Guest guest Posted November 8, 1999 Report Share Posted November 8, 1999 "Devendra Vyas" >>dear dan, >very interesting answer,but i would like to know something more on >what is:"it must be seen directly or not at all",are you suggesting >direct immediate perception without any instruments,any intervening agency? Dear Devendra: The concept of "direct seeing" is within the realm of ideas, but refers to a nonconceptual "Something." This Something has been called by many names, and once named is brought into the realm of ideas (which is also the realm of perception, sensation, and memory). I'm suggesting then that to see directly is to be what one sees. Usual ideas of perception and instrumentation involve some kind of subject/object relationship. Direct seeing then is being, being without the boundaries involved in time, as time is constructed when a subject relates to an object. Timeless being can only be "seen" directly and immediately, not through conceptualization or memory, and is seen as the very immediacy that is not separate from any apparent moment of experience. If It were separable, It wouldn't be what It is, infinite and boundless (I'm using these terms to point only, not assuming that these words are catgories that define). -- Peace -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 1999 Report Share Posted November 8, 1999 dear dan, yes,i think i get you now.your answers are correct from an absolute viewpoint(and if one admits to an absolute),but my question is(supposing i am a layman): on what basis can we say that what we are seeing is not reality but the impression of reality on the internal instrument?how do we know that the mind brings us reality thro' the categories of space-time-cause and does not show us the real thing as such?--devendra. >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd >advaitin >advaitin > Re: Devendra/"seeing" >Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:53:03 -0500 > > "Devendra Vyas" > >>dear dan, > >very interesting answer,but i would like to know something more on > >what is:"it must be seen directly or not at all",are you suggesting > >direct immediate perception without any instruments,any intervening >agency? > >Dear Devendra: > The concept of "direct seeing" is within the realm of ideas, but >refers >to a nonconceptual "Something." This Something has been called by many >names, >and once named is brought into the realm of ideas (which is also the realm >of perception, sensation, and memory). I'm suggesting then that to see >directly is to be what one sees. Usual ideas of perception and >instrumentation involve some kind of subject/object relationship. Direct >seeing then is being, being without the boundaries involved in time, as >time is constructed when a subject relates to an object. Timeless being >can only be "seen" directly and immediately, not through conceptualization >or memory, and is seen as the very immediacy that is not separate from any >apparent moment of experience. If It were separable, It wouldn't be what >It >is, infinite and boundless (I'm using these terms to point only, not >assuming >that these words are catgories that define). > -- Peace -- Dan > > > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 1999 Report Share Posted November 8, 1999 At 04:49 AM 11/9/99 +0000, Devendra Vyas wrote: >dear dan, > yes,i think i get you now.your answers are correct from an >absolute viewpoint(and if one admits to an absolute),but my question >is(supposing i am a layman): >on what basis can we say that what we are seeing is not reality but the >impression of reality on the internal instrument?how do we know that the >mind brings us reality thro' the categories of space-time-cause and does not >show us the real thing as such?--devendra. Let me jump in unasked between you and Dan! How do we know what we see is not reality? At the beginning, you can learn this two ways. (1) The pramana of the scriptures, and the faith that you might have in what they say. (2) In the case of perception of the physical world, we have the phenomena of perceptual relativity and illusion, which start to open a gap in the solid belief that what we are seeing is Really Something Real Out There. For example, color. In different lights, red looks orange, looks maroon, looks blue-ish, lighter shade, a darker shade, etc. You might say that sunlight is the standard. But this also varies according to the time of day, time of year, location on the globe, etc. What color *is* that apple? And all these samples will differ if you look at the color under a microscope. Shape is the same way. A table looks square from one angle, rectangular from another angle, quadrilateral from another angle. What is its REAL shape? Also, in the case of fire - are our reasons justified for saying that the color is in the fire, but that the burning sensation is in us? Without an observer we can't prove that the color is there any more than the pain... But we agree to speak in these ways. Also, on issue of whether the external objects really do appear through the medium of the physical senses. Another good question. It's taught that this is so. But is it REALLY? The gross senses are physical objects themselves, the eye, ear, nose, etc. But it isn't the inert physical object that does the sensing, because it itself is a *sensed* object. We see the eyes in a mirror, we touch our nose, we might smell our hands, etc. But without a mirror, does the eye see itself, does the ear hear itself? These analyses can get a lot more sophisticated, and in fact much of the history of Western philosophy is based on exactly the excellent questions you raise! Though I'm not familiar with the sophisticated dialectics of Hindu epistemology, I'm sure there are quite detailed analyses there as well. Regards, --Greg > >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >advaitin > >advaitin > > Re: Devendra/"seeing" > >Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:53:03 -0500 > > > > "Devendra Vyas" > > >>dear dan, > > >very interesting answer,but i would like to know something more on > > >what is:"it must be seen directly or not at all",are you suggesting > > >direct immediate perception without any instruments,any intervening > >agency? > > > >Dear Devendra: > > The concept of "direct seeing" is within the realm of ideas, but > >refers > >to a nonconceptual "Something." This Something has been called by many > >names, > >and once named is brought into the realm of ideas (which is also the realm > >of perception, sensation, and memory). I'm suggesting then that to see > >directly is to be what one sees. Usual ideas of perception and > >instrumentation involve some kind of subject/object relationship. Direct > >seeing then is being, being without the boundaries involved in time, as > >time is constructed when a subject relates to an object. Timeless being > >can only be "seen" directly and immediately, not through conceptualization > >or memory, and is seen as the very immediacy that is not separate from any > >apparent moment of experience. If It were separable, It wouldn't be what > >It > >is, infinite and boundless (I'm using these terms to point only, not > >assuming > >that these words are catgories that define). > > -- Peace -- Dan > > > > > > > > > >------ > >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > > > ><< text3.html >> > >>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 yes,greg,i sought answers along the lines which you have given.i am myself much interested in western philosophy esp.kant.among your points:1)is absolutely fine for one who believes in vedanta-for him the rest is comparatively simple. 2)these observations are alone the basis for suspecting that what 'exists' is not perceived.i would be very glad to receive your comments on the foll. observations: what 'exists' (the thing in itself) is not perceived ,perception changes with environment(both subjective and objective).we don't perceive reality but the impression that it makes on the internal instrument and, the internal instrument as it's fitness may be shows us the picture of reality.thus we are forced to conclude what we are taking to be 'reality' has no absolute,independent,infinite existence. it exists in relative terms only and does not qualify to be called 'real' in the strictest sense. >Greg Goode <goode >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Re: Devendra/"seeing" >Tue, 09 Nov 1999 01:24:25 -0500 > >At 04:49 AM 11/9/99 +0000, Devendra Vyas wrote: > > >dear dan, > > yes,i think i get you now.your answers are correct from an > >absolute viewpoint(and if one admits to an absolute),but my question > >is(supposing i am a layman): > >on what basis can we say that what we are seeing is not reality but the > >impression of reality on the internal instrument?how do we know that the > >mind brings us reality thro' the categories of space-time-cause and does >not > >show us the real thing as such?--devendra. > >Let me jump in unasked between you and Dan! How do we know what we see is >not reality? At the beginning, you can learn this two ways. (1) The >pramana of the scriptures, and the faith that you might have in what they >say. (2) In the case of perception of the physical world, we have the >phenomena of perceptual relativity and illusion, which start to open a gap >in the solid belief that what we are seeing is Really Something Real Out >There. For example, color. In different lights, red looks orange, looks >maroon, looks blue-ish, lighter shade, a darker shade, etc. You might say >that sunlight is the standard. But this also varies according to the time >of day, time of year, location on the globe, etc. What color *is* that >apple? And all these samples will differ if you look at the color under a >microscope. Shape is the same way. A table looks square from one angle, >rectangular from another angle, quadrilateral from another angle. What is >its REAL shape? Also, in the case of fire - are our reasons justified for >saying that the color is in the fire, but that the burning sensation is in >us? Without an observer we can't prove that the color is there any more >than the pain... But we agree to speak in these ways. > >Also, on issue of whether the external objects really do appear through the >medium of the physical senses. Another good question. It's taught that >this is so. But is it REALLY? The gross senses are physical objects >themselves, the eye, ear, nose, etc. But it isn't the inert physical >object that does the sensing, because it itself is a *sensed* object. We >see the eyes in a mirror, we touch our nose, we might smell our hands, >etc. But without a mirror, does the eye see itself, does the ear hear >itself? > >These analyses can get a lot more sophisticated, and in fact much of the >history of Western philosophy is based on exactly the excellent questions >you raise! Though I'm not familiar with