Difference across Avaccheda, Abhasa and Pratibimba vaadas - English
16 views
Skip to first unread message
V Subrahmanian
Sep 28, 2025, 5:54:50 AM (9 days ago) Sep 28
to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Advaitin
Simha Hnln
Sep 28, 2025, 7:10:26 AM (9 days ago) Sep 28
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Link not opening
Resend please
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:24 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
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/CAKk0Te0ToRLOX4FfxnCrTnVLFimSkUC%2BmeNLKCj7LW6fEV%2BW%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
Sep 28, 2025, 12:38:16 PM (9 days ago) Sep 28
to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Advaitin
Please use this link to access the article:
http://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/06/avaccheda-abhasa-and-pratibimba-vada.html
http://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/06/avaccheda-abhasa-and-pratibimba-vada.html
Just to avoid further issues with the link, I have copied the content and am pasting here, while acknowledging the source, by giving the link above:
The meaning of mahā-vākya is that jīva and īśvara are one. This meaning is arrived at by the application of bhāga-tyāga-lakṣaṇā. Using bhāga-tyāga-lakṣaṇā the lakṣya of both jīva and īśvara is one caitanya (this was explained here). Bhāga-tyāga-lakṣaṇā is possible because the reality of jīva and īśvara as one caitanya is satya, while their apparent difference is mithyā. There are three main theories or vāda within the teaching tradition that explain the apparent difference and real oneness of jīva and īśvara. These are avaccheda-vāda, ābhāsa-vāda, and pratibimba-vāda.
Avaccheda-vāda
Avaccheda-vāda is attributed to Vācaspati Miśra, although it is evident in the Māṇdūkya Kārikā of Gauḍapādācārya as well. In avaccheda-vāda, jīva is defined as caitanya that is avacchinna by avidyā or malina-sattva-pradhāna-prakṛti. Īśvara is defined as caitanya that is avacchinna by māyā or śuddha-sattva-pradhāna-prakṛti. Jīva can be compared to ākāśa that is avacchinna by a pot, and īśvara can be compared to ākāśa that is avacchinna by the room in which the pot is located.
Just as ākāśa avacchinna by the pot seems different from ākāśa avacchinna by the room (e.g. they have different sizes and functions), jīva seems different from īśvara. However just as ākāśa avacchinna by the pot is not really different from ākāśa avacchinna by the room in which the pot is located, the reality of jīva as caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is not different from the reality of īśvara as caitanya avacchinna by māyā.
Question: Caitanya is all-pervading. Therefore just as caitanya is avacchinna by avidyā, it is avacchinna by other objects as well, like a stone. Avidyā is jaḍa, just like a stone. Why is it that caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is a sentient jīva, while caitanya avacchinna by a stone is not?
Answer: Avaccheda-vāda does not address this distinction between sentient and insentient entities. In avaccheda-vāda, avacchinna caitanya can manifest as either a sentient knowing entity or an insentient known object. The distinction between sentient and insentient entities is made more clearly in ābhāsa-vāda.
Ābhāsa-vāda
Ābhāsa-vāda is attributed to Vidyāraṇya, although it is evident in the works of Sureśvarācārya as well. In ābhāsa-vāda, jīva is defined as the reflection1 of caitanya in avidya (called cid-ābhāsa) along with avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā (called kūṭastha-caitanya). Īśvara is defined as the reflection of caitanya in māyā along with māyā and caitanya avacchinna by māyā (called brahma-caitanya). Jīva can be compared to the reflection of ākāśa in a water-filled pot, along with the water-filled pot and the ākāśa it occupies. Īśvara can be compared to the reflection of ākāśa in the clouds, along with the clouds and the ākāśa they occupy. (This example was explained in detail here.)
Just as the reflection of ākāśa in the water-filled pot seems different from the reflection of ākāśa in the clouds (e.g. they have different sizes and locations), jīva seems different from īśvara. However just as ākāśa avacchinna by the water-filled pot is not different from ākāśa avacchinna by the clouds, the reality of jīva as kūṭastha-caitanya is not different from the reality of īśvara as brahma-caitanya.
