Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 5

[Guest guest]

5-More on Perception

 

We now go into more detailed aspect of perceptual knowledge noting that VP

provides some

general aspects but not in so much detail; Details are mostly based on my

understanding,

so you can take it with a grain of salt! Knowledge of an object occurs when the

perception by the senses is projected in the mind as vRitti – VRitti is a

thought and the

contents of the thought are sense-data of the object to the degree perceived by

the

senses. Senses gather the attributes as they see, not necessarily what they are.

What

they are and what they see could be matching, if all the conditions for the

senses to

work are met. For example if the light illuminating the object is dim, or if

the sense

organs are defective (like the absence of 20:20 vision) the attributes that the

sense

gather could deviate from what it is. This could contribute to possibility for

error in

perception. The point I would like emphasize is that the senses can only gather

the

attributes of the object – colors, forms, sounds, smells, tastes, etc. and not

substantives. Although VP discusses later in terms of the all pervading

consciousness

Brahman being the substantive for all since according to Vedanta, Brahman is the

material

cause for the universe including - for the objects to be known (prameya) – for

the means

of knowledge (pramANa) and for the knower (pramAta). We need to have clear

understanding

of the processes of perception, since we do not ‘see’ Brahman when we see the

objects.

In fact what we see is only inert things, since Brahman, pure consciousness

cannot be an

object of perception; in fact cannot be an object of any pramANa. Considering

that

consciousness is indivisible what we see as a finite object is consciousness ‘as

though’

constrained by the finitization as an object. We use the word ‘as though’

throughout our

discussions, since that which is indivisible and part-less appears to be divided

just as

indivisible space is ‘as though’ divided into many compartments by bounding

walls.

 

Let us pose the question – what do we really see when we see an object? We need

the

senses to see – eyes can only see the forms and colors, ears the sounds if the

object

emanates some, nose the smell, etc. Each has its field of operation without

overlapping

each other. But all are attributes of the object. Hence senses can only measure

the

attributes of the object. Senses do not create the attributes but only measures

them as

they ‘grasp’ the object. Looking from the object point, object is defined only

by its

attributes. All definitions are attributive. The more precisely the attributes

are

specified the more concisely the object is defined. All the attributes

differentiate one

object from the rest of the objects in the universe. Attributes are not the

substantive.

Substantive in that form and a name (with all its attributes) is the object –

like

bangle, ring, necklace, bracelet etc. All are names for different forms, each

with its

own attributes – the ID, the OD, the length, the thickness, etc. If we examine

the

attributes of each object, say ring, bangle, necklace and bracelet, they make us

distinguish one from the other as well as from other forms in the universe. But

none of

them really belong to the substantive Gold. In fact, attributes of Gold are its

atomic

mass, atomic structure, luster, non-corrosablility, ductility, density, or any

other

physical and chemical attributes (which chemists use to identify gold from say,

silver or

copper, etc), which are nothing to do with any of the forms in which gold can

exist.

These attributes of the gold are not helpful in differentiating ring, bangle,

necklace

and bracelet, etc., although the substantive of all these forms and names is the

same,

namely gold. Hence when we see the ring, bangle, necklace and bracelet, we see

two types

of attributes. First the attributes of the superficial forms associated with

their names

for their forms i.e. ring, bangle, etc, and second some of the attributes of the

substantive gold that can be immediately grasped by the senses, such as metallic

lustier,

etc . Without going into too much in details, since some of these were discussed

elsewhere (see introduction to Vedanta), we can state in general that:

 

1. Senses grasp only the attributes, of those superficial names and forms, as

well as

those of the substantive that can perceive directly by the senses. Senses have

no

capacity to gather substantive itself. Let us thank God for that, since if I see

a gold

ring, not only the attributes of ring and the gold, if the substantive gold also

has to

enter in my mind and there won’t be any gold ring left on the table for others

to use!

 

2. If attributes of the substantive are non-graspable by the senses then senses

can only

gather the attributes of only the superficial name and forms. This is the case

if we say

Brahman is the material cause or substantive which does not have attributes of

its own,

then senses can only gather the attributes of those superimposed names and forms

on

Brahman. Knowledge of the substantive can only be gained by Shastra pramANa. By

statements like sarvam khalu idam Brahmna and neha nAnAsti kincana – all that

this is

Brahman and there is nothing or no thing other than Brahman.

 

Appearance of name and form from subtle to gross is creation. In accounting how

Brahman

appears to become many names and forms, Upanishads describe appearance of subtle

elements

(tanmAtras) first, which subsequently undergo transformationless transformation

involving

divisions and recombinations to form the apparent grosser objects that we can

qualify.

Vedanta indicates that every object that we see is nothing but assemblage of

finer or

subtler elements and they have no substantive of their own. Just as there is no

ringly

substance or bangly substance, every object in this universe has no substantive

of its

own and is an assemblage of finer parts which can be further and further divided

until

all the grossness of the material object disappears. Ultimately only the

conscious

entity that is doing the division remains. This appears to be where the current

science

is also heading, but slowly. They do not end up with consciousness since it is

never

considered as a factor in the appearance of objects.

 

Thus what we see when we see objects is only their superficial attributes since

the

ultimate substantive is nothing but Brahman whose nature is

existence-consciousness and

limitless. Since consciousness and limitless cannot be seen, what we see in the

object

are its attributes plus existence as perceived as limiting adjunct of the object

– that

is as ‘object is’ –or actually existence as an object or existent object, since

non-existent object cannot be perceived. We can formally write an equation for

an object:

Object = Brahman + superimposed names and forms

Names and forms cannot be counted as separate, just as we cannot count gold one,

two

ring, three bangle, etc. Since ring, bangle, necklace, are just superimposition

on gold.

Knowledge of a ring involves two aspects – knowledge of name and form (ring) and

knowledge of substantive (gold). Since gold knowledge is more substantial

knowledge, what

counts is that knowledge. Similarly when we know Brahman, it is not that we

will know

each name and form, but what we know is more substantial than any other

knowledge, since

Brahman is the material cause for the Universe. Hence scripture declare – eka

vijnaanena

sarva vijnAnam bhavati – knowing that ONE (substantive or cause), knowledge of

every

product (effect) is ‘as though’ gained. Since senses do not grasp the

substantive, the

shAstra alone becomes the source of that knowledge of the material cause from

all objects

in the universe.

 

Let us look more closely the mechanics of perception as we understand now.

Although

according to tradition, the senses along with the mind go out and ‘grasp’ the

attributes

of the object, we now know that the reflected light from the objects that

contain the

information of forms and colors, the sound and the smells etc reach the

respective sense

organs in the body. They are evaluated by the senses (depending on their

capability) and

the corresponding information is fed in on a first come first serve basis to the

mind.

Since light travels faster than sound, the colors and forms are recognized

before sounds,

etc. For the sense of touch, the physical contact with the object is required.

Mind

integrates all the information that comes in and forms an image on its ‘mental

screen’

with all the attributes gathered up to that point. Thus we have an image with

composite

attributes which gets updated as more information is fed in by the senses. This

corresponds to vRitti or thought of the object. The moment thought forms, it

gets

illumined by the consciousness that is ever present. Ever present consciousness

is called

sAkshii chaitanyam or witnessing consciousness and what gets illumined in its

brilliance

is sAkshyam or witnessed. In this case, the sAkshyam is the vRitti or the

thought whose

contents are the attributes of the object. The illuminated consciousness forms

‘as

though’ reflection in or by the VRitti or thought. Formation of vRitti in the

mind is

indicated as if the mind enveloping the object presented to it by senses. Hence

it is

representative of the object outside. Its truthfulness to the object depends

actually on

the truthfulness of the attributes that the senses have gathered.

 

As the vRitti forms it is immediately illuminated by the witnessing

consciousness. It is

like as soon as an actor enters onto the stage the actor is seen by the ever

present

illumination of the stage lights. When the lights shed on the object, the

object is

illumined and the reflected illumination by the object is seen by the eyes. Same

way the

vRitti gets illumined in the presence of ever brilliant saakshii or witnessing

consciousness and the illuminated light gets reflected by the vRitti and that is

seen by

subject (we will address who that subject is slowly). The consciousness that is

reflected

from the vRitti is the knowledge itself since I become conscious of the vRitti.

That

reflected limiting consciousness (limited by the VRitti which in turn is limited

by the

attributes of the object outside) is the knowledge of the object perceived. Just

as the

reflected light (sun light or room light) by an object makes me to see the

object, the

reflected consciousness of the vRitti makes me conscious of the vRitti which is

the same

as knowledge of the vRitti. Just as the sun light is as though ‘lend’ to the

object for

the object to become visible, the consciousness from the sAkshi or witnessing

consciousness is as though ‘lend’ to the vRitti for it to become witnessed or to

be

known. Up to this is the process of cognition. The information up to this point

is –

there is an object out there with the gathered attributes. We have knowledge of

the

existence of the object and also its attributes, since object is defined only

through its

attributes. Up to this is immediate and direct as all this process takes faster

than the

speed of communication by the nervous system. Some times we see before we hear

as in the

case of lightening and thunder. Once the object is cognized, it is stored in the

memory

immediately.

 

Recognition process: The process of recognition involves memory. This is not

necessarily

immediate. All though we now know that mind processes the information using the

parallel

processing mode, it is not necessarily immediate. As the person ages, the

cognition can

occur immediately but recognition takes its own time, sometimes for ever. When

we are

seeing the object for the first time (such as when mother is teaching a child

pointing to

various objects), the VRittis related to the objects are cognized and stored in

the

memory along with a name tag – this is apple, that is a cow, etc. When the child

sees the

same or similar objects, he cognizes them, mother may reinforce that stored

knowledge as

the child re-cognizes the object. In the process of acquisition of knowledge,

child’s

mind also sorts out the generic characters of similar objects as well as special

characteristics of particular objects. A cow is re-cognized as a cow and not as

a horse

based on the generic characteristics (called in Sanskrit as jAti) while still

differentiating its specific characteristics (vyakti) as red cow or small cow in

contrast

to previous white, black, brown, big cows, etc.

 

Error in cognition and Error in recognition: When the information that was fed

in by the

senses are not accurate due to various other factors that are involved in the

cognitive

process, such as proper light to illumine the object, etc, the cognized vRitti

may or may

not represent the object in question. Based on incomplete or inaccurate sense

data,

cognition as well as recognition could be erroneous. Hence we say there is an

error in

cognition and the knowledge gained is erroneous knowledge – bhramaa instead of

pramaa. If

the perceiver is aware of the possibility of error that is there is a doubt

about the

cognition and further experimentation may be required to establish the validity

or

invalidity of the previous knowledge of the object. Thus if a perceiver sees a

snake

where there is a rope, if he has a doubt about his perception, he would express

the

doubtful knowledge as ‘I do not know if it is a rope or a snake’ or I see – it

looks like

a snake but I am not sure, etc. If the perceiver has no doubt in his

perception, even

though the perception is erroneous from point of an independent referee, he

would

consider it as a valid knowledge and not erroneous knowledge; until he

encounters a

contradictory experience related to the object, which could cause a doubt in his

prior

cognition. Many have no doubts about their knowledge, even though others see

that there

is a problem in their knowledge. Philosophies based on Vedanta are no exceptions

to this.

 

 

With this background, we are now ready to address some specific objections and

answers

provided in VP. Some of the questions and answers may appear to be irrelevant

but we will

go through them for completeness.

 

Q: Consciousness has no beginning. How can one say that knowledge, which has

been equated

to consciousness alone, can have a beginning?

 

A: It is not the consciousness but consciousness reflected in the VRitti has the

beginning, since the vRitti has a beginning and therefore its reflection too.

The

limiting reflected consciousness is figuratively called knowledge as arising in

the mind.

 

 

Without going into details about Vivarana vs Bhamati schools, in terms of who

says what,

we note that all knowledge takes place in the mind only. Consciousness reflected

in the

mind is called chidAbhAsa which is also called ego. Knowledge of an object is

represented

by a thought or vRitti and thought is illumined by consciousness as it rises.

Since

object is limited, the vRitti is also limited. Illumination and reflection of

the vRitti

make me conscious of the vRitti and thus conscious of the object. This is

figuratively

called knowledge – but it is knowledge of.. rather than pure knowledge itself.

Pure

knowledge has no beginning and therefore no end, as already been established by

saying

that knowledge is continuous. We have also made the distinction between pure

knowledge

and knowledge of an object in the beginning itself.

 

Q: Mind is considered as having no parts. If vRitti or mental state, which is

limited,

rises in the mind, mind will be considered as having parts. It violates the

first

statement.

 

A: Yes, because the first statement that mind is having no parts is not correct,

since it

is a substance and substance has a beginning according to sRiShTi prakaraNa. The

reflected consciousness is considered as attributive knowledge (knowledge of ..)

which is

a mental state. There are other mental states like ‘desire, resolve, doubt,

faith, want

of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence, and fear – all these

constitute

the mind – says the Shruti (Br. I-5-3). All the above listed ones are called

mental

states and are considered as attributes of the mind.

