[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji,

 I do not agree that Sanskrit terms are necessary to the extent that you
> use them. It may take a little longer to find a suitable way of expressing
> a concept but it is nearly always possible.
>

You are entitled to your opinion and consequent perseverance in that
direction. In this connection, please contemplate on the English words for
AbhAsa and pratibimba and also explain the difference between them. Please
note that AbhAsa-vAda and pratibimba-vAda are two well-defined prakriyAs in
VedAnta.


> I think that the problem is that you are using the metaphor in the reverse
> direction. I agree that the pratibimba ‘theory’ is used to show that the
> ‘reflected’ jIva is the same as the ‘original’ Brahman. But this does not
> mean that the reflection in a mirror is the same as the original, gross
> object. The aim of a metaphor is to enable the mind to make the leap to
> understand a conceptual problem. You should then drop it, not  use that
> understanding to rework the metaphor.
>

What is the difference between AbhAsa and pratibimba? In case of
pratibimba, it shares the identical ontological status as that of bimba
because it is the same as bimba. What's more, pratibimba
has बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्व, meaning -- it is not produced from something which
does not produce bimba. So, if bimba-pot is produced from clay, pratibimba
is not born from non-clay. Bimba and pratibimba have the same material,
please note.

Do not bring in the concept of optics learnt in standard ninth. The optics
chapter of Physics deals with light rays. Pratibimba of VedAnta deals with
chakshu-indriya. In optics, the reflection is of light rays. In pratibimba,
the reflection is of chakshu-indriya.

We have to understand the definition of the word pratibimba used in VedAnta.


> I am treating the term ‘bimba’ as the ‘original’ in the metaphor; and
> ‘pratibimba’ as the ‘reflection’ in the metaphor.
>

We should first understand the literal thing. Then only 'metaphor' can be
appreciated.


> From the perspective of the metaphor, we are not interested in jIva or
> Brahman.
>

In case of jIva-Brahman, the mechanism of chAkshush-pratibimba as in the
case of mirror-pot does not apply. However, the generic definition remains
validly applicable.


> I have not claimed that the reflection is ‘in’ the mirror. Of course it
> isn’t. The light rays are diverted by the coating behind the glass and
> reach the eyes in such a way that it appears as though the image is
> ‘inside’ the mirror. But the entire process is determined by the laws of
> optics and the functioning of the eyes.
>

But what about the swarUpa of pratibimba? Where is it located? What is it
made of? Is it made of avidyA, pancha-bhUta? What is it sir?


> I am sure that no one (since prehistoric times) ever believes that there
> is a concrete object behind the glass. You appear to be claiming that the
> light rays are literally the same as the source object. << Pratibimba is
> the same stuff which bimba is. The substance of bimba and pratibimba is the
> same.>>
>

You have not considered carefully what I said. I had not talked about
light-rays. Instead, I stated about chakshu-indriya. They are different.

upAdhi-stha-tva is an ArOpita-dharma which appears only in pratibimba
because upAdhi is pratibimba-paksha-pAti.

We can have clear understanding only when we use precise definitions for
words used.


> I cannot believe that you do not know all this and entirely agree with me.
> I can only conclude that you are using the impenetrable arguments of post-Śa
> ṅkara authors in order to win arguments.
>

You are entitled to draw erroneous conclusions sir. I have no comments to
offer thereupon.


> No one can refute them because no one can understand them.
>

I think the words "no one can" should be replaced by "I cannot". You can
only speak for yourself, especially when there is such a long smapradAya in
advaita.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.