[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 016 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 8)

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Thu Nov 9 03:26:22 EST 2017

They are prAtibhAsika in my view.

If we define prAtibhAsika as brahma pramA atirikta bAdhyam (that which is
sublatable by something other than brahma pramA), then it is applicable to
them both. Even if we define prAtibhAsika as pratIti mAtra sattvam
(existence at the time of appearance or existence as appearance), it is
applicable to both.


On 9 Nov 2017 8:05 a.m., "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>

> How can one extend this explanation to other examples like mirage water,
> *crystal* appearing *red* because of its proximity to the *red* rose etc ?
> The cause of the mirage is the temperature of the air above the sand and
> distance of the observer from the mirage. If any one of the contributory
> causes are destroyed, the mirage ceases to appear. This is an observable
> phenomenon. The same principle can be applied to the red crystal. When the
> cause of the redness, the flower, is removed, the crystal ceases to appear
> red. In each of the two instances, despite one knowing the true nature of
> the substratum (ie there being no ignorance of its nature), as long as the
> causes of the illusion continue (distance, flower), the illusion continues.

Also, can we say, in these above examples, the appearance of mirage-water
or red crystal is not prAtibhAsika, unlike the prAtibhAsika shell-silver ?
We have to see them as vyavahArika illusions only.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list