'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
V Subrahmanian
Sudhanshu Shekhar
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
I know you have previously ignored my request for you to explain your contentions in English but no harm in trying again! 😉
Could you explain (in English) how the image in the mirror (which I simplistically understand pratibimba to be metaphorically) has the same ontological status as the original (bimba in the metaphor)?
Best wishes,
Dennis
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I know you have previously ignored my request for you to explain your contentions in English but no harm in trying again! 😉
Could you explain (in English) how the image in the mirror (which I simplistically understand pratibimba to be metaphorically) has the same ontological status as the original (bimba in the metaphor)?
Sureshwaracharya says, which is quoted in Advaita SIddhi - दर्पणाभिहता दृष्टिः परावृत्त्य स्वमाननम् । व्याप्नुवन्त्याभिमुख्येन व्यत्यस्तं दर्शयेन्मुखम् ॥ (BBV 1.4.618).
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
There still seems to be an awful lot of Sanskrit in your English explanation – even Devanagari! I scanned through your attachment but did not spot a simple explanation for my concern.
Since the image is caused by the physical operation of light rays alone (laws of Ishvara if you like), and has no gross substance of its own, how can it have the same ontological status as the gross physical object which is being reflected? If you are looking in the mirror and someone fires a disintegrating ray gun at you, the image in the mirror does indeed also disappear. But if the glass in the mirror is smashed, you are quite unaffected. This, to me, indicates that you and your image have an indisputably different ontological status.
Can you explain your position without using a single Sanskrit term or reference to Advaita Siddhi?
Best wishes,
Dennis
.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I scanned through your attachment but did not spot a simple explanation for my concern.
Since the image is caused by the physical operation of light rays alone (laws of Ishvara if you like), and has no gross substance of its own, how can it have the same ontological status as the gross physical object which is being reflected?
If you are looking in the mirror and someone fires a disintegrating ray gun at you, the image in the mirror does indeed also disappear. But if the glass in the mirror is smashed, you are quite unaffected. This, to me, indicates that you and your image have an indisputably different ontological status.
Can you explain your position without using a single Sanskrit term or reference to Advaita Siddhi?
Bandaru Viswanath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002001db3b5d%2465cd1ce0%24316756a0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
I do not agree that Sanskrit terms are necessary to the extent that you use them. It may take a little longer to find a suitable way of expressing a concept but it is nearly always possible.
I think that the problem is that you are using the metaphor in the reverse direction. I agree that the pratibimba ‘theory’ is used to show that the ‘reflected’ jIva is the same as the ‘original’ Brahman. But this does not mean that the reflection in a mirror is the same as the original, gross object. The aim of a metaphor is to enable the mind to make the leap to understand a conceptual problem. You should then drop it, not use that understanding to rework the metaphor.
I am treating the term ‘bimba’ as the ‘original’ in the metaphor; and ‘pratibimba’ as the ‘reflection’ in the metaphor. From the perspective of the metaphor, we are not interested in jIva or Brahman. I have not claimed that the reflection is ‘in’ the mirror. Of course it isn’t. The light rays are diverted by the coating behind the glass and reach the eyes in such a way that it appears as though the image is ‘inside’ the mirror. But the entire process is determined by the laws of optics and the functioning of the eyes. I am sure that no one (since prehistoric times) ever believes that there is a concrete object behind the glass. You appear to be claiming that the light rays are literally the same as the source object. << Pratibimba is the same stuff which bimba is. The substance of bimba and pratibimba is the same.>>
I cannot believe that you do not know all this and entirely agree with me. I can only conclude that you are using the impenetrable arguments of post-Śaṅkara authors in order to win arguments. No one can refute them because no one can understand them.
Best wishes,
Dennis
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Viswanath-ji,
Obviously, in order to understand shAstra, one has to understand Sanskrit extremely well. This is why seekers really ought to go to a qualified teacher in order to learn Advaita. Unfortunately, most Western seekers (at least) do not know Sanskrit and have no access to a qualified teacher. They are obliged to read books and listen to talks written/given by someone who IS qualified. And these books and talks have to explain things in the language of the seeker. Some books do this very well; others less so. But it is certainly possible!
I also disagree with your example. Many years ago, I worked on a complex military communication system, involving many software disciplines – databases, security, packet switching etc. For a period of a year or so, I had to interview and speak to engineers in all these disciplines and understand how the software worked, in order that I could produce a readable manual to explain each of the fields to the other areas who had to understand sufficient to enable them to interface. It was difficult, but certainly possible. Advaita is about our Self and the world that we (think) we know, not something entirely alien. Easy peasy!
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Bandaru Viswanath
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 4:06 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
Nothing personal, but if you want to understand the "siddhanta" then no sanskrit is required, but if you want to understand the "shastra", I can't see how one can escape without understanding sanskrit. I am referring to the Indian shastras in particular.
It is similar to someone asking me to explain how technically a datacenter works without using english, or the networking paribhasha.
My observation, since I have seen this request made before.
Thanks
Viswanath
.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I do not agree that Sanskrit terms are necessary to the extent that you use them. It may take a little longer to find a suitable way of expressing a concept but it is nearly always possible.
I think that the problem is that you are using the metaphor in the reverse direction. I agree that the pratibimba ‘theory’ is used to show that the ‘reflected’ jIva is the same as the ‘original’ Brahman. But this does not mean that the reflection in a mirror is the same as the original, gross object. The aim of a metaphor is to enable the mind to make the leap to understand a conceptual problem. You should then drop it, not use that understanding to rework the metaphor.
I am treating the term ‘bimba’ as the ‘original’ in the metaphor; and ‘pratibimba’ as the ‘reflection’ in the metaphor.
From the perspective of the metaphor, we are not interested in jIva or Brahman.
I have not claimed that the reflection is ‘in’ the mirror. Of course it isn’t. The light rays are diverted by the coating behind the glass and reach the eyes in such a way that it appears as though the image is ‘inside’ the mirror. But the entire process is determined by the laws of optics and the functioning of the eyes.
I am sure that no one (since prehistoric times) ever believes that there is a concrete object behind the glass. You appear to be claiming that the light rays are literally the same as the source object. << Pratibimba is the same stuff which bimba is. The substance of bimba and pratibimba is the same.>>
I cannot believe that you do not know all this and entirely agree with me. I can only conclude that you are using the impenetrable arguments of post-Śaṅkara authors in order to win arguments.
No one can refute them because no one can understand them.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji
Hare Krishna
<< Pratibimba is the same stuff which bimba is. The substance of bimba and pratibimba is the same.>>
- I am just wondering how can I fetch the water from the pratibimba ‘pot’?? if both bimba and pratibimba are having the same substance and both are one and the same!!?? Same type of weird arguments I had read when I read about the existence of hare’s horn and barren woman’s son in some context. So as per some, there are chances that hare’s horn is used to kill the barren woman’s son on the stage of Gagana Kusuma 😊 BTW, I have stopped reading these type of arguments long time back as these arguments are plainly doused in dry logics and hardly care to cope with our experience.
No one can refute them because no one can understand them.
- I am also one of those ‘no one’ 😊 Others are easily can understand the statements from the brilliant logician’s desk like : , if bimba-pot is produced from clay, pratibimba is not born from non-clay. Bimba and pratibimba have the same material !!
- After reading this and with the conviction of logicians arguments, I am going to offer the darpaNAbharaNa (pratibimba of AbharaNa) which I see in jewelry shop to my wife and present the arguments like above 😊 Anyway, these arguments are not for me, a dull wit.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
BTW, the subject heading of this thread is quite interesting. What best explanation the author of this article, would going to offer about Advaita’s famous slogan i.e. : jeevO brahmaiva na aparaH, if jeeva is mithya?? When I said, when the brahma is the only satya why we should not say both jeeva and jagat are mithya??!! There was huge roar from all corners of this group that : NO NO, jeeva is brahman and jagat cannot be said like that!! Despite the fact that shruti itself says jagat is also brahman 😊
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I am just wondering how can I fetch the water from the pratibimba ‘pot’?? if both bimba and pratibimba are having the same substance and both are one and the same!!??
Same type of weird arguments I had read when I read about the existence of hare’s horn and barren woman’s son in some context.
