Exact(12)
From the Buddhists standpoint, therefore, a perceiver can only perceive real particulars so that any perceptual experience is always and only at the non-conceptual level.
Regarding the temporal extension of real particulars, momentary entities pose a challenge to transactional usage: once known, they have already ceased and hence cannot be used nor acted upon.
(2) Given that only perception has direct access to the real and is causally bound to it, how is it that conceptual thought could ever be about real particulars at all and be considered a genuine source of knowledge?
The Buddhists argue that a perceiver apprehends only the real particulars, arbitrarily imposes concepts/words on them and believes, mistakenly, that these are really there in the objects and integral to them.
According to the top-down version, the negation operator in the exclusion, the apoha somehow manages pick out real particulars in the world while avoiding any commitment to universals.
Just as there are only two kinds of objects of knowledge, real particulars and fictional universals, there are only two types of knowledge, or more exactly "sources of knowledge" (pramāṇa), viz., "perception" (pratyakṣa) and "inference" (anumāṇa).
Similar(48)
"He would be able to have holidays home, and he was real particular about that," said his grandmother, Carolyn Kemp.
Carlton Collier, who traveled from Brooklyn to buy his own catch, said, "My kids, who are real particular about food, just eat it up".
5.The terms svalakṣaṇa is variously rendered into English as "own-natured," "self-defining characteritics," "unique particular," "real particular" etc.
For him if the object of thought is vaseness, that object is unreal and thus quite different from the real particular vases that one sees.
For Śāntarakṣita, both the exclusion of that which is other than real particular and the exclusion of that which is other than the representation are both apohas or exclusions.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com