 

Q: If desire, etc are attributes of the mind, it contradicts the statements that

we

normally make; ‘I want, I know, I am afraid, etc about experiences that are

attributed

not to the mind but to the self that I am. I do not say mind wants or mind knows

or mind

is afraid but always say I want, etc. – How can these experiences of the self be

explained, if you argue that they are attributes of the mind?

 

A: Looking at the red hot iron ball, we say that the iron ball is burning. But

burning is

not the property of iron ball. Iron ball just remains as black wrought iron

ball. The

red hotness is not the property of the iron ball. When it is put in fire, it

becomes red

hot. Iron ball provides a locus for the fire. Because of association, properties

of the

fire are being superimposed on iron ball, and we falsely make a statement that

‘iron ball

is burning’. Similarly the self that I am is the substratum on which mental

moods are

superimposed. The moods belong to the mind not to the self. The self is always

free from

these changing moods. We use the expressions; I am happy, I am miserable, etc

due to

false identification of myself with the mind and its attributes.

 

Hence, I am happy or I am miserable are only modifications of the mind and they

do not

belong to the self that I am. Due to this false identification, I take myself as

I am

happy or I am miserable, etc. The false identification arises since I do not

know who I

am – Hence ignorance of myself is the root cause of the problem of this

superimposition.

 

Q: Since mind being a sense organ it is imperceptible? However, you say the

moods of the

minds are seen, how can mind see the mind, since it is a sense organ?

 

Note: Here the question perhaps is raised from Bhamati point – where mind is

also

considered as one of the sense organs. Sense organs cannot perceive themselves –

like

eyes cannot see the eyes, tongue cannot taste itself – we need a mirror to see

the eyes.

Question therefore has implied assumption that mind is also a sense organ.

Interestingly

Kena says in pointing to the Self – it is the eye of the eye, ear of the ear,

etc. A

born blind man says – I cannot see, I am blind. To him a Vedantin will ask – Can

you see

that you are blind? – Blind man has to say ‘Yes, I can see that I cannot see’ –

with what

eye I can see that my eyes cannot see – that is the eye of the eye.

 

A: There is nothing to prove that mind is one of the sense organs. Hence the

question is

not valid.

 

Q: The proof comes from the B. Gita Ch.15-7. The second part of the sloka is:

manaH ShaTAnIdriyANi prakRitishAni karShati|| - From prakRiti (the five) sense

organs and

the sixth, the mind, are gathered or attracted by jiiva.

 

A: That is not a proof that mind is the sixth sense organ. It only counts five

indriyas

and the sixth one, the mind, together are attracted by jiiva. Mind is separated

from the

indriyas and is not included with it. {VP provides several example where

counting is done

in a group which includes other categories as well. Similarly, in the above

sloka mind is

counted as the sixth but not as the sixth sense organ. Hence mind does not

belong to the

category of sense organs. – Look at the following statement ‘He taught Vedas

and

Mahabharata as the fifth’ – where Mahabharata is also counted, not as part of

the Vedas

since we know there are only four Vedas, but something significant that is

countable in

list of things that were taught.}

 

It may be argued that if mind is not considered as one of the sense organs, then

the

cognition of happiness will not be direct and immediate in the mind. If one

makes such an

argument, then that argument is also not correct. Immediacy is not necessarily

rest on

mind being considered as a sense organ. If mind is considered as sense organ,

and if that

is the necessary and sufficient requirement for immediacy, then even inference

(logical

deduction) which is mediate will become immediate (involving no deduction).

However, we

know that it is not the case. Sometimes one has to think deeply perhaps for

several hours

to arrive at the inferential knowledge. Hence requirement that the mind has to

be a sense

organ for immediacy of mental moods of happiness, etc, is not necessary. In

addition, if

we push this argument further and say that for God to know everything

instantaneously, we

have to provide him also some sense organs to facilitate that immediate

knowledge. Hence

mind is not considered as the sixth sense organ. Mind can have a sixth sense

(that is

information not fed by the five sense organs) which could be intuitive knowledge

but here

the discussion only pertains to about mind to be categorized as one of the sense

organs

and not mind having a sixth sensibility.

Next we will discuss about internal perceptions in contrast perceptions of

objects

outside.

 

 

___________--

Hari Om!

Sadananda