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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram,

Similar to Putran ji (but aside from his point regarding framework &
vritti), I too have been trying to follow the discussion, but limited by my
Shastra knowledge; and more importantly have not actively contributed due
to my lack of Shastra evidence to reference my current understanding.

But, here we go.. To me, there are three levels of relationship between the
source and reflection.
1 - Independent utility
2 - Dependent existence
3 - Identical essence

A better example I would like to pick to illustrate this is the sunlight
reflected as moonlight.

1 - Independent utility: The independent utility of source (sunlight) and
its reflection (moonlight) is obvious to all. Sunlight illuminates daytime
whereas moonlight illuminates nighttime.
2 - Dependent existence: With knowledge of basic science we know that the
Moon doesn't have a light-source of its own. It merely reflects the Sun's
light. The existence of moonlight is borrowed from & completely dependent
on the sunlight. I would say that the relationship between them is
indescribable as identical or non-identical. Clearly moonlight is distinct
from sunlight in terms of its utility value (night vs day), but at the same
time, it is sunlight alone that actually provides that utility value as
moonlight!
3 - Identical essence: In terms of what actually moonlight is - it is
verily sunlight itself but observed as associated with a particular
conditioning factor (upadhi) moon. Outside of the upadhi and adhyasa, there
is actually no difference whatsoever between them. There is no moonlight
apart from "sunlight being labeled as moonlight". This is the fact.

All three are appropriate in their respective perspectives, and it is not a
question of which is right or wrong.

Now, what is the relative (within the context) ontological status of the
two - source (sunlight) and its reflection (moonlight)?

>From the perspective of the three relationships:
1 - Independent utility - the source and reflection share the ontological
status as independently real. But this is the empirical (utilitarian) view
or the view of the ignorant. Sunlight is distinctly real, visible during
daytime, and moonlight is distinctly real, visible predominantly during
nighttime. The eclipses happen distinctly as well.
2 - Dependent existence - the source is independently real whereas the
reflection is dependently real. The existence of source, within a limited
context, is dependent only on itself. Whereas the existence of reflection
is dependent on the source as well as the reflecting medium. From an
empirical perspective, it can be said that though the reflection is the
same as the source, their cognition don't share the exact same nature. The
reflection is always cognized to partake some aspect of the reflecting
medium, apart from the nature of the source. A sunflower follows the
sunlight during daytime but doesn't follow the moonlight during nighttime.
3 - Identical essence - Since the reflection and source are essentially
identical, there is no more any distinction or categorization even as a
source vs reflection. As one entity - sunlight - it is independently real
both in its true form and the reflected form. From the perspective of the
light, it knows no difference / distinction between the sunlight, moonlight
and the light eventually falling on the Earth.

To conclude my current understanding, it is appropriate from the respective
perspective to say that a) the reflection is identical to the source or b)
the reflection is non-identical (distinct) from the source or c) the
reflection has a relationship of identify-cum-difference with the source or
d) the reflection cannot be determined as identical or non-identical from
the source. However it is essential to mention the context of such a
relationship. (Reminds me of the Jaina view, partially!)

>From an absolute truth / fact perspective, it is the source alone, when not
even labeled as the source.

prostrations,
Vikram


On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:34 AM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram Dennis-ji,
>
> I cannot say I understand all this and like you miss a lot of the content
> due to the heavy sanskrit, but I did wonder whether bimba=pratibimba could
> be explained in an acceptable manner via the traditional perception theory.
> In that framework, the subtle eye reflects (?) off the mirror and unites
> with the actual object (bimba) - except there is a mental illusion due to
> the vritti of the bimba being superimposed into the vritti of mirror, and
> we see the bimba as if a distinct pratibimba inside the mirror.
>
> thollmelukaalkizhu
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:28 AM <dwaite at advaita.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dear Aurobind ( and Sudhanshu by proxy – I have ceased further
>> communication since my requests are always ignored),
>>
>>
>>
>> No – I don’t agree with you. What you say implies that we could solve all
>> the problems of hunger in the world by presenting the starving with daily
>> videos displaying food, and inviting them to eat all they wanted. The
>> images are clearly of real food, which cannot be ‘constructed’ out of light
>> rays, you say. The mechanism may differ but the cause is the same. So, as
>> you say, the effect must be identical. We just need to ensure that the food
>> that we film for the videos is good quality and not tainted in any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is no one else joining in with this ridiculous discussion? Am I the
>> only one ‘deluded’ by common-sense reasoning in this group?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* advaitin at googlegroups.com <advaitin at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf
>> Of *Aurobind Padiyath
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2024 12:20 PM
>> *To:* advaitin at googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Dennis,
>>
>> Hari Om,
>>
>> Your words "The jar in the mirror is NOT made of mud." needs to be
>> analysed. Is there a jar inside the mirror? Yes -visible to my senses,
>> hence perception. What is the jar made of?- same as the original one. Can
>> light rays be the material cause for the formation of a jar? No - because
>> the cause and its effect are identical. What comes out of mud can be only
>> mud in the same way what comes out of light can only be light. Then what is
>> the jar made of ? the same material of the jar it is reflecting.
>>
>> Now reflection is the nature of the mirror and not of the jar, therefore
>> the jar in the mirror is a "conditioned jar" of the original jar. The
>> conditioning will depend on the qualities of the mirror and its behaviours.
>> It cannot generate a jar nor alter the nature of the original jar. These
>> are the rules of reflection.
>>
>> The science of reflection you refer to is the behavioural pattern of the
>> mirror and it does not generate another jar inside the mirror.
>>
>> Hope you agree with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hari Om
>>
>>
>> Aurobind Padiyath
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 at 17:35, <dwaite at advaita.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Aurobind,
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand the opposing position, and I have agreed that the metaphor
>> helps to explain the identity of jIva and Brahman. But what you say here –
>> “If it's made of mud the same applies to the jar in the mirror” –
>> highlights the issue well. The jar in the mirror is NOT made of mud. You
>> could say that it is ‘made’ of light rays I suppose but it does not have
>> any actual existence at all, being merely an artifact produced by the
>> lawful functioning of electromagnetic radiation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* advaitin at googlegroups.com <advaitin at googlegroups.com> *On Behalf
>> Of *Aurobind Padiyath
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2024 10:29 AM
>> *To:* advaitin at googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
>>
>>
>>
>> Hari Om Dennis,
>>
>>
>>
>> If I may try to break the impasse, I will try.
>>
>>
>>
>> The difference between the two of you is in the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> You are saying that the jar in the mirror is not real even for
>> transaction and hence your stand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sudhanshu is saying that the jar has no separate reality other than that
>> of the original jar. If it's made of mud the same applies to the jar in the
>> mirror. If the original one is broken the one in the mirror will also be as
>> broken. If it's getting filled with water or milk the same applies to the
>> jar in the mirror. Hence the two are sharing only one reality. But appears
>> as two due to the mirror (upAdhi). There's never a real or apparent jar in
>> the mirror without the original jar. There's always only One.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aurobind
>>
>>
>>