So as per some, there are chances that hare’s horn is used to kill the barren woman’s son on the stage of Gagana Kusuma 😊
BTW, I have stopped reading these type of arguments long time back as these arguments are plainly doused in dry logics and hardly care to cope with our experience.
- After reading this and with the conviction of logicians arguments, I am going to offer the darpaNAbharaNa (pratibimba of AbharaNa) which I see in jewelry shop to my wife and present the arguments like above 😊 Anyway, these arguments are not for me, a dull wit.
Michael Chandra Cohen
This passage explores the distinction between Abhāsa (appearance) and Pratibimba (reflection) in philosophical terms, focusing on their nature and origins:
-
Pratibimba (Reflection):
- A pratibimba (reflection) shares the same ontological status as the bimba (original object). In simple terms, the reflection and the original are intimately connected in their nature and source.
- The idea of बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्व means that a reflection (pratibimba) is produced only by something capable of producing the original object (bimba). For example:
- If a clay pot is the original object (bimba), the reflection of the pot (pratibimba) cannot originate from something entirely different, like water. Both the original and the reflection are tied to the same material source—in this case, clay.
-
Key Distinction with Abhāsa (Appearance):
- Unlike pratibimba, abhāsa refers to an appearance or a mere semblance, which does not necessarily share the same ontological reality or material origin as the original object. It is more like an illusion or an impression rather than a true reflection.
Simplified Meaning:
- A reflection (pratibimba) is real and dependent on the original object (bimba) because they are connected and share the same material reality.
- For example, the reflection of a pot in a mirror is considered a pratibimba, and both the pot and its reflection are connected through the materiality of the pot (clay).
- On the other hand, an abhāsa (appearance) is like an illusion or a semblance that may look similar to the pot but does not share the same material or reality as the pot.
This explanation emphasizes that a reflection (pratibimba) is not random but deeply tied to its source, both materially and ontologically.
MCC comment: Somehow hidden in all your positions is a bhavarupa avidya. Chat revealed it in determining "pratibimva is real" as opposed to a mere 'semblance' or appearance. The only reality of rope/snake is rope. Snake has no existence - it is neither a borrowed, temporary, nor reflected reality. By confirming an existence to what appears, something must occur that destroys appearance to enable nonduality. Rather, appearance is a false notion of what is ever existing. There never was a snake, just a wrong notion about the rope. Sudoku solved!
The reflection of the face in the
mirror is a property (dharma) neither of the mirror nor
of the face. If it were a property of either of them, it
would persist in one or other of them when the two
were parted. US18.37
Thus the Veda and reasoning point to a Self, a reflection (abhasa) thereof and a receptacle for that reflection on the analogy of the face, its reflection and the receptacle for that reflection—and also to the unreality of the reflection. US18.43
And in the same way the mind, acquiring a reflection (abhasa)
of consciousness, appears to be consciousness,
just as a reflection (abhasa) of a face in a
mirror appears to be the face. And a reflection is said to
be illusory. US18.87
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625B4B234580AA3438B03BF84222%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
BTW, the subject heading of this thread is quite interesting. What best explanation the author of this article, would going to offer about Advaita’s famous slogan i.e. : jeevO brahmaiva na aparaH, if jeeva is mithya??
When I said, when the brahma is the only satya why we should not say both jeeva and jagat are mithya??!!
There was huge roar from all corners of this group that : NO NO, jeeva is brahman and jagat cannot be said like that!! Despite the fact that shruti itself says jagat is also brahman 😊
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Thank you for your continued challenges.
This passage explores the distinction between Abhāsa (appearance) and Pratibimba (reflection) in philosophical terms, focusing on their nature and origins:
Pratibimba (Reflection):
- A pratibimba (reflection) shares the same ontological status as the bimba (original object). In simple terms, the reflection and the original are intimately connected in their nature and source.
- The idea of बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्व means that a reflection (pratibimba) is produced only by something capable of producing the original object (bimba). For example:
- If a clay pot is the original object (bimba), the reflection of the pot (pratibimba) cannot originate from something entirely different, like water. Both the original and the reflection are tied to the same material source—in this case, clay.
Key Distinction with Abhāsa (Appearance):
- Unlike pratibimba, abhāsa refers to an appearance or a mere semblance, which does not necessarily share the same ontological reality or material origin as the original object. It is more like an illusion or an impression rather than a true reflection.
MCC comment: Somehow hidden in all your positions is a bhavarupa avidya.
Chat revealed it in determining "pratibimva is real" as opposed to a mere 'semblance' or appearance.
The only reality of rope/snake is rope. Snake has no existence - it is neither a borrowed, temporary, nor reflected reality.
By confirming an existence to what appears, something must occur that destroys appearance to enable nonduality.
Rather, appearance is a false notion of what is ever existing.
You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is false notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a false notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.
There never was a snake, just a wrong notion about the rope. Sudoku solved!
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Sorry for the interruption.
Reg // One does not need to be a great logician to appreciate प्रतिबिम्बो बिम्बाभिन्नः, बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्वात्। It is substantiated by evidence //,
I certainly seem to be missing out on something .
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 ….//.
This appears to be contradictory to the above copied from your post. Can you please clarify.
Regards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCAykX7c8B1_8beT3ub%2Bm-M4XHXwjWz%3DunWABH1BwooKw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Reg // One does not need to be a great logician to appreciate प्रतिबिम्बो बिम्बाभिन्नः, बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्वात्। It is substantiated by evidence //,
I certainly seem to be missing out on something .
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 ….//.
This appears to be contradictory to the above copied from your post. Can you please clarify.
Michael Chandra Cohen
abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya
आरोप्योत्पत्ति
कालोत्पन्नतादात्म्यापन्नं सत्सन्घट इति प्रत्यये अपरोक्षतया भाति .
"The arising of superimposition (āropya-utpatti)
is experienced directly (aparokṣatayā) in the cognition 'a pot exists' (sat-san-ghaṭa iti pratyaye),
where the pot (ghaṭa), produced in time (kāla-utpanna),
is assumed to have identity (tādātmya) with existence (sat)."
Not Sankara, I'd bet, more likely, Vedanta Paribhasa? If you assume time, you already assume superimposition.
avasthA-ajnAna-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.
Chaitanya limited? A wrong notion does not affect the Self - no need to delimit the Self. AvasthA itself is a waking notion. Does Chaitanya experience different states really? The notion of avastha appears only to one that assumes waking to be the reality of all the states.
You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is false
notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a false
notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.
Correct though handled by Bhasyakara & Sureswara in several places and no less incomprehensible than the finite Vedas teaching the Absolute
BSbh4.1.3
"If the opponent were to say—“Who in that case, is the
one, that is in ignorance i.e. in need of such realization ?”, we reply—It is
you yourself, who are asking this question."US 18.44-6
US 18.44-6
44. (Objection): Who is the experiencer of transmigratory existence as it cannot belong to the Self which is changeless, neither to the reflection, which is not real nor to the ego which is not a conscious entity?
45. (Reply) Let the transmigratory condition then is only a delusion due to the indiscrimination (between the Self and the non-Self). It always has an (apparent) existence due to the real existence of the changeless Self and, therefore, appears to be pertaining to it.
46. Just as a rope-snake (a rope mistaken for a snake), though unreal, has an existence due to that of the rope before the discrimination between the rope and the snake takes place; so, the transmigratory condition, though unreal, is possessed of an existence due to that of the changeless Self.
Sures. Tait Vart2.8
AvidyA which appears to be well-established in our experience is not really established by any pramAna. Thought is prasiddha, it is not pramAna prasiddha (Balasub. Comm)
Suresvara NS 3.66
seyam bhAntir nirAlambA sarva-nyAya-virodhInI
shate na vicAram sA tamo ya-vad divAkaram
This ignorance is without a cause and violates all rules and reasons. It no more brooks investigation than darkness brooks the light of the sun.
Also see: US prose 2; B.Gita13.2
"The Shastra. which comes into operation before (prāk) the realization of such nature of the Self (tathābhūtātma vijñānāt) does not exceed its jurisdiction of being concerned only with that which (viṣayatvaṁ na ativartate) is affected by Nescience (avidyāvad). For the scriptural passages such as ‘A Brahmana should sacrifice’ (“brāhmaṇo yajeta”) are operative on th notion that on the Self are superimposed (viśeṣa adhyāsam āśritya pravartante)"
Namaste Michael ji.
Thank you for your continued challenges.
>
I am just sharing my considered understanding.
> This passage explores the distinction between *Abhāsa* (appearance) and
> *Pratibimba* (reflection) in philosophical terms, focusing on their
> nature and origins:
>
> 1.
>
> *Pratibimba (Reflection)*:
> - A *pratibimba* (reflection) shares the *same ontological status* as
> the *bimba* (original object). In simple terms, the reflection and
> the original are intimately connected in their nature and source.
> - The idea of *बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्व* means that a reflection
> (pratibimba) is produced only by something capable of producing the
> original object (bimba). For example:
> - If a clay pot is the original object (*bimba*), the reflection
> of the pot (*pratibimba*) cannot originate from something
> entirely different, like water. Both the original and the reflection are
> tied to the same material source—in this case, clay.
> 2.
>
> *Key Distinction with Abhāsa (Appearance)*:
> - Unlike pratibimba, *abhāsa* refers to an *appearance* or a mere
> *semblance*, which does not necessarily share the same ontological
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
Raghav Kumar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
Raghav Kumar
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 at 7:38 pm, Raghav Kumar<raghav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Namaste Sudhanshu jiI 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.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".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.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.)OmRaghav
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Thanks for the clarification.
Reg// Same mukha is then stated as bimba and Pratibimba//,
The bheda mentioned in VPS, I think, pertains to the different locations for the two, namely bimba and pratibimba. I checked with the quote from AS cited by you ** प्रतिबिम्बो बिम्बाभिन्नः ** (pratibimbo bimbAbhinnaH). It is in the context of jIva Brahma aikya wherein the loci are the same.
Anyway, I don’t intend to participate in the debate. Since prima facie I found the VPS citation by me appeared to be contrary to your contention, I just sought for the clarification. I still feel they are contradictory. However I will try to figure out for myself if there is any misunderstanding on my part. At present it seems very unlikely.
Thanks once again.
RegardsV Subrahmanian
Namaste.BTW, the subject heading of this thread is quite interesting. What best explanation the author of this article, would going to offer about Advaita’s famous slogan i.e. : jeevO brahmaiva na aparaH, if jeeva is mithya??
Same as स्थाणुरयं पुरुषः. JIva is the ghost, Brahman is the post. Simple! This is called bAdhAyAm-sAmAnAdhikaraNya and is admitted in AbhAsavAda explained by Bhagvan VartikakAra. VedAnta 101!!
ऋभुप्रोक्तं नामरूपनिषेधनिरूपणम्
(नाहम्)
नाहं जीवो न मे भेदो नाहं चिन्ता न मे मनः ।
नाहं मांसं न मेऽस्थीनि नाहङ्कारकलेवरः ॥ २२.३४॥
अवधूतगीता https://sa.wikisource.org/s/j
न घटो न घटाकाशो न जीवो न जीवविग्रहः।
केवलं ब्रह्म संविद्धि वेद्यवेदकवर्जितम्॥३२॥
When I said, when the brahma is the only satya why we should not say both jeeva and jagat are mithya??!!
Jagat is mithyA is accepted in whole of VedAnta. There is no VedAnta if one says jagat is pAramArthika-satya.JIva is satya in pratibimbavAda being pratibimba. Here tat-tvam-asi is mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNaya.JIva is mithyA in AbhAsavAda. Here tat-tvam-asi is bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya.Jagat is mithyA in all prakriyAs. So, sarvam-Brahman is always bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya.There was huge roar from all corners of this group that : NO NO, jeeva is brahman and jagat cannot be said like that!! Despite the fact that shruti itself says jagat is also brahman 😊
Sir ji. Jagat is also Brahman -- just as sthAnu is purusha.Regards.Sudhanshu Shekhar.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBUdO_XYheoDp_nKY3AZoEsBqbWcsTEmHrxbqQxnB%2B%2Brw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bandaru Viswanath
Dear Viswanath-ji,
Obviously, in order to understand shAstra, one has to understand Sanskrit extremely well. This is why seekers really ought to go to a qualified teacher in order to learn Advaita. Unfortunately, most Western seekers (at least) do not know Sanskrit and have no access to a qualified teacher. They are obliged to read books and listen to talks written/given by someone who IS qualified. And these books and talks have to explain things in the language of the seeker. Some books do this very well; others less so. But it is certainly possible!
I also disagree with your example. Many years ago, I worked on a complex military communication system, involving many software disciplines – databases, security, packet switching etc. For a period of a year or so, I had to interview and speak to engineers in all these disciplines and understand how the software worked, in order that I could produce a readable manual to explain each of the fields to the other areas who had to understand sufficient to enable them to interface. It was difficult, but certainly possible.
Advaita is about our Self and the world that we (think) we know, not something entirely alien. Easy peasy!
Sudhanshu Shekhar
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.
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".
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.
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.)
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
I think you are missing the point. I am saying that it is virtually impossible for a seeker to learn Sanskrit to the level necessary to be able to understand shAstra and commentators. For the writers of those texts, Sanskrit was their everyday language and they understood all of its nuances. Who, today, routinely speaks the language? I suggest that the vast majority of seekers (including Indians) are obliged to rely upon someone who does know Sanskrit reasonably well to translate and interpret into their own spoken language.
Yes, I agree, that seekers are looking to understand the ‘bottom line’ rather than the original messages of the Vedas etc. They rightly want what is possible rather than what is impossible.
You seem to be suggesting that the purpose of this group is not for seekers to learn about Advaita but to argue (in Sanskrit) whether an author meant this or that by use of a particular word. Maybe that was/is the way that Advaita-L group operates but that is precisely the reason why the Advaitin group was established (Ram-ji will correct me if I am wrong) – not to get bogged down in ‘technical’ details but to discuss, in English, what the texts are telling us, so that ‘ordinary’ seekers may still have access to this knowledge.
It is not that I “don’t want to understand Sanskrit”. Indeed, I wish that I had had the opportunity (and desire) to study it at school and university. But I accept now that the best I can do is to read the Devanagari script (slowly), and look words up in a dictionary. I become familiar with many of the terms simply from extensive reading. This enables me, for example, to determine that sometimes even respected teachers will translate original texts according their pre-existing beliefs rather than according to what was actually written in the original!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/3286088f-cb29-4291-a568-c51bfb963041n%40googlegroups.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
I will make one final attempt!
You say in your last post: “If a red-flower is placed before the mirror, then pratibimba is the red-flower itself. And hence, it is a vyAvahArika-vastu.”
Similarly, then, I could place a meat pie in front of the mirror and tell you that, since the pie in the mirror is the pie itself, that is the one that you must eat for your dinner. You may not touch the one that is in front of the mirror. It is surrounded by a force field that is transparent to light but will chop off your hand if you attempt to put it through it. Will you enjoy the mirror-image pie, (and presumably watch the ‘real’ one disappearing simultaneously), or will you go without any dinner?
Please – no Sanskrit or Advaita Siddhi etc!
Best wishes,
Dennis
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Similarly, then, I could place a meat pie in front of the mirror and tell you that, since the pie in the mirror is the pie itself, that is the one that you must eat for your dinner. You may not touch the one that is in front of the mirror. It is surrounded by a force field that is transparent to light but will chop off your hand if you attempt to put it through it. Will you enjoy the mirror-image pie, (and presumably watch the ‘real’ one disappearing simultaneously), or will you go without any dinner?
Please – no Sanskrit or Advaita Siddhi etc!
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
But bimba and pratibimba in the metaphor are NOT identical, as per my claim. That is the point of my extension of the metaphor. It seems we have an impasse.
I must say that I cannot see how you can claim that moving your hand to the mirror is the same as moving your hand to the pie. Are you also saying that the opposite directions are the same??
Best wishes,
Dennis
P.S. You can replace pie by a mango, if it makes you feel less queasy.
Aurobind Padiyath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002a01db3cc4%2415b6f510%244124df30%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
SiddhAnta Bindu says - प्रतिबिम्बस्य पारमार्थिकत्वात् जहदजहल्लक्षणैव तत्त्वमादिपदेषु। (For VivaraNa and Samkshepa ShArIraka, who uphold pratibimba-vAda)
Sudhanshu Shekhar
But bimba and pratibimba in the metaphor are NOT identical, as per my claim. That is the point of my extension of the metaphor. It seems we have an impasse.
