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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Key Sanskrit words are not translateable by simplistic single word english
substitutions.  It's not logical to expect it to be so. At best, a really
longer elaborate passage might explain some of these Sanskrit words.

What's french for quarks, bosons and leptons? What english for
'schadenfreude'! We borrow them and use them. Same goes for key Sanskrit
words.

At the most, Sudhanshu ji, there are longer compounds used in your posts
referenced from bRhat-prasthAnam etc., which can prove challenging.

Your interlocutor Mr. Denis just said something that's quite incoherent.
> I cannot believe that you do not know all this and entirely agree with me
(sic).
> I can only conclude that you are using the impenetrable arguments of
post-Śaṅkara authors in order to win arguments.
>

His flagging the difficulty in following Sanskrit-heavy syllogisms is
understandable.
But do hope he grows up and avoids such hominem attacks.

I appreciate your patience with such non-sequiturs.

Om




On Thu, 21 Nov, 2024, 2:37 pm Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

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