My brain has a library of concepts that float to the surface as thoughts to help us navigate the world. The library and the thoughts are constantly being refined. But what are the odds that my concepts accurately reflect the world (things, impermanence, rocks, me, quarks, flowers, thoughts etc)?
Talking with like minded people, in our case which is a forum discussion, might help us to overcome the limited and factual knowledge we had on a particular topic. I find that discussion is more important than to just listening K.
What about questioning 
Interestingly enough, this is an example - for Dharmakirti - for why “yogic perception” is necessary!
It (the insight into impermanence) constitutes an insight into the way things are (the ‘truth’ of impermanence), because impermanence is not a “thing”, a separate sensate object that one can perceive through sense-perception alone (because sense-perception is itself impermanent, momentary, and so cannot stand outside of itself to judge its own impermanence).
I don’t think that increasing the number of correct facts we hold is useful - there maybe only one useful fact to see : my relation to what I know. Useful to freedom of intelligence.
Ja. Different ways of knowing whether a proposition is true, false, both, neither, or undeterminable. (It’s the quintalemma!)
My view also. It’s fun to agree occasionally, right? 
Then again, we could both be wrong!
This reminds me of Krishnamurti’s distinction between pure perception (tweeeeeeeeet!) and the hijacking of the perception by thought (a bird singing).
Cool! It’s Seeing with an S!
If we use Krishnamurti as a guide to coming up with working definitions of fact, truth, real, usw we run head-on into the problem of vagueness. Of the pramanas you mentioned, sense perception, perception, and attention are all (quite) clear. Then it gets hazy: awareness and insight. Of the two, insight is for me by far the most mysterious.
1 Like
What are the odds that there is a ‘world’ that can be accurately reflected?
Yogic perception sounds like Krishnamurti’s ‘intelligence!’
Ha!
Yes!
Yes - although I think, in this context, what Krishnamurti called insight fits the bill just as well, if not better.
As you say,
Hi James, I got some doubts out of curiosity,
What is the difference between normal and yogic perception?
Is it possible to experiment with our perceiving abilities? 
What happens inside us in general, when we are identifying things around us?
I think we say : the odds are 1 that there is a world - but the goal is only to be as accurate as possible.
The only thing for which the odds are 1 in my Gesamtkunstweltanschauung is that there is nothing for which the odds are 1. (Including this. Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!)
When I observe something, I get thoughts. Sometimes, I feel that is natural to think about what we have observed? it is just my opinion.
Okay.
Post must be at least 20 characters.
Krishnamurti’s pramanas (as I understand them):
-
thought has its place, the intellect has its place, technical or functional knowledge has its place, science has its place, etc, but none of this is fundamentally true perception
-
the senses, sense-perception (perception through the body)
-
awareness and attention (perception through the mind or brain)
-
insight and love (perception beyond or ‘outside’ the brain)
Of course, Krishnamurti’s language was fluid and changed from context to context (e.g. he sometimes said that attention was beyond the brain, and sometimes he said it was inside the brain, etc); but what do you think?
Concepts may not reflect the world truthfully. Direct sense-perception (where it exists) is probably the best chance we have to reflect the world accurately.
But what is that world reflected to us through perception?
From a Madhyamaka perspective a world appears (of rocks, trees, flowers, quarks, etc) - but what this appearance of a world truly is, is fundamentally elusive.
From a Yogacara or tathagatagarbha perspective a world appears (of rocks, trees, flowers, quarks, etc) - but what this appearance of a world truly is, is fundamentally universal mind or suchness.
From a scientific perspective matter and energy appears (in conjunction with various laws and processes), but all the matter and energy in the universe is fundamentally reducible to the undifferentiated energy of the quantum vacuum.
So the world, the universe - of rocks, trees, flowers, quarks, etc - is a mystery. A true mystery!
1 Like
I don’t know. Maybe it is another level of perception - a perception beyond the mind or brain?
Yes - we can experiment with sense-perceiving the world around us (of nature), and the word within us (of feeling, sensation, thought, etc). Perception is life! 
1 Like
While eating food, most of the time I will not give complete attention to what I taste
Now I have to see how it feels like ?
1 Like
Yes without perception, we will be not talking to each other in this forum.
James, can I say that perception for every person is the function of their own content, which he/she has been accumulated in life?
“World” meaning the whole shebang of course.
How are we able to posit that some sort of whatsit is not being experienced, or that experience is not happening? How does the argument go?
Sense-perception is its own thing - its content is only the world or nature, as it appears.
But obviously when we each of us perceive the world, perceive each other (in relationship), we inevitably colour our perceptions with our conditioning, with the past (with our memory). All of this - all of what we have accumulated in our life: memories, associations, hurts, insults, pleasures, images - is generally active when we perceive.
But the question for us is (as K taught): can we experiment with looking at the world afresh, as though for the first time? Can we perceive nature, a tree, a bird, the blue sky, or one’s partner, or family-member, without the past?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question - it’s just something for us to experiment with.