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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Response:

Yes, it is indeed stated so.  However, in the very next sentence starting
from 'tathaapi' the observed fact of taking one to be the other, adhyāsa,
is also stated.



> 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.
>

The parā, 'outside, is nothing but the adhyasta anātma.  When the correct
realization arises, it is of the nature: what was wrongly
perceived/understood as the anātmā (body-mind) (pratibimba), is actually
the ātmā, the Pure Consciousness. This is called bādhāyām
sāmānādhikaraṇyam.  Shankara has given this example in the BGB 4.24:

ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति
पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ;
तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति । ‘ब्रह्म
अर्पणम्’ इति असमस्ते पदे । यत् अर्पणबुद्ध्या गृह्यते लोके तत् अस्य
ब्रह्मविदः ब्रह्मैव इत्यर्थः ।  The gist of the above is: 'That which was
wrongly seen/grasped as silver, is actually the shell.'  Thus, that which
was wrongly seen as different (elements of a yāga, in this BG example)
entities, nānātva, is actually the One Brahman.  So, the entire 'yuṣmat',
the 'outside', including the pratibimba, is actually the asmat, the bimba,
upon enquiry.  Hence there is no contradction or any otherdefect in the
adhyāsa bhāṣya to the siddhānta.

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.
>

The above is not in line with the advaitic view of the BSB on the upama.
Shankara takes that adhikarṇa to be deciding that the Upanishadic Brahman
is nirguna, adviteeya.  All bheda is negated by the upanishads themselves.
He has provided several such passages in the adhikarana bhashya.  And takes
the 'ata eva cha upamā sūryakādivat' to teach: It is only because the
Upanishadic Brahman is adviteeya and nirguna, the Upanishad is giving the
example of the sun and its reflections in many water-mediums.  The two
quotes Shankara gives in the bhashyam are themselves teaching that the
bheda is created due to upādhis.  Hence, the sutra is not at all to teach
the bimba-pratibimba bheda.  On the other hand it is teaching the
adviteeyatva of the bimba.  When the aupādhika bheda is given up by
realizing the illusory nature of the upadhis, what is left is the
secondless Brahman (no second entity of any kind: sajātīya, vijātīya and
svagata bheda).

 .

> 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?
>

All this arises because of not taking the overall view of the adhikarana
consisting of several sutras.  One can argue in the above manner even with
respect to the 'advaita shrutis' where the views of the Advaitin and the
Dvaitin with respect to these shrutis are completely different.  In any
case the two scriptural passages that Shankara cites settle the issue for
the Advaitins.

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 ॥

In the above, the first passage is not identified so far while the second
one is referenced as from Brahmabindūpaniṣad.  The unreality, aupādhikatva,
of bheda, duality, is what is taught in those passages.  Shankara gives the
first one to exactly match the wording of the sutra; sūryaka is reflection,
vat = yathā, indiciating the upamā bhāva. In the second passage it is
chandra's reflection instead of the surya's.


regards
subrahmanian.v




> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>