Perception

[LastLegend]

The impression I get is perception is non-conceptual and conceptual. I agree with this if that’s true. Conceptual here means including language arises in mind right?

[PadmaVonSamba]

The impression I get is perception is non-conceptual and conceptual. I agree with this if that’s true. Conceptual here means including language arises in mind right?

Where else would it arise?

[LastLegend]

What you mean?

Ahh I see.

[FiveSkandhas]

I like the terminology that Dr. Alexander Berzin uses :"conceptual cognition" versus "non-conceptual cognition." Of course "perception" and "cognition" are not the same thing so you might be talking about something different, but he uses these terms to contrast "knowing something intellectually," like understanding the idea of shunyata or whatnot, versus grasping it in a kind of liberating, non-retrogressive "gut feeling" way, such that it really becomes part of you without you having to think through the concepts each time.

[LastLegend]

Ahh I see...it’s like untaught Wisdom?

[FiveSkandhas]

Ahh I see...it’s like untaught Wisdom?

One way I think of it personally is like being toasty warm in your home and looking at your thermometer reading for outside as being below zero. "Gee its cold out there!" you mutter. This is conceptual cognition: you know it, but only on one level. Non-conceptual cognition would be like actually going outside and standing there shivering with your teeth chattering hopping around to stay warm and shuddering uncontrollably. You aren't intellectually thinking of how cold it is: you feel it with every cell in your body, raw and immediate and not something you have to "try" to grasp.

Berzin spends a lot of time talking about how first you use study and debate and pondering and so forth to get conceptual cognition of emptiness, but eventually to make it to the next level, you have to move to a non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, where the awareness of emptiness kind of automatically permeates everything you experience at all times.

[LastLegend]

I get what you mean. I think in meditation there is only that just knows.

[SilenceMonkey]

Perception through the senses is nonconceptual. The eye sees form, which appears in the eye consciousness. Then it goes into the mind consciousness, which is when the concepts start happening. But if there's no thinking mind, then every perception is direct perception.

[LastLegend]

So can we define perception as that which ‘sees’ through the six senses.

[SilenceMonkey]

So can we define perception as that which ‘sees’ through the six senses.

I think so. Buddhism might call it "direct perception." Or nondual perception.

But we shouldn't confuse it with the skandha of saṃjñā, which is also termed "perception." I think it was translated as "perception" because in English, sometimes people talk about "my perception" vs. "your perception" of the same thing. If it was direct perception, they'd be seeing exactly the same thing. But often when two people talk about the same thing, they have different ideas about it and understand it in different ways. There's this idea that how we perceive things is subjective from person to person, whereas direct perception would be objective observation (nothing added from the perceiver's mind that would skew or color what is perceived).

[LastLegend]

I see we agree.

I’ve searched these:

Pratyaksha is a Sanskrit term meaning “this which is before one’s eyes," and is interpreted as “perception” in Indian and yogic philosophy.

Patanjali refers to pratyaksha in his Yoga Sutras as meaning direct or immediate perception. As such, in yoga and Vedanta, pratyaksha knowledge is said to be intuitive in nature.

Yogapedia explains Pratyaksha

Pratyaksha is broadly divided into two types: direct perception, or anubhava; and remembered perception, or smriti. It can alternatively be divided into indiscriminate perception, or nirvikalpa, where perception of the object is made without recognizing distinguishing features; and discriminate perception, or savikalpa, where distinguishing features are observed. The indiscriminate perception (nirvikalpa) type of pratyaksha is crucial in Advaita Vedanta because it means that the Ultimate Reality, or Brahman, can be perceived without features when liberation into truth occurs.

Just to clarify we are not disagreeing...but in fact what you said is clarified between direct perception and a mental process perception. I hope I am right.

[LastLegend]

I am eager to take a jab at another post that I read in a sub forum on Dharmawheel if that doesn’t make people upset. The question was asked whether “the knower” is different from “the known” ( cognitions). The knower is in meditation which emptiness is seen, that knower simply knows and that is, no cognitions, no language, no concepts, not even intention involved. The reason why it’s still seen as self or Advaita is precisely it is still self...this state is touching pristine Consciousness (as describes by people here) and it’s not final. The absolute non-self goes beyond that (simply knows).

[PadmaVonSamba]

I am eager to take a jab at another post that I read in a sub forum on Dharmawheel if that doesn’t make people upset. The question was asked whether “the knower” is different from “the known” ( cognitions). The knower is in meditation which emptiness is seen, that knower simply knows and that is, no cognitions, no language, no concepts, not even intention involved. The reason why it’s still seen as self or Advaita is precisely it is still self...this state is touching pristine Consciousness (as describes by people here) and it’s not final. The absolute non-self goes beyond that (simply knows).

Anything you can refer to as an object is thus an object of awareness, rather than the awareness itself.

[LastLegend]

Except there isn’t cognition to explain it like you did.

[muni]

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo said: just stick with that which knows and not with the known.

But the conceptual mind could see " that which knows" as being an object (by a knowing thought). That which knows is not a knowing thought.

[muni]

Anything you can refer to as an object is thus an object of awareness, rather than the awareness itself.
[/quote]

Thank you.

[PadmaVonSamba]

One can be aware (of the fact that) one is aware.
You obviously know you are aware.
But then, are you aware of awareness itself,
or simply aware of the fact of awareness?
(I am aware of the fact of dinosaurs even though I have never been aware of a dinosaur)

Everything is either awareness, or an object of awareness.
Can awareness itself be an object of itself?
Can awareness be aware that it is aware?
It’s like seeing. You can see objects but you can’t see your eyes. You can only see a reflection of your eyes. But you can’t see the ‘seeing’. Likewise, awareness can be shown to occur because the objects of awareness are observed.
But while awareness can’t be aware of awareness as the observing function, awareness can be aware that it is aware.

[PadmaVonSamba]

An easy experiment anyone can do to demonstrate the separation of awareness and conceptuality is to focus on hearing, and then when one is focused on hearing, to simply observe what is happening with seeing or with the other sensory functions.

For example, if someone suddenly says,
“Shhh! Listen! Do you hear a very faint sound?”
Then your attention becomes fully focused on trying to hear a very faint sound. Very likely, while this is happening, you will be staring off into one direction or another but not really ‘looking’ at anything. You will still see whatever is in your field of vision, of awareness, but you won’t be engaging it conceptually.

[LastLegend]

One can be aware (of the fact that) one is aware.
You obviously know you are aware.
But then, are you aware of awareness itself,
or simply aware of the fact of awareness?
(I am aware of the fact of dinosaurs even though I have never been aware of a dinosaur)

Everything is either awareness, or an object of awareness.
Can awareness itself be an object of itself?
Can awareness be aware that it is aware?
It’s like seeing. You can see objects but you can’t see your eyes. You can only see a reflection of your eyes. But you can’t see the ‘seeing’. Likewise, awareness can be shown to occur because the objects of awareness are observed.
But while awareness can’t be aware of awareness as the observing function, awareness can be aware that it is aware.

The absence of grasping.

[LastLegend]

How is aware of awareness aware?