Presentation and Representation

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji wrote:

I do not mean in the same sense as Swami Satprakashanandaji uses. I did

study what he said and I have no disagreements, in general what is said

there. Specifics I did not pay to much attention.

I will have to look again to see what he meant by representation.

 

******************

It is the normal experience of everyone that they see the objects as

they are

based on their sense input since each individual sense capabilities in

grasping the

attributes are different.

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

Namaste Sada-ji, Putranm-ji,

 

Unfortunately 'representation' is a key word and using it definitely

distorts the purport of your thought. We ought to distinguish between the

mechanisms of perception and the metaphysics. In the metaphysics the

mental modification (vritti) is the presentation of the object perceived.

It is not the re-presentation which gives the impression of a stand in so

to speak. When there is gross illusion the mind has gone out to the

object but in presenting it has occluded its reality with an associated

memory. Even where the object is presented in an accurate and publically

verifiable way the individual sensitive apparatus will bring its

distinctive shading to the experience. The witness is pure consciousness

with the limiting adjunct of the mind and thus manifests as individual

because each mind (short hand for Body, Mind, Intellect) is different. So

there can be no 'representation' or stand-in because there is no

definitive object just a range of acceptable 'objects' all taken to be

the same 'object'.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

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

> Namaste Sada-ji, Putranm-ji,

>

> Even where the object is presented in an accurate and publically

> verifiable way the individual sensitive apparatus will bring its

> distinctive shading to the experience. The witness is pure

consciousness

> with the limiting adjunct of the mind and thus manifests as individual

> because each mind (short hand for Body, Mind, Intellect) is

different. So

> there can be no 'representation' or stand-in because there is no

> definitive object just a range of acceptable 'objects' all taken to

be

> the same 'object'.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael

>

 

Sri Michaelji,

 

A couple of points for logic-purpose.

 

The word " re-presentation " seems to have more significance in your

usage than I am following. If the senses present the object to the

mind and the intellect analyses the presentation using its past

memory, it is interesting that the latter presentation is not

considered a re-presentation, for different memories can give

different takes on the same presentation.

 

The last statement on " no definite object " requires some pramaana for

its justification. If only my pratyaksha is used, then that object is

ever existent and ever changing. If also inference is used, then since

the " object " depends on the subject's mental vritti, there is no

definite object apart from subject: but here a definite status is

given for the existence of different subjects (i.e. other objects have

been assumed as " existing as valid subjects " and the analysis of " the

object " is based on the conclusions of the " subject-objects " ). If also

the (object(?) called) Vedas is used, then we can affirm other

subjects as equally valid as myself and a definite object (of

particular properties) apart from us which appears different to each

of us.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu