Perception in VP

[Guest guest]

Dennis wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

I'm bound to say that I find this sort of thing very interesting. (I just

wish the VP were more readable!) But isn't what you present here a language

problem rather than a perceptual one? You say: " No doubt some will say -

aren't you really seeing a rope. No you are only really seeing a rope if

you are really seeing a rope. " When I say " I am really seeing a rope " ,

don't

I actually mean " I am seeing what is really a rope " ?

 

(Go ahead and muddy some waters!)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Hi Dennis,

Yes it is a matter of language but language can deceive

us and lead us into an epistemological stance that is not warranted. You

may have come to know that what was before you was a rope but to translate

that into " what I was seeing was really a rope " is not correct because you

were not seeing a rope or you did not perceive a rope. An inference is

not the same as a perception, you have inferred that the rope was the

substratum of your illusion. May I suggest that while 'what I was really

seeing ' is an acceptable summary for ordinary purposes it has the

tendency to blur the distinction between inference and perception.

 

Quote:

" Therefore the gist of the matter is this: An object is said to be

cognised by perception when it is capable (of being perceived) and is

devoid of any existence apart from that of the Consciousness associated

with the subject, which (Consciousness) has for its limiting adjunct a

mental state in the form of that object. " (pg.30 trans.)

 

In effect suffering an illusion is not really seeing anything or indeed

seeing what is really something. Is that muddy enough for you?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

> Dennis wrote:

 

> I actually mean " I am seeing what is really a rope " ?

>

> (Go ahead and muddy some waters!)

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

> Quote:

> " Therefore the gist of the matter is this: An object is said to be

> cognised by perception when it is capable (of being perceived) and is

> devoid of any existence apart from that of the Consciousness associated

> with the subject, which (Consciousness) has for its limiting adjunct a

> mental state in the form of that object. " (pg.30 trans.)

>

> In effect suffering an illusion is not really seeing anything or indeed

> seeing what is really something. Is that muddy enough for you?

 

Michael and Dennis - the error is defined as 'mixture of truth and untruth' -

satya and asatya

mithuniikaraNam adhyaasam.

 

It is true I do not see a rope - if I see a rope - there is no further mistake

since the knowledge

is a valid knowledge.

What I see is an object - 'there is' - the existence in the form I do see. That

is the truth part.

If it is 5 feet long it will remain as 5 feet long. If it is coiled one, it will

remain as coiled

one, etc.

 

Since all the attributes of the thing that is there are not perceived due to

defect in the

conditions, the vRitti associated with the object is not exactly the object 'as

it is'. In fact I

do see the attributes that are common to both snake and the rope, but do not see

those attributes

that differentiates the two.

 

'There is a snake' - in that cognition, 'there is' part is still correct only

snake part is

incorrect. - When advaita Vedanta says the vRitti takes the shape of the object

in forming the

knowledge, there is really a problem - what it takes is the shape of the object

as perceived by

the senses not as it is. Hence there is possibility of an error. I will address

these issues

slowly. When I get real knowledge of the object – the statement is ‘there is a

rope’ – ‘there is’

– remains the same only snake knowledge is replaced by rope knowledge. Hence I

do see a rope but

not as a rope become incomplete or even erroneous attributes gathered by senses

since all the

secondary conditions for pramaaNa to work are not there. It will be still 5 feet

long or coiled

roop now instead of snake. The attributes that are common still remain. Now I

have received

additional attributes by further inquiry that can differentiate rope from snake.

 

Michael - please continue your series - Also I suggest that you title the

subject title with

numbers so that we know the sequence and what we are responding to. I am going

to have a more

critical view of VP from my perspective based on my understanding of

epistemological issues.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda