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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Assuming that  my use of the word **locus** is incorrect, it does not
affect my understanding that in mirror illustration, as per VPS, there is
**bheda** (may be apparent) between object and image. Such is not the case
in jIva Brahma Aikya where the word ** प्रतिबिम्बो बिम्बाभिन्नः **
(pratibimbo bimbAbhinnaH) is used in Advaita Siddhi. That is my
understanding.

Regards

On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 11:04 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> Thank you ji.
>
> I heard that portion, but it does not appear to me to be a statement of
> the pratibimba *being* in the mirror, rather it is a statement of the
> pratibimba *appearing* in the mirror.
>
> Sri MDS clarifies this first by saying "rendaa pannaamalaye rendaa
> theriyum padiyaa panradhu", which means "without making them two, it makes
> it appear as though there are two".
>
> If the pratibimba was really in the mirror, the statement "rendaa
> pannaamalaye" would not be appropriate, because there would be two - the
> bimba, here, and the pratibimba, there (in the mirror).
>
> He then says "pratibimbamukham darpanathula irukku", which he immediately
> qualifies by saying "darpanathula theriyarudhu illiya", which means "the
> pratibimba is in the mirror - it appears to be in the mirror, does it
> not?", which only explains the bhrama vyavahAra of the pratibimba appearing
> in the mirror. It is not a statement of the pratibimba being in the mirror
> itself.
>
> Essentially the panchapAdikA / vivaraNa prakriyA of how the pratibimba
> appears, does not permit the pratibimba to be located in the mirror, *in
> fact*.
>
> The actual VPS text (दर्पणेन चैकमेव मुखबिम्बप्रतिबिम्बरूपेण विभज्यते) also
> uses the word darpaNa in the tritIyA (darpaNena) and not in the saptamI
> vibhakti (darpaNe) - indicating that the mirror is the instrument (karaNe
> tritIyA) for the pratibimba, not the locus (adhikaraNe saptamI) of the
> pratibimba.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 13:09 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>