Indian Psychology Perception

Jadunath Sinha, Sinha, Jadunath

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415211130
• eBook ISBN: 9781136346125
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

This is Volume IV of six in a collection on Psychology and Religion. Originally published in 1934, this study looks at perception in Indian Psychology, it gives a brief compass, an outline of the most important topics of Indian Psychology.

BOOK V

CHAPTER IX

PERCEPTION OF SPACE AND MOVEMENT

§ 1. Introduction

The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika holds that there is one, eternal, ubiquitous space, which is not an object of perception. It is inferred from the spatial characters of proximity (aparatva) and remoteness (paratva). But the spatial characters of position, direction, and distance can be perceived directly through vision and touch. The Mīmāṁsakas also hold that these can be perceived directly through vision and touch. According to them, the spatial characters of direction and distance can be directly perceived through the auditory organ also.

The Sāṁkhya-Pātañjala, on the other hand, holds that space and time are the categories of the understanding or constructions of the intellect (buddhinirmāṇa) according to which, it understands the phenomenal world. It is the understanding which imports the empirical relations of space, time, and causality into the world of reals, viz. intelligence-stuff (sattva) energy-stuff (rajas) and matter-stuff (tamas). When we have intellectual intuition (nirvicharā nirvikalpaprajñā) we apprehend the reals as they are in themselves without the imported empirical relations of space, time, and causality.¹ According to Śaṁkara also, space, time, and causality are categories of the understanding, according to which the world of phenomena is interpreted. According to the Buddhist idealists, space and time apart from concrete presentations are ideal constructions of the mind.

§ 2. The Mīmāṁsaka. Direct Auditory Perception of Direction

Space must be distinguished as deśa (locus) and dik (direction). According to the Mīmāṁsaka, both locus and direction are directly perceived through the auditory organ, though they are perceived as qualifying adjuncts (viśeṣaṇa) of sounds. The Mīmāṁsaka holds that the ear-drum or the auditory organ is prāpyakāri and hence produces the perception of a sound, only when it actually comes in contact with the sound. The ear does not go out to its object, viz. the sound which is at a distance, but the sound is produced in a certain point of space at a distance and propagated to the ear-drum through the air-waves. Thus the ear-drum never comes in contact with the locus of a sound; it comes in contact with the sound, when it is carried into it through the air-waves. Thus we perceive a sound, only when the sound is carried to the ear-drum through the air waves. But can there be a direct perception of the locus (deśa) of the sound through the ear-drum? The ear-drum produces the perception of a sound when it is in actual contact with the sound, which is propagated to the ear-drum through the air-waves from another point of space. So the audible sound may be said to have its locus in the ear-drum itself. But is a sound perceived to have its locus in the ear-drum? Or, is it perceived to have its locus in another point of space? We find in our actual experience that sound is never perceived without a local colouring; and it is never perceived as having its locus in the ear-drum. It is always perceived as having its locus in another point of space. But if the ear-drum can never produce the auditory perception of a sound without coming in direct contact with the sound, and if it can never go out to the locus of the sound, where it is produced (śabdotpattideśa) it cannot produce the perception of a sound having its locus in a distant point of space. All that it can do is to produce the perception of a sound having its locus in the ear-drum, because the perception of the sound is produced only when the sound is not in its original locus, i.e. the point of space where it was produced, but when it is in the ear-drum. But, as a matter of fact, we never perceive a sound as having its locus in the ear-drum, but in another point of space outside the ear-drum. Sounds coming from different directions are perceived as having different local characters. Whenever sounds are perceived they are perceived as coming from particular directions; they are never perceived without their local characters. We have a distinct auditory perception in such a form as “the sound comes from this direction”. Thus when sounds come into the ear-drum from different directions, they come into it not as mere sounds, but as coloured by the different directions from which they come.¹ And the ear-drum, being in contact with these sounds, is in contact with their different local colourings too, and consequently, it produces the perception of different sounds with different local characters. Thus though the ear-drum cannot come in actual contact with the direction of a sound, yet it can produce the perception of the sound with the local character of its direction. This is the reason why we perceive audible sounds not as seated in the ear-drum but coming from different directions outside the ear-drum.

According to the Mīmāṁsaka, therefore, just as sounds are directly perceived through the ear, so also the directions from which they come. We never perceive sounds, pure and simple, but sounds with their different local characters; and hence through these local characters of sounds we directly perceive the different directions from which they come.

