[Advaita-l] How is an object perceived.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Raghav Ji,

Reg  << One way,
like I said, is to restrict the word object to only that aspect of it
available for perception or not necessarily the entire the object in all
its aspect >>,

Absolutely. It is always applicable to only what is perceived (not
"available for perception"). Nothing more nothing less.

Regards

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:17 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji
> I remember one      explanation/interpretation for this idea of the mind
> spatially extending to reach and unite with the form of the object as
> mentioned in Advaita epistemology. It holds good for atleast sight and
> sound perception.
>
> The idea of extension of the mind/subject to the place where the object is
> present, is to be understood from an experiential (phenomenological) point
> of view rather than as something happening at the sthUla physical level.
>
> We never experience an object as existing *inside* our head or in our body.
> It is known that the senses gather sensory data and present it for our
> experience. And *yet* we experience/perceive the object as existing
> *externally* at a distance, when we see the object. This is the projection
> being mentioned in Advaita.
>
> Even for sounds the same holds good. The sound is no doubt heard by the
> ears which are in the body. Yet there is a "projection" which happens, or
> an "extension" into space, which makes us experience the sound as being
> heard from a distance and as originating from a point which is far away,
> rather than us experiencing the sound as originating from within our body
> or inside our ears where the sounds in fact are detected by our ears.
>
> The physiological aspect of perception of sights and sounds through nerve
> signals activating the visual cortex etc., is not in conflict with Advaita
> epistemology. Because Advaita through VP etc,  is only explaining the
> phenomenological ("experiential") dimension of sensory experience. It's
> telling us how the nerve signals are not experienced by us at all, rather
> the antahkarana projects a 3D world of sights and sounds for us by riding
> on the physiology of brain and nerves etc., which merely provide the
> film/template for projecting this 3D World for our experience.
>
> The case of the other senses is slightly different, no doubt. (Although
> even for touch, we take for granted the fact that we are able to feel a
> "spatial extension" into every part of our body and experience touch in
> different spatially extended parts of the body.)
>
> Another thing is - In the VP idea of the mind or the MS idea of the self
> traveling to unite with the object, we may need to restrict the meaning of
> the word "object" to only refer to the frontal or directly visible part of
> a perceived object. Otherwise a question can be asked - why don't we get
> full comprehensive visual information of the *entire* object? The fact is,
> we get only partial visual information about the object of the face
> presented to us. This undeniable fact has to be accommodated and accounted
> for in any meaningful scheme of the mind/subject traveling and uniting with
> the *object* in order to present the vRtti for our experience. One way,
> like I said, is to restrict the word object to only that aspect of it
> available for perception or not necessarily the entire the object in all
> its aspect.
>
> Om
>
>
>
<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>