[Advaita-l] Dvaita Vaada - Vadiraja Teertha's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 267-287 Pratibimba Vaada Part 2

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Advaiti Response -

People learned in Advaita have said Vaadiraaja has again not
understood the Bhashya of Adi Sankara. He is taking some part of the
Bhashya and arguing without reading the full Bhashya.

Dvaitis accept Bimba Pratibimba Vaada and Advaitis also accept it.
Brahman is Bimba and Its reflection Jeeva is Pratibimba. But
Pratibimba cannot be exactly same as Bimba. It cannot be another thing
also. Adi Sankara has said in Sutra Bhashya for आभास एव च 2-3-50 न स
एव साक्षात् । नापि वस्त्वन्तरम् ।

In a Simile two things A and B are compared. The two things cannot be
same but they are similar. They share some common qualities. Therefore
we can say A is like B. We cannot say A is same as B. If A is same as
B there is no similarity but equality. A = B. But in a simile A cannot
be equal to B. Simile is not Equality. But A and B cannot be totally
different. Then also there is no Simile. Advaitis agree with this. I
think Dvaitis also agree.

Example -
In Sanskrit Poetry the lips of a heroine are compared to Bimba fruits,
She is Bimboshthi - having red lips like Bimba fruits. By eating
Tambula the lips become red like Bimba fruits. Take this example from
Rupa Gosvami's Kavya on Raadhaa and Krishna. He says -
कदा बिम्बोष्ठि ताम्बूलं मया तव मुखाम्बुजे ।
अर्प्यमाणं व्रजाधीशसूनुराच्छिद्य भोक्ष्यते  ॥
O Bimboshthi Raadhe. When I am offering Tambula to you that son of the
Lord of Vraja Krishna will remove it from your mouth and eat it. When
will I witness this?

The lips are not the same as Bimba fruits but they are similar. If
they become same as Bimba fruit they should taste like fruits. But
they taste like lips, not fruits.

The Madhvas will not worship Radha because Her name is not there in
Mahabharata and Bhagavata. In Mahabharata there is a Radha but she is
Karna's mother and not Krishna's lover. If they go to Mathura and
Vrindavan they can see people are praying to Radha.

Monier Williams dictionary gives one more Simile नितम्बबिम्ब - having
Bimba-like round hips. Here the round quality of Bimba fruit is
compared to hips.

One example from Kavya -  Radha Krupa Kataksha Stava Raja

nitamba-bimba-lambamana-puspa-mekhala-gune
prasasta-ratna-kinkini-kalapa-madhya-manjule
karindra-sunda-dandikavaroha-saubhagoruke
kada karisyasiha mam kataksa-bhajanam

"Oh You whose round hips are decorated with a belt of dangling
flowers! Oh You whose charmingly thin waist is decorated by a belt of
tiny tinkling jeweled bells! Oh you, whose beautifully shaped legs
taper gracefully from Your thigh like the trunk of the king of
elephants! When, oh When will You make me the object of Your side-long
glance of causeless mercy?"

Then if Advaitis also agree Brahman Bimba and Jeeva Pratibimba are not
the same like Dvaitis why there is the argument? Because Advaitis say
Brahman and Jeeva are the same. How is it possible?

The whole Bimba Pratibimba  of Brahman's reflection in Antahkarana is
Avidyaakruta. It is produced from Ignorance. My dear Vaadiraaja kindly
read the Sutra 2-3-50 and the Bhashya also.

आभास एव च । 2-3-50 Adi Sankara has said clearly -
आभास एव च एष जीवः परस्यात्मनो जलसूर्यकादिवत्प्रतिपत्तव्यः, न स एव
साक्षात्, नापि वस्त्वन्तरम् ।  Translation by Swami Gambhirananda -
And it is to be understood that this individual soul is a reflection
of the supreme Self like the semblance of the sun in water. Not that
the soul is the Self Itself, nor is it something else.
आभासस्य च अविद्याकृतत्वात्तदाश्रयस्य संसारस्याविद्याकृतत्वोपपत्तिरिति,
तद्व्युदासेन च पारमार्थिकस्य ब्रह्मात्मभावस्योपदेशोपपत्तिः
And since a false appearance is a creation of Ignorance, it is but
logical that the transmigratory state centering round that appearance
must also be a creation of ignorance and hence the instruction is
logically proper that the identity of the soul with Brahman which is
the supreme reality is attained by eradicating that appearance.

The reflection of Brahman in Antahkarana is the Jeeva. But this is
accepted by Advaitis for Vyavahara only. The Antahkarana is a product
of Ignorance. The Paramarthika Satya is Brahman only without a Second.
In the Paramarthika reality there cannot be any Simile because Simile
always is between two things compared. But there is no Second thing to
compare in Brahman. Then what is the purpose of the Pratibimba Simile?
It is for instruction only.

Then why Adi Sankara is saying Asmat Inner and Yushmat Outer in the
Adhyasa Bhashya and the two are different. The Adhyasa itself is a
product of Ignorance. Adi Sankara is explaining Adhyasa in the
Vyavahara world only. In the Paramarthika Satya Brahman there is no
Adhyasa and no Inner and no Outer.

If Vaadiraaja asks what is the Sruti support for this? My dear
Vaadiraaja kindly read the Mandukya Upanishad 7 and Sankara Bhashya -

नान्तःप्रज्ञं नबहिःप्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं नप्रज्ञानघनं नप्रज्ञं
नाप्रज्ञम् । अदृश्यमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं
प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥ ७
॥
Translation by Swami Nikhilananda for first sentence -
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the internal world nor that
which is conscious of the external world nor that which is conscious
of both nor that which is a mass of all sentiency nor that which is
simple consciousness nor that which is insentient.

Therefore there is no Inner and no Outer thing in Brahman.

In 3-2-18 also Adi Sankara has not opposed anything the Sutrakara has
said. He has given Sruti examples to prove the Self is only One but
appears many like the Sun or Moon. If the Self is only One there is no
question of a Simile at all. But still why the Sutrakara is giving it?
For illustration only.  Kindly read the Bhashya.

अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्
यत एव च अयमात्मा चैतन्यरूपो निर्विशेषो वाङ्मनसातीतः
परप्रतिषेधोपदेश्यः, अत एव च अस्योपाधिनिमित्तामपारमार्थिकीं
विशेषवत्तामभिप्रेत्य जलसूर्यकादिवदित्युपमा उपादीयते मोक्षशास्त्रेषु —
‘यथा ह्ययं ज्योतिरात्मा विवस्वानपो भिन्न बहुधैकोऽनुगच्छन् । उपाधिना
क्रियते भेदरूपो देवः क्षेत्रेष्वेवमजोऽयमात्मा’ इति, ‘एक एव हि भूतात्मा
भूते भूते व्यवस्थितः । एकधा बहुधा चैव दृश्यते जलचन्द्रवत्’ (ब्र. बिं.
१२) इति चैवमादिषु ॥

Here the Bhashyakara has kept in mind the Sutra आभास एव च 2-3-50 also.
The reflection Simile of the Self is an appearance only. He is saying
clearly it is अपारमार्थिकीं and विशेषवत्ताम nor Paramartha reality and
having qualities.

As usual learned members may kindly give expert comments. The Dvaitis
say Vaadiraaja is not only a Philosopher but also a Poet. He is using
Poetical methods in criticism of Advaita. I am trying to bring some
Similes from my side also, but I am not a great Sanskrit scholar to
write poetry.

Commentary - Vaadiraaja plans to use a trick to prevent another six
the next ball. He makes a signal to a spectator to reflect sunlight
from a mirror to the batsman when he is playing the ball. Then he
starts running to bowl. But as he is running to bowl a cloud moves in
to cover the Sun. The mirror has no effect when Vaadiraaja bowls. The
Advaiti batsman comes forward and lifts the ball above the bowler's
head for another six.

-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh