|
Part XXX - Summary so far
We are still dealing with pratyakSha pramANa or the
direct perceptual means of knowledge. Here I am going
to summarize the essence of what we have learned so
far.
The fundamental statement of VP is that perceptual knowledge
is nothing but pure consciousness. Immediacy follows from the
condition of perceptuality which is stated as ‘oneness
of the consciousness of the subject that perceives the object
with the conditioned consciousness expressed through a vRRitti
of the object in the mind’. This was explained as follows:
The object that is perceived manifests as a vRRitti, or thought,
in the mind of perceiver. Brahman, the all-pervading consciousness,
is the material cause for the object and therefore manifests
(as though) as limiting consciousness in the form and name of
the object, where the form includes all the associated attributes
that are perceived relating to that particular object (shabda,
sparsha, rUpa, rasa, gandha - sound, touch, form, taste and smell).
Perception through the senses involves perception of only the
attributes of the object since Brahman, the substantive,
cannot be perceived as separate from the perceiver.
The attributive sense input forms a vRRitti, which is
reflected by the sAkshI chaitanya or witnessing consciousness.
The knowledge is complete when the light of consciousness
reflected by the mind as the subject who is perceiving
the object, and the reflected consciousness of the vRRitti,
the contents of the objects in terms of sense input,
become one – expressed as the identity of subject
consciousness and object consciousness. The sense input
provides the qualifying attributes of the object perceived – as
in ‘this a pot’. Similarly, the reflected
consciousness of the mind (chidAbhAsa) with its own
attributes forms the subject, the knower of the object
as ‘I am the knower’. The perceptual knowledge
is said to be complete when the reflected consciousness
of the subject and the reflected consciousness of the
object become one. (Note that we are only dealing with
reflected consciousness, since absolute consciousness
is all pervading and has no differences of any kind – no
sajAti, vijAti and svagata bheda-s, no distinctions
of similar, dissimilar or unique nature.) The statement
of VP then follows that: perceptual knowledge is the
same as pure consciousness and this forms the basis
for the perceptuality condition. Immediacy of the perception
of the object follows since the associated vRRitti of
that object that is reflecting the light of consciousness
has the attributes of the object perceived as its contents.
The process of perception can be understood if we look at the
process objectively. The mind that is perceiving the object
through the senses is also an object in the sense that it is
jaDa or inert. According to Vedanta it is nothing but matter
only – ‘annamayam hi manaH – mind is made
up of matter’, Ch. Up 6-5-4. Mind becomes dynamic due
to the reflection of consciousness in it or by it. Any object
becomes known only as a result of the reflection of light.
Similarly the mind becomes known by the consciousness reflected
by it and the quality of the reflection depends on the purity
of the reflecting medium. When the attributes of the external
object (external to the mind) are brought in by the senses,
they form a vRRitti – a perturbation or a thought in
the mind. The vRRitti, as it forms in the mind, also get reflected
in the light of consciousness that is ever present.
We have now two reflections: one, the mind itself as
an object that constitutes the subject (since it has
the capacity to learn and store the information), and
the vRRitti of the object, which is a local perturbation
of the mind. These two reflections constitute the subject
and the object in relation to the perception. Both reflections
are arising from the same source: the witnessing consciousness
that I am. The connection between the two is established
via perceptual knowledge and that is stated to be the
perceptuality condition, in which the consciousness
of the subject is united with the consciousness of the
object.
An interesting point is that the knowledge is complete
when the reflected consciousness as the subject unites
with the reflected consciousness as the object. There
is no specific ‘matter’ here, other than
the fact that the quality of the reflection depends
on the purity of the reflecting medium. When I say ‘I
see a pot there’, what is seen therefore is the
reflecting consciousness of the vRRitti that is formed
in the mind, which contains the attributes of the object
brought in by the senses, and it is seen by the reflecting
consciousness of the mind.
So, ‘is there really a ‘pot’ out
there?’ If one asks this, then we can say that,
at the transactional level, yes there is pot out there.
But if one wants the truth behind that statement, what
is seen is only the vRRitti in the mind. The ‘pot’ is
there only when the vRRitti is there and the vRRitti
is there only when the mind is there or awake. Hence,
without the mind and the vRRitti that is formed (and
note that the vRRitti of the object will not form if
the relevant senses do not bring in the attributive
knowledge), the presence of a pot cannot be established
out there. Whether it is there or not therefore becomes
an indeterminate problem just as, in the deep sleep
when the mind is not there to reflect consciousness,
the world itself including the pot cannot be established.
The pot is there only because I see it. If I do not
see it, is it there? I do not know and therefore I cannot
tell if it is there or not. Others may tell me that
it is, when they see it, but I need to have faith in
their statements and that report becomes a separate
means of knowledge – shabda pramANa. This is indirect
knowledge or even ‘hearsay’ and not direct
knowledge.
When I do see the pot through direct sense input, the
attributes that I apprehend are dependent upon my senses.
Hence, if I speak of a ‘real’ pot out there,
the pot is as real as the mind that sees it. But neither
the pot nor the mind can see each other to establish
their existence. Seeing takes place when the consciousness
reflected in the mind unites with the consciousness
reflected by the vRRitti of the object in the mind.
Thus both subject and the object of perception are reflected
consciousness of that witnessing consciousness. Pure
consciousness cannot be seen since that would involves
duality of seer and seen. Hence, at the level of perception,
perceptual knowledge has to be understood as pure consciousness
alone but perceived as the subject-perceiver and object-perceived.
In the case of internal perceptions (i.e. where the perceived
objects are not external but are internal to the mind, such as
emotions like fear, pleasure, anger, desire, etc or conceptualized
objects), the attributes are there along with their corresponding
vRRitti-s. The only difference between them and external objects
is that their attributive content does not arise from external
sources via the senses. These internal perceptions also come
under the category of direct perceptions, since we experience
them directly and immediately and these are the characteristics
of perceptual knowledge. They fulfill the criteria of perceptuality
established earlier by VP.
Proceed to the next
essay.
|
