Variable Perception

XYZ

Text of Indian Philosophy

Ms. Teachers name
March 22, 2015

In the consciousness of the truth he has perceived,

man now sees everywhere only the awfulness or the
absurdity of existence and loathing seizes him.
- Friedrich Nietzche

This paper represents my venture into the subject of perception, views of various schools
on perception and how things are perceived differently by different people. Perception is
by far, the most acceptable of the means of knowledge in terms of validity. The Advaita
Vedanta school recognises only 6 means of knowledge as valid i.e. Perception(Pratyaksa),
Inference(Anumana), Testimony(Sabda), Comparison(Upamana), Postulation(Arthapatti)
and Non-cognition(Anupalabdhi).
Of the 6 means of knowledge or pramanas, perception is going to be dealt with, in this
paper. An analogy between the Indian schools of thought and Western ideas will also be
drawn.
A general understanding of perception is of it being a process of the consciousness of an
object.
The objects that are seen in the world are considered to exist outside the body and the
senses and that the objects are reflected in his mind in perception.
To put it in a much simpler way, perception, according to Vedanta, refers to the instrument
of valid perceptual knowledge, which is nothing but pure consciousness for them. It is
possible of only those things that are present and are capable of being perceived. The
cognition of an object takes place when consciousness assumes the form of the object,
however, only in case of valid knowledge. An example to further explain the process of
perception is as follows: Water of tank, as it passes through a hole or other channels etc,
takes up or assumes their rectangular form or so. This is similar to the mind, which
through the eye, goes to the space occupied by objects, say, a jar and is modified into that
form.

According to Advaita Vedanta, perception can be explained by the existence of a universal

consciousness in which the empirical distinction of the subject and object appears, which
is mediated by a process of knowledge. For the Vedantins, the Atman or Brahman is the
only reality, which is supreme consciousness, and hence neither the subject nor the object
nor their relation can exist outside it. All these are apparent modes which are
superimposed on its transcendent being. This universal consciousness is modalised in
empirical perception in three ways: Vishayachaitanya or the consciousness which appears
under the mode of the external object, which may also be termed as object-consciousness;
Pramanachaitanya or the consciousness which appears with the modes of the mental
psychosis that acts as the cognitive consciousness; and Pramatrichaitanya or the
consciousness which appears through the mode of the Antahkarana, and exists as the
cognising consciousness. All these three modes are really the one universal consciousness
of the Atman which appears to be conditioned by the object, the psychosis and the internal
organ itself. When the one consciousness passes through these three relative modes valid
for empirical existence, it goes by the names and the forms put on by these modes also.
The indeterminable Absolute gets determined, as it were, by the three terms of the process,
all which rise simultaneously in the act of perception. According to Vasubandhu, the
Buddhist teacher, consciousness which is the ultimate reality undergoes a threefold
transformation: an inner indeterminate change (Vipaka), the inner psychological change
causing the operations of the mind (Manana), and the objective change of consciousness
of sense-objects (Vishaya-Vijnapti). The first potential change corresponds to the original
creative will be giving rise to the latter two forms of modification into subject and object.
It is this threefold transformation of cause that is responsible for the distinction that is
ordinarily made between subject and object. The principle of consciousness which seems
to put on these changes is the Alayavijnana, the repository-consciousness, the ground of
the appearances of all knowers and known objects, which, in its pure unmodified state, is
identified with Sarvajnata or omniscience and Vijnaptimatrata or mere awareness. The
Alayavijnana is the Dharmakaya of the Buddha, the primeval condition in which Dharmas
or appearances transcend their limitations.
The Sankhya school of thought also considers perception as a valid means of knowledge.
However, their theory about perception is slightly different from that of the Vedanta
school. For them, the stimulus for perception is provided by the existence of a real object
outside. So in case of a right perception, a real object which is outside, is presented to the
present consciousness. The object of right perception is not an illusion, it is real and it also
has practical value. Our senses give a direct apprehension of truly existent objects of
which one becomes aware in right perception. The senses afford only an indeterminate
perception of the object, a mere immediacy of objectivity, in the form of This is an
object. This can be said to be bare abstract perception. Concrete and determinate
perception of the nature of I know the object takes place further inside in the
Antahkarana. The mind contemplates on the material supplied by the senses and gives it
order and definiteness by the act of synthesis and deliberation on its part. Here arises the
definite perception of the object as being of this or not this kind. Even here the process of

perception does not come to an end. The Ahamkara or the individual ego arrogates to itself
this resultant function of the mind and transforms the impersonal perception of the mind
into a personal knowledge. This empirical principle of individuality with its natural
character of the unity of apperception makes the perception refer to a particular individual.
The Buddhi or the intellect decides on the nature of the perception of the ego and
determines the course of action to be taken in regard to it. The understanding of the
Buddhi is followed by a will or a determination to act. The seeds of ones reaction to the
perceived object are sown in the consciousness of the Buddhi. Finally the Sankhya holds
that this perception and volition are experienced by the Purusha which is in relation to the
Buddhi. It is the Purusha that gives to the Buddhi the intelligence to understand and
decide. The ultimate possibility and validity of perception is thus based on the
consciousness of the Purusha

To possess or acquire valid knowledge, one needs to accept pramanas because without the
pramanas, prama is not possible. Pramana is the source and prama is the effect. Perception
is a pramana through which we can acquire valid knowledge. This is the view of the
Mimamsa school of thought. Their view is very much like that of the Vedanta school.

