6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.

4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion

2019-11-28
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion

Medi Chaitanya

University of Hyderabad

1st November 2019

Analysis of Perceptual Illusion

Medi Chaitanya

University of Hyderabad

1st November 2019

Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad

Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion

2019-11-28
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion

Introduction Medi Chaitanya

University of Hyderabad

1st November 2019

6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as

Introduction
General characterstics of Illusion

6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion

ātmakhyāti or sākāra-vāda of the Yogācāra
asat-khyāti of Mādhyamika school

6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion

6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion

Objections
Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion The case of illusion in non-simple awareness

2019-11-28
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as
Introduction Introduction I Sensory illusion is said to be ’promiscuous’
I Simple awareness vs non-simple awareness
I Nature of relation in non-simple awareness

The case of illusion in non-simple awareness

The case of illusion in non-simple awareness

1. Promiscousity involves one’s indiscriminate relation with at least

two persons at the same time. Invoke Nyaya definition of prama.
2. Promiscuity of awareness means that it deals with two ’objects’ at
I Sensory illusion is said to be ’promiscuous’ the same time.
I Simple awareness vs non-simple awareness 3. An awareness is simple awareness if it deals with only one’object’
I Nature of relation in non-simple awareness (unanalysed, but not necessarily unanalysable) and non-simple if it
deals with more than one object.
4. What are the two objects here- thing(tree) and the
tree-character(treeness), one is being characterised while the other
is characterstic (dharma-dharmin), qualificad-qualifier.
5. If the two objects are connected in a particular way, then we call it
molecular non-simple.
Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion How does the illusion takes place?

2019-11-28
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as I The two objects while playing different roles, can form a unity
Introduction Introduction when they are connected. They would form a fake unity when
they are not connected.
I The promiscuity consists in dealing with and uniting two

How does the illusion takes place? objects when they are not connected in any sense at all in the
actual world.

How does the illusion takes place?

1. Uniting some characetr to an entity to which it really belongs in not

an illusory experience at all
I The two objects while playing different roles, can form a unity 2. Seeing a rope as a snake is promiscuious, the snake character does
when they are connected. They would form a fake unity when not belong to the thing(rope) and when they made to a form a one
they are not connected. complex, the resulting awareness becomes an illusion. Therefore,
I The promiscuity consists in dealing with and uniting two our seeing it as snake is promiscious.
objects when they are not connected in any sense at all in the
actual world.

Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad

Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion The notion of Illusion

2019-11-28
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as I The possibility of illusion is restricted to the cases where we
General characterstics of Illusion General characterstics of Illusion understand ’seeing’ as ’seeing something’ (Judgemental
perception)
I ”We use ’illusion’ for cases where something is seen but looks
to be other than it is or is ’taken’to be.”
The notion of Illusion I How does illusion occurs in general?

The notion of Illusion

1. Non-promiscuity is mentioned in the definition 1.1.4. Can there be

senosry illusion which is also a simple awareness in our
I The possibility of illusion is restricted to the cases where we senses??
understand ’seeing’ as ’seeing something’ (Judgemental 2. He argues that seeing is mostly seeing-as ..., i.e. is seeing something
perception) as something and it is only with regard to such seeing-as that the
I ”We use ’illusion’ for cases where something is seen but looks possibility of promiscuity, i.e. possibility of illusion, can arise.
to be other than it is or is ’taken’to be.” 3. Rope is taken (mistaken) to be a snake and a white wall or a
I How does illusion occurs in general? conch-shell looks yellow to the jaundicied eye.
4. If seeing is an occasion of ’simple’, and not of seeing-as..., then it is
impossible for it be promiscuous, or to be an illusion.
5. Sensory Illusion is non-simple seeing. The question is, whether there
can be a sensory illusion which is also a simple awareness in our
Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad
senses?
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion Two responses to the problem of illusion

2019-11-28
6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion I What happens when there is an illusory experience?
1. X looks F to S at t1.
2. X looks G to S at t2.
I What is this ’looks F’ means here in this case?
I Two alternative views about the nature of the awareness from

Two responses to the problem of illusion two Buddhist camps

1. Our awareness has a ’form’ (ākāra) intrinsic to itself

Two responses to the problem of illusion

2. Our awareness is essentially ’formless’.

1. Talk about Vasubandhu’s prrof of Idealsim from Illusion and

I What happens when there is an illusory experience? their metaphysical committments.
1. X looks F to S at t1. 2. F and G are mutually exclusive characterstics.
2. X looks G to S at t2.
3. The second case called as ’contradicting’ or ’correcting
I What is this ’looks F’ means here in this case? awareness’(bādhaka pratyaya) in relation the first one. The
I Two alternative views about the nature of the awareness from ’correcting awareness falsifies the first one.
two Buddhist camps 4. The former claims that our illusory awareness projects its own
1. Our awareness has a ’form’ (ākāra) intrinsic to itself ’form’ as an external object (ātma-kyāti vāda)
2. Our awareness is essentially ’formless’.
5. where as the latter claims that our awareness in illusion falsely
appears to be ’burdened’ with an object-an object which is
non-existent(asat).
6. Both are arguing from some sort of idealistic position.
Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion
ātmakhyāti or sākāra-vāda of the Yogācāra
What is ātmakhyāti
I Silver-form or the silverlike appearance that we are sensorily
aware of is not external to the awareness but internal(āntara)
to it.
I The silver-form in the awareness is not matched by anything
in the objective situation with which we are concerned here.
Hence it must belong to the subjective side, i.e. be only a
part of the awareness.
I This silver-form is a ’mental’ entity or non-external existent.
Medi Chaitanya
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion What is ātmakhyāti
2019-11-28
6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion I Silver-form or the silverlike appearance that we are sensorily
aware of is not external to the awareness but internal(āntara)
ātmakhyāti or sākāra-vāda of the Yogācāra to it.
I The silver-form in the awareness is not matched by anything
in the objective situation with which we are concerned here.
What is ātmakhyāti Hence it must belong to the subjective side, i.e. be only a
part of the awareness.
I This silver-form is a ’mental’ entity or non-external existent.
1. The piece of silver that I mispercieved was nothing but a
mental-entity or an object-form that my awareness grasped.
2. What appeared in such awareness was a ’form’, a qualifying
part of the very awareness and as long as the ’form’ can’t
exist when the awareness passes away, the silver-appearance,
the mental entity, would not exist without that awareness.
3. it is techically called the ’revelation of the awareness itself’.
4. This is silver- three elements 1. Silver-form 2. The object that lies
infront of us 3. The awareness itself.
5. So the silver-form similar to that of pain or pleasure like ’internal
episodes, in which, pain or pleasure that we ’feel’ cannot be
anything ’external’ to the awareness itself.
University of Hyderabad
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion
asat-khyāti of Mādhyamika school
What is asat-khyāti
I The awareness is basically formless, it has the peculiar
capacity of revealing or manifesting an entirely non-existent or
unreal object.
I One awareness is distinguished from another by virtue of its
’object-form’, i.e. that which appears in its object.
I Although the awareness is basically formless, it has peculiar
capacity of revealing or manifesting an entirely non-existent or
unreal object(asat-prakāśana-śāla)
I What is the status of this apprehensible-form?
I In order it to be real, either it should be mirrored by the part
of an external reality, or it should be an integral part of the
’internal’ reality.
Medi Chaitanya
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion What is asat-khyāti
2019-11-28
6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion I The awareness is basically formless, it has the peculiar
capacity of revealing or manifesting an entirely non-existent or
unreal object.
I One awareness is distinguished from another by virtue of its
asat-khyāti of Mādhyamika school ’object-form’, i.e. that which appears in its object.
I Although the awareness is basically formless, it has peculiar
capacity of revealing or manifesting an entirely non-existent or
What is asat-khyāti unreal object(asat-prakāśana-śāla)
I What is the status of this apprehensible-form?
I In order it to be real, either it should be mirrored by the part
of an external reality, or it should be an integral part of the
’internal’ reality.
1. nirākāra-jñāna-vādins, Madhyamika, Nyaya, and Prabhakara.
2. If it is posited as a ’meditator’ b/w the external world and and
internal episode of awareness, then its objective status is dubious.
3. Nyaya and Prabhakara accepts this as with external reality or
parts of reality. Sautantrika might say that it is a
’representation’ of the external world. Yogacarins would say
that it is an ’internal’ or ’mental’ entity.
4. Madhyamika would argue that apprehensible-form is
erroneous perception, since it is neither mental nor material,
neither external nor internal, is in fact an unreal or
non-existent(a-sat) entity.
5. In order to be apprehensible-object-form of awareness, it is not
always necessary, though it may be sufficient, for an external object
University of Hyderabad to ’create’ such an object-form.
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion The Inexplicability of Appearance-anirvacanīya khyāti

2019-11-28
6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion
I The object-from in sensory illusion must belong to a third
realm of objects which is neither existent nor non-existent.
I Takes a dig at Buddhist’s explanation of of illusion
I Close ties with its metaphysical claims about reality.
The Inexplicability of Appearance-anirvacanīya
The Inexplicability of Appearance-anirvacanīya khyāti khyāti

1. The silver-form cannot be really be non-existent nor unreal coz it

appeared in perceptual awareness and ’to see’ is ’to exists’ in
somesense.
I The object-from in sensory illusion must belong to a third
2. The silver-form can’t be really internal or mental, for after all a vivid
realm of objects which is neither existent nor non-existent. perceptual experience grasps it as an external object.
I Takes a dig at Buddhist’s explanation of of illusion
3. It can’t be regarded as real or existent coz the ’correcting’awareness
I Close ties with its metaphysical claims about reality. falsifies that possibility.
4. it can’t be both real or unreal coz it leads to contradiction.

Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad

Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion The alternative explanation for illusory experience

2019-11-28
6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion I The notion of akhyāti or satkhyāti or vivekakhyāti
I If illusion means awareness of X when X is unreal or not
there, then there can’t be any illusion at all
I It is possible for our sensory perception to be an illusion
provided the ’appearance’ deviates from the
’support-stimulant’.

The alternative explanation for illusory experience I What is the notion of support-stimulant?
I ”...in veridical perception, what lends objective(causal)

The alternative explanation for illusory experience support (ālambana) to the awareness is also the object that
appears in it, the ’object-form’ and the (external) object being
not separable at all.

I The notion of akhyāti or satkhyāti or vivekakhyāti

1. Akhyati= no illusion, satkhyati= only the existent(real) appears in
I If illusion means awareness of X when X is unreal or not our awareness, vivekakhyati= the distinction between past
there, then there can’t be any illusion at all experience and present experience.
I It is possible for our sensory perception to be an illusion 2. pratibhāsa vs ālambana, What appears in the awareness vs what
provided the ’appearance’ deviates from the stimulated the sensory faculty(some sort of what gives the causal
’support-stimulant’. support to that awareness).
I What is the notion of support-stimulant? 3. If X looks some way to S and X is not that way at all, then
my seeing is illusory
I ”...in veridical perception, what lends objective(causal)
support (ālambana) to the awareness is also the object that 4. if a red-patch causes the awareness of red, then the red-appearence
appears in it, the ’object-form’ and the (external) object being is nothing that could be distinguishble from the red patch itself. If
the same can be maintained in the case of perceptual illusion, we
not separable at all.
have to say that there can’t be an proper illusion.

Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad

Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion What is the actual reason for illusion

2019-11-28
6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion
What is the actual reason for illusion
I Each sensory illusion is non-simple because it is involved with
at least two objects but also because it combines two distinct
modes of awareness into one.
I Sometimes, two distinct cases of perceptions are fused
together to generate the so-called illusion.
I The role of the ’correcting’ awareness

What is the actual reason for illusion

1. directly sensing vs ’concealed’ remembering

2. Example of ”This is silver”
I Each sensory illusion is non-simple because it is involved with
3. Unaware of distinction between two objects(what is actually seen
at least two objects but also because it combines two distinct and what is actully remembered) and unaware of the distinction
modes of awareness into one. between two modes of awareness(seeing and remembering)
I Sometimes, two distinct cases of perceptions are fused 4. When we perceive conch-shell as yellow due to the jaundice. she
together to generate the so-called illusion. sees both yellow and conch-shell(perception of the qualifier only,
I The role of the ’correcting’ awareness yellow, as well as the perception of the thing only, the
conch-shell), but unable to differentiate the difference as such.
5. badhaka simply supplies the missing knowledge of their distnction,
of their unrelatedness, supplies only the gaps.
6. Noraml way of remembering (being experienced before) vs
abnoram way of remembering?. A defect, dosa in the casual
Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad facts of remembering, this cause the illusion.
Analysis of Perceptual Illusion
6.1 Seeing and Seeing-as 6.2 Two Buddhist Analyses of Illusion 6.3 The Advaita view on Illusion 6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion Analysis of Perceptual Illusion Nyaya Critique of Akhyāti

2019-11-28
6.4 Prābhākara View of No Iullusion I Vācaspati says Prābhakara analysis of illusion is neither
necessary nor defensible.
Objections Objections I Its not necessary because there is a simpler way of explaning
this.
I It is not defensible because such an explanation can’t account

Nyaya Critique of Akhyāti for the origin of human effort and action towards that object
which is grasped in such illusory experiences.

Nyaya Critique of Akhyāti

1. The strenuous effort to spilt what seems to be a unitary

perceptual mode of awareness into two distinct occurrences of
I Vācaspati says Prābhakara analysis of illusion is neither
awareness, viz. remembering.
necessary nor defensible.
2. Even if I mispercive a snake, I immeditely act in some way or other
I Its not necessary because there is a simpler way of explaning such as running away from it. My action is unquestionably
this. prompted by my false awareness. But under this discussion, we
I It is not defensible because such an explanation can’t account would have to say that the action is prompted by the lack of
for the origin of human effort and action towards that object awareness of the distinctness of the two different cases.
which is grasped in such illusory experiences. 3. ”Nyaya thinkers says that a conscious being does not act out of lack
of awareness, but out of some awareness”

Medi Chaitanya University of Hyderabad

Analysis of Perceptual Illusion