/lit/ - Literature

>>16757021
>According to the theory of Maayavada of Shankara, the silver perceived in illusion is neither real (sat) nor unreal(asat), but is Anirvachaniiya, inexplicable object, which is an a product of Ajnaana (ignorance). During the illusion we perceive that the object is real but afterwards we realize that the silver in the shape of shell that we have perceived is no where and is unreal.
correct

>It is not correct to imagine that the objects are neither real nor unreal as it is contradictory to our experience.
This objection is invalid as in fact we have examples of this being true in our experience when you have a dream, you believe that dream is reality; but then when you awake you sublate that dream and no longer regard it as having any reality. This dream was not real, because it was sublated and discarded as a unreal thing which we typically forget. But the dream was also not completely unreal, because it was something he had subjective experience of. The distinction of anirvachaniya is in fact necessary in order to establish a clear boundary between 1) unreal things we subjective experience and believe to be real and 2) completely unreal and non-existent things which we never experience, perhaps because they may be a contradiction in terms or physical impossibility etc. Without this distinction we only have a single term "unreal" to apply to both which obscures the fact that they are obviously of a different nature.

>To say that such a new object (which is neither sat nor asat) is born at the time of illusion is very strange imagination.
It is preciously because the essential nature of all illusions is that of superimposition, or imagination, that it can be so without any contradiction. All illusions involve an existing conscious observer who superimposes a false understanding onto an existing basis for that. These objects are not born but appear as the variations of existing objects, substituted for the normal appearance of that object which we would have otherwise seen.