Perception, consciousness, and wisdom are the three term of knowledge which have the characteristics and function very close to each other. They are three kind of knowledge that knowing, recognition, and understand the objects. Perception and consciousness always arise together, and sometime these three concepts exist together. When they arise together, they function on the object almost the same. Whatever wisdom understands about the object, consciousness also knows that, and perception also function to recognize and make sign to remember it. Therefore, in some cases when these three concepts arise together and function on the object, we are difficult to distinguish the differences between them.
So, in this brief paper, I would like to do a comparative study, analyze the intrinsic nature of each concept and distinguish the differences between these three knowledge in the perspective of western and Buddhist psychology. However, before going to distinguish the differences, I will try to study and analyze about each concept in the perspective of both psychology as follow:
Perception
Most Western psychologists try to explain perception in related to sensation. In the psychology book, written by David G. Myers explained two sides of psychologists which concerned with perception. On one side they are Nativists, maintained that knowledge comes from our innate (inborn) ways of organizing sensory experiences. Another side was the empiricists, argued that we learn how to perceive the world through our experiences of it.
At the end of his point, he conclude that “today, it is generally accepted that perception depends on both nature’s endowments and on the experiences that influence what we make of our sensations”[1].
The next point, he explained one concept about perceptual illusions which he called misperceptions (something wrong mostly we catch from our perception). Illusions mislead us by playing on the ways we organize and interpret our sensations. He said:
Our emphasis on visual illusions reflects the preeminence of vision among our senses. When there is conflict between visual and other sensory information, vision seems to dominate or capture the other senses. We frequently experience this phenomenon of visual capture in everyday life. When the sound of a movie comes from a projector behind us, we tend to perceive it as coming from the screen, where we see the actors talking[2].
One more point he explained is one figure can trigger more than one perception. For example, this picture, if we recognize only the white color, we will see flower vase. But, if we recognize the black color, we will see two people face to each other. This is because the perception we construct from incoming sensory information.
Therefore, from these few points that he explained we can conclude that perception refer to characteristic, shape or figure which we interpret from sensory information or the experiences that influence what we make from our sensations.
Another psychologist, Benjamin B. Lahey, explained more clearly about perception that “the process of receiving information from the outside world, translating it, and transmitting it to the brain is called sensation. The process of interpreting that information and forming images of the world is called perception”[3]. However, the term “process”, He explained as the function of neurons and the brain. He said “Energy from stimuli cannot go directly to the brain. They are not able to travel through the nerves, and the brain cannot understand what they mean. To be useful, sensory messages must be translated into neural impulses that the neurons carry and the brain understands”[4].
What he means is perception is the process that is organize and interpreted through the form of raw neural energy. Furthermore, he explained that “some aspects of perception are unique to individuals or members of a particular culture. The specific learning experiences, memories, motives, and emotions of the individual can influence perception”. That mean each individual’s perceptions are unique. He gave example of visual perception that was described by Gestalt psychologists about 75 years ago with the five so-called principle of perception explained by them, they are figure-ground, continuity, proximity, similarity, and closure. Our perceptions are actively organized according to these five principles.
Benjamin B. Lahey’s explanation is almost similar to David G. Myers. Both explained perception depend on both the process of sensory organizing and individual experiences of the object.
If we compare this concept of western psychology to Buddhist psychology about perception, there are differences between them. In Buddhist psychology, perception refers to internal phenomena, and regarded as one kind of mental factors which is called Saňă
In the Buddha Dhamma[5] written by Phra P.A. Payutto, he defines the meaning of perception that: “perception refers to the specification of the objects. It is the intending to know, determine the feature, sign, and different characteristics of the object in order to remember”.
He explained in detail the definition of perception that: “perception is one kind of knowledge which intend to know or determine the different features of the objects such as shape, sign, color, characteristic etc. until the name and different notification such as blue, white, black, red, fat, thin, table, pen, pick, dog, fish, cat, human, we, them, I, you etc. This intending to know or specification of the object, depend on the comparison between the old experience and knowledge with a new experience. If the new experience is congruent with the old experience like seeing someone or something which have seen before, hearing sound which have heard before, for instant, Mister A knew Mister B, next one month, Mister A meet Mister B again and know that he is Mister B. this called remember. If the new experience is not congruent with the old experience, we will make the comparison whether it is different or same from which part or which location and come to conclude that this is called this, this is not called this. This called the intending to know which refer to perception”.
So from this explanation of Phra Brahmakunaporn P.A Payutto about perception we can conclude that perception is one mental factor which determines the feature, sign, and different characteristics of the object by the specification of the object or intending to know, in order to remember. His explanation is almost similar with Visuddhimagga that explained about the function of perception. Visuddhimagga explained the function of perception that:
Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that this is the same as carpenters, etc. do in the case of timber, and so on. It is manifested as the action of interpreting by means of the sign as apprehended, like the blind who see an elephant. Its proximate cause is an objective field in whatever way that appears, like the perception that arises in fawns that see scarecrows as men[6].
From these definitions of perception from both western and Buddhist psychology we can conclude that in western psychology perception refer to characteristic, shape or figure which we interpret from sensory information or the experiences that influence what we make of our sensations. In Buddhist psychology perception refer to internal phenomena which refer to one mental factor that determines the feature, sign, and different characteristics of the object by the specification of the object or intending to know, in order to remember.
The difference is Western Psychology explained Perception as the function of neurons and the brain. For instant, the process of receiving information from the outside world, translating it, and transmitting it to the brain is called sensation. The process of interpreting that information and forming images of the world is called perception.
Buddhist Psychology explained perception as the function of mental factor which is do not concern to the brain.
Consciousness
In western psychology, there are no much clear explanations about consciousness as Buddhist psychologists do. The difficulty of the scientifically studies about consciousness led many psychologists abandon their studies in favor of direct observation of behavior during the first half of this century. However, in the explanation of consciousness, most psychologists gave the definition of the term consciousness that “Consciousness has been defined as awareness of awareness”[7]. Another western psychologist explained about consciousness thus:
Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment. Your conscious experiences are constantly shifting and changing. For example, in one moment you may be focused on reading this article. Your consciousness may then shift to the memory of a conversation you had earlier with a co-worker. Next, you might notice how uncomfortable your chair is or maybe you are mentally planning dinner. This ever-shifting stream of thoughts can change dramatically from one moment to the next, but your experience of it seems smooth and effortless[8].
This explanation is different from Buddhist point of view. But the same thing is western psychologists accepted that consciousness appear moment by moment or arise only one per time. Like David G. Myers explained in his book that “Consciousness comes to us moment by moment, one moment of consciousness vanishing as the next appears”[9].
If we compare this explanation to the Buddhist psychology we can see that western psychology did not divided consciousness according to the sense bases or function as Buddhists do. For the division of consciousness, Benjamin B. Lahey explained only three kinds of consciousness, they are: “directed consciousness, flowing consciousness, and daydream”[10]. He explained; Directed consciousness is the consciousness which directly focus on a single object, during doing activity. Flowing consciousness is consciousness that is less directed and single purposed, drifts from one thought to another. It was compared to the flow of water in stream. Daydream is a period of thinking and feeling that is not bound by what is logical or likely to happen.
Another important thing is western psychology do not separate clearly between mind and mental factors. Sometimes they refer to mental factor as consciousness like the explanation above of Kendra Cherry which explained that Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, etc. if we compare to Buddhist psychology, this point, Buddhists do not call consciousness, but it is one kind of mental factor which has its own name is mindfulness. Anyway, to make clearly about Buddhist and western psychology we will look for some more detail from Buddhist psychology about consciousness.
Venerable P.A. Payutto explained about consciousness that consciousness refer to knowing clearly of the objects on the five sense doors and mind door, they are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and knowing objects on mind door. His explanation refer to the six classes of consciousness, they are eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness and mind consciousness that arise to know the objects on the six sense doors. However, in Buddhism, the Buddha separate clearly between consciousness and mental factors. In the five aggregates, The Buddha divided all Nāma dhamma into four kinds; they are feeling, perception, formation and consciousness. Nāma dhamma which apart from the first three kinds, knowing clearly the objects on the six sense doors called consciousness; like he taught in Pancattaya sutta that;
That any recluse or Brahmin could say; apart from material form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from formations (Sankhaara), I shall describe the coming and going of consciousness, it passing away and reappearance, its growth, increase and maturation, that is impossible[11].
From these explanations, we can see that consciousness is one kind of Nāma dhamma that arise and know clearly the objects on the six sense doors. In the Pāli term, consciousness refers to Viňňana which mean knowing clearly. The commentary, Atthasălini, by Buddhaghosa, explained about consciousness that;
[Mind or] consciousness is that which thinks of its object. As to its characteristics, etc., cognizing object is its characteristic, forerunning is its function, connecting is its manifestation. A mental and material organism is its proximate cause. There is no such thing as consciousness in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of cognizing. All consciousness has it[12].
Here, from the commentary, we can see the new explanation of consciousness which is cognizing the objects. Consciousness arise and cognize the objects on the six sense doors. The same explanation, in the Milinda Paňhă, the elder Năgasena explained
As a watchman in the city square would know someone was coming, whichever direction he came from; so, when a man sees an object, hears a sound, smells an odour, tastes savour, feels a touch or knows an idea; it is by consciousness that he knows it[13].
So according to the elder Nāgasena, consciousness is like door guards which know all the objects coming to the doors. He compare to the town guard, seated at the cross-roads in the middle of the town, would see men coming from the east, would see men from west, the south, the north; the same way, consciousness arise depend on the six sense doors would know all the objects that coming to the six sense doors.