In ābhāsa-vāda, the reflection of caitanya is a sentient entity. Just as light can only be reflected in a reflecting medium such as water, caitanya can only be reflected in avidyā or māyā. Therefore even though caitanya is all-pervading, it manifests as a sentient being only in avidyā and māyā. It does not manifest as a sentient being in inert objects like a stone, because a stone cannot reflect caitanya. Thus ābhāsa-vāda makes a distinction between sentient and insentient entities.
Question: Why is jīva defined as the reflection of caitanya in avidyā along with avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā? Can't jīva be defined as the reflection alone?
Answer: The definition of jīva must include avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā for three reasons. First, a reflection cannot exist without a reflecting medium and an original that is reflected. Avidyā is the reflecting medium, and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is the original that is reflected. Next, the reflection is a mithyā adhyāsa. No mithyā adhyāsa can exist without a satya adhiṣṭhāna. Caitanya avacchinna by avidya is the satya adhiṣṭhāna of the mithyā reflection. Finally, avidyā is destroyed by brahma-jñāna. If jīva is defined as the reflection of caitanya alone, once avidyā is destroyed, as a reflection in avidyā it too would cease to exist. Mokṣa is the destruction of the limitation of the jīva, not the jīva in essence. Therefore in order for mokṣa to be possible, the definition of jīva must include caitanya avacchinna by avidyā.
Question: In ābhāsa-vāda, jīva is defined as the reflection of caitanya in avidyā along with avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā. Of these, only caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is real. Does this mean that the reflection of caitanya in avidyā is mithyā?
Answer: No caitanya is mithyā. There is only one caitanya, which alone is real. Only the status of jīva-caitanya as separate from brahma-caitanya is mithyā. This is better illustrated in pratibimba-vāda.
Pratibimba-vāda
Pratibimba-vāda is based on the Pañcapādikā Vivaraṇa of Prakāśātmamuni. Unlike avaccheda-vāda and ābhāsa-vāda, in pratibimba-vāda, the apparent difference between jīva and īśvara is attributed to one single avidyā-upādhi. There is no separate īśvara-upādhi. Jīva is defined as the reflection of caitanya in avidyā, and īśvara is defined as the original caitanya. Jīva can be compared to the reflection of a face in a mirror, and īśvara can be compared to the original face itself. Just as the reflection of a face in a mirror seems different from the face itself (e.g. they have different sizes and locations), jīva seems different from īśvara. However just as the reflection of the face is not really different from the original face, jīva is not really different from īśvara.
Unlike in ābhāsa-vāda, in pratibimba-vāda there is no mithyā reflection of caitanya in avidyā. What is mistaken as a reflection of caitanya in avidyā is actually original caitanya alone. Therefore the as-though 'reflection' of caitanya in avidyā is actually considered satya, not mithyā. Only the status of the reflection as different from original caitanya is considered mithyā. Therefore brahma-jñāna is not the negation of the reflection, but the negation of the difference between the reflection and the original. In the example of the reflection of a face in a mirror, there is no reflection located in the mirror. What is perceived as a reflection in the mirror is actually the real original face mistaken to be located in the mirror2.
Question: Isn't original caitanya nirguṇa-brahman, not īśvara? Īśvara is defined as saguṇa-brahman, with attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence. Therefore shouldn't īśvara be defined as the reflection of caitanya in māyā-upādhi?
Answer: Nirguṇa-brahman is attributed with the limitless attributes of īśvara such as omniscience and omnipotence only relative to the limited attributes of jīva. As long as jīva is considered limited, nirguṇa-brahman gains the status of īśvara. As soon as jīva is known to be free of limitation, the status of nirguṇa-brahman as īśvara is irrelevant. Therefore it is possible to say that the same avidyā upādhi that causes the notion of a jīva with limited attributes also causes the notion of an īśvara with limitless attributes. A separate māyā upādhi is not required.
Question: In avaccheda-vāda and ābhāsa-vāda, just as many pots can contain and reflect ākāśa, jīva is many because avidyā is also many. In pratibimba-vāda, is avidyā one or many? Since the status of both jīva and īśvara is caused by avidyā, if avidyā is many, both jīva and īśvara will be many. If avidyā is one, both jīva and īśvara will be one.
