Body of Work/Observation 3.3
Observation 3.3
Discovery as removing an obstacle
In plain words
Science and contemplative recognition often both work by removing what occludes what was already the case.
Same mode — different verification. I am not collapsing the two.
[inference]My reasoning from the sources — mine, not the tradition's.
In both cases the thing was already the case — the theorem before it was proven, gravity before it was named — and the work was removing whatever obscured it.
The tradition calls a related move pratyabhijñā — recognition. Science calls its move discovery. They verify very differently: one through external instruments and public replication, the other through the trained practitioner as instrument.
The parallel of mode is what first made “engineering” feel like a lens rather than a cute metaphor. The parallel does not make them the same discipline.
See also: muller-ortega-triadic-heart, torella-ishvarapratyabhijna
Supported by scholarship (still my reading)
[inference]My reasoning from the sources — mine, not the tradition's.(supported by scholarship — still my reading)
My use of recognition-language is informed by modern presentations of Pratyabhijñā — see Muller-Ortega and Torella in References. That is inference supported by scholarship, not a verse pin.
See also: muller-ortega-triadic-heart