Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 >>Re: Devendra/"seeing" >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. Devendra, if we examine sense perception very carefully, there is no observer existing outside of the sensory system. The observer is a construction of thought and thought is a processing of sensation/perception. Language and concepts are interdependent with sensation. Perception is organized sensation, and language helps organize perceptions. Memory is also part of this integrated system, and is interconnected with present processing much more than we usually notice. The idea of a "real thing outside" is a construct of this very system. The system is reacting to its own states constantly, including its construction of "inside" and "outside" as ways to categories and process perceptual information. Similary the idea of "mind" is constructed. Observed carefully, the system is always resonating with itself, and it contructs "time" and "space" so it can construct "objects". The separation of a "real reality" from a "perceptual reality" is an ideologically based notion dependent on the concept of an "observer" who can differentiate "real reality" from "perceived reality" in my opinion. >>Greg: >>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. Greg, if I am understanding your language correctly, your observation of these topics is highly resonant with my own. > 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? D: It is thought that attempts to interpose itself between "the observer" and "the observed". This constructs a separation between the sense object and awareness. It places awareness "in here" attached to thought and the object "out there" separated from the "individual awareness." When the attachment to thought is "broken", awareness can be seen to have no "in here" and "out there" to it apart from thought, and the sense object isn't in any way appearing separately from awareness. Awareness now is nonlocalized and can't be said to be a property belonging to an organism, more of the basis for the appearance of the organism and the organisms reactivity to its own states of being. >Devendra: <snip> >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. Dan: These are thought's categories, dividing the Absolute and relative aspects of "existence." Also, dividing "existence" from "nonexistence," "life" from "death" and "pleasure" from "pain." These divisions are useful in the realm of physical survival, which seems to be an important focus for thought's activity. However, if these categories are used to try to come to terms with "what is really happening" all kinds of problems result. We have begun to touch on some of them. Thought is not capable of defining "real (permanent or Absolute) reality" because thought itself is transitory, subject to conditions, and conditioned by memory and language. My direction here is to be aware of thought's limits and conditions, rather than to try to use thought to contain, contruct, or defend an Absolute position of some kind (which leads to many problems). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 dear greg;dan, it has been very enlightening to read your beautiful observations.both are valid in their places,is'nt it?.dan's interconnected,intermix,resonance viewpoint is right from a 'paramhansa' standpoint i.e., a man who sees nothing apart from himself and for whom all is a wave in himself.but from our empirical perspective ,greg's observations are more plausible.of course, both views are highly debatable because of our inherent inadequacy(imagined or otherwise) to 'have' any definite knowledge.greg, who cannot but admire kant --the 'rishi' of western philosophy the man who came closest to solving whatever is to be solved and also who seems to be quite similar in his approach to vedanta. realism is indeed a conventional shorthand and a deeper analysis is required ,but can that deeper analysis be still of any use?the only solution to me seems to be to transcend our 'imagined' notions(mind,matter,subject,object;indeed all ideas) and arrive at the truth.om --devendra. >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd >advaitin >advaitin > Re: Devendra/Greg/perception and thought >Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:23:57 -0500 > > >>Re: Devendra/"seeing" > >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. > >Devendra, if we examine sense perception very carefully, there is no >observer existing outside of the sensory system. The observer is a >construction of thought and thought is a processing of >sensation/perception. Language and concepts are interdependent with >sensation. Perception is organized sensation, and language helps organize >perceptions. Memory is also part of this integrated system, and is >interconnected with present processing much more than we usually notice. >The idea of a "real thing outside" is a construct of this very system. The >system is reacting to its own states constantly, including its construction >of "inside" and "outside" as ways to categories and process perceptual >information. Similary the idea of "mind" >is constructed. Observed carefully, the system is always resonating with >itself, and it contructs "time" and "space" so it can construct "objects". >The separation of a "real reality" from a "perceptual reality" is an >ideologically based notion dependent on the concept of an "observer" who >can differentiate "real reality" from "perceived reality" in my opinion. > > > >>Greg: > >>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. > >Greg, if I am understanding your language correctly, your observation of >these topics is highly resonant with my own. > > > 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? > >D: It is thought that attempts to interpose itself between "the observer" >and "the observed". This constructs a separation between the sense object >and awareness. It places awareness "in here" attached to thought and the >object "out there" separated from the "individual awareness." When the >attachment to thought is "broken", awareness can be seen to have no "in >here" and "out there" to it apart from thought, and the sense object isn't >in any way appearing separately from awareness. Awareness now is >nonlocalized and can't be said to be a property belonging to an organism, >more of the basis for the appearance of the organism and the organisms >reactivity to its own states of being. > > >Devendra: ><snip> > >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. > >Dan: These are thought's categories, dividing the Absolute and relative >aspects of "existence." Also, dividing "existence" from "nonexistence," >"life" from "death" and "pleasure" from "pain." These divisions are useful >in the realm of physical survival, which seems to be an important focus for >thought's activity. However, if these categories are used to try to come >to terms with "what is really happening" all kinds of problems result. We >have begun to touch on some of them. Thought is not capable of defining >"real (permanent or Absolute) reality" because thought itself is >transitory, subject to conditions, and conditioned by memory and language. >My direction here is to be aware of thought's limits and conditions, rather >than to try to use thought to contain, contruct, or defend an Absolute >position of some kind (which leads to many problems). > > >------ >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...
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.