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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Thank you for your continued challenges.
>

I am just sharing my considered understanding.


> This passage explores the distinction between *Abhāsa* (appearance) and
> *Pratibimba* (reflection) in philosophical terms, focusing on their
> nature and origins:
>
>    1.
>
>    *Pratibimba (Reflection)*:
>    - A *pratibimba* (reflection) shares the *same ontological status* as
>       the *bimba* (original object). In simple terms, the reflection and
>       the original are intimately connected in their nature and source.
>       - The idea of *बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्व* means that a reflection
>       (pratibimba) is produced only by something capable of producing the
>       original object (bimba). For example:
>          - If a clay pot is the original object (*bimba*), the reflection
>          of the pot (*pratibimba*) cannot originate from something
>          entirely different, like water. Both the original and the reflection are
>          tied to the same material source—in this case, clay.
>       2.
>
>    *Key Distinction with Abhāsa (Appearance)*:
>    - Unlike pratibimba, *abhāsa* refers to an *appearance* or a mere
>       *semblance*, which does not necessarily share the same ontological
>       reality or material origin as the original object. It is more like an
>       illusion or an impression rather than a true reflection.
>
> Satisfactory work by your partner Chatgpt.

> MCC comment: Somehow hidden in all your positions is a bhavarupa avidya.
>
Of course. That is the basic premise of VedAnta. However, please note that
bhAvarUpA avidyA is both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. The word
bhAva contains within its ambit Brahman and non-abhAva avidyA-kArya. The
word abhAva contains within its ambit nirvishesha-abhAva and
abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya.

> Chat revealed it in determining "pratibimva is real" as opposed to a mere
> 'semblance' or appearance.
>
The only reality of rope/snake is rope. Snake has no existence - it is
> neither a borrowed, temporary, nor reflected reality.
>
True. There is a tAdAtmya-with-existence which is born along with snake.
When snake is born, tAdAtmya-with-existence is also born. आरोप्योत्पत्ति
कालोत्पन्नतादात्म्यापन्नं सत्सन्घट इति प्रत्यये अपरोक्षतया भाति .

> By confirming an existence to what appears, something must occur that
> destroys appearance to enable nonduality.
>
Not necessarily. If the existence stated to belong to appearance is the
existence of the reality. So, even if "prAtibhAsika sattA" is stated to
belong to snake, it is not contradictory to advaita because
prAtibhAsika-sattA is defined as
avasthA-ajnAna-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.

> Rather, appearance is a false notion of what is ever existing.
>
Does false notion exist? Or it does not exist?

You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is false
notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a false
notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.

> There never was a snake, just a wrong notion about the rope. Sudoku solved!
>
You have only arrived at an infinite regress.

Nothing to state with respect to the verses you shared. They are all good.
Should be understood in accordance with sampradAya.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.