures are also creations of human beings and mind is
the biggest and the worst construction of the mind. The mind is constructed by
the mind itself, and how it is being done is explained in the article “Sinhala
Bauddha Manasa” that can be downloaded from the kalaya website (www.kalaya.org)
In Sinhala Buddhist culture as
constructed by me all knowledge is false and what we have to attain is a status
of no knowledge or anna and not nnana though the latter is useful in living
until one attains Nibbana. This is in contradiction to many systems of
knowledge that consider certain things to be true while others are considered
to be myths. The problem in these systems is to weed out myths from truth or to
identify what is truth. The western philosophers of western science have
devised various schemes to distinguish western science from other systems.
There are some western scientists and their philosophers who consider western
science to be true or as a system that approaches truth.
However, Prof. Carlo Fonseka is not of
that view and he states in the above mentioned article that “this does not mean that the discoveries made by
scientists necessarily represent the absolute and final truth about the matters
in question. Just think of Newtonian physics which held sway for about 300
years. The work of Einstein demonstrated that it did not represent the absolute
truth about the physical nature of the natural world. Einstein’s work refined
Newton’s physics. That is why some critics of science say that the discoveries
of science are no more than useful fictions which enable us to make sense of
the natural world.” However he is of the opinion that Einstein’s work refined
Newton’s Physics and (western) scientists make discoveries. We will discuss
these in the next installment. (To be
continued)
Nalin De Silva
10-09-2014