Part X - The Criteria for Cognition
What are the criteria for perceptual knowledge? I.e.
how or when can perceptual knowledge be said to be complete?
Here we first provide the conventional understanding
and then adapt it according to our new understanding
of how sense perceptions occur. I must state that in
adapting the current understanding of the process, the
fundamental advaitic understanding is not compromised.
VP says that 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 notionally divided by limiting
equipments and then expressed as ‘jar space’, ‘room
space’ etc, so consciousness expressed by the
limiting adjuncts is called limiting consciousness.
With that understanding we can now look at the process
of perception.
From the standpoint of perception, there are three
things that have to come together in order 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, the object is
not a subject (in fact cannot become a subject) and
the subject is not an object (cannot become one either)
and the ‘means’ is the 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 only valid
within vyavahAra 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'.
How this happens can be described as follows:
Since Brahman is the material cause for everything,
we can say that Brahman, in the form of a limiting adjunct
called ‘object’, comes into contact with
a limiting consciousness called ‘subject’ through
a limiting consciousness called ‘means of knowledge’,
in order for perceptual knowledge to take place. It
is exemplified by the Gita shloka “ brahmArpaNaM
brahma havir…” (IV.24). “Brahman
is the offering, Brahman is the oblation poured out
by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman is to be
attained by him who sees Brahman in action.”
[Editor notes: Ramanuja(!) comments on this verse: “The
entire act consists of Brahman because it is of Brahman’s
nature: the sacrifice is Brahman, the utensils are Brahman,
the fire in which the sacrifice is offered is Brahman, the
sacrificer himself is Brahman. He who contemplates this insight,
contemplates the act-as-Brahman. Such a one is capable of knowing
the proper form of the Atman – which is Brahman – through
his acts, because his acts are of Brahman’s nature. In
other words, the acts performed by an aspirant have the form
of knowledge because they imply the realization that the consist
of Brahman and are therefore a means of contemplating the Atman.”]
Let us take the example of the 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
into contact with the consciousness in the form of mind,
through consciousness in the form of means of knowledge.
All three become 'as though' united into one when the
conscious entity ‘I’ becomes conscious of
the object, jar.
How does this process occur? To explain this process,
VP provides a simple analogy that is familiar to even
a layman: water from a tank that is being channeled
to 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 envelops it, e.g. if the object
is a jar, the mind ‘takes 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 a vRRitti. The mind’s
running to the object and taking the shape of the object
in order for it to perceive that object is conventional
understanding, as when we say that the mind, via the
sense organs, 'grasps' the object. We note that in the
'Methods of Knowledge -According to Advaita Vedanta',
Swami Satprakashananda says that only in visual and
auditory perceptions, does the mind go out through the
corresponding senses while in tactile, gustatory and
olfactory experiences the sense organs, in association
with the mind, ‘make contact with’ the object
while remaining in their own location. In principle,
it appears that it is not necessary for the mind to ‘go
out’ and ‘engulf’ the object – the
information can come to the senses and, via the senses,
to the mind in order for the object to be cognized as
is. The important point is in the perceptual knowledge:
the vRRitti that is formed is representative of the
object perceived. This 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 an object reaches
the lense of the eye, providing an image of the object
on the retina. Since we are blessed with two eyes, separated
by seven degrees, the two images are stereographically
rotated to give a depth of vision. (This is exploited
in making 3-D movies using polarized lights, which are
then viewed by wearing polarized glasses. If you remove
the glasses you only see the plane projection.) The
three dimensional view of the world is transmitted to
the brain. Up to this point, all is clear. The signal
is then transformed as a vRRitti in the mind – this ‘conversion
software’ is intrinsic to the mind. That this
happens is obvious but how it happens is not understood.
Defects can occur due to distortion of the eye, which
to a large extent can be corrected by spectacles. Defects
can also occur during the transmission of the image
from the retina to the brain or in subsequent transmission
of this image to the mind in terms of neural reorganization.
(The ‘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 arrive, forming the image or vRRitti. The only
difference from conventional understanding is that,
instead of the 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 vRRitti, which is representative of the sense data
that has been collected. I.e. the image formed is representative
of the sense data that are perceived. If the sense data
are erroneous or distorted, the image that is formed
is not a true representation of the object seen. This
leads to errors in perception. The ultimate mechanism
involves the formation of a vRRitti representative of
the object perceived or, more correctly, representative
of the sense data received.
Thus every vRRitti 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 vRRitti does not directly represent
the sense data and thus the object that is perceived.
With inference, the sense data corresponds only to the
'hetu' or cause part. For example, in the case 'I see
the smoke on a distant hill', the smoke and the distant
hill are both perceived and the corresponding vRRitti-s
have objects associated with them. But when we deduce
using vyApti (a concomitant relation between the cause
and effect) that the hill is on fire, the fire is not
perceived but inferred and thus the vRRitti 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 knowledge but indirect and
mediate, since the mind has to take the sense data and
analyze it using relations and arrive at some conclusion,
a process which is called ‘deductive knowledge’.
Hence the knowledge in this case is mediate and indirect.
This will be analyzed more clearly when we discuss anumAna
pramANa. Here, the point that VP makes is that the perception
passed via sense data provides a direct correspondence
between the mental vRRitti and the object of perception.
In the conventional explanation, where the mind is rushing
through the sense organs and enveloping the object at
the same place and time, there is a one to one correspondence
between the vRRitti and the object perceived. The VP
explanantion insures that the limiting consciousness
of the object present corresponds to the limiting consciousness
of the vRRitti 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 vRRitti that
is formed via sense input. In the internal perception
of feelings this happens automatically, since the mental
moods which are formed correspond to those particular
emotions - happiness, unhappiness, fear, etc. Hence,
their perception is also direct and immediate. This
correspondence between the object and the vRRitti 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 the vRRitti. To appreciate
this concept correctly, let us looks at the space analogy,
which is analogous to consciousness, since both are
indivisible, all pervading and infinite. Let us consider
a jar sitting on the ground in a monastery. There is
no difference between the space inside the jar and the
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 the monastery are in space only.
The same analogy applies to perception, although it
is not obvious. That consciousness is all pervading
is not obvious to us. This 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 the object is defined as Brahman + form with a
name, since Brahman is the material cause for the universe.
The transformation of Brahman into forms, say the scriptures,
is like gold transforming into ornaments – a transformationless
transformation called vivarta vikAra, or an ‘apparent
modification’. Just as gold remains as gold, even
while forming varieties of ornaments with different
names and forms, without itself undergoing any vikAra
or real modification, so Brahman, whose nature is pure
consciousness, remains as such but appears to be limiting
objects, with name and form or attributes. Therefore,
all objects are limiting consciousnesses, limited by
the upAdhi-s, which are bounded. Although upAdhi-s are
bounded, Brahman is not, since the space between the
upAdhi-s is also Brahman. Hence Brahman as limitlessness
is not compromised.
Proceed to the next
essay. |