Answer: Only one īśvara is mentioned in veda, therefore avidyā also must be one. As a result, just as there is only one primary individual in dream, in waking also there is also only one primary jīva (this was explained here).
Thus pratibimba-vāda can be considered the most precise representation of the vedānta teaching because it explains the apparent difference and true oneness between jīva and īśvara most completely. However the teaching tradition does not insist on one vāda over another. As long as a vāda helps in gaining brahma-jñāna, it is considered valid3.
Avaccheda-vāda
Avaccheda-vāda is attributed to Vācaspati Miśra, although it is evident in the Māṇdūkya Kārikā of Gauḍapādācārya as well. In avaccheda-vāda, jīva is defined as caitanya that is avacchinna by avidyā or malina-sattva-pradhāna-prakṛti. Īśvara is defined as caitanya that is avacchinna by māyā or śuddha-sattva-pradhāna-prakṛti. Jīva can be compared to ākāśa that is avacchinna by a pot, and īśvara can be compared to ākāśa that is avacchinna by the room in which the pot is located.
Just as ākāśa avacchinna by the pot seems different from ākāśa avacchinna by the room (e.g. they have different sizes and functions), jīva seems different from īśvara. However just as ākāśa avacchinna by the pot is not really different from ākāśa avacchinna by the room in which the pot is located, the reality of jīva as caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is not different from the reality of īśvara as caitanya avacchinna by māyā.
Question: Caitanya is all-pervading. Therefore just as caitanya is avacchinna by avidyā, it is avacchinna by other objects as well, like a stone. Avidyā is jaḍa, just like a stone. Why is it that caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is a sentient jīva, while caitanya avacchinna by a stone is not?
Answer: Avaccheda-vāda does not address this distinction between sentient and insentient entities. In avaccheda-vāda, avacchinna caitanya can manifest as either a sentient knowing entity or an insentient known object. The distinction between sentient and insentient entities is made more clearly in ābhāsa-vāda.
Ābhāsa-vāda
Ābhāsa-vāda is attributed to Vidyāraṇya, although it is evident in the works of Sureśvarācārya as well. In ābhāsa-vāda, jīva is defined as the reflection1 of caitanya in avidya (called cid-ābhāsa) along with avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā (called kūṭastha-caitanya). Īśvara is defined as the reflection of caitanya in māyā along with māyā and caitanya avacchinna by māyā (called brahma-caitanya). Jīva can be compared to the reflection of ākāśa in a water-filled pot, along with the water-filled pot and the ākāśa it occupies. Īśvara can be compared to the reflection of ākāśa in the clouds, along with the clouds and the ākāśa they occupy. (This example was explained in detail here.)
Just as the reflection of ākāśa in the water-filled pot seems different from the reflection of ākāśa in the clouds (e.g. they have different sizes and locations), jīva seems different from īśvara. However just as ākāśa avacchinna by the water-filled pot is not different from ākāśa avacchinna by the clouds, the reality of jīva as kūṭastha-caitanya is not different from the reality of īśvara as brahma-caitanya.
In ābhāsa-vāda, the reflection of caitanya is a sentient entity. Just as light can only be reflected in a reflecting medium such as water, caitanya can only be reflected in avidyā or māyā. Therefore even though caitanya is all-pervading, it manifests as a sentient being only in avidyā and māyā. It does not manifest as a sentient being in inert objects like a stone, because a stone cannot reflect caitanya. Thus ābhāsa-vāda makes a distinction between sentient and insentient entities.
Question: Why is jīva defined as the reflection of caitanya in avidyā along with avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā? Can't jīva be defined as the reflection alone?
Answer: The definition of jīva must include avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā for three reasons. First, a reflection cannot exist without a reflecting medium and an original that is reflected. Avidyā is the reflecting medium, and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is the original that is reflected. Next, the reflection is a mithyā adhyāsa. No mithyā adhyāsa can exist without a satya adhiṣṭhāna. Caitanya avacchinna by avidya is the satya adhiṣṭhāna of the mithyā reflection. Finally, avidyā is destroyed by brahma-jñāna. If jīva is defined as the reflection of caitanya alone, once avidyā is destroyed, as a reflection in avidyā it too would cease to exist. Mokṣa is the destruction of the limitation of the jīva, not the jīva in essence. Therefore in order for mokṣa to be possible, the definition of jīva must include caitanya avacchinna by avidyā.
