Samkara's Theory please!

[Allan Curry]

Namaste,

MC1 at AOL.COM (Michael?) writes:

> One further comment on the last sentence below:
>
>>     "On the criterion of sublatability, Samkara
>>     distinguishes reality, appearance, and unreality.
>>     Reality is that which in principle cannot be sublated by
>>     any other experience. Apearance is that which in
>>     principle can be sublated by other experiences.
>>     Unreality is that which in principle neither can nor
>>     cannot be sublated."
>
>    I believe Sankara states that unreality (mirage in a
>    desert), as also appearance, must necessarily have a
>    real substratum. In the case of appearance, the rope is
>    the substratum for the apparent snake; in the case of
>    unreality, the "notion" of water is the substratum. In a
>    grander sense, Existence cannot be denied or sublated
>    and is ever-present (in appearance and unreality)
>    therefore it alone is real. That which is not subject to
>    change is Real according to Sankara.
>
>    So perhaps Pugliandla is mistaken in saying, "Unreality
>    is that which in principle neither can nor cannot be
>    sublated."
>
    To be fair to Pugliandla, I think he would disagree that
    unreality exists, by definition. Appearances exist in
    some sense and are distinguished by what can sublate
    them (ie. real being only or real being and/or another
    appearance). The reason why unreality cannot be sublated
    or not sublated is that it can never become an object of
    our experience (ie. horns of a rabbit, etc.). Unreality
    is simply not existing in anyway, anywhere, at anytime.

Your earlier comment:

>    But I don't recall anywhere that Sankara addresses the
>    process of one edifying experience replacing a
>    previously held mistaken judgment.

    ......is more troubling to me. How could Pugliandla be
    right about this being Samkara's criterion of reality
    and forming his ontological hierarchy if Samkara never
    "addresses the process of one edifying experience
    replacing a previously held mistaken judgement"? Perhaps
    Puligandla is editorializing along the lines of saying
    "it all boils down to this" even though Samkara never
    explicitly says so ... ?


regards,

- Allan Curry