PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 17, 20260 citationsOpen Access

The role of language in Buddhist epistemology

View Full Paper
CBChitra Bhaskar

Key Points

  • This paper investigates the significance of language and means of knowledge in Buddhist epistemology, focusing on pramāṇa.
  • Analyzed concept of pramāṇa in Buddhist philosophy.
  • Examined contributions from Dignāga and Dharmakīrti schools.
  • Compared interpretations across various Buddhist schools like Sautrāntika and Yogācāra.
  • Discussed definitions of pratyakṣa and anumāna within context of knowledge validation.
  • Identified two primary means of knowledge in Buddhism: pratyakṣa (perception) and anumāna (inference).
  • Illustrated the role of language in shaping understanding of these epistemological tools.
  • Highlighted the varying interpretations of perception and inference across Buddhist schools.

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes the role of language and the concept of pramāṇa (valid means of knowledge) within Buddhist epistemology. The central theme of Indian philosophy, including Buddhism, is the investigation of pramāṇas as instruments for attaining accurate knowledge (pramā). While various Indian schools accept up to six pramāṇas, Buddhist logico-epistemology, notably the Dignāga and Dharmakīrti schools, exclusively recognize two: Pratyakṣa (Perception) and Anumāna (Inference). They view others like comparison and testimony as subsumed under inference. Furthermore, the Buddhist tradition accepts scriptural authority only if it is consistent with perception and inference, aligning with the Buddha’s injunction against accepting anything based on mere tradition. Pratyakṣa (Perception) is defined as direct, immediate, and non-conceptual experience of reality. It is considered valid because it apprehends the uniqueness (svalakṣaṇa) of an object, unassociated with language or conceptual construction (kalpana). Anumāna (Inference) is the secondary means of knowledge, relying on reasoning and logical analysis. It is based on vyāpti (invariable concomitance) between a hetu (reason) and a sādhya (inferable property). Inference is categorized into Svārthānumānam (for oneself) and Parārthānumānam (for others, often stated in syllogistic form). Different Buddhist schools like Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and Madhyamaka offer varied theories on the nature and limitation of perception and inference, particularly concerning the role of consciousness, momentariness, and emptiness (śūnyatā). The paper concludes that Buddhist epistemologists utilize these tools to accurately “measure reality” and advance the path to liberation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Chitra Bhaskar (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696b2696d2a12237a9349e22https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18261797
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Epistemological Role of Language in Indian Philosophy2026
  2. 2Pratyakṣa in Prāsaṅgika: how is sensory perception possible?2025
  3. 3Dharmakīrti’s School, Epistemological Ontology and New Comparative Dimensions2026
  4. 4Epistemology of Buddhist Perception: Some Problems2026
  5. 5The Epistemology of the Body in Indian Philosophy2025