Knowledge and the Means of Knowlede - 32

[Guest guest]

Now I am back in India for six months, we will start our analysis of Vedanta

Paribhaasha. The previous parts can be obtained from either from

www.advaita.org.uk or www.advaitaforum.org under the title Critical analysis of

Vedanta Paribhaasha. We have completed two pramANas, the perception (pratyaksha)

and inference (anumaana). We will wrap up this subject by discussing some odds

and ends.

-----------------------

 

Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge – 32

 

Before we close the discussion on perception and inference, few points are of

interest. It was stated that perception is direct and immediate. As soon as I

open my eyes, I see the object in front of me, if there is sufficient light to

illumine the object. Meemamsakaas and Nayyayikaas have theorized that mind goes

out to the objects and engulfs the object like the water occupying the field,

which leads to the formation of the vRitti or thought of the object. This

concept also led to some philosophers to assume that when the senses gather

attributes of the object they gather the substantive too. Justification for the

latter comes from the fact that attributes are inseparable from their locus,

substantives. If I say this is a blue lotus, I cannot separate blueness from

lotus although I can see it is blue and it is lotus. This is called avinaabhaava

sambandham or inseparable relationship. This inseparability formed one of the

back bones of VishiShTa Advaita

where visheShaNas or attributes are inseparable from their locus, the object.

Hence jiivas and jagat form attributes of the all pervading Lord, and hence they

cannot have separate existence from the Lord. It is visheShaNa- sahita advaita

where oneness of the Lord includes the multiple jiivas and jagat as part of His

glory or vibhuuti. They have organic relation with the Lord, that is anga-angii

(parts and the whole) or sheSha-sheShii (dependent-independent) relationship.

He becomes antaryaamin or indweller of the whole universe of objects and beings.

He is one (advaita) but his visheShaNas, that include jiivas and jagat, are many

–the essence of vishiShTa advaita. According to them, recognition of this

fundamental fact is the true knowledge.

 

Without going into the merits of this hypothesis, the fundamental fact lies in

clearly understanding he visheShaNa-visheShya sambandha, or the relation between

the attributes and the substantive, and how exactly the perception of the world

of objects occurs. It was stated also in Vedanta ParibhaaSha, following the

Meemamsakaa’s position, that mind goes out and engulfs the object and

perceives the object through the senses, along with the perception of space and

time, without questioning its validity. We have raised this issue in the

beginning of our analysis itself, and made a comment that those particular

assumptions are not necessary, in order to understand the perceptual process. It

is not metaphysics here, as some argue. These are based on some basic physics

that we understand as of today dealing with the mechanics of physiological

functions. The analysis of the pramaaNas from advaita perspective remains the

same, as shown elaborately in the

previous discussions, without imposing the above unnecessary assumptions. Here,

we highlight some more aspects related to the perceptual process on the same

venue.

 

From modern science we now have a better understanding of how the perception

occurs. Analysis of perception indicates that what I see is really is not the

object but the light that gets reflected by the object. Most of the time we do

not recognize the light that is getting reflected but pay more attention to the

object that is reflecting the light. It is like watching the movie on TV. What

we are actually watching is the TV screen with interplay of lights and shades.

However our attention is totally immersed on the objectives displayed forgetting

the truth that there are no real objects behind them. Thus perceptual process

involves a formation of the image of the object with attributes of the object

(such as form, etc) as measured by the senses, as the contents of the image.

Hence, it is important to note that we never really ‘see’ the object per

sec, but only the image of the light reflected by the object. Recognizing this

aspect forms the very

basis for meditation too, which involves shifting the attention to the light

getting reflected by the object-thought than to the contents of the though

itself. Here the light that is reflected is the light of consciousness by which

the thought is known. The mechanics of the process is the same. Can I shift my

attention to the light that is getting reflected from the objects without

getting lost in the objects that is reflecting the light? Then again, can I

shift my attention to the reflected light of consciousness flashing on the

mirror of my mind as I become conscious of each thought? That is the light of

all lights, jyotirjyotiH.

 

Let us understand the facts without getting lost in the theories. During

perception, what we see therefore is only that part of the reflected light that

reaches our eyes. We do not see the light that is getting reflected by the back

side of the object. This is similar to our seeing only our front side when we

stand facing the mirror. Thus vRitti of thought of the object that forms in the

mind is similar to the image of the object as the light that passes through our

retina. In same way all other senses operate bringing only that part of the

input (shabda, sparsha, ruupa, rasa, gandha; sound, touch, form, taste and

smell) that can be sensed by them or that reach them for sensing. The

photographic image of the object can never be the same as the original. Some

darshanikas have defined pramANam as ‘yathaartham pramANam’, knowledge of

what it is. But the fact of the matter is ‘it is yathaa dRisyam pramANam and

not yathaartham’, whatever is seen is

the knowledge of the object, implying ‘whatever it is’ may be different

from ‘what is seen’. One can see the implication of this in terms of how

errors in perception can arise. Since what is seen is not necessarily the

truth, and the analysis, even scientifically, can easily lead to mithyaa aspect

of the objective world, since the truth of the object is never seen. Hence to

know the real truth of the objects or the world, scripture alone becomes a

pramANa, since we can never see the truth of the world, as all perceptions are

perceptions of the images and not the originals. Perceptual process is similar

to the image formation and nothing more.

 

If we can gather through the senses the attributes of the object and not their

substantive, are we not violating the statement that attributes of the object is

inseparable from their substantive? It is not so, because it is the reflected

image of the original only. It is just like the image formation in the mirror

where although my form is inseparable from me, I can still see the image of my

form in the mirror, although details depends on the quality of the mirror that

is forming the image and the other subsidiary factors like the intensity of the

light etc. The original attributes remain with the locus while image can still

be formed depending on the quality of the medium forming the image that includes

the purity of the mind and the capability of the senses (20-20 vision, etc). The

analogy forms the basis for understanding that although ananda is one, the

reflected anandas can be many, and their quality or intensity depends on the

purity of the

reflecting medium. Thus manushya ananda is one while the ananda of hiranya

garbha is 10 to the power of 23 times that of the manushya ananda. The original

is only one but the reflections and their qualities are different, says the

Upanishad. sa yaSchaayam puruShe| yaSchaasaavaaditye| sa ekaH| meaning, the

ananda in human being and that in the Hiranya garbha is the same even though

there is a huge difference between the reflected anandas of the two. Now we

arrive at another important information – not only the substantives of objects

are not ‘seen’, even the attributes of the objects are not ‘seen’.

Perceptual process therefore involves only the image formation of the object in

the pool of the mind without affecting the substantive or the attributes of the

original. This in mathematics we call as ‘mapping’ involving a

transformation of the original into an image with qualities reflecting the

original depending on the mapping technique

and leaving the original unaffected. This forms very basis of the advaita

principle. Original consciousness is the same and is never affected, while the

reflected consciousness (es) are many depending on the reflecting media.

 

Coming back to the perceptual process, just as the movie on the flat screen

gives perception of the movement as well as the 3-D vision of the objective

space and time, the mind operates in the same fashion from the point of

objective data. Just as the frames are in sequence with one at a time, the

vRittis or thoughts also form one after the other in sequence, forming

continuity. We can only think one thought at a time. There is really no multi

tasking in terms of perception during cognitive process. In this connection, the

following experiment was of interest. Two parallel stories were recorded

simultaneously on a cassette player and many people were asked to listen and

report what they have learned. Interestingly seventy percent of men were able to

follow one story or the other, leaving the second, while the rest of the thirty

percent got thoroughly confused as they switched their attention from one story

to the other. They only got the fragmented story

of each, which is thoroughly confusing. On the other hand, only 30 percent of

women could follow one story or the other, while 70 percent could not. Although

the conclusion reached out of these results was that men are capable of doing

one task at a time, while the women are best for multitasking, the experiment

only demonstrates the capacity of the human mind to focus only one aspect at a

time and can be trained to concentrate on one task without getting distracted.

As Krishana emphasizes this again and again that the mind can be trained to

focus on the higher, in spite of many distracting avenues that mind can take, by

what he calls as abhyaasa and vairaagya, dedicated practice and dispassion to

reject the dissipating avenues. The success of any person in any field, and more

so in the spiritual path, depends on the ability to pursue with single pointed

devotion the goal he wants to achieve. For that only all the four fold

qualifications are required.

With the movement of the vRittis or thoughts, the concept of time arises when

one compares NOW with THEN from the memory. If I can ride only on NOW without

looking back (or without projecting into future with wanting mind), I live only

in the dynamic present where there is no ‘time’. Thus perceptual process is

nothing but imaging process where what is ‘out there’ is mapped into image

in the mind using senses as the input media and mind forming the photographic

plate. Cognition and recognition are separate as the former occurs immediately

while the later involves comparison of the image with the images stored in the

memory. Some times the matching is fuzzy, and we cannot easily recognize the

imaged object. The names and the associated images could be stored at different

places in the brain making it difficult to match the form with the name,

particularly when one gets older.

 

Inferential knowledge is different from perceptual knowledge in the sense that

from what I see, I infer something that I can not directly see, using the

relation, vyaapti, between what I see and what I infer. The process of inference

involves a mental activity and therefore is not direct and immediate. I requires

the knowledge of the previously established relation between the hetu (what I

see) and saadhya (what I infer). This aspect has been exhaustively dealt from

the point of both navya nayaa and advaita.

 

Now a question is raised in terms of the so-called perception itself. Is there

inference involved in perception? Or how direct is the direct perceptual

knowledge. We mentioned that when I see an object in front of me, the perceptual

process is direct and immediate in the same way as the image formation when one

stands in front of a mirror. The analogy is exact. However, just as in the image

formation, what I see is not the object per sec but the frontal projection of

the object in each frame. Unless the object rotates we will never see the image

in complete perspective. Even here the mind has to integrate all the images or

frames to arrive or to infer the perspective image of the object in front.

However, even with lack of compete perspective projection, I can infer based on

the information stored in the memory. Thus there is some inference involved in

the perceptual knowledge. Thus if I see a cow in front of me, although I see

only the parts of the cow

that are exposed to my vision, I infer complete cow based on what I see. This

inference comes from the previous knowledge of the cow in complete perspective.

It is the same reason why we see only one side of the moon all the time due to

synchronized orbits of the earth and the moon.

 

Is this inference different from the inferential knowledge or anumaana pramaaNa.

Yes, says Annambhatta, the famous nayyayika. There is a distinction between the

two inferences. In the direct perceptual case, what we see and what we infer

refer to the same object, but now in complete detail. Thus if we see the frontal

part of the cow due to perception, we infer the rest of the cow, even though we

do not see directly now. In this case, the object of perception and the object

of inference are both the same. Anumaana as separate means of knowledge comes in

only when what we see is different from what we infer from what we see. What I

see is the smoke and the mountain but what I infer is the fire on that mountain.

I cannot see the fire directly but infer its presence using the concomitant

relation between the smoke and the fire. Hence inferential knowledge is

different from perceptual knowledge, although some degree of inference occurs

even in perception.

 

In addition, based on the analysis presented, we know now that what we see is

not the object per sec but its image as projected in the mind as vRitti. The

correspondence between the image and the original has to be established to

insure what I see is what is there. If not, what I see is assumed as what is

there, and this lack of inquiry of one to one correspondence between what I see

and what is there can lead to errors in perception. The vision of snake where

there is a rope comes under this category. This is more a subjective error

since it is the individual mind that makes the error. The photograph of the

object does not show the presence of a snake where the rope is. There are also

objective errors like mirage water since error arises since image formed in the

mind is just based on reflection of the light. . A photographic image of it also

will show the appearance of the water due to the reflected light. Transactions

involving karmendriayas can

only confirm what I see is what is there or not. Hence the reality of the

objects is established not by perception but by transaction. Hence the world of

objects we transact with is called Vyaavahaarika satyam. With this we complete

all the accounts related to perception and inference. We come back to the direct

perception again when we discuss the aparokshaanubhuuti involved in shabda

pramANa.

 

With this understanding we now proceed to analyze the next PramANa.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda