Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 7

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji wrote:

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.

 

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

 

Namaste Sada-ji,

The vritti (mental modification) cannot be a

representation of the sense data that is collected for the simple reason

that we could in that case never be said to know the object. The

knowledge of the object would be mediated to us by the mental

modification. The mental modification *is* the object because it is the

same pure consciousness that has taken form internally and externally.

" Without the interior and the exterior " (Brh.Up. II.v.19) There is no

matching up of one against the other to see if they are congruent. How

could we possibly know that they were? It has to be a matter of

identity. A thing is only the same in all respects as its very own self.

Otherwise 'That thou art' makes no sense.

 

How then does it happen that mistakes are made? Does that fact not tempt

us to discern in the possibiltity of error a certain structure. We find

lack of congruence between what is and what we took it to be. The short

answer in the spirit of VP would be that confusion is not a perception and

ought to have more the status of a memory.

 

But perhaps I am mistaking your purport or I have gone astray myself,

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.