Features
Comprehension, Cognition, and Interpretation
Recently, consultant medical doctors Ajith Amarasinghe, Nilupul Perera and Mahesh Harishchandra (Amarasinghe et al) authored a series of articles critiquing Prof. Nalin De Silva’s demonism on epistemological grounds. Professor Nalin De Silva and his group have asserted that they received knowledge from the deity Natha regarding the connection between arsenic contamination and kidney diseases. Although Amarasinghe et al’s challenge to Prof. Nalin de Silva is potent and timely, their flawed reasoning, as they delve into ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ (epistemology), has severely eroded the credibility of their critique of demonism. The issue is rooted in their comprehension, cognition and interpretation of information.
Comprehension is the process of understanding something. Cognition plays a crucial role in this aspect, as cognitive processes like critical thinking, reasoning, and evaluation are essential for determining the reliability and validity of the information being comprehended. Comprehension is the initial stage through which individuals encounter and understand information. Cognition then processes and assesses the information from these sources, leading to the acceptance or rejection of the knowledge claims.
Bloom’s Taxonomy, developed by Benjamin Bloom and educational psychologists in 1956 (revised in 2001), offers a framework for creating and evaluating learning goals, fostering diverse cognitive skills, and encouraging critical thinking and deeper understanding and interpretation.
Interpretation acts as the bridge between comprehension and cognition. It is the process through which individuals give meaning to the information they have comprehended. Interpretation involves making inferences, drawing conclusions, and applying prior knowledge to the newly acquired information. It is the cognitive process responsible for connecting the dots, transforming raw data into coherent and actionable insights.
We extend our sincere appreciation to the three doctors for offering a substantial response to demonism/exorcism and contributing to the emancipation of people from superstitious beliefs.
The irony in this context lies in the fact that Nalin’s many other theories (pravada) are presented by him as post-empiricist but he and his followers believe that only their own perspective is correct, and all other ideologies should be summarily dismissed as damn lies (Patta-pal Boru). He contradicts himself by advocating for the Chathuskotika Dhamma (the fourfold reasoning) approach to reasoning while simultaneously adhering to an empiricist objectivist perspective by rejecting “multiple truths”.
Fourfold reasoning, in the context of Buddhist philosophy, refers to a system of reasoning based on four possible statements or viewpoints:
YES (A), NO (not A), both YES and NO (Both A and not-A), and neither YES nor No (neither A nor not-A).
It is more of a philosophical or logical approach to examining various perspectives or views on a given subject.
Although, the three doctors’ articles initially held our interest, they later diverged into the presentation of various ideologies, inadvertently impeding the progress of dismantling the demonism that had been established from the outset. Their challenge to Prof. Nalin de Silva is a powerful and timely effort. But the flawed reasoning of these doctors, going to present sociological and philosophical views related to ‘reality’ and ‘getting knowledge’ (epistemology) has completely undermined the credibility of the criticism against exorcism.
The issue arises during the stages of cognition and interpretation of a sermon preached by Buddha which is quoted to support their argument. The three doctors interpret a passage from the Tripitaka to demonstrate that the Buddha dismissed the use of fourfold reasoning (Chatuskotika Dhamma). They cite a verse from the Tripitaka concerning rebirth, as follows:
“Therefore, it is inappropriate to say the Tathagata will rise from death, that the Tathagata won’t rise from death, or to comment on whether the Tathagata will or will not rise from death. The true self does not experience resurrection, and it is unsuitable to assert otherwise”.
Our three doctors interpret this passage as the Buddha’s rejection of the fourfold logic, which is a mistaken comprehension and interpretation.
Let’s explore this interpretation further. There are four potential statements:
It’s inappropriate to say it will rise after death (No).
It’s inappropriate to say there is no resurrection (not-No).
It’s inappropriate to speculate on the existence of an afterlife (neither No ot not-No).
It’s inappropriate to assert the absence of an afterlife (Both No and not-No).
The three doctors may have cognised the Buddha had rejected of the Chatuskotika theory based on the phrase ‘it is not appropriate to say.’ However, the phrase ‘it is also inappropriate to say’ indicates that none of the four options should be firmly asserted, and any of them could represent a valid belief.
The Buddha used this method of reasoning to answer complex questions beyond his usual understanding. He gave this response in the Khema Sutra, part of the Samyukta Nikaya, to a question from King Pasenadi Kosol,
“Lord, which being comes back to life after death?”
The Buddha used this Chatuskotika theory for complex questions, like the one quoted, and the reason for using it is also explained. But the learned doctors cognized and interpreted it as a “rejection” of Chatuskotika theory.
The perplexing aspect here is that Amarasinghe et al, much like other professionals, adopt an empiricist approach in their careers due to the fact that nearly all their actions are bound by specific rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines. It is essential to differentiate this practical necessity from philosophical worldviews. These regulatory frameworks, however, should not be mistaken for timeless truths, as they evolve alongside changing standards and practices over time.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for.)