Dear Francis, In your last post, you wrote: (quote)“…your true nature is forever unknowable objectively, but forever knowable subjectively, through a direct mode of knowledge. In this apperception, it reveals itself as timeless, unborn and eternal Presence.”(unquote) Some, like Wei Wu Wei defined apperception as a perception without a perceiver. Is that the meaning you give it? If not, Could you define the term “apperception” and its relation to “perception”, within the advaitic terminology? Thanks in Advance, Mouna
Dear Mouna,
“Perception” refers to the experience of an object (phenomenon, that which appears, thought, body sensation or external sense perception), whereas “apperception” refers to the experience of the subject (noumenon, that to which that which appears appears). The human mind is the experience of perceptions, but apperception takes place beyond the mind. There are many different perceptions, however there is only one apperception (there are many objects, but only one subject). Perceptions take place in time, apperception is timeless. The mind has no access to apperception, but apperception has the power to transform the mind. The mind moves within the known, apperception is ever new. Apperception is the experience of consciousness by consciousness. Atmananda Krishna Menon uses the word “visualization”, Jean Klein and I often use the word “glimpse” as synonyms of “apperception”.
Although apperception is timeless (out of time), there can be apperception without and with perceptions The former case is referred to in some Sanskrit texts as nirvikalpa samadhi. Uninterrupted apperception both in the absence and in the presence of perceptions is also known as sahaja samadhi.
We can now understand the definition of Wei Wu Wei, “a perception without a perceiver”, for the cessation of the superimposition of a personal perceiver onto consciousness is the necessary and sufficient condition for the apperception to take place.
Love,
Francis
Index