The
word “agnoiology” is said to mean “the science or study of ignorance, which
determines its quality and conditions” or “the doctrine concerning those things
of which we are necessarily ignorant,” and it is said to describe a branch of
philosophy studied by James Frederick Ferrier in the nineteenth century. I
employ expressions such as “said to be mean/be” to suggest that I am not an
authority on the topic and hence I do hold accountable for its correctness,
reliability, and the difficulties such statements might entail. Similarly,
“agnotology” (formerly “agnatology”), a neologism coined by Robert N. Proctor,
Stanford University professor, specializing in the history of science and
technology, is said to be “the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt,
particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.” More
generally, the term is also said to highlight “the increasingly common
condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than
before.”
My
interest here is mainly whether we can speak of a “Buddhist agnoiology,” and to
a lesser degree, whether we can speak of “agnotology in Buddhism.” I think we
sure can. One may define “Buddhist agnoiology” as the “the science or study of
ignorance from a Buddhist perspective.” Just as we may talk of “Buddhist
epistemology” or “Buddhist gnoseology,” we can well talk of “Buddhist
agnoiology.” I like it. Some venues for exploration would be the ideas of
“nescience” (avidyā: ma rig pa), “disorientedness” (moha: gti mig),
“lack of knowledge/cognition” (ajñāna: ma shes pa). How have these terms
been defined or understood or used? What types of ignorance or nescience can we
trace in Buddhist sources? What are lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa (i.e.
“innate non-cognition”?) and kun tu brtags (or btags?) pa’i
ma rig pa (i.e. “acquired non-cognition”?)? This distinction, though
not quite clear to me, seems important. It seems to suggest that there are types
of ignorance we are born with and other types we acquire through
indoctrination. What about ma rtogs pa, log par rtog pa,
and phyogs tsam rtogs pa? What about the idea of duḥprajñā (shes
rab ’chal ba)? What about ’dres pa’i ma rig pa and ma
’dres pa’i ma rig pa? Are all kinds or degrees of ignorance or
non-cognition obstructive or impedimentary to the attainment of vimokṣa or vimukti?
The Mahāyānic answer seems to be in the negative. This is suggested by the idea
of jñeyāvaraṇa (shes bya’i sgrib pa), a kind of
obscuration that hinders one to know all objects of knowledge. One can possess
such a subtle kind of ignorance or nescience and yet one could attain the state
of an Arhatship. To become a buddha, however, one must eradicate
all traces of nescience, for a buddha is said to possess
omniscience. (Note, however, that there seems to be several concepts of
omniscience in Buddhism.) Such a subtle nescience can be due to the spatial
remoteness of the object of knowledge, or, due to the temporal remoteness of
the object of knowledge, or, due to the infinity-cum-transcendentality of the
object of knowledge (e.g. qualities of a buddha), or, due to the
subtlety of the object of knowledge (e.g. causes and conditions necessary for
giving rise to a single multi-colored patch of a peacock’s feather). Tibetan
Buddhist sources would describe the idea of the “four causes of non-cognition“
(mi shes pa’i rgyu bzhi) that even a traditional arhant is said to be
subject to. Of course, to understand “Buddhist agnoiology,” we will have to
understand the reverse side of the coin, namely, “Buddhist Epistemology” and
“Buddhist gnoseology.” Buddhist logic and epistemology would reveal a great
deal about the Buddhist concepts of non-perception, non-cognition,
misperception, misconception, perceptual and conceptual errors, and syllogistic
fallacies of various kinds.
And
what about “agnotology in Buddhism”? Can we talk of a kind of culturally
induced ignorance in Buddhism? Perhaps we can but only to a certain extent and
in certain contexts. Some Buddhist masters might discourage acquiring knowledge
that is not of direct relevance to the attainment of Arhathood or Buddhahood.
That is to say, they might indirectly encourage certain form/degree of
ignorance. Some Tibetan Buddhist masters are said to discourage or even
prohibit their disciples, especially young monks and nuns, to study, with the
argument that they would not remain in the monastery if they were to study. In
other words, such masters prefer that their disciples remain ignorant! Should
this turn out to be true, it would be a case in which an effort is made by some
sections of the society to induce ignorance so that the status quo can
be maintained. Although I can neither sympathize with these masters nor can I
conscientiously endorse such an attitude, I must, however, mention that
Buddhism does recognize the existence of knowledge or cognition that is
considered useless, for example, the knowledge about the number of worms in the
world. Also investigations and treatises such as those dealing with the
“analysis of crows‘ teeth” (bya rog so brtag) are considered to be
totally futile.
What
about the idea that “ignorance is bliss”? Usually in Buddhism: “Ignorance is
suffering/painful” (mi shes pa ni sdug bsngal lo). On the other hand, we
do find some sources which suggest that “ignorance can be bliss.” If I am not
mistaken, Āryadeva has suggested that if a common person were to know or see
the sufferings of the entire world, he or she would die then and there. That is
to suggest that if we do not know or see the suffering of the world, we tend to
be naive and happy. Why? My explanation is that we cannot often psychologically
cope with the reality or truth! This would bring us to the Buddhist idea
of kṣānti. It is often rendered as “patience” or “tolerance,” but
if we take the entire semantic range or spectrum of the term, “patience” or
“tolerance” does not seem to work. Particularly consider the expression: mi
skye ba’i chos la bzod pa. It seems to make no sense to understand
“tolerance with regard to the phenomena which is characterized by non-arising.”
Thus I am tempted to understand kṣānti in Buddhism as the
intellectual and psychological capacity or readiness of the mind to confront
reality or truth (no matter how painful, dreadful, unpleasant, subtle, or
profound). To cope with reality, truth, or knowledge or cognition, one would
require the necessary courage to confront it. Buddhist sources speak of “fear
for emptiness,” that is, comparable to horror vacui or kenophobia.
In my view, it is because of the phobia for reality, truth, knowledge, or
cognition, that people induce or resort to ignorance, rejection, and denialism.
What
about the idea of docta ignorantia in Buddhism? I would
suppose the idea of “learned ignorance” would be cherished by the wise/learned
ones in Buddhism as a very useful convention. Usually people in the society
transact on a conventional level and those conventions adopted by the wise and
the learned are said to be preferable. For example, the distinction between
“good and bad,” or, “wholesome and unwholesome” is occasionally said to be
whether or not something is found to be “irreproachable or reproachable by the
wise/learned.” If a fool knows or does not know something, it may not mean much
or anything! If a learned/wise person does not know something, it would mean
something! So much for now on Buddhist agnoiology and agnotology in Buddhism.