I must say that I cannot see how you can claim that moving your hand to the mirror is the same as moving your hand to the pie. Are you also saying that the opposite directions are the same??
Sudhanshu Shekhar
In the context of this email earlier, I wanted to point to Bhamati for the bimba-pratibimba prakriya. I also wanted to point to siddhnta-lesha-sangraha on different theories in shastra on this jiva-brahma and bimba-pratibimba aspect.
Michael Chandra Cohen
Sudhanshu Shekhar
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.
Aurobind Padiyath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD5M2cAe2wxewu8eiQKtJ%2B5Q7SCiT0VYQJrz1ZiaL27yA%40mail.gmail.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
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: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Aurobind Padiyath
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 10:29 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
Hari Om Dennis,
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
You have not answered my question, but resorted (again) to further obfuscation and Sanskrit. Please see my response to Aurobind.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Sudhanshu Shekhar
The bimba-hand and pratibimba-hand are the same. The bimba-pie and pratibimba-pie are the same. I do not move my hand to the mirror to get hold of pie. I have no illusion that pratibimba-pie is in the mirror or behind the mirror.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/005001db3cd7%24170859a0%2445190ce0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Aurobind Padiyath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004901db3cd6%24cb7b3980%246271ac80%24%40advaita.org.uk.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
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?
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP%3DXLmaVeeSY8am%3D_nO3F0gCzPmxwFFYOXhL9h5UU8eNr8nd%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
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.
Bandaru Viswanath
Sanju Nath
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006101db3cf3%2438910830%24a9b31890%24%40advaita.org.uk.
putran M
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006101db3cf3%2438910830%24a9b31890%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Vikram Jagannathan
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!)
prostrations,
Vikram
H S Chandramouli
From: H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Namaste.
I had mentioned in my earlier post that the term **abheda** concerning Bimba (Object) and Pratibimba (Image) mentioned in the Advaita Siddhi quote is in the context of jIva Brahma Aikya wherein the two are in the same loci. All the subsequent quotes in this regard from other texts like SiddhAnta Bindu etc are also in the same context. None of them is in the context of reflection in a mirror and an object placed in front. On the other hand I had also cited a quote from VivaraNa Prameya Samgraha wherein the **bheda** between the two was specifically stated in respect of this illustration of mirror and an object placed in front. In this illustration the loci of the two are different.
The difference between the two illustrations is the spacing/separation/gap between the object and its image. Where the loci are the same, the spacing is literally nil. It is like a very thin film pasted on a mirror. The film and its image would be practically indistinguishable. While in the other instance the spacing is significant/noticeable. Hence the term **abheda** is intended to mean **indistinguishable** rather than **identical** when the loci are the same. The Object and its Image are literally fused together.
That is exactly the position in respect of jIva Brahma Ailya. Brahman being all pervasive, the gap between **It** and its **Image** (figurative usage) is negligible. They are in the same loci. Hence the two are to be understood as **indistinguishable** and not **identical** in the Advaita Siddhi quote as well as other quotes in the same context wherein the word **abheda** is used.
My understanding.
Regards
Venkatraghavan S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdM2MD0sgkg%3D6E5Wj8KUZcD-C%2BhJd%3Dtrh1L9cMFj9BckYA%40mail.gmail.com.
Kuntimaddi Sadananda
PraNAms
A simple example is the moon and moonlight. Moonlight is nothing but sunlight, only reflected by the moon. Now, one can ask - seeing the moonlight and say we are actually seeing sunlight only via the moon. In addition, without the moon reflecting the sunlight, we cannot recognize the presence of sunlight where the moon is. The same applies to the all-pervading consciousness and reflection by the mind - chidaabhaasa. Without the mind reflecting, the presence of the all-pervading consciousness cannot be recognized.
Is the moonlight (reflected sunlight) the same as the original sunlight or different from the original sunlight? In principle, it is the same, from the point of understanding. In truth, one can say it is different in the sense that reflection also depends on the reflecting medium - The reflection can be dull or bright.
Hence meditation is looking at the moon, seeing moonlight and recognizing that it is only sunlight, based on Science. The same applies to the mind and consciousness exhibited by the mind (chidaabhaasa). The difficult part is one has to use the mind only to see the consciousness exhibited by the mind and recognize, based on Vedanta that it is all-pervading consciousness.
The example of the face and the mirror in front is, therefore, slightly different from the moon's reflection in sunlight.
my 2c
Hari Om!
Sada
H S Chandramouli
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. 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 ….//.
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.
RegardsTo view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkf31f%3DJ59X4groDvS2VVgFLV3sxzfxbtCapNZJzS3_-A%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdPzAONWyb%2BUjZOteGbW0r9H_z1qA0jOWP1m7He1cLK2SA%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
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.
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 ….//.
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.
H S Chandramouli
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
Venkatraghavan S
H S Chandramouli
Venkatraghavan S
H S Chandramouli
Sudhanshu Shekhar
> 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.
आपातत: refers to pratyaksha without using logic whereas सयुक्तिकप्रत्यक्ष refers to pratyaksha along with logic.
So, आपातत:, it appears that BAP is some different vastu, whereas सयुक्तिकप्रत्यक्ष explains that BAP is identical with BAB.
सयुक्तिकप्रत्यक्ष explains that the location, material of BAP and BAB are same.
VPS statement is in perfect harmony with VivaraNa and Advaita Siddhi. Vibhajyate does not mean that there arises two entities namely bimba and pratibimba. Rather, the same mukha-mAtra is transacted as bimba and pratibimba on account of upAdhi mirror.
So, apparent bheda is not dismissed. Rather it is explained to be upAdhi-krita.
Further, प्रतिबिम्बो बिम्बाभिन्नः is not restricted exclusively to Brahma-jIva-aikya. It is applicable to bimba-pratibimba in general. That is clear from AdvaitaSiddhi. The anumAna is as under -
1. तद्गतसाधारणधर्मवत्त्वम् ,
Sudhanshu Shekhar
श्री विद्यारण्य-गुरु-प्रभृतिभि: तु मन्द-अधिकारिणां तत्त्वे बुद्धि-आरोहाय प्रतिबिम्ब-उत्पत्ति-प्रक्रिया उपपादिता। मन्द-अधिकारिणां हि, यथा 'कर्तृत्व-भोक्तृत्व-आदि-संसार-आश्रय: चिदाभासो मिथ्याभूतः, स च आत्मा न भवति, आत्मा तु असङ्ग-चैतन्य-रूपो न संसार-आश्रयः' इति प्रक्रियया तत्त्वं बुद्धौ आरोहति, न तथा 'आत्मनो ब्रह्म-प्रतिबिम्बस्य स्वतः सिद्धं ब्रह्मत्वम्, अन्तःकरण-तादात्म्यात् संसार-आश्रयत्वम्' इति प्रक्रियया तत्त्वं बुद्धौ आरोहति, लोके विरुद्ध-धर्म-असांकर्यस्य धर्मि-भेद-स्थल-इव धर्मि-अभेद-स्थले स्फुटत्व-अभावात्।
Venkatraghavan S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBesauDPMVMsBC06x9emyhJWKE4QzApy4gy2aYDKt%2BV8g%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
It is discussed in Bimba-pratibimba-vichArah of Advaita Siddhi, 2nd parichchheda.
तथा जीवब्रह्मणोर्मुखप्रतिमुखवत् बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बरूपत्वादप्यभेदोऽवगन्तव्यः ।
Venkatraghavan S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDpMw1tDH9ogY%3DtSMR7P2DR9hKY2zoAP4AjurfbyUh7ww%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Let us say Maitra is the seer and Chaitra is the seen.1) Maitra sees Chaitra.2) Maitra also sees Chaitra's reflection.Maitra's chakshu rays making contact with Chaitra is the cause of 1.Let us say Maitra's chakshu rays go on to make contact with the mirror and reflect back on to Chaitra. Let us say that is the cause of 2.
Are Chaitra bimba and Chaitra pratibimba identical?
Clearly two objects are seen (Chaitra bimba and Chaitra pratibimba) - is that vision of two objects purely on account of two perceptual cognitions of the one and same object?
Or should a mithyA pratibimba be admitted here?
