Since the fundamental particles of matter are exceedingly small, any attempt to detect them involves the brain’s mass and energy, which are significantly larger. To observe the smallest entities, the detecting instrument’s mass or energy must be comparable; otherwise, the particle would not be considered the smallest form of matter. However, using an instrument with equivalent mass or energy could potentially alter the particle’s inherent properties and state, complicating our ability to accurately identify and study its true nature.
In modern physics, phenomena such as the wave-particle duality of light, the double-slit experiment with electromagnetic waves, and Schrödinger’s cat in quantum mechanics, are all due to this reason.
The double-slit experiment’s paradox arises because the act of cognition creates a separation between the observer and the observed, rendering direct monitoring impossible. When unobserved, phenomena behave as waves, but observation collapses the wave into a particle. This occurs because observation adds energy; without it, the wave remains in an undefined state. Observation necessitates particles—after all, we use light to see.
The process of observation itself alters the properties and state of the observed object, which means we can never truly observe the target in its natural state. No matter how hard we try, we cannot determine the true nature of ultimate matter. Our five senses are insufficient as they depend on mediums. For instance, ultraviolet light is invisible to us; we only perceive its effects indirectly through images and data. Similarly, we cannot see quanta with our eyes; such a feat would be remarkable but is beyond our capabilities.
Why is this the case? Initially, it is our mind that perceives, but when we rely on the brain and instruments for cognition, we lose the ability to perceive the ultimate nature of things. Consequently, the aforementioned phenomena in physics are the result of using our limited brain and tools for observation.
Searching for the ultimate entity with these methods is futile. Claiming materialism without having found the ultimate entity is contradictory. Logical analysis also suggests we will never find it. To then assert that matter is the sole and ultimate essence, as materialism does, is inherently contradictory. This is known as the “reductio argument expressing a contradiction” in Madhyamaka.
The four types of arguments in Prasangika: the “reductio argument expressing a contradiction, the similarity of probative reason, the probandum and Inference based on what others accept, and argument from the parallelism of similar reasons.
Asserting that materialism is definitive without the capability to perceive the fundamental nature of matter is not scientific. The contradiction between such a claim and the available evidence is what the principle of “the reductio argument expressing a contradiction” aims to refute.
The principle of “the reductio argument expressing a contradiction” operates in two ways: firstly, by accepting your viewpoint, then contrasting your two positions to highlight their inconsistencies; secondly, by extrapolating your viewpoint to a conclusion and revealing the contradiction between this conclusion and your initial stance.
In other words, if we accept that the essence of cognition is the brain, which is caused by the movement of matter, we will never find the essence. Philosophically, failing to find this essence results in a dichotomy. Claiming that matter is the essence while being unable to identify the essence of matter is inherently contradictory. This is a simplified way to consider the issue.
Another approach to uncovering its flaws is to apply the principle of “neither one nor many” to deconstruct the brain as void. If it amounts to nothing, how can it be the essence? Admittedly, the principle of “neither one nor many” is robust, but demanding proof for such deconstruction introduces complications.
The earlier discussion about material cognition (brain cognition) and its perception of the external environment and ultimate matter is fraught with issues. Our ordinary cognition is limited and inferior to that of celestial beings for this reason; our ultimate cognition is not as profound as that of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas for the same reason.
Excerpted from: Cognition and Expression Part Two
