Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 7

[Guest guest]

7. The Criteria for Cognition

 

‘What is the criterion for perceptual knowledge’, that is, how or when the

perceptual

knowledge is said to be complete. Here we first provide the conventional

understanding

and then adopt it from our current understanding of how sense perceptions occur.

I must

state that in adopting the current understanding of the process, the fundamental

advaitic

understanding is not compromised.

 

VP says one can think of limiting consciousness as three fold. We understand

first that

consciousness is unlimited, indivisible and eternal. Just as space which is

infinite is

divided by limiting equipments and expressed as jar space, room space, etc.

consciousness

expressed by the limiting adjuncts is called limiting consciousness. With that

understanding we can now look at the process of perception.

 

From the point of perception, there are three things that have to come together

for

knowledge to take place. One is an object; the other is the subject and third

is the

means of knowledge, bridging the first two. We can say that no knowledge can

takes place

until all the three come together. In this, object is not subject (in fact

cannot become

a subject) and subject is not an object (cannot become one either) and means is

connecting link between these two dissimilar things. Since Vedanta says that the

all

pervading consciousness, Brahman, is the material cause for everything, the

distinctions

of subject, object and the means are only superficial and are valid within

vyavahaara or

transactional reality. Since knowledge is related to consciousness, the

perceptual

knowledge of an object by a subject through a means involves some kind of

transgressing

the transactional to transcendental reality, since I, a conscious entity, become

conscious of an object, in my mind via reflected consciousness. Hence the

statement ‘what

I perceive is nothing but consciousness itself which is nothing but Brahman’

follows. How

this happens can be described as follows:

 

Since Brahman is the material cause for everything, we can say Brahman, in the

form of a

limiting adjunct called object, comes in contact with limiting consciousness

called

subject though a limiting consciousness called means of knowledge, for

perceptual

knowledge to take place. It is exemplified by Gita sloka – brahmaarpaNam brahma

haviH … .

Let us take an example of a perception of a jar. We can say that

consciousness in the

form of jar (jar is a name and a form for the substantive Brahman), comes in

contact with

the consciousness in the form of mind, through consciousness in the form of

means of

knowledge. When all three become ‘as though’ united into one when a conscious

entity, I,

becomes conscious of the object, jar.

 

How does this process occur? To explain this process VP provides simple analogy

that is

familiar to even a lay man - water from a tank that is being channeled to the

various

farm-fields takes the shape of the fields – rectangular in rectangular fields

and

circular in circular fields, etc., similarly the mind supported by consciousness

goes out

through the sense organs and makes a contact with the object and envelopes the

object,

jar, modifying itself taking the shape of the jar. At this juncture, the

modified mind

and the object are occupying the same place at the same time. That very

modification is

called vRitti. Mind running to the object and taking the object shape for it to

perceive

is conventional understanding how the mind through sense organs ‘grasps’ the

object. We

note that in the ‘Methods of Knowledge –According to Advaita Vedanta’, Swami

Satprakashananda says that only in the visual and auditory perceptions the mind

goes out

through the corresponding senses while in tactile, gustatory, as well as in

olfactory

experiences the sense organs, in association with the mind, makes contact with

the object

while remaining in its own location. In principle, it appears that it is not

necessary

that mind has to go out and engulf the object – information can come to the

senses and

via senses to the mind – for object to be cognized as is. The important point is

in the

perceptual knowledge; the vRitti that is formed is representative of the object

perceived. The correspondence is imperative for perceptual knowledge to be

immediate and

direct, which is not the case for interferential knowledge.

 

We now know that light reflected from the object reaches the lenses of the eye,

providing

an image of the object on the retina. Since we are blessed with two eyes that

separate by

seven degrees, the two images stereographically rotated to give a depth of

vision. This

is exploited in making 3-D movies using polarized lights, which is viewed by

wearing

polarized glasses. If you remove the glasses you only see plane projection.

The three

dimensional view of the world is transmitted to the brain. Up to this is clear.

Signal is

transformed as vRitti in the mind – this conversion software is intrinsic to the

mind.

That this happens is obvious but how this happens is not known. The defects can

occur due

to distortion of the eye, which to a large extent can be corrected by

spectacles. The

defect can also occur when in the transmittal of the image in the retina to the

brain.

Subsequent transmittal of this image to the mind in terms of neural

reorganization

(compiler and programming code with which the mind operates) is not yet

understood.

 

Here the mind integrates the input from all the senses as they come forming the

image or

vRitti. Only difference from the conventional understanding is instead of mind

rushing

through the sense organs, the information is brought to the subtle equipment,

mind.

Either way the end product is the formation of the vRitti, which is

representative of the

sense data that is collected. That is, the image formed is representative of the

sense

data that is perceived. If the sense data is erroneous or distorted, the image

that is

formed is not true representation of the object seen. This leads to error in

perception.

The ultimate mechanism involves the formation of vRitti representative of the

object

perceived or more correctly representative of the sense data received.

 

Thus every vRitti has a corresponding object that it represents in perception.

On the

other hand, in the case of inference where the object is not perceived but

inferred, the

vRitti has no direct representation to the sense data and thus to the object

that is

perceived. In the inference, senses data correspond to only the ‘hetu’ or

cause part.

For example, for the case, ‘I see the smoke on a distant hill’ where the smoke

and the

distant hill are perceived and the corresponding vRittis have objects associated

with it.

But when we deduce using vyaapti (a concomitant relation between the cause and

effect)

that the hill is on fire, where the fire is not perceived but inferred, the

vRitti

associated with it has no direct object to relate to since there is no

corresponding

sense data on fire. Hence the knowledge that is arrived at – that the hill is

on fire –

is not direct and immediate – it is indirect and mediate knowledge, since mind

has to use

the sense data and analyze that information using relations and arrive at some

conclusion, which is considered as deductive knowledge. Hence knowledge is

mediate and

indirect. This will be analyzed more clearly when we discuss the anumAna

pramANa. Here

the point VP makes is that the perception passed on sense data provides a direct

correspondence between the mental vRitti and the object of perception. In the

conventional explanation wherein the mind is rushing through the sense organs

and

enveloping the object at the same place and time, insures one to one

correspondence

between the vRitti and the object perceived. That VP says insures that the

limiting

consciousness of the object present corresponds to the limiting consciousness of

the

vRitti formed in the mind.

 

We can now state that one of the essential criteria for perceptual knowledge is

the

correspondence between the object perceived and the associated vRitti that is

formed via

sense input. In the internal perception of feelings this happens automatically

since

metal moods formed correspond to those particular emotions – happy, unhappy,

fear, etc.

Hence their perception is also direct and immediate. This correspondence

between the

object and its vRitti formed in the mind – this one to one correspondence - is

viewed by

VP as the unity in the limiting consciousness of the object and that of vRitti.

To

appreciate this concept correctly let us looks at space analogy, which is

analogous to

consciousness, as both are indivisible, all pervading and infinite. Let us

consider a

jar sitting on the ground in a monastery. There is no difference in the space

inside the

jar and space inside the monastery. Space is limitless although the limiting

adjuncts

that define the limiting spaces ‘as though’ are different, but intrinsically

they are the

same, one indivisible space. Even the dividers, jar or walls of monastery are in

space

only.

 

The same analogy applies in perception, although it is not obvious. That

consciousness is

all pervading is not obvious to us. That knowledge comes from the scriptures,

although

one can deduce logically that consciousness cannot have boundaries, space-wise

or

time-wise. It is inside and outside and thus everywhere. In each object the

consciousness is expressed as limiting consciousness. Hence object is defined as

Brahman

+ form with a name, since Brahman is the material cause for the universe. The

transformation of Brahman into forms, scriptures say, is like gold transforming

into

ornaments – a transformationless transformation called vivarta vikaara, or an

apparent

modification. Just as gold remains as gold while forming verities of ornaments

with

different names and forms, without itself undergoing any vikaara or real

modification,

Brahman, whose nature is pure consciousness, remains as such but appears to be

limiting

objects, with a name and form or attributes. Therefore all objects are limiting

consciousnesses, limited by the upaadhiis which are bounded. Although upaadhiis

are

bounded, Brahman is not, since the space between the upaadhiis is also Brahman.

Hence

Brahman as limitless is not compromised.

 

Unity of limiting consciousnesses for perception:

 

From the above analysis, the jar out side is nothing but limitless Brahman,

whose nature

is existence-consciousness but appearing as limiting consciousness (actually as

limiting

existence) in the form of a jar (form here stands for attributes of the jar,

which are

different from those of mug or vessel) with the name associated with it as

‘jar’. Name

defines the attributes with generic attribute that jar has jar-ness or jar-hood

associated with it. Senses measure attributes, since substantive Brahman is not

attributive. Existence is not an attribute. (If existence is attribute then we

need

another substantive for the attributive existence, that is, we need another

Brahman whose

nature is existence – thus we run into infinite regress. In addition if

existence is an

attribute and attribute should be different from substantive. Only thing

different from

existence is non-existence. Now we run into self-contradiction. The

non-existence which

is different from existence becomes a substantive for the attributive existence.

That is

existence is an attribute for non-existence. Non-existent substantive is no

substantive.