In the case of mukha pratibimba, it is clear, the chakshu rays make contact with the bimba only and so there is only one perceptual cognition - of the pratibimba. Whereas here there are two cognitions, can one and the same object give rise two cognitions of it at the same time?
Venkatraghavan S
Now, despite being identical, there is a perception of difference. Pratibimba appears to be qualified with some unique dharmAs, which are not present in bimba. Just as yellow conch appears to be combined with yellow-colour through kalpita-sambandha, pratibimba appears to be qualified with kalpita-(upAdhi-sambandha).
We cannot say that if X and Y are identical, they should be perceived to be identical.
For e.g. take yellow conch (seen as yellow due to jaundice) and white conch. Kalpita-upAdhi-sambandha can cause x to appear not as x but as y. This does not imply that x is different from y. न च भेदं भेदकं च साक्षात्कुर्वन् अभेदं साक्षात्कुर्वाणो दृष्ट इति–चेत्, श्वैत्यव्याप्यशङ्खत्वसाक्षात्कारे पीतसाक्षात्कारवत् उपाधिमाहात्म्यादभेदं साक्षात्कुर्वाणो भेदं साक्षात्करोतीत्यङ्गीक्रियते; अनुभवस्य दुरपह्नवत्वात् ।Clearly two objects are seen (Chaitra bimba and Chaitra pratibimba) - is that vision of two objects purely on account of two perceptual cognitions of the one and same object?Two objects are not seen here.
Same object is seen as bimba in one cognition, and as pratibimba in another cognition. Yes. The vision of two objects is purely on account of two perceptual cognitions of the one and same object.Or should a mithyA pratibimba be admitted here?That is certainly not required.
In the case of mukha pratibimba, it is clear, the chakshu rays make contact with the bimba only and so there is only one perceptual cognition - of the pratibimba. Whereas here there are two cognitions, can one and the same object give rise two cognitions of it at the same time?I do not see any difficulty. Same object can appear in two fashions at the same time depending on upAdhi-sambandha.Suppose you wear specs. Let one glass be of yellow color whereas the other glass is removed. Now, you were to see a conch placed in front. Now, through one eye, you will see yellow-conch, but through the other eye, you will see white-conch. There is same object, white conch. However, due to upAdhi-sambandha of yellow glass, at the same time, same object is seen as yellow-conch and also as white-conch.Similarly, one set of chakshu-rays will see BAB (white-conch) while other set of chakshu-rays will see BAP (yellow-conch) due to kalpita-upAdhi-sambandha.
Regards.Sudhanshu Shekhar.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDUmUxv7ygiPm31OqS6MGGYnSGq-frGwJck%3D5%2BVWdAsag%40mail.gmail.com.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:50 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
// Namaste All,
I remember reading in the Upadeshasahasri a considerably lengthy discussion where the unreality of the pratibimba, reflection, has been stated. It would be of help if someone brings that part out here //,
Copying below relevant portion from Upadeshasahasri, metric part, Chapter 18, “ Thou Art That”.
मुखादन्यो मुखाभासो यथादर्शाचुकारतः |
आभासार्मुखमप्येवमादक्शननुवतेनात् ॥ ३२ ॥
भर्हृकृयात्मनिर्भासो मुखाभासवदिष्यते |
मुखवत्स्प्रत आत्मान्योऽवि विक्त तौ तथेव च ॥ ३३ ॥
32, 33. As it imitates the mirror the reflection of a face is different from the face. The face which does not depend on the mirror (for its existence) is also different (Note 1) from its reflection. Similarly, the reflection of the Self in the ego is also regarded (as different from the pure Self) like that of the face which is different from the face. The pure Self is considered to be different from Its reflection like the face (which is different from its own). In fact, however, the Self and Its reflection are free (Note 2) from real distinction between each other like the face and its reflection (Note 3).
Note 1 ;; As a matter of fact it is the real face reflected in a mirror and acquiring, as it were, the quality of being in it and possessing its properties that is called the reflection. The reflection cannot be real, because it is not always in the mirror; nor can it be called absolutely unreal, because it is sometimes seen there. Therefore, the reflection is indescribable and the face is different from it.
Note 2 ;; Though there is an apparent distinction there is not a real one between the Self and Its reflection nor between the Self and the intellect. For as a matter of fact neither the reflection nor the intellect has an existence independent of the Self. The conclusion is that Pure Consciousness, reflected in Ignorance and the ego etc., its modifications, is regarded as the individual experiencing transmigratory existence owing to a nondiscrimination between Itself and Its reflection.
Note 3 ;; Which has an existence dependent on that of the face.
मात्माभासाश्चयाश्चेवं मुखाभासाश्रया यथा |
गम्यन्ते राल्नयुक्तिभ्यामाभासासस्वमेव च ॥ ४३ ॥
43. The Self, Its reflection and the seat of the reflection, (i.e., the intellect) are comparable to the face, its reflection and the mirror. The unreality of the reflection is known from the scriptures and reasoning.
Regards
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Yes, but Sri Appayya Dikshita takes a different view - be that as it may.
H S Chandramouli
V Subrahmanian
H S Chandramouli
![Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjV3zfBxUiQk8vu0f_4V-frfH3yRVCouuaL1M-a_s8ZbCMlAV7k=s40-c-mo)
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
Thanks Chandramouli ji, for the relevant verses. Do you have a searchable Upadeshasaahasri text?
A searchable but only OCR text is usually available on archive. One with Ramatirthatika is here:
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Vikram-ji,
Excellent, clear post – and scarcely a Sanskrit term in sight – thank you! Note that I began this post a couple of days ago, since when there have been multiple more posts, including one from Sada-ji that is making essentially the same point.
I began this response with the claim that the sunlight-moonlight metaphor is not analogous to the bimba-pratibimba, original-reflection, metaphor. In the latter, it is claimed that the image that appears to be in the mirror is literally the same as the object that is triggering the reflection. In the former, all that is happening is that the light from the sun is reflecting off the surface of the moon. This is literally the same electromagnetic radiation that was emitted by the sun that reaches our eyes via the moon. Accordingly, there is no problem in claiming identity. No one thinks that there is a sun in the moon and questions whether it is the same sun or a different one.
I then attempted to argue that, in the case of the object and mirror, the crucial difference is that the optical properties of the mirror mean that the light rays reflected from the original object retain their relative configurations such that there appears (to the eyes and brain of the observer) to be a second object, identical to the first but situated behind the mirror by a distance equal to that of the real object in front. This difference is crucial because the argument then switches to the status of this ‘second object’. I then proceeded to outline a new metaphor that would demonstrate my position more clearly:
Let us imagine that I am shaving in front of a mirror. Obviously I am using the mirror so that I can see how to move the shaver etc. and I take it for granted that the image ‘in the mirror’ appears to be me and makes the same movements simultaneously. (We have the expression that he is ‘mirroring’ my movements.) Someone now approaches from behind me and sprays the mirror with a black paint. The image disappears! I am obliged to continue to shave without the benefit of the mirror. Fortunately, I have been doing this for very many years so it does not pose too much of a problem. After I have finished, I find a rag and wipe the paint from the mirror (fortunately it has not yet had time to dry). Whoa! What is this? I discover to my amazement that the image in the mirror has also completed shaving, even though I was not watching. How can this be when he was unable to see what I was doing?
Unfortunately, of course, reflecting on this made me realize that I was WRONG! The image in the mirror showed the unshaven me before it was blacked out and the shaven me after because it has the same ontological status! Further reflection made me see that I had myself been deluded into thinking that they were different simply because of the ‘accuracy’ of the reflection. The mirror example IS the same as the moonlight metaphor. The mirror is still reflecting the light from the object just as the moon reflects the sunlight. It is entirely incidental that this light appears to the eyes as though it is a (separate) object (although of course the potential cause of much confusion!).
So – my prostrations to yourself and my abject apologies to Sudhanshu-ji (although I think I have managed to explain the problem and its resolution without any need for Sanskrit or Advaita Siddhi…)
This is an excellent example of the danger of metaphors, whether taking them beyond the realm of their applicability, interpreting them wrongly, or differently from the intention of the original use. There will be a section on this in ‘Confusions 3’ but maybe a whole book could be written about them… *
Best wishes,
Dennis
* Several if your name is Arvind Sharma of course…
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Vikram Jagannathan
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 8:13 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
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!)