But though according to the Mīmāṁsaka there is a direct auditory perception of direction, we must not suppose that, according to him, there can be a direct auditory perception of direction apart from, and independently of, the perception of sounds. Just as there can be no independent perception of time through the sense-organs apart from the perception of their appropriate objects, so there can be no independent perception of space in the form of direction through the ear apart from the perception of sounds. Thus we perceive space as direction through the auditory organ, not as an independent entity, but only as a qualifying adjunct of sounds, which are coloured by the directions from which they come.¹ Hence, according to the Mīmāṁsaka, we have a direct auditory perception of space in the form of direction.² The Naiyāyika also holds that direction is perceived through the perceptions of east, west, and the like.³

§ 3. Direct Auditory Perception of Distance and Position

The local position of an object can be determined, if its direction and distance from us can be ascertained, because the local position of an object is nothing but its position in a point of space in a particular direction and at a particular distance from us. Thus the local position of an object in relation to us involves its direction and distance from us.

We have already seen that according to the Mīmāṁsaka, the direction of a sound can be directly perceived as the local character of the sound through the auditory organ. But how can distance be perceived through the ear? Sounds coming from a proximate point of space are perceived as most intense (tīvra) but their intensity becomes feebler and feebler as they come from greater and greater distances. Thus sounds are perceived as having different degrees of intensity according to their varying distances. And through these different degrees of intensity of sound-sensations we directly perceive the distances from which they come.¹

And as we directly perceive the directions of sounds through the local characters of acoustic sensations, and their distances through the different degrees of their intensity, we can easily infer the original position of sounds. As a matter of fact, whenever we perceive sounds, we directly perceive their directions as well as distances through their different local characters and different degrees of intensity respectively, and consequently, we vaguely perceive their local positions too. But the local positions of sounds cannot be exactly ascertained without an act of inference from the directions and distances of sounds.²

§ 4. The Mīmāṁsaka Explanation of the Extra-organic Localization of Sounds

According to the Mīmāṁsaka, the perception of a sound is produced only when it has come into the ear-drum which is in direct contact with it; it cannot be perceived when it is in its own original position outside the ear-drum. Thus the real seat (paramārtha deśa) of an audible sound is the ear-drum; the real seat of an audible sound can never be the place where it was originally produced (dhvanyutpattideśa). Still we perceive an audible sound as having its seat not in the ear-drum, but in the original position in space. For this the Mīmāṁsaka offers the following reason. When the sound comes into the ear-drum it comes with a particular local colouring, qualified by the direction and position from which it comes, and consequently we perceive the sound with a particular local character and a particular degree of intensity through which we directly perceive the direction and the original position of the sound. And thus because of the non-apprehension of the real seat of an audible sound, viz. the locus of the ear-drum, and because of the apprehension of the original position of the sound through its local character and intensity, we mistake the original position of the sound for its real seat. Thus in the extra-organic localization of sounds there is an error of judgment. Just as in the illusory perception of silver in a shell we perceive the shell before our eyes, but we reproduce the silver in memory perceived in another place owing to their similarity and erroneously connect the position of the shell with silver, though in reality there is no connection between the two, so we erroneously connect an audible sound with its original position in space outside the ear-drum, though, in fact, the ear-drum itself is the real seat of the audible sound. Thus in the perception of a sound in such a form as “there is a sound at such a distance to the east” there is an extra-organic localization of the sound in which there is an illusory projection of the sound into the point of space in which the sound was originally produced.¹

§ 5. The Buddhist Explanation of the Extra-organic Localization of Sounds

According to the Buddhists, though the olfactory organ, the gustatory organ, and the tactual organ apprehend their objects, viz. smell, taste, and touch respectively, when there is a direct contact of the objects with the sense-organs, the visual organ and the auditory organ are aprāpyakāri, i.e. they can apprehend their objects without coming in direct contact with them.² Thus a sound need not come from its locus of origin into the ear-drum in order to be perceived as the Mīmāṁsaka supposes; but it can be perceived through the ear though it is at a distance from the sound. And as there is a real connection between a sound and its place of origin, the extra-organic localization of a sound-sensation is not illusory. There is no error of judgment in referring a sound-sensation to a particular point of space where the sound was originally produced.³

§ 6. The Mīmāṁsaka Criticism of the Buddhist View

Kumārila offers the following criticism of the Buddhist view. On the Buddhist hypothesis, we cannot account for the apprehension of a sound by a person near at hand and the non-apprehension of a sound by a person far away from the sound. And also, on the Buddhist view, we cannot account for the fact that a sound is first perceived by a person near it, and then perceived by a person far away from it; nor can we account for the fact that sounds have different degrees of intensity (tīvramandādivyavasthā) according as they come from greater and greater distances.

If t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• CONTENTS
• PREFACE
• BOOK I
• BOOK II
• BOOK III
• BOOK IV
• BOOK V
• BOOK VI
• BOOK VII
• INDEX