the sophisticated dialectics of >Hindu epistemology, I'm sure there are quite detailed analyses there as >well. > >Regards, > >--Greg > > > > > > >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > >advaitin > > >advaitin > > > Re: Devendra/"seeing" > > >Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:53:03 -0500 > > > > > > "Devendra Vyas" > > > >>dear dan, > > > >very interesting answer,but i would like to know something more on > > > >what is:"it must be seen directly or not at all",are you suggesting > > > >direct immediate perception without any instruments,any intervening > > >agency? > > > > > >Dear Devendra: > > > The concept of "direct seeing" is within the realm of ideas, but > > >refers > > >to a nonconceptual "Something." This Something has been called by many > > >names, > > >and once named is brought into the realm of ideas (which is also the >realm > > >of perception, sensation, and memory). I'm suggesting then that to see > > >directly is to be what one sees. Usual ideas of perception and > > >instrumentation involve some kind of subject/object relationship. >Direct > > >seeing then is being, being without the boundaries involved in time, as > > >time is constructed when a subject relates to an object. Timeless >being > > >can only be "seen" directly and immediately, not through >conceptualization > > >or memory, and is seen as the very immediacy that is not separate from >any > > >apparent moment of experience. If It were separable, It wouldn't be >what > > >It > > >is, infinite and boundless (I'm using these terms to point only, not > > >assuming > > >that these words are catgories that define). > > > -- Peace -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > > >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > > >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives >available > > >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > > >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > > > > > ><< text3.html >> > > > >>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > > > > >[Attachments have been removed from this message] > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 At 08:38 AM 11/9/99 +0000, Devendra Vyas wrote: yes,greg,i sought answers along the lines which you have given.i am myself much interested in western philosophy esp.kant.among your points:1)is absolutely fine for one who believes in vedanta-for him the rest is comparatively simple. 2)these observations are alone the basis for suspecting that what 'exists' is not perceived.i would be very glad to receive your comments on the foll. observations: what 'exists' (the thing in itself) is not perceived ,perception changes with environment(both subjective and objective).we don't perceive reality but the impression that it makes on the internal instrument and, the internal instrument as it's fitness may be shows us the picture of reality.thus we are forced to conclude what we are taking to be 'reality' has no absolute,independent,infinite existence. it exists in relative terms only and does not qualify to be called 'real' in the strictest sense. Hi Devendra, I'm sorry to have interrupted what was a nice discussion between you and Dan, but I'm glad that you like the Western approach and Kant. Kant has given Western philosophy the strongest "realist" philosophy since Plato. Realism being the claim that there REALLY is something out there, even if we don't/can't know what it is. Dan's approach is a bit different from mine here - I see his approach as pointing out the impossibility to separate out any pure elements from the bundles of sensation, perception, thought, projection, etc. that present themselves. Because of the interpenetration and interdependencies that Dan is pointing out, we really can't point to anything and say "This is pure mind perceiving that" versus "That is the true thing-in-itself." My approach in this thread is a bit different. Because your question corresponds to a classical problem in Western philosophy, the approach is ready-made, and tends to proceed along classical Western philosophical lines. It leads to the same conclusion as Dan's. We are in agreement that there is perceptual relativity, all depending on conditions. Dan's message showed us how sticky and complicated it can get. My comments about your observations are as follows. Your observations correspond to a kind of Kantian approach. I believe that T.R.V. Murti has written on Indian philosophy from the Kantian approach as well. Let me ask: You say that "What 'exists' (the thing in itself) is not perceived," and a bit later, "We don't perceive reality but the impression that it makes on the internal instrument and, the internal instrument as it's fitness may be shows us the picture of reality.." Let me boil these down into very simple terms: (a) There exists an X. (b) But we don't percieve X. (b) X makes an impression on the internal instrument. (d) The impression is not X but rather a picture of X. This is the classic realist position, and is taught and reinforced throughout Western society. The trouble is, from the standpoing of not going beyond our experience and logic, what evidence do we have for the truth of (a)-(d)? Can we establish any one of these statements? Realism is a conventional shorthand to get along in everyday life. But as for distinguishing the real from the unreal, our analyses must go deeper. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.