Samkara's Theory please!

[MC1 at AOL.COM]

Dear Allan and others,

Yes, I agree with both your points below. But the question is, is
Pugliandla's editorializing an accurate representation of Sankara's thinking?

Pugliandla states,
    It is obvious that sublation of a given judgment necessarily results
    in its being replaced by a new one...
    . . For Samkara sublatability is the criterion of the
    ontological status of any content of consciousness;
    anything that is in principle sublatable is of a lesser
    degree of reality and value than that which replaces it
    as a result of sublation.

The problem seems to be whether Pugliandla is accepting lesser and greater
degrees within the same "order of reality," in which case I think he mistakes
Sankara, or whether he is simply refering to the sublation of that which
appears by that which is its ontological ground -- a wholly other "order of
reality."

Another issue perhaps from your Pugliandla extract concerns the question of
experience:
    Thus one is said to sublate a previously held judgment
    when, in the light of a new experience which contradicts
    it...

Does Sankara hold experience to be a superior pramana for Self-Knowledge or
is Sruti held to be the principal pramana?