Hence, existence cannot be an attributes as some philosophers argue. Hence,

advaita says

existence-consciousness is swaruupa or inherent nature of Brahman – here the

language is

limited in expressing the swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman, as the scriptures says

words

cannot reach there!). When the sense-input forms a vRitti in the mind whose

attributes

are the same as that of the jar, the one to one correspondence between the

existent-attributive vRitti and existent-attributive jar is established. This is

stated

in VP as the limiting consciousness of the object jar is united with the

limiting

consciousness of the vRitti, the mental mood for the completion of the

perception.

 

The truth of this becomes clear, since Brahman is all pervading and limitless.

The only

difference between one object and the other is attributes that define the

objects. In the

perception of ‘this is jar’ – the attributes of the jar are measured and carried

to the

mind where VRitti is formed consisting of the same attributes that were

measured.

Brahman in the form of jar is now Brahman in the form of vRitti in the mind,

since

everything is nothing but Brahman. The same statement is expressed as the

limiting

consciousness of the Brahman in the form of jar is now united with the limiting

consciousness of Brahman in the form of vRitti – since attributives of both the

object

outside and the vRitti inside are the same. The substantives for both jar

outside and the

vRitti inside are also the same since Brahman is limitless and indivisible.

 

To be more exact, expression of Brahman is different in different limiting

adjuncts.

Brahman expression depends on the nature of the adjuncts. In the case of very

gross

products or gross world, the inertness is obvious. In all these, the all

pervading

Brahman is expressed as just the existence – sat swaruupam. Hence we say jar IS

where the

is-ness is the expression of its existence. Hence the object jar outside is

Brahman

expressed as existence with name jar and form – all the attributes -

superimposed on that

existence. In the case of jar or any other tangible object, the existence exists

in a

grosser form. All gross forms consist of panca bhuutas transformed by

recombination

process (pancIkaraNa) keeping Brahman as their substantive. If the object is

subtle as

in the case of the mind, Brahman can then express as existence and conscious

entity,

since mind can reflect the light of consciousness much better than gross

objects. It is

like a mirror that can reflect the light better than a stone. The degree of

reflection

depends on the reflecting medium. Perception of jar therefore involves

perception of

Brahman in the limiting existence in the form of a jar with its attributes.

During the

process of perception, the attributes are gathered by senses and are projected

in the

mind as vRitti. Although the attributes are the same in both the jar and in the

vRitti,

mind is a subtler expression of Brahman in contrast to jar which is grosser

expression.

Hence in the vRitti, Brahman is expressed not only as existence similar to that

in the

jar but also as reflected consciousness since the vRitti which is nothing but

mental mood

can reflect the light of consciousness better than the gross material of the

jar. Hence,

considering all this, we can state that perception is said to be complete, if

existence

of the jar with its attributes unites with the existence of the vRitti with the

same

attributes as sensed by senses. Since existence is all pervading, only thing

that

requires to be carried by the senses are attributes of the object to the vRitti.

It is

also a fact that the senses can carry only attributes and not substantive.

Hence

perception is complete as soon as attributes are projected on to Vritti or image

or

mental mood that is formed in the mind. VRitti is illumined as it forms, since

mind has

the capacity to reflect the illuminating consciousness. The limiting reflected

consciousness by the vRitti is the knowledge of the vRitti, which is the same as

the

knowledge of the object. VRitti is nothing but existence with the attributes

that are

gathered by the senses and those attributes are the same as the attributes of

the jar,

which is also nothing but existence with the attributes. Thus there is an

identity in the

two – object jar and the vRitti as both are existence with the attributes of the

jar.

Only difference is existence is expressed in the jar in grosser form while it is

expressed in subtle form in the vRitti. The other difference would depend on how

far the

senses could gather the attributes from the jar and carry them to the vRitti.

In some

cases the senses can be trained to pick up finer differences in tastes,

different shades

in colors or finer differences in forms which may not be possible for untrained

senses.

There are professional wine tasters and tea tasters who can distinguish finer

differences

in tastes to know which is better or more easily sellable!

 

In the case of internal perceptions that is the perception of happiness or

unhappiness,

fear, anger etc, the metal moods are directly perceived since the mental moods

are the

emotions directly. As the emotions rise, they express as perturbations in the

mind as

mental moods and they are illumined and cognized as they form. Senses are not

involved

here. Attributes of the mood are the specific feelings themselves and therefore

further

means is not required for knowledge of those feelings. VP says since the

limiting

consciousness in the form mental moods and the limiting consciousness in the

form of

feelings of happiness, anger, fear, etc are identical or occupy the same space

and time,

the reflected consciousness or the knowledge which is immediate and direct is

invariably

a perception.

 

Hence there are fundamentally two criteria that need to be met for perception to

be

complete.

a) For the vRitti that is formed either via sense input for the objects outside

or for

the vRitti that is formed for the internal perceptions of the emotions, there

must be one

to one correspondence between the object of perception and the vRitti that is

formed.

This insures that every vRitti that is formed there is an object that it

corresponds to;

be the object of perception is outside or inside the mind.

b) The vRitti as it forms is illumined directly and immediately by the ever

present

consciousness, sAkshI or the witnessing consciousness. Hence direct and

immediate

knowledge of the object perceived is the nature of the perceptual knowledge. In

complex

cases, as in the case of fire on the distant hill, the immediate perceptions are

only the

smoke and the hill. From this, the knowledge that the hill is on fire is deduced

using

logic using cause-effect relationships. This part of the deductive knowledge is

not

immediate and direct. Hence we have mixture of both direct and immediate

knowledge of

smoke and hill, and mediate and indirect knowledge of fire on the hill.

 

The limiting consciousness of the object, the limiting consciousness of the

subject, and

the limiting consciousness of the means, all combining to form – pure

consciousness but

expressed figuratively as the consciousness of the object or the knowledge of

the object.

 

 

We can raise the question – how is it possible that the limiting reflected

consciousness,

that is the knowledge of .. is the same as the pure absolute knowledge or

original

consciousness? Although the answer is obvious, it becomes a very pertinent

question for

many advaitic students – since the same question trickles down as who really

realizes

when I say I am not this, or I am not the ego, which is nothing but the

reflected

limiting consciousness, since it is the ego that is making statement that I am

not the

ego, and not the sAkshI chaitanyam. The reflected consciousness will remain as

reflected

consciousness as long as there is medium for reflection. It is like as long as

there is

a mirror there is always the image in the mirror, if there is an object in its

vicinity

and there is enough light around, whether I pay attention to the image or not.

(The human

psychology is always to look at their images if there are any. Everybody wants

to know

how one looks either in the mirror, in the others eyes). The original

consciousness

remains as pure, ever present, ever shining consciousness, whether there is a

mirror to

reflect or not. Self Realization is then recognizing the reflected limiting

consciousness

(ego) is not separate from the original consciousness. These analogies of

mirror and

reflection are only for purposes of illustration. Actually if we say the

original

consciousness is all pervading and mind is reflecting the consciousness – such

statements

are for purpose of understanding. According Advaita Vedanta, mind, the reflected

medium

as well as the reflection are not and cannot be separate from the all pervading

consciousness. Hence in Advaita it is technically called adhyaasa or just a

superimposition, like ring is superimposed on gold. Gold is called adhiShTAnam

or

substantive. Hence it is the all pervading consciousness itself ‘as though’

appears as

the mind as well the reflection in the mind, for the knowledge of an object that

itself

appears as one. It is similar to entering bright sunlit room. Now sun light is

all over

but what I actually see is the sunlight reflected by the objects all around, and

say I

see the sunlight everywhere. What I am seeing is only the reflected sunlight

everywhere

as it falls on the objects or walls around. However, I recognize that the

reflected

sunlight is not different from the original sunlight although I may not be able

to see

that original sunlight directly. If there are no objects, no walls, or none to

reflect

the sunlight, will my eyes able to recognize the presence of sunlight? If I am

the

sunlight itself and there is nothing to reflect, how would that be? Hence, it

is said

that mind is essential for self-realization to recognize that I am not the

reflected

light in the mind but the original one that lights the mind to reflect. In fact

I am the

mind too to mind. It is said that in order to see myself I became many – this

is also

referred to in many ways as Liilaa Vibhuuti or Aiswaryam or as GouDapAda puts it

–

swAbhAvikam – that is my natural state.

 

Hence VP’s declaration in the beginning itself: ‘Pratyaksha pramaa ca atra

caitanyam

eva’ meaning in the direct perceptual knowledge, what is really revealed as the

knowledge

as reflected consciousness is the pure consciousness itself. That is the

identity of

reflected consciousness with the original consciousness. One is adhyaasa and the

other is

adhiShTAnam, a superimposition on a substratum, like ring on Gold. It is like

saying ring

is nothing but gold, which is its adhiShTAnam or substratum. In the case of

consciousness, without that superimposition one cannot see the adhiShTAnam, like

light

cannot be seen without its reflections. One can now see the beauty in the

million dollar

statement as one reflects more and more on the truth behind all reflections.

This

completes the analysis by establishing what was proposed in the beginning. The

rest of

the analysis deals with some details and related things pertaining to direct

perception

as pramANa.

 

Now we address some of the objections and responses, a standard format commonly

used to

clarify the concepts presented.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda