[Advaita-l] How is an object perceived.

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,

You have guessed right. My understanding of advaita sidhanta is certainly
different.

Reg  << Hence light is needed. Incidentally, I cannot see light also unless
some object reflects it. I can only see light reflected by an object. Hence
light is similar to the light of consciousness >>,

Difference starts right here. As per advaita, Consciousness does not need
anything else to be “revealed” or “experienced”. It is Svaprakasha. In fact
light itself cannot be seen, with or without reflecting objects, without
Consciousness. Hence light cannot be considered as being similar to
Consciousness.

This is just one example. Anyway I don’t think the differences between our
respective understandings can be bridged. We  have to be satisfied just
agreeing to disagree.

Pranams and Regards
Chandramouli

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Raghavji and Chandramouliji -  PraNAms
>
> I am just giving a brief account. One may disagree with what I have
> written below and that is fine with me. I had discussed these in my
> analysis of VP.
>
> Coming from a science background- here is how I look at the problem.
>
> 1. When it is dark, I cannot see an object.
>
> 2. Hence light is needed. Incidentally, I cannot see light also unless
> some object reflects it. I can only see light reflected by an object. Hence
> light is similar to the light of consciousness. The analogy extends to
> more. I see an object red only because all other wavelengths (VIBGYO) are
> absorbed by that object. Similarly, another object looks because all other
> except blue are observed. Applying a similar analogy, the gross material
> only reflects the Sat aspect while the subtle material (Antahkarana)
> reflects both sat and chit and not Ananda. Ananda also gets reflected by
> the mind if it is unagitated. That is the light analogy.
>
> 3. Form-color is an attribute of the object and is inseparable with the
> object - say a red chair or blue table, etc.
>
> 4. When light falls on the object the reflected light from the object
> reaches the retina and forms an image which is transmitted by the optical
> nerves system to the brain - that forms neurons -Upto that objective
> sciences can explain.
>
> 5. In analogy with computer processing, the electrical signals have to be
> converted to the software by a programming language. Lord has provided a
> universal code that converts the neuron input to software - vRitti or
> thought in the mind. The mind itself is the software platform.
>
> 5. The all-pervading consciousness that is enlivening the mind by
> reflection process (chidaabhaasa) makes the mind as though a local
> conscious entity -just like the moon is becoming a luminous entity by
> reflecting sunlight.
>
> 6. Just as one cannot distinguish the original sunlight and the moonlight
> by looking at the moon -the same way the original consciousness and
> reflected consciousness cannot be separated. But from Shastras we know that
> moonlight is nothing but sunlight only but reflected my the medium (moon).
> Without the moon, the sunlight where the moon is cannot be recognized.
>
> 6. When the thought or vRitti raises in the mind the all-pervading
> consciousness reflects that also and makes it knowable. This is what
> Advaita says the consciousness that I am unities with the existence
> expressed as vRitti in the mind for me to be conscious of the existence of
> the vRitti. The contents of the vRitti are nothing but the reflected
> attributes of the object as the senses (depending on their capacity and
> also the extent of light that reflects) gather via the above process.
>
> 7. Thus the essence of cognition involves the unity of all-pervading,
> ever-present consciousness uniting the existence of the object expressed as
> vRitti for me to be conscious of the existence of the vRitti and thus
> conscious of the existence of the object out three.
>
> 8. Hence every perception involves two aspects - sat aspect of the world
> and chit aspect of the subject - forming subject-object duality.
>
> 9. When the vRitti is illumined by consciousness, then we can say that
> object-consciousness or prameya-Chaitanya. When the rest of the mind as an
> instrument of knowledge now knows the vRitti - and thus knows the object -
> that forms the phala vyaapti.
>
> 10. Spontaneously an ego-thought arises in the mind -aham vRitti that
> claims the ownership of the object-knowledge. 'This is a pot' to 'I know
> this is a pot'.
>
> 11. Actually there is one important step in between when the object
> thought is cognized, the mind goes back to memory to match based on the
> attributive a content to see what that object is. That process is a
> recognition process. Sometimes this step can be slow as one age.
>
> 12. The errors in perception come due to incomplete or defective input
> from the senses about the object -it is 5feet long, curly, lying on the
> alley but based on the attributive content, it could be a rope or a snake
> since both match the attributive content of the vRitti formed due to
> semi-dark alley. The mind concludes that it is a snake for security
> reasons. This forms the praatibhaasika error.
>
> 13. The internal perceptions are slightly different. Basic emotions that
> arise in the mind or any memory thought are all internal perceptions
> without an object out there. They are direct and immediate since there is
> no sense-input.
>
> 14. There are of course the vyaavahaarika errors like mirage waters -
> sunrise and sunset, etc., these come under Iswara srushti and will remain
> even after knowing that there is no sunrise and sunset, etc.
>
> 15. Since the reflection of the light from the frontal view only reaches
> the retina, our perception is limited to the frontal view.
>
> 16. Because of the presence of the two-eyes we get stereo projection. This
> aspect is exploited using polarized light for 3-D movies.
>
> 17. In essence, fundamental Advatic understanding remains from the vRitti
> level on.
>
> 18. Since mind going out is not there for the other three senses, there is
> no reason to invoke that for the sense of sight also while the facts
> discussed above are different. It is not essential for the Advaitic
> doctrine also.
>
> 19. Finally, every object is defined only as naama and ruupa. Ruupa is
> reflected attributes of the object and naama or naming involves knowing
> where consciousness uniting with the object comes in. Hence naama
> ruupatmakam idam jagat as Vidyaranya Swami says in the sloka - asti
> bhaati...
>
> 20. The existence of an object is established by the knowledge of its
> existence - that is via the formation of vRitti.
>
> 21. In the deep-sleep state, no subject-object duality as the instrument
> is folded into subtler form.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2020, 04:27:15 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste Sada ji
>
> You wrote -
> "The basic postulate of Advaita is the consciousness that 'I am' unites
> with the existence of the object as imagedin the vRitti for me to be
> conscious of the existence of the vRitti andtherefore conscious of the
> existence of the object out there."
>
>  I understand you to be saying that the mind only unites with the *frontal
> image of the object* loaded in the brain rather than the entire object as
> is presumed by some orthodox advaitins? The reason you advance is that, we
> get info only of the frontal part of the object. So it's not accurate to
> say the mind goes out to unite with the object-consciousness?
>
> You also wrote -
> "The rest is mechanics which candiffer without violating the basics of
> Advaita. Hence Kena says -consciousnessis revealed in every thought -
> pratibodha viditam matam. That is what I feel.One can always contest this.
> VP has provided what has been understood up to that point in contrast to
> the other theories of perception."
>
> In other words, you are suggesting that the "mind going out to unite with
> the object" model needs revision, since VP only presents what was know till
> then in tge 17th century?
>
> Kindly correct me if I misrepresented your thoughts.
>
> Om
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr, 2020, 1:55 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  Chandramouliji - PraNAms
> Just some thoughts.
> I think that the idea of mind going out with thesenses and envelope the
> object comes from puurva meemamsa which Advaita alsoadopted it. The mind
> going out applies only for a sense of sight and hearing. For the sense of
> touch, taste, and smell, the object comes in contact with the
> sensesdirectly. The senses are part of anthaH karana and hence direct input
> to themind contributes to its vRitti.
> In the final analysis, a vRitti, related to theobject, forms in the mind
> with contents of the vRitti corresponds to the sensory input. Ifthe senses
> are defective then the input is also defective (say color blind)then the
> contents of the vRitti depend on the sensory input than the objectcontent
> per sec. This is also the reason when errors in perception can occur since
> the sensory input is incomplete or defective.
> In addition, when we see an object we get only the frontal view of
> theobject and not total view. If the mind grasps the whole object then the
> whole object should be seen. Also,we get a stereo image due to the eyes
> displacedby 7 deg. In a way, it is more accurate to say that the
> information coming to the eyes than the sense of sight going out with the
> mind to wrap the object.
> The basic postulate of Advaita isthe consciousness that 'I am' unites with
> the existence of the object as imagedin the vRitti for me to be conscious
> of the existence of the vRitti andtherefore conscious of the existence of
> the object out there.
>
> The rest is mechanics which candiffer without violating the basics of
> Advaita. Hence Kena says -consciousnessis revealed in every thought -
> pratibodha viditam matam. That is what I feel.One can always contest this.
> VP has provided what has been understood up to that point in contrast to
> the other theories of perception.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>