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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Please try following link for MDS talk.

// https://www.mediafire.com/file/lp7hnqrx3sdxazc/VPS+-+09.mp3 //.

Exact time is 3-00 hrs.

Regards

On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:18 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> I don't have the CDs of Sri MDS' talks that you refer to, but that is ok -
> if I do happen to get these in the future, will listen.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 12:42 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>
>> Reg  // Can I ask how you took the text above to mean that the bimba and
>> pratibimba are in different loci? //,
>>
>> Please refer to the talk by Sri MDS coverage of VPS, CD 9, Hrs 2-47
>> onwards.
>>
>> Reg  // is it that Brahman and jIva must be understood to be in
>> different loci because the bimba and pratibimba are in different loci?
>> //,
>>
>> No. I am not sure if you have seen my earlier post where I have cited
>> this part of VPS. It is that Brahman and jIva are in same loci while object
>> in front of mirror and image are in different loci (as noted above).
>>
>> Reg  // totally your prerogative //,
>>
>> I just want to limit the scope of the discussion. I presume the above
>> clarifications would suffice.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Chandramouli ji
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 11:54 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>>>
>>>> The view that ** the pratibimba itself is the bimba - ie they are
>>>> absolutely identical** does not affect my understanding in the current
>>>> context of how the word **abheda** needs to be understood in the context of
>>>> jIva Brahma Aikya vis-à-vis mirror-object reflection illustration. The two
>>>> can be identical, but if they are in different locations or loci, then
>>>> there is **bheda** between them to that extent.
>>>>
>>> I am not sure what you are suggesting here - is it that Brahman and jIva
>>> must be understood to be in different loci because the bimba and pratibimba
>>> are in different loci?
>>>
>>> This is stated in so many words in VivaraNa Prameya Samgraha itself
>>>> which I had cited earlier and copied below for immediate reference.
>>>>
>>>> Vivarana Prameya Samgraha  (edition with hindi commentary), page 214
>>>> states  //  ….दर्पणेन  चैकमेव मुखबिम्बप्रतिबिम्बरूपेण  विभज्यते …..//,
>>>>
>>>> // …..darpaNena  chaikameva mukhabimbapratibimbarUpeNa
>>>> vibhajyate….. //,
>>>>
>>>> Translation VPS (Prof Suryanarayana Shastri) page 129  // ……and by the
>>>> mirror the face which is but one is divided into prototype and reflection
>>>> ….//.
>>>>
>>> Can I ask how you took the text above to mean that the bimba and
>>> pratibimba are in different loci? Sure, the error is in assuming that the
>>> pratibimba is "in the mirror", but the bimba pratibimbavAda of the
>>> panchapAdikAkAra / vivaraNakAra does not admit that the pratibimba is,
>>> *in* *fact*, "in the mirror". Rather, it is the bimba itself that is
>>> seen as the pratibimba - meaning they are not in different loci.
>>>
>>> I have not checked in PanchapAdikA or VivaraNa separately. I have
>>>> assumed that VPS presents the views of these texts only even if Swami
>>>> Vidyaranya were to hold other views by himself.
>>>>
>>>> I am not going into debate over what the word **identical** means in
>>>> the context of this illustration. I am limiting myself to what the
>>>> commentaries state about **bheda** and **abheda** as between object and
>>>> image , and how they might be interpreted.
>>>>
>>> Again, I am not clear what you mean exactly by the above -  you do not
>>> want to debate the meaning of the word "identical", and that is fine and
>>> totally your prerogative, but then aren't you doing just that, when you are
>>> talking what the abheda between the object and image means in the
>>> commentaries, even if (I assume) you want to say that it does not mean
>>> "identical"?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>