[Advaita-l] DSV of Sri Madhusudana Saraswati

[H S Chandramouli]

I am referring to prAtibhAsika and vyAvahArika from sattA perspective.

Regards

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:47 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Raghav Ji,
>
> Namaste.
>
> Reg  << 1. Silver is first seen. Later verified to be nacre. After this
> you only
> see nacre. You can't see silver again even though the thing seen is bright
> and shines like silver >>,
>
> Not necessarily. The perceiver many times can still feel that what he is
> perceiving looks like silver only and not nacre, but this time around he is
> sure it is nacre only, because silver was bAdhita. This type of continuance
> in perception of error is more evident perhaps in the illustration of
> rope-serpent.
>
> Reg  << My understanding is that only if perspective  2 is regarded as a
> possibility, then we have to include abAdhitatvaM as a necessary criterion
> for deciding whether a given cognition is pramA  >>
>
> That is right. But it applies to perspective 1 also as explained above.
> The explanation no doubt makes 1 and 2 identical.
>
> Reg << Even the word prAtibhAsika is, as I understand, applied to the
> experiences
> under perspective 2. That is, there is a certain continuation of the
> earlier appearance. Like the sun rising etc >>,
>
> Not “Even”. Perspective 2 indeed is considered prAtibhAsika only. However
> sun rising etc is sOpAdhika bhrAnti and not considered prAtibhAsika as per
> VP. It is vyAvahArika.
> Regards
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:31 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji
>> There are two perspectives
>>
>> 1. Silver is first seen. Later verified to be nacre. After this you only
>> see nacre. You can't see silver again even though the thing seen is bright
>> and shines like silver.
>>
>> 2. Silver is first seen. Later verified to be nacre. Still, the appearance
>> of silver continues. This appearance-of-silver cognition is no doubt
>> experienced, but not regarded as pramA since abAdhitatvam criterion is not
>> satisfied.
>>
>> My understanding is that only if perspective  2 is regarded as a
>> possibility, then we have to include abAdhitatvaM as a necessary criterion
>> for deciding whether a given cognition is pramA.
>>
>> Even the word prAtibhAsika is, as I understand, applied to the experiences
>> under perspective 2. That is, there is a certain continuation of the
>> earlier appearance. Like the sun rising etc.
>>
>> Is that what you wete referring to in saying the "wrong perception"
>> continues not withstanding sublation.
>>
>> Om
>> Raghav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>