From the above information, we can summary the meaning of consciousness according to Buddhist and western psychology that; Buddhist psychology define consciousness as knowing clearly the objects on the six sense doors whether they are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking of the objects or cognize the idea by mind. Buddhist psychology separate clearly between consciousness and mental factors by consciousness has function as the forerunning of mental factors in knowing the objects. Western psychology define consciousness as awareness of awareness or the individual awareness of unique thought, memories, feelings, sensations or environment etc. This is equal to some mental factors in Buddhist psychology. Western Psychology explained only three kinds of consciousness, they are: “directed consciousness, flowing consciousness, and daydream, and do not separate clearly between mind and mental factors. However, the same thing is both psychology accepted that consciousness arise or come moment by moment.
Wisdom
The term wisdom was explained as intelligence in western psychology. Generally they have accepted that intelligence cannot be observed directly: it has no mass. Occupies no space, and it is invisible. Nevertheless, we feel certain it exists. This is equal to the Buddhist psychology which accepted wisdom as one kind of mental factor.
David Wechsler gave the definition of intelligence that intelligence is the global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment. His definition was agreed by most psychologists[14]. Another psychologist, David G. Myers, said that intelligence is concept invented to explain why some people perform better than others on cognitive tasks. In his book, he also took the idea of Robert Sternberg and William Salter (1982, p. 3) which reported that “most experts view intelligence as a person’s capacity for goal-directed adaptive behavior – behavior that, by learning from experience, solving problems, and reasoning clearly, successfully meets challenges and achieves its aims[15].
This explanation of western psychologists, sometime we see that it is almost similar to Buddhist psychology. But what we should observe is wisdom in Buddhist psychology is based on the understanding of four noble truths, the understanding on the truth nature of things, until the wisdom that can reach to Nibbana, reach to get enlightened and destroy all defilements. Wisdom or intelligence in western psychology is based on the capacity to deal with something effectively, or to understand new thing, to manage or to make it. We usually see scientists discover new technologies and create many new things in this modern world. And the problem is those scientists never claimed about reaching enlightenment or defilement destroying. So, here, we would make a question that; is intelligence in western psychology the same to wisdom in Buddhist psychology? Is intelligence in western psychology is the real wisdom?
In Buddhist psychology, wisdom was explained as a light which disperse the darkness. It is opposite to ignorance. When wisdom arises, the ignorance or delusion will disappear. That in Milinda panha, the elder Nagasena explained:
When wisdom springs up in the mind it dispels the darkness of ignorance, causes the radiance of vision to arise, makes the light of knowledge shine forth and makes the noble truths plain. Thus does the meditator perceive with the clearest wisdom, the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and soullessness of all formations. It is like a lamp, which in a dark room would illuminate it and make the objects there plainly visible[16].
The commentary, Atthasalini, explained the characteristics of wisdom that understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non-perplexity as its proximate cause, as it were a good guide in the forest[17]. So, according to these explanations, wisdom is the clear understanding of the intrinsic nature of the ultimate reality, like a lamp that illuminates things from darkness. Wisdom in Buddhist psychology is not only the capacity to understand something, solving problems, or reasoning clearly as western psychology explained, but it is the clear understanding of the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality that lead to see the truth and reach to enlightened.
Therefore, if we compare between these two psychologies, intelligence in western psychology is not equal to wisdom in Buddhist psychology. It may equal to some other mental factors like Adhimokkha which has the characteristic of conviction, Saňňā, perception, or Viňāņa, cognize the ideas, or sometime, it is the wisdom of lower class.
The comparison between perception, consciousness, and wisdom
After the studies, we can see that the characteristics of these three concepts are very close to each other. Perception, recognition the objects, consciousness, knowing clearly the objects, wisdom, penetration the intrinsic nature of the objects, each help to fulfill other qualities while they arise together.
So, in some situation, it is difficult to distinguish whether it is the quality of perception, consciousness, or it is wisdom. For instant, one man, while doing listening exam, after listening to the tap, when he was asked about the main point, he could answer correctly. With this point, it is difficult to say that he has the quality of good perception or wisdom, if he has only good perception to remember, but no understanding, it is difficult to do. If has only understanding, but no remember, it is also difficult. And these two concepts cannot arise without consciousness. Therefore, one the studies of psychological field, some scholars try to describe and distinguish these three concepts to see the difference and its own quality, yet the studies are still difficult.
In the book, Buddha Dhamma, Venerable P.A. Payutto has done a lot about the comparison of these three concepts which is almost enough to understand. He explained and compared these three concepts to the story of the three knowledge which each has its own essence and characteristics and exists in different aggregate. Perception is one aggregate, consciousness is one, and wisdom is another one.
Venerable P.A. Payutto explained a lot about the essence and characteristic of wisdom which is the highest knowledge among these three. But, it is very sorry that my English is very poor and the explanation was done in Thai and uses the language of ultimate truth; it is very difficult to translate to English. However, I will try my best to do.
In his book, wisdom was explained as being omniscient. It refers to knowing widely, clearly, and insight, penetration of the truth, and the reality. He explained in detail that it is the knowledge of cause and effect, wholesome and unwholesome, true and false, advantage and disadvantage, helpful and useless, know what the other is up to of its formation, know cause and condition, know where it come from, know the relationship of all things, knowing the reality, know the intrinsic nature of things, know how to think, how to examine, how to judge, how to manage or prepare with every thing.
In the relationship between these three concepts, he explained that Wisdom is very helpful for perception and consciousness in extension their scope. Wisdom helps consciousness to extend its ability more widely and insight, opening the way for perception to have more things to recognize and remember because the more one can understand something, the more he can recognize and penetrate those things. For example, while one doing the exam in mathematic, when he cannot think, there is nothing he can recognize and do more. But, when he can think of one step, he can recognize and think further to some more steps.
For the comparison between these three concepts, he explained that wisdom is apposite to delusion which means ignorance, or wrong understanding. Perception and consciousness are not apposite to delusion. Sometime, they become a bait of delusion because when one ignore by any wrong understanding, he also know and recognize according to that delusion. Wisdom helps consciousness and perception to walk in the right way. Furthermore, he explained that perception and consciousness depend on the object which is still exist to do their function, create an image or see the feature due to that object. But wisdom initially desire to the object (because it is consisted in group of mental formation), connected one object to the others, consider each part of the object compare to other parts, taking different kind of perception consider or compare to each other, see the cause and effect, see the relationship and know how to use it for more benefits, find more issues for perception and consciousness to know and recognize.
For more detail, he also took the explanation of the elder Sariputta in Majjhima Nikaya that compare the differences between wisdom and consciousness that one who has wisdom knew that it is suffering, it is cause of suffering, it is cessation of suffering, it is the way to cessation of suffering. Consciousness only knew that it is happiness, it is suffering, and it is neither happiness nor suffering. But, both wisdom and consciousness arise together, cannot separate from each other. Nevertheless, the difference between these two concepts is; wisdom is Bhavetabbadhamma, something which should be developed and improved, should be trained and makes it more, but consciousness is Pariňňeyyadhamma, something should be comprehended as it really is.
Another explanation he took is from Visuddhimagga which explained the differences of these three concepts that perception just only knows the object that it is blue, yellow etc. (knowing the feature of the object), cannot understand to the characteristic of impermanent, suffering, or non-self. Consciousness knows that it is blue, yellow, etc. also can know the characteristic of impermanent, suffering, and non-self (know when it arise with wisdom), but cannot reach to the achievement of the noble paths (cannot reach enlightened). But wisdom knows the feature and characteristics of the object, and also can reach to the attainment of the noble paths. It can compare to three kinds of person watching to the coin. Perception same to a little boy, still not be sensible, just know that the coin is long or short, square, round, the color and design are nice or beautiful. But he doesn’t know that the coin was assumed to do exchange or can buy something. Consciousness is like a villager, while watching the coin, he knows like a little boy and also knows that this coin can buy something or do some exchange. But, he doesn’t know that this coin is real or fake, or made of what. Wisdom is like a treasurer, knows every thing mentioned above, and also knows that this coin made in that place by that person etc. wisdom is not exist all the time, sometime there are only perception and consciousness. But, sometime they arise all together. That time, it is difficult to distinguish these three concepts.
From this explanation of Venerable P.A. Payutto of these three concepts with the explanation he took from the Sutta and commentaries are clearly enough to understand the meaning and differences between perception, consciousness, and wisdom in the field of Buddhist psychology. However, if we compare to western psychology, there are some differences between them.
In western psychology, we do not see any psychologist try to compare between perception, consciousness, and wisdom as in Buddhist psychology. But, according to what they explained about these concepts we can conclude that:
Perception in western psychology, refer to characteristic, shape or figure which we interpret from sensory information or the experiences that influence what we make of our sensations. It refers to both internal and external phenomena. Consciousnesses refer to the individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment etc. or refer to the awareness of awareness. Wisdom or Intelligence is the global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment.
These three concepts may function on helping each other and also working depend on each other. Whatever consciousness aware of, perception makes sign or feature to interpret it. Intelligence also improves its ability up to what perception and consciousness has aware and recognize. However, among these three concepts, intelligence is the highest. Intelligence helps to develop and extend the scope of perception and consciousness to aware of something or to recognize because people with intelligence very aware of every thing around them and they can create more perception within one thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment