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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

I understand the words bimba (  *original* object which is kept next to a
> mirror) and pratibimba (*reflected* object seen as though in the mirror)
> are  regarded as ontologically on par only from the cakShu-indriya point of
> view. In other words, the presence of the upAdhi ie mirror, leads to the
> *object*, now being referred to using two adjectives viz., *original
> object* and *reflected object*. The formed is mirror-upahita-object and
> mirror-vishiShTa-object. The qualifiers of "original" and "reflected" are
> both of the same order of reality as far as transactability by the eyes are
> concerned. Nobody is stretching this to other indriyAs like touch etc.
>

Couple of issues here:
1. kalpita-(mirror-sambandha)-vishishTa-object is pratibimba.
2. kalpita-(mirror-sambandha)-upahita-object is bimba.
3. Why do you say that "nobody is stretching this to other indriyAs like
touch etc." or "ontologically on par *only from the chkashu-indriya point
of view*"? Nothing of this sort is mentioned anywhere and why is it
required? Pratibimba and bimba are abhinna. So, it would be identity in all
respects. The differences seen in pratibimba are due to upAdhi. There is no
difference in the swarUpa of bimba and pratibimba.

For e.g. Chaitra sees Maitra and Maitra's pratibimba (due to a mirror
placed before Maitra). Maitra's face is towards east but Maitra's
pratibimba appears to be west-faced.

Please note, that west-faced-ness is upAdhi-krita. The location, material
of pratibimba is exactly that of bimba. You can touch the pratibimba (by
touching the bimba). The very same bimba is stated as pratibimba, on
account of kalpita-(upAdhi-sambandha).

This is the reason why, (and this fact is caught by the amicus curae, viz.,
> chatGPT quoted by Sri Michael, gave its own "generative" example), the
> "clay" gives rise to both "pot" and 'reflected pot".
>

My understanding is that bimba-pot and pratibimba-pot are the same.
upAdhi-antargata-tva is an Aropita-dharma.


> I think the contrast with rope snake as an example for abhAsavAda would
> better give the contrast where the sattA changes (order of reality is
> different). Can we say that in the bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNyam case, the
> words upAdhi, upahita, vishiShta would not apply? We can only say rope is
> the adhiShThAnam for the snake.
>

True. In AbhAsavAda, the AbhAsa is prAtibhAsika by its very swarUpa. So, it
is negated in entirety.

For e.g. let us take the redness-of-crystal which appears against the
backdrop of red flower. This redness-of-crystal is AbhAsa and not
pratibimba. And hence, this redness-of-crystal is prAtibhAsika. There is
creation of prAtibhAsika-redness-of-silver.

If a red-flower is placed before the mirror, then pratibimba is the
red-flower itself. And hence, it is a vyAvahArika-vastu. There is no
creation etc.

To conclude, I can see both the original and reflection at the same time
> (ontologically same w.r.t. visual perception. But I can't see the rope and
> snake at the same time (they are ontologically of different orders of
> reality.)
>

This rule may not cover all the cases of AbhAsa. For  example, you can see
both the red-flower and redness-of-crystal, the AbhAsa.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.