The Tree of Enlightenment

In addition, the Sautrantikas formulated a very interesting
theory of perception. ey believed that we never really know
external objects directly and that what we perceive – what we
take to be an external object (for example, the cup in front of
me) – is a mental reflection or representation of that object, so
that the process of perception is the process of perceiving mental
reflections of external objects. e Sautrantikas claimed that
these mental representations are the effects of external objects.
Consequently, they held that we know of the existence of external
objects by inference. e mental images or reflections of an
external object are evidence of that object’s existence, although
we cannot know it directly.
is theory is very similar to John Locke’s representative
theory of perception. What I find important about this view is
that if it is accepted, it leaves the status of the external world in
a very precarious position, since we would never know objects in
themselves but only the objectified contents of our consciousness.
By thus emphasizing the role of conceptualization or imagination,
this philosophical development of the Sautrantikas anticipates
the full-fledged mentalist philosophy of the Mind Only
school, which claims that the apparently real objects of the world
are none other than mind.
ere are a number of lines along which the Mind Only
philosophy developed its doctrine of the primacy of consciousness.
Its adherents were convinced that objects depend on mind
for their nature and being. First, the school put forward the
view that a single object appears differently to different sentient
beings. is argument is worked out with respect to the six
realms of existence. For example, a cup of milk appears to us as
201