Indian Logic Forum

Plamen · Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: What is Perception?

In every perception (pratyaksa), there is objective content with its real referent (artha) and subjective representation (jnana, or akara). As far as the nature of perception (which is essentially grahana, grasping) is concerned, most of the Indian theorists believe that it is the objective form of the external thing that is presented in the mind by force of the senses which project their energy to the objects, receive their form and store it in the alaya, i.e., the store of consciousness.

But this is not the entire picture. The sense energies (indriyas) act like transcendental holograms. By transcendental I mean the fact that a transcensus is effectuated of the form of the objects from the object to the subject. While the classical notion of transcendental is in the reverse direction, the transcensus goes from the subject and reaches for the object. So, these transcendental holograms possessing the nature of subtle energies trigger the apriori schematism of mind, and lots of ideas, which we call vikalpas, are applied to the hyletic material provided by the sences, and impart to it the final form of determinate perceptions. Paradoxically, the Indian name for this kind of determinate perception is nirvikalpika, which can be interpreted both as not containing vikalpas and as not producing vikalpas.

Question: What exactly do you mean by objective content? It seems that when the subject senses it is not full of objects but rather full of sensations. How do we start off with objective content? How the senses work seem pretty complex. What do you mean store in in the alaya? What is this? So are you saying there is a physical world existing indepedently without us? Are these views your views? What do you mean by apriori? Im not so sure there is apriori knowledge.

Answer: There are real objects out there (rupa), sensations (samjna) and feelings (vedana) generated by them, objective content (rupa-vijnana, say, gandha-vijnana, caksu-vijnana, etc.) in the consciousness, mental representations and a priori constructions (manovijnana = vikalpas), and the mind (manas) itself. Here a priori means existing prior to sensations and that's why serving as pre-experiential schemas in compliance with which the sensory data are being organized into full-fledged perceptions.

Buddha was not a subjective idealist. He never said that only mind exists.

Internal perception is the proprioception. Apart from external and internal perception, there are another two kinds of perception - (3) mental perception (the perception by the manas of the dharmas) and (4) yogic perception (yogaja-pratyaksa), which is absolutely veridical.

Perception by definition is non-deviating and not produced by ill or abnormal sense organs. Paradoxically, every perception is based on inference, and - conversely, - every inference is based on perception. Reading Dignaga and especially Dharmakirti cum Dharmottara, one cannot get rid of the feeling that it is not Koffka and KГ¶hler that should be attributed for the creation of the Gestalt-Psychologie.

Question: By real objects you mean that which is not sensed?

Answer: It is the real objects that are "sensed". I don't see a way to sense a unreal object, except by the force of some mighty mantra, just like the mantra of the magician makes us see the parikalpita (imagined) elephant. But even in thiscase, what we see, is our preconceived notion of elephant rather than the mental construction of the magician. A man who has never seen an elephant would be unsusceptible to the magic of the mayavadin. This is how I understanf the situation, not the official stand - if there is such at all.

What do you mean by mind? Do you mean brain activity or something else?

As far as mind is situated in the heart, I don't think it has been envisaged as the function of the brain (mastiSka), which according to Indian anatomical views is a physical substance (rupa) situated in the head.

Q: Are objects having within themselves mental stimuli. What generates the feelings? Are they within or without?

A: I understand this as one question: If the feelings are generated by the objects, it is the objects that must have mental stimuli in them, hence mental elements that are outside mind (citta). This is only a seeming contradiction. Any Abhidharma list would point at least 20 such stimuli which are not at least related to mind (see citta-viprayukta-samskara-dharmas). How are they generated if not related to citta (mind)?! There are two ways: Either they arise from the contact with the objects, or they are a priori constructions (samskaras) existing prior to and independently of any sense contact (sparsa, samnikarsa).

What in the real things can become objective contet of our mind? It is their own form, svarupa, which can be, but can also not be interpreted as their own nature (svabhava). What is the difference between these two terns? The own nature of the pot is the earth (prthivi), but it is not the earth that we comprehend (grasp) as the own form of the pot. The pure perception of a Yogi grasps precisely the svarupa of the obejct, not its svabhava. It is the objective svarupa that shines forth in the consciousness as its own form, just like the pure crystall gets red when placed near a Chinese rose.

Replica: The "objective" structures cannot be directly perceived, so are the most imaginary, ideal, theoretical part of the whole

Answer: On the contrary, they can be directly perceived in a process of an extraordinary acquisition (samapatti) of the truth, after purifying, or pacifying the mind (cf. prapancopasama of Nagarjuna and citta-vrtti-nirodha of Patanjali). What is yogacara? Yogacara is such an Yogic procedure (acara) allowng the advanced practitioner to directly perceive the own form (akara) of the things which are therefore considered to be cittamatra, because what we ultimately see in the objects is their citta-isomorphic svarupa.

Guess: In Mahayana, I guess, that the mind creates its own reality

A: It does not create it, mind rather properly differentiate it from the other, hyletic elements of the object presented to consciousness. So the nature of the absolute perception (alaukika yogi-pratyaksa) is to directly perceive the own form of the objects. In doing so, some might be seduced to think that pure perceiving is pure creation. This is not so, because the pure objects of mind are nirvikalpa, they are lacking whatever mental constructions.

Disagreement: I wouldn't agree that "the way we observe is itself metahphysics." We can observe without conscious thought, and metaphysics cannot be done without conscious thought.

A: If we can do that, what is the difference between a man and a camera?

Evidently, we have to clarify our concept of metaphysics. If it is going beyond the pale of ordinary perception, then at least three kinds of perception should be classified under metaphysics. Along with most of the inferences.