[Advaita-l] Perception in lightning

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Venkataraghavan ji,

Then vishaya-desha in all perception is indriya-golak. This is specifically
denied for chakshu and shrotra in siddhAnta. Effectively, you are turning
all vishaya to be located at indriya-golaka by making vishaya itself as
light/sound located at the indriyagolak.





On Tue, 11 May, 2021, 6:40 pm Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
> I had suggested a response to the question "is what is seen the object, or
> the conceptualisation of an object?" in an email to Raghav ji.
>
> With respect to what is pramA / bhrama, the prakriyA is exactly the same as
> the present. As the viShaya here is the reflected light, so long as the
> light reflected from the object hits the eye + antahkaraNa, and the
> antahkaraNa vRtti removes the ajnAna in prabhAvacChinna chaitanya, the
> prabhAvacChinna chaitanya becomes one with the vRttyavacChinna chaitanya,
> leading to the cognition "I see the object".
>
> It is bhrama / ayatArtha if the light hits the eye, but due to some doSha,
> the ajnAna in the prabhAvacChinna chaitanya is not removed, leading to
> jnAnA-/arthAdhyAsa.
>
> With respect to the X-ray example from Jagadguru Srimad Chandrasekhara
> Bharati mahAsvAminah, the light that hits the X-ray plate is an X-ray (as
> it is not within the visible spectrum, it is not pratyaksha yogya). What is
> captured by the plate on the other side are the X-rays that have not been
> absorbed by the foetus. That being so, the eyes have not made contact with
> the foetus. Rather the eyes make contact with the X ray plate that has
> recorded the X-rays that have not been absorbed by the foetus. Hence, here
> it is not the object itself that is seen, rather what is seen is a plate.
>
> In our example, it is the light from the pot itself that is seen, not the
> light from the photograph of a pot.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2021, 12:34 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:25 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Namaste
> >> It is not to account for exceptions per se. The idea is to preserve as
> >> much
> >> of the advaita epistemological framework as possible, while accounting
> for
> >> observable scientific phenomena.
> >>
> >> That being the case, what was suggested is that if we change the concept
> >> of
> >> what constitutes a viShaya to the subject (the object is not the
> viShaya,
> >> light / sound is), one can preserve the existing framework while
> >> addressing
> >> the challenge of viewing objects that have ceased to exist.
> >>
> >
> > Would there be then the situation where one is perceiving/knowing not the
> > object per se but only a reflection or a compromise  of it and still
> think
> > that he is perceiving the object itself?  Would this then fall in the
> > category of ayathartha jnana, bhrama?  Or would this be something like a
> > 'samvaadi / visamvaadi bhrama' of the Panchadashi?
> >
> > HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah had once remarked: when X rays
> are
> > used to get a view of a fetus, for instance, what the resultant picture
> we
> > get to see is not the fetus 'as it is' but only that of the object that
> has
> > reacted to the X ray.  I think somewhat similar would be the case.
> >
> > regards
> > subbu
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>