V Subrahmanian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-Hohw7X-6d%2BUgAQ2CFnLVHcfs0yaWPWZuX_T0qCosGbNw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000601db3e4e%249c3c2480%24d4b46d80%24%40advaita.org.uk.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Sudhanshu-ji,
- When we see an object, we do so because the rays of light from the light source are being reflected off the object into our eyes. (I know this is not how VedAnta ParibhAShA describes it but I am sticking with the modern scientific explanation since that aspect is not germane to the discussion.) This is still what is happening in the situation where the rays of light go via a mirror, following the laws of reflection. Accordingly, it is the same actual object that is causing what it seen, whether we are talking about the bimba or pratibimba. If this is effectively what you are saying, then we agree. However, if we say that the ‘image in the mirror’ is effectively the same as the image in a video, then clearly that image does not have the same status. The video image was caused at the time by a real object but it is still visible, even though the original object may now have been destroyed. So, if you are denying this, then we do not agree.
- Yes – that is the first situation described above – so we agree.
- Not sure what you are asking here. I would say that an illusory object does not cause a reflection in a mirror! If you are saying that someone looks at a rope and believes he sees a snake, then it is quite likely that, if he looks a reflected image of the rope, he will also superimpose the appearance of a snake onto it. But I suggest this is an identical situation to 2, and the observer is simply subject to adhyAsa whether looking at bimba or pratibimba. If he suddenly realizes that original or reflected is actually a rope, then I suggest he will also realize the other is ‘also’ a rope. I.e. he is treating them as identical. (Note that there is a theoretical scenario in which the mirror is disguised so that the observer believes he is seeing a different scene. It is then conceivable that he will realize the rope in one but still see a snake in the other.)
Best wishes,
Dennis
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBMqZNmvtghLqkxmb8LmFF2OZWRuC-9csBJVfkYUc2k_g%40mail.gmail.com.
putran M
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.thollmelukaalkizhuOn Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:28 AM <dwa...@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: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Aurobind Padiyath
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 12:20 PM
To: adva...@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, <dwa...@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: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Aurobind Padiyath
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 10:29 AM
To: adva...@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
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004901db3cd6%24cb7b3980%246271ac80%24%40advaita.org.uk.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP%3DXLmaVeeSY8am%3D_nO3F0gCzPmxwFFYOXhL9h5UU8eNr8nd%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/006101db3cf3%2438910830%24a9b31890%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhava vilakshana - Please convey exactly what may be distinct from Bhavatvam Brahman? Rather, it is an assumption of logic.
abhAva contains within its ambit nirvishesha-abhAva and abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya as if to claim abhAva is an ontological entity that is able to account for creation?
When snake is born, tAdAtmya-with-existence is also born. Born? Snake is a notion not a birth. It is not even a notion created in time. There is no snake.
आरोप्योत्पत्ति कालोत्पन्नतादात्म्यापन्नं सत्सन्घट इति प्रत्यये अपरोक्षतया भाति .
"The arising of superimposition (āropya-utpatti) is experienced directly (aparokṣatayā) in the cognition 'a pot exists' (sat-san-ghaṭa iti pratyaye), where the pot (ghaṭa), produced in time (kāla-utpanna), is assumed to have identity (tādātmya) with existence (sat)."
Not Sankara, I'd bet, more likely, Vedanta Paribhasa? If you assume time, you already assume superimposition.
avasthA-ajnAna-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.
Chaitanya limited?
A wrong notion does not affect the Self - no need to delimit the Self. AvasthA itself is a waking notion. Does Chaitanya experience different states really? The notion of avastha appears only to one that assumes waking to be the reality of all the states.
You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is false notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a false notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.
Correct though handled by Bhasyakara & Sureswara in several places and no less incomprehensible than the finite Vedas teaching the Absolute.
an addendum regarding false notion as infinite regress. A better answer is that superimposition along with the idea of infinite regress, time, causation and all the rest of this phenomenal appearance is anadi. Appearance is not in time but in Consciousness.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bandaru Viswanath
I am saying that it is virtually impossible for a seeker to learn Sanskrit to the level necessary to be able to understand shAstra and commentators.
For the writers of those texts, Sanskrit was their everyday language and they understood all of its nuances. Who, today, routinely speaks the language? I
Yes, I agree, that seekers are looking to understand the ‘bottom line’ rather than the original messages of the Vedas etc. They rightly want what is possible rather than what is impossible.
You seem to be suggesting that the purpose of this group is not for seekers to learn about Advaita but to argue (in Sanskrit) whether an author meant this or that by use of a particular word. Maybe that was/is the way that Advaita-L group operates but that is precisely the reason why the Advaitin group was established (Ram-ji will correct me if I am wrong) – not to get bogged down in ‘technical’ details but to discuss, in English, what the texts are telling us, so that ‘ordinary’ seekers may still have access to this knowledge.
It is not that I “don’t want to understand Sanskrit”. Indeed, I wish that I had had the opportunity (and desire) to study it at school and university. But I accept now that the best I can do is to read the Devanagari script (slowly), and look words up in a dictionary. I become familiar with many of the terms simply from extensive reading. This enables me, for example, to determine that sometimes even respected teachers will translate original texts according their pre-existing beliefs rather than according to what was actually written in the original!
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Bandaru Viswanath
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 5:32 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
On Wednesday, November 20, 2024 at 11:34:27 PM UTC+5:30 dwaite wrote:
Dear Viswanath-ji,
Obviously, in order to understand shAstra, one has to understand Sanskrit extremely well. This is why seekers really ought to go to a qualified teacher in order to learn Advaita. Unfortunately, most Western seekers (at least) do not know Sanskrit and have no access to a qualified teacher. They are obliged to read books and listen to talks written/given by someone who IS qualified. And these books and talks have to explain things in the language of the seeker. Some books do this very well; others less so. But it is certainly possible!
Without knowing Sanskrit or having sufficient intro into Tarka, Mimamsa and Vyakarana, understanding a Shastra is not practical. Unless one is like "garbhe shayano vamadevah". Its not needed for Siddhanta, but needed for Shastra. Note that "Seekers" are not seeking shastra, but siddhanta only.
I also disagree with your example. Many years ago, I worked on a complex military communication system, involving many software disciplines – databases, security, packet switching etc. For a period of a year or so, I had to interview and speak to engineers in all these disciplines and understand how the software worked, in order that I could produce a readable manual to explain each of the fields to the other areas who had to understand sufficient to enable them to interface. It was difficult, but certainly possible.
Your example actually proves my point. You spent an year or more trying to understand the domain, and also allowing - if I may speculate - let your audience explain and make you understand stuff. I further speculate that there is a common language. Certainly if you go to a teacher, that would happen. But I don't see the attempt to understand sanskrit here.
In the context of this email earlier, I wanted to point to Bhamati for the bimba-pratibimba prakriya. I also wanted to point to siddhnta-lesha-sangraha on different theories in shastra on this jiva-brahma and bimba-pratibimba aspect. But you seem to be not inclined to understand sanskrit. Unlike your example where other people spent time with you, people on email lists expect a common ground. Expectation of people to explain in a different langauge may not be possible on the grounds that they don't have as much time explaining what should have been a common ground.
Appayya dikshita says - anvaya-vyatireka-vyabhichara as part of vidhi-vichara. There is a common understanding to most shastra learners on what that means. It can't be explained in reasonable time on emails.
Advaita is about our Self and the world that we (think) we know, not something entirely alien. Easy peasy!
Except that I is also Brahman (brumhatvat bramanatvat atma brahmeti giyate), which is being attempted to be understood. This actually reminds me of the Bhamati starting sentence that I know myself, what is the need to have shastra.
Nothing personal. but brainstorming.
Thanks
Viswanath.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Bandaru Viswanath
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 4:06 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English
Nothing personal, but if you want to understand the "siddhanta" then no sanskrit is required, but if you want to understand the "shastra", I can't see how one can escape without understanding sanskrit. I am referring to the Indian shastras in particular.
It is similar to someone asking me to explain how technically a datacenter works without using english, or the networking paribhasha.
My observation, since I have seen this request made before.
Thanks
Viswanath
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/3286088f-cb29-4291-a568-c51bfb963041n%40googlegroups.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
I think you are missing the point. I am saying that it is virtually impossible for a seeker to learn Sanskrit to the level necessary to be able to understand shAstra and commentators. For the writers of those texts, Sanskrit was their everyday language and they understood all of its nuances. Who, today, routinely speaks the language? I suggest that the vast majority of seekers (including Indians) are obliged to rely upon someone who does know Sanskrit reasonably well to translate and interpret into their own spoken language.
Yes, I agree, that seekers are looking to understand the ‘bottom line’ rather than the original messages of the Vedas etc. They rightly want what is possible rather than what is impossible.
You seem to be suggesting that the purpose of this group is not for seekers to learn about Advaita but to argue (in Sanskrit) whether an author meant this or that by use of a particular word. Maybe that was/is the way that Advaita-L group operates but that is precisely the reason why the Advaitin group was established (Ram-ji will correct me if I am wrong) – not to get bogged down in ‘technical’ details but to discuss, in English, what the texts are telling us, so that ‘ordinary’ seekers may still have access to this knowledge.
It is not that I “don’t want to understand Sanskrit”. Indeed, I wish that I had had the opportunity (and desire) to study it at school and university. But I accept now that the best I can do is to read the Devanagari script (slowly), and look words up in a dictionary. I become familiar with many of the terms simply from extensive reading. This enables me, for example, to determine that sometimes even respected teachers will translate original texts according their pre-existing beliefs rather than according to what was actually written in the original!
Best wishes,
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/3286088f-cb29-4291-a568-c51bfb963041n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001701db3cb9%242940f1e0%247bc2d5a0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Michael Chandra Cohen
Namaste Michael ji.Bhava vilakshana h Please convey exactly what may be distinct from Bhavatvam Brahman? Rather, it is an assumption of logic.
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
From: Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati] <bhatp...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: The shaving mirror (was RE: [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English)
But you can see the pratibimba of an illusory snake.
...
But how can light-rays reflecting from rope give rise to cognition of snake?
Sudhanshu Shekhar
If your vichara draws you to infinite regress, that is a good thing. It confirms that avidya itself is sastrika adhyaropa and your reasoning has led you to the apavada of avidya/adhyasa. If however, it is only reasoning that leads you to infinite regress, then the anaditva of adhyasa should resolve your doubt. Anaditva indicates that adhyasa is present by common experience rather than by mere belief hence infinite regression does not apply.
Your many arguments are logical constructions to prove distinction in non-existence and relativity in the Absolute. Not the message i derive from reading Bhasya, ji.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Thanks for a wonderful thread, especially analysing with this example. It is fantastic.
I just wanted to make an additional comment on what goes on as a very simplistic treatment of SDV by many, without any explanation of prakriyA/methodology of resulting jnAna, insulting VP, while also vehemently disagreeing with DSV! It's laughable. (By simply saying that one is confused as to the rope as a snake, without any methodology whatsoever, there are no answers to many Qs such as: why is it seen outside?) It is vitaNDa at best: i don't have a prakriyA, but yours is wrong! Why a prakriyA, they don't need definitions even. I'm yet to see any definition.
Michael Chandra Cohen
The defect of infinite regression refers to a logical or philosophical problem that arises when a concept, argument, or explanation depends on an unending series of causes, conditions, or premises, without any foundational point of resolution. This creates an infinite loop that prevents meaningful conclusions or understanding. Infinite regression is often considered a flaw or defect because it undermines the explanatory power of an argument.
Types of Infinite Regression
-
Epistemological Infinite Regression: Involves the need for every belief or justification to be supported by another, leading to an endless chain. For example:
- "Why do you believe X?"
- "Because of Y."
- "Why Y?"
- And so on, without reaching a foundational belief.
This is problematic because it makes it impossible to establish certainty or knowledge.
-
Ontological Infinite Regression: Occurs in explanations of existence or causality. For example:
- "What caused A?"
- "B caused A."
- "What caused B?"
- This continues indefinitely without a first cause or ultimate explanation.
This is a common issue in cosmological arguments about the origin of the universe.
Examples of Infinite Regression
- Philosophical: Aristotle’s critique of infinite regression in metaphysics argued that a chain of causes must have a "first mover" or "unmoved mover."
- Theological: Questions about the origin of God, or the "who created the creator?" problem.
- Practical: Recursive definitions or algorithms that fail to terminate.
Ways to Address Infinite Regression
- Foundationalism: Proposes that some beliefs or causes are self-evident or axiomatic, and thus do not require further justification.
- Coherentism: Suggests that beliefs are justified as part of a coherent system, avoiding the need for linear regressions.
- Circular Reasoning (in moderation): Accepting a loop of explanations that sustain themselves might sometimes be preferable to infinite regress (though this approach has its own criticisms).
- Acceptance of Limits: Recognizing certain questions or causes as beyond the scope of inquiry, as in some interpretations of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
The defect of infinite regression highlights the importance of finding a stopping point or an alternative explanatory framework to maintain logical coherence.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Infinite regress is resolved when a ground for one's proposition is proven (see #1 below in 'ways to address...") Adhyasa as anadi gives jagat and samsara a timeless presence = experience. Experience proves adhyasa first hand to one who knows the meaning of the term. Therefore there is no defect in saying the false notion is itself false.
AND, if this leads your self inquiry to a zen like halt, so be it - a good thing!
As for your dive deep into the unfathomable world of perception and Vedanta Paribhasa, I suggest it is quite avoidable as it is based on accepting Prasthanatraya Bhasya Vedanta with an empirical realist's perspective. And that is based on one or two bhasya citations only which position is summarily refuted in the following link by the arguments of AJ Alston, Prasanth Netiji and Ramanatha Keralapuraji, Further, analyzing perception is not the aim of Vedanta rather falsifying its appearance is our endeavor. Why divert from Gaudapada teachings?
Michael Chandra Cohen
Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]
👍
Ananta Chaitanya reacted via Gmail
Sudhanshu Shekhar
We have discussed abhava jnana and pratiyogi ad nauseum. I prefer to let it rest.
putran M
Michael Chandra Cohen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r5z%3D6CxJ9AGsKQQDz%2B8HVGJixOX-9hiWZg6CTN6wuN5A%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Yes, your Positive Ignorance is a logical creation to cure what appears to be infinite regression but provides no evidence in experience for its existence, i.e., some thing that neither exists nor does not exist and/or the material seed called "false ignorance" ....
Kindly consider my pal, Chatgpt's study of the two definitions of infinite regression 1.epistemological IR is "problematic because it makes it impossible to establish certainty or knowledge." and is resolved by " self-evident or axiomatic belief" (the undeniability of adhyasa); 2. ontological IR occurs as endless explanations of causes remedied by an Aristotlean 'unmoved mover" (anadi adhyasa).
//(abhava and pratiyogi) needs to be discussed as it is the vital concept//It is vital only to refute your attempts to establish absence, darkness and mithya jnana as positive substances otherwise I see no purpose.
I am attaching Swamiiji's 35 minute talk today ridiculing darkness as an entity opposed to light as violating reason, common sense and scripture taken from SSSS's Mulavidya Nirasa.
Michael Chandra Cohen
(erroneous) and at the same time, ajnana (nescience) is mithyajnana.]
The word ' mithya ' means * inexpressible ' (anirvacanlya),
and by the word * ajnana ' is meant the potency of avidya which
is of the nature of insentience and is the negation of jnana. And
' tannimitta ' means * having that (viz., mithyajnana) as the
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCD1WgEBqd%3DGRfyeWKKPHxPwYsSG%3DuUdEj0k%3DXy1cyz%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Now you will hear one more obfuscating definition of avidyA from logician desk i.e. avidyA is neither existing nor non-existing and it is something different from these two (bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa). 😊 It is an addendum to their already established vAda like : anirvachaneeya khyAti vAda 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Really - you are saying Mulavidya holds that avidya is non-existent?
From Panchapadika, "15. [" Mithyajnana nimitta iti" 23—that which is mithya
(erroneous) and at the same time, ajnana (nescience) is mithyajnana.]
The word ' mithya ' means * inexpressible ' (anirvacanlya),
and by the word * ajnana ' is meant the potency of avidya which
is of the nature of insentience and is the negation of jnana. And
' tannimitta ' means * having that (viz., mithyajnana) as thematerial cause.'""potency of avidya," "material cause" - what is your doubt?
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Yes. Is it a news?
Ø Don’t know about others, yes it is a news for me 😊
I do not have a doubt. I said -- avidyA is non-existent.
Ø In that case please define the theory of mUlAvidyA which is brahmAshrita and having the special powers like AvaraNa and vikshepa and avidyA which is non-existent.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
//Now you will hear one more obfuscating definition of avidyA from logician desk i.e. avidyA is neither existing nor non-existing and it is something different from these two (bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa). 😊 It is an addendum to their already established vAda like : anirvachaneeya khyAti vAda//
BhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa does not mean "neither existing nor non-existing". Which book you have read this in? Please share.
Ø Then please define what is the difference between bhAvAbhAva vilakshanatva of mUlAvidyA and non-existent avidyA ?? both are different or same?? If I remember correctly you have vociferously argued that whenever there is talk about bhAva it is all about bhAvAbhAva vilakshana not precisely about bhAva. And Sri Subbu prabhuji tried to convince you about bhAvarUpa avidyA and somebody else pitched in and said : it is kinchit bhAva 😊
This is classic example of akANDa-tAnDava found in plenty in works by SSSS ji wherein the opponent is not understood.
Ø It may appear to you so, but when the logicians lost themselves in shushka tarka and confusing others with their ‘socalled’ logical assertions, these type of doubts do arise.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Don’t know about others, yes it is a news for me 😊
I do not have a doubt. I said -- avidyA is non-existent.
Ø In that case please define the theory of mUlAvidyA which is brahmAshrita and having the special powers like AvaraNa and vikshepa and avidyA which is non-existent.
Bhaskar YR
Really - you are saying Mulavidya holds that avidya is non-existent?
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Sudhanshu prabhuji might be having two different types of avidyA, one is mUlAvidyA and another a non-existent avidyA in his kitty 😊 but the definition ‘avidyA’ or mUlAvidyA from later vyAkhyAnakAra-s categorically endorsing the existent avidyA which is anAdi and anirvachaneeya as well. And more importantly it has the locus in Atma Chaitanya itself. And it is something needs to be understood as neither jnAna abhAva nor misconception nor doubt nor saMskAra vishesha and it is jnAnavirOdhi, dravyarUpa and bhAvarUpa and it has the potency of AvaraNa and vikshepa and it is also existing in sushupti associated with vikshepa saMskAra covering the self in sushupti. More importantly it is the material cause (upAdAna kAraNa) for the adhyAsa (anyathAgrahaNa or vipareeta grahaNa). And to prove the ‘existence of this bhAvarUpa avidyA’ they are going to give the pramANa-s also like pratyaksha, anumAna, arthApatti and shAstra pramANa as well. Perhaps our Sudhanshu prabhuji might be introducing the non-existent avidyA apart from what has been defined and justified here by vyAkhyAna.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
That means you have not paid attention to the following statement in Advaita Siddhi and countless other statements –
Ø I have not studied this text and I don’t think it is necessary to understand shankarAdvaita.
I do not have a doubt. I said -- avidyA is non-existent.
Ø In that case please define the theory of mUlAvidyA which is brahmAshrita and having the special powers like AvaraNa and vikshepa and avidyA which is non-existent.
Non-existence i.e. traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyOgitvam is not contradictory to AvaraNa and vikshepa.
- Further elaboration please. Because you are just making the statements.
There is no requirement of sattva for AvaraNa and vikshepa. Sat-tAdAtmya is sufficient therefor.
Ø What is the difference between sattva and sat-tAdAtmya ?? how sat-tAdAtmya can be traikAlika nishedha pratiYogi as well as tuccha-asat and at the same time enjoys the powers like AvaraNa and vikshepa?? Is the darkness which you say existing like table and chair is sattva or sat-tAdAtmya or asat / tuccha?? And in one of the mails you said avidyA enjoys an ontological status not merely for epistemological expression what type of avidyA enjoys this status when you are arguing avidyA is tuccha/asat from both references??
Both asat (tuchchha) and anirvachanIya have traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyOgitvam. The former does not appear in any locus while the latter has the capacity to appear in a locus. That is the only difference.
- Whether it is the ONLY difference or multiple difference, bottom line is you are agreeing that asat/tuccha does not appear in any locus ( that means no Ashraya can be talked about it) and anirvachaneeya can have or can appear in a locus. So there are two separate entities here one is asat/tuccha and another is anirvachaneeya. Please define in clear terms what you have in mind when talking about asat/tuccha type of avidyA and anirvachaneeya avidyA??
Both are equally non-existent.
- Again I am not able to understand your statement. When both are equally non-existent why do you talk about the ‘difference’ when both are tuccha/asat?? Hope you are not talking about the hare’s horn and barren woman’s son and their difference to put forth your arguments on one entity’s Ashrayatva and another one’s absolute non-existence.
Take for example illusory snake and horns of hare. Both are non-existent, however one appears and the other does not.
Ø For snake appearance there is adhishtAna / Ashraya in the form of rope. And being the follower of vyAkhyAna you cannot deny the arthAdhyAsa i.e. existence of anirvachaneeya snake during bhrAnti kAla so you cannot strictly say both snake and hare’s horn are one and the same and equally non-existent. Please come up with some other suitable examples to push your statement.
anirvachanIya means that which cannot be stated as sat (Brahman) and asat (tuchchha). Its non-existence is not compromised.
Ø Again mere statement. Anirvachaneeyatvam applies to mAya and which is there in shankara bhAshya to understand the concept which cannot be defined to be identical with brahman or quite distinct from brahman…here absolute non-existence of something does not come into picture at all. That is the reason why bhAshyakAra explains this concept by giving the example like foam and water. Foam which is not the same as water but yet not a different entity either. It is not comparing water with something non-existing. Again please try better example.
There is no incongruity in such an anirvachanIya avidyA having AvaraNa and vikshepa Shakti because these shaktis are equally anirvachanIya. The BrahmAshrita-tva of avidyA is also anirvachanIya. These are all stated from the frame of reference of avidyA.
Ø A standard excuse that one expect where logic fails to explain something convincingly / logically 😊 First you are telling ‘avidyA’ is anirvachaneeya and then accepting the existence of capability of it i.e. having the AvaraNa and vikshepa and again saying these are too anirvachaneeya and coming to its Ashraya and again asserting it is too anirvachaneeya 😊 and finally passing the judgement that avidyA is asat/tuccha even though it is anirvachaneeya 😊 You are the man of logic do you really think these statements of yours can really withstand the onslaught of logic??
"avidyA has Brahman as locus, it has AvaraNa and vikshepa Shakti" - are statements from the frame of reference of avidyA. And in that very frame of reference, these properties are stated to be anirvachanIya. So, from the frame of reference of avidyA, avidyA and avidyA-kArya are anirvachanIya.
Ø From the frame of avidyA / vyAvahArika drushti, avidyA is well defined as jnAnAbhAva, mithyAgrahaNa and saMshaya which is antaHkaraNa dOsha. No need to bring the brahman here and its Ashraya to mUlAvidyA even before any talk about jeeva and jagat srushti. There is absolutely no need of talk about brahmAshrita avidyA when these talks are centered around vyAvahArika or within the realm of avidyA.
From the frame of reference of Brahman, there is neither avidyA, nor is there a perception thereof. So, avidyA is tuchchha from the frame of reference of Brahman.
Ø We are arguing here about pAramArthika drushti and brahman’s ever nitya Shuddha buddha mukti svarUpa even in vyAvahArika. Whereas vyAkhyAnakAra-s saying avidyA has the power to cover the brahman, brahman himself deluded, brahman gives the Ashraya to ‘anishta’ avidyA etc.
So, take either frame of reference, avidyA is always non-existent.
- Perhaps you have to check this statement with some traditional vyAkhyAna scholars whether it is in line with the vyAkhyAna sampradaya.
From the frame of reference of avidyA, it is stated to be perceived and hence distinct from asat,
- When the avidyA is already stated as tuccha/asat where is the question of its reference?? Can you frame any theory based on hare’s horn?? What exactly you are trying to say here??
whereas from the frame of reference of chaitanya, it is tuchchha.
Ø From the frame of reference of satya, no question about other things to make the special mention some other thing and say ‘it is tuccha’!! it is only satyaM and Satyameva. Neha nAnAsti kiMchana.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar
PS : Having some free time today at office, as my manager yet to come 😊 Please don’t think otherwise if I leave this abruptly.