Now I will discuss how different things are viewed differently by different people. A thing
cannot be viewed as exactly the same by say, a group of ten people. One reason can be our
senses i.e. a fault in our senses, effect of our senses, dominance of one sense over the
others. This can be analysed further by the example of the currently happening debate on
the colour of the dress. No final decision can be made on the colour of the dress. Half of
the worlds population sees the dress as white and gold, and the other half sees it as black
and blue. There is a scientific explanation given for how and why people are perceiving
the dress as blue and black, and white and gold.
Visual information is processed by almost half of the human brain. The way in which we
perceive colour is the result of five factors that are compounded together. In the case of the
dress, the first is the material of the dress, which is inclusive of the pigments that it
contains and the amount of light it reflects.
The second factor is the nature of light in which the object is viewed by us. An object will
appear to be red whether it is in direct light, phosphorescent light or even fading twilight.
In actuality, our brain does a lot of work to make sure we still see it as red, no matter what
the illumination is.
This is termed by the scientists as trait colour constancy. It is this factor that has helped our
species to evolve.
You need to decide whether an apple is ripe to eat, whether its sunny or gray, said
Stefano Soatto, a professor of computer science who specializes in the science of vision at

the University of California, Los Angeles.1

There is another factor which affects colour perception, and it is the sensor involved in
perception. In this case, it is the sensor in the camera that took the picture. The display
system, for example- the type of computer screen, also has an effect. Also, the sensors of
the retina and visual machinery of the brain play a role in colour perception.
In the case of this mysteriously coloured dress, the first four factors would be exactly
the same for two individuals looking at the photograph of the outfit. But there is a
variation in the fifth factor that accounts for why two people perceive its colour
differently.
If we wish to identify a point in three-dimensional space, we would need three values:
1. X
2. Y
3. Z
Here, X, Y and Z represent the coordinates in space. Similarly, while identifying a colour,
our brain uses the three coordinates of R, G and B i.e. the primary colours red, green and
blue.
As the sensors of the retina and brains are slightly different, our perception of colour can
vary. This dress seems to be a particularly striking example of the phenomenon because its
colours are close to neither pure red, nor pure green and not even pure blue, but instead are
a complex mixture of those three colours.
So for this reason, there seems to be no clarity or say, a dominant response from the red,
green and blue receptors in the retina. What happens instead is a complex combination of
responses, which is interpreted differently by different individuals.
Thus, no one can actually decide on the true colour, except for the person who designed
that dress.
Coming down to discussing the existence of perception in case of empiricism, I have taken
the point of view of George Berkeley. He attempts to prove first that we have no
immediate perception of mind- independent material objects, and then that we have no
basis on which to infer the existence of mind- independent material objects from our
immediate experience. Since Berkeley is an empiricist, establishing that we do not obtain
evidence for the existence of mind-independent material objects in either of these two
ways, amounts in his eyes to proving that we do not obtain evidence for mind-independent
material objects, period. For an empiricist, all knowledge must either come directly
through sensory experience or else be inferred on the basis of such experience.

1 Wallstreet journal

As for Hume, he uses a general term called perception for ideas, thoughts etc. And this
is because he wants to point out a distinction between them that, he thinks, the others have not paid
close enough attention to. Hume notes that some of our perceptions are very clear and lively, and
he associates them with what we are aware of in sensations, emotions, and feelings. These he calls
impressions. In addition to impressions, he claims that the rest of our perceptions are similar to
impressions, but less lively and clear. These he calls ideas. He gives an example of perception
vs. memory. In perception, he says that he has an impression of something (i.e., it is an impression
I am immediately aware of), but when he later remembers that same thing, he has an idea (i.e., it is
an idea he is immediately aware of). His idea of the object is much like his impression, but less
vivid and detailed. He also notes that this distinction (between impressions and ideas) should be
very familiar to us in that we are all familiar with the distinction between feeling and thinking. So
what he is saying is that in sensation (emotions and feelings), what he is immediately aware of is
an impression, which is a vivid and clear perception, and that what he is aware of in thinking, are
less vivid and clear copies of impressions.

With this, I conclude that different people have different theories about perception. Also,
not everyone perceives the thing exactly like the other person.