[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 267-287 Pratibimba Vaada Part 1

[Venkatesh Murthy]

बिम्बस्य प्रतिबिम्बैक्यमपि युक्तिसहं न ते ।
प्रत्यक्पराग्भावरूपविरोधस्य स्फुटत्वतः ॥
The Object Bimba and the Reflection Pratibimba cannot be same. It is
not reasonable. Because the Inner and Outer are opposed to each other
clearly.
अस्मदर्थो ह्यात्मतत्वं प्रत्यग्रूपञ्च तत्किल ।
युष्मदर्थस्तु विषयः पराग्रूपः स चाखिलः ॥
In the Adhyasa Bhashya starting with 'Yushmad-Asmat' the meaning of
Asmad is the Self. Its nature is Inner. The meaning of Yushmat is the
Object. Its complete nature is outer.
तयोः प्रत्यक्पराग्भावमात्रेणैव विरुद्धयोः ।
नेतरेतरभावोऽस्तीत्याह भाष्यकृदेव ते ॥
Your Bhashyakara Adi Sankara has said the Asmat and Yushmat cannot
become each other because they are Inner and Outer and opposed to each
other.
अतः प्रत्यक्पराग्भावान्न बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बयोः ।
ऐक्यं स्यादात्मजडयोरिवेति प्रतिवादिना ॥
साधिते सति तद्युक्तिं प्रत्याख्याति कथं भवान् ।
विपक्षे तव दूष्यं स्याद्भाष्यमित्यस्ति बाधकम् ॥
नह्यानैकान्तिकं हेतुमादावेव वदेत्सुधीः ।
Therefore the Bimba - Object and Pratibimba - Reflection cannot be the
same. They are like the Self and Inert thing.  When this is proved how
can you deny it? Your counter argument will make the Bhashya
defective. But the Bhashya will make your argument invalid because in
the beginning the wise person will not give a cause not applying in
all situations.
कथं मृदुमुखं कांस्यदर्पणस्यान्तरं विशेत् ॥
न चेन्मुखेऽपि दाहस्स्यात्तप्ताम्बुप्रतिबिम्बिते ।
कथं स्थूलगजस्य स्यात्सूक्ष्मोपाधौ प्रवेशनम् ॥
यदि स्यात्तर्हि भारेणकरात्स पतितो भवेत् ।
प्रविष्टस्य तथैव स्यादाकारो नत्वतादृशः ॥
जले स्नातुर्मुखं नोचेद्विपरीतं भवेत्तव ।
दर्पणं सुरभीकुर्यात्कस्तूर्यतः प्रवेशतः ॥
अतो विसदृशत्वाच्च न बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बयोः ।
एकता वक्तुमुचिता न्यायसञ्चारवेदिना ॥
If you say Bimba - Object and Pratibimba - Reflection are the same how
can the soft face go into the brass mirror? If not the face should
become hot when it is reflected in hot water. How can a big elephant
enter into the small space of the mirror? If the elephant enters into
the mirror it should become very heavy and fall down from the hand.
The entered shape will be like that exactly but not different. If not
the face of the person bathing in water will be opposite of that. The
perfume in the face will make the mirror also fragrant. Therefore
saying the Bimba and Pratibimba in a reflection are the same is not
proper for any person knowing the Logical Path because the two are
dissimilar.
सूत्रकृच्चोपमामाह सूर्यकादिनिदर्शनात् ।
प्रतिबिम्बस्य जीवस्य तद्बिम्बाल्पोपमा भवेत् ।
अस्योपाधिरुपादानं प्रत्यासत्तिर्मुखस्य च ॥
निमित्तं दृष्टकार्यस्य बलात्किं किं न कल्प्यते ।
किं सूर्यवत्सूर्यकोऽपि स्वभासा भासयेद्दिशः ॥
यत्सूत्रकारानुदितं तत्को वा भाष्यकृद्वदेत् ।
In Sutra अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत् 3-2-18 the Sutrakara Vyasa has said
there is a similarity of Brahman and Jeeva but not One-ness with the
Simile of Sun-like. There is a small similarity only of Jeeva with
Brahman. The Material Cause of the reflection is the mirror Upadhi and
the Instrumental Cause is the face near the mirror. What can the seen
effect's strength not make? Can the Sun's reflection illuminate the
directions with its own brightness? Who is the Bhashyakara to say what
the Sutrakara did not say?
भिन्नवाचकशब्दोऽयं विना गौण्या कथं वदेत् ।
तद्बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बत्वमपि जीवपरेशयोः ॥
वैसादृश्याद्भेदमेव साधयेन्न तु बाधयेत् ।
बोधयेद्वा प्रतिकृतेर्बिम्बहर्यनुगामिताम् ॥
विरुद्धप्रकृतिर्यद्वत्समप्रत्ययवत्यपि ।
The Sutrakara has said Sun-like reflection to express Difference.
Sun-like is a figure of speech Upama or Simile only but not expressing
Identity. The Dissimilarity of the Bimba Ishwara and Pratibimba Jeeva
is proved but it is not disproved by Sutrakara's words. It is giving
knowledge also the reflection Jeeva is similar to Bimba Hari but not
equal because we can have common ideas of the Object with opposite
Nature.

Vaadiraaja is showing a Contradiction in Advaiti's argument. There are
three points in Advaitis theory.

1) Adi Sankara has said in Adhyasa Bhashya the Inner Asmat cannot be
same as Outer Yushmat. The two must be different. They cannot be same.

2) In Bimba - Pratibimba Vaada of Advaitis the Brahman is reflected in
Antahkarana. That Reflection is Jeeva. But in any reflection Bimba is
Inner and Pratibimba is Outer. In any reflection Bimba and Pratibimba
cannot be the same. Nobody will say reflection has all the qualities
of the original object. When you are standing in front of a mirror
your real face is the Inner. It is in You. The Reflection is Outside.
It is the Outer thing. Brahman is Inner Object and Jeeva is the Outer
Reflection when Brahman is reflected.

3) But Advaitis say Jeeva and Brahman are the same. Jeevo Brahmaiva.

1) and 2) are saying Inner is not same as Outer. 3) is saying Inner
and Outer are the same. Therefore 3) is not correct. Jeeva cannot be
same as Brahman. If Inner and Outer in a reflection become same there
will be lot of absurd examples like he is giving.

He is questioning Adi Sankara's Bhashya for 3-2-18 and saying
Sutrakara did not say what Bhashyakara is saying. Sutrakara wanted to
express Bheda between Ishwara and Jeeva because in a Simile the two
things compared are not the same. If they are the same what is the
Simile's use?

If a Poet is calling a heroine as Moon-face Chandramukhi it is a
Simile. But you cannot say her face is exactly the Moon. If her face
is Moon itself there will no Simile. Similarly the Sutrakara is
calling Jeeva as Sun-like in 3-2-18. Jeeva is Brahman-like but not
Brahman. Therefore the Sutrakara has used 'Upama" in the sutra 3-2-18
to say it is a Simile.

The Dvaitis also believe in Bimba Pratibimba Vaada but they believe
Bimba and Pratibimba cannot be One. They must be different.

Part 2 will follow.


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh