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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,
Well, such an apparent bheda is true for jIva and Brahman too - the jIva
appears to be different to Brahman, when in reality he is Brahman.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 13:43 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>