Question: In ābhāsa-vāda, jīva is defined as the reflection of caitanya in avidyā along with avidyā and caitanya avacchinna by avidyā. Of these, only caitanya avacchinna by avidyā is real. Does this mean that the reflection of caitanya in avidyā is mithyā?
Answer: No caitanya is mithyā. There is only one caitanya, which alone is real. Only the status of jīva-caitanya as separate from brahma-caitanya is mithyā. This is better illustrated in pratibimba-vāda.
Pratibimba-vāda
Pratibimba-vāda is based on the Pañcapādikā Vivaraṇa of Prakāśātmamuni. Unlike avaccheda-vāda and ābhāsa-vāda, in pratibimba-vāda, the apparent difference between jīva and īśvara is attributed to one single avidyā-upādhi. There is no separate īśvara-upādhi. Jīva is defined as the reflection of caitanya in avidyā, and īśvara is defined as the original caitanya. Jīva can be compared to the reflection of a face in a mirror, and īśvara can be compared to the original face itself. Just as the reflection of a face in a mirror seems different from the face itself (e.g. they have different sizes and locations), jīva seems different from īśvara. However just as the reflection of the face is not really different from the original face, jīva is not really different from īśvara.
Unlike in ābhāsa-vāda, in pratibimba-vāda there is no mithyā reflection of caitanya in avidyā. What is mistaken as a reflection of caitanya in avidyā is actually original caitanya alone. Therefore the as-though 'reflection' of caitanya in avidyā is actually considered satya, not mithyā. Only the status of the reflection as different from original caitanya is considered mithyā. Therefore brahma-jñāna is not the negation of the reflection, but the negation of the difference between the reflection and the original. In the example of the reflection of a face in a mirror, there is no reflection located in the mirror. What is perceived as a reflection in the mirror is actually the real original face mistaken to be located in the mirror2.
Question: Isn't original caitanya nirguṇa-brahman, not īśvara? Īśvara is defined as saguṇa-brahman, with attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence. Therefore shouldn't īśvara be defined as the reflection of caitanya in māyā-upādhi?
Answer: Nirguṇa-brahman is attributed with the limitless attributes of īśvara such as omniscience and omnipotence only relative to the limited attributes of jīva. As long as jīva is considered limited, nirguṇa-brahman gains the status of īśvara. As soon as jīva is known to be free of limitation, the status of nirguṇa-brahman as īśvara is irrelevant. Therefore it is possible to say that the same avidyā upādhi that causes the notion of a jīva with limited attributes also causes the notion of an īśvara with limitless attributes. A separate māyā upādhi is not required.
Question: In avaccheda-vāda and ābhāsa-vāda, just as many pots can contain and reflect ākāśa, jīva is many because avidyā is also many. In pratibimba-vāda, is avidyā one or many? Since the status of both jīva and īśvara is caused by avidyā, if avidyā is many, both jīva and īśvara will be many. If avidyā is one, both jīva and īśvara will be one.
Answer: Only one īśvara is mentioned in veda, therefore avidyā also must be one. As a result, just as there is only one primary individual in dream, in waking also there is also only one primary jīva (this was explained here).
Thus pratibimba-vāda can be considered the most precise representation of the vedānta teaching because it explains the apparent difference and true oneness between jīva and īśvara most completely. However the teaching tradition does not insist on one vāda over another. As long as a vāda helps in gaining brahma-jñāna, it is considered valid3.
Based on topics 449-452
1. The word 'ābhāsa' literally means a replica or shadow. It is translated as 'reflection' here to conform to the example of ākāśa manifest in a water-filled pot or clouds.
2. In pratibimba-vāda, the phenomenon of reflection is described as follows. The very moment an antaḥ-karaṇa-vṛtti objectifies the mirror, it is reflected off the mirror and objectifies the face as well. As a result, the face is perceived to be located in the mirror. However what is perceived as a reflection of the face in the mirror is actually the original face alone.
3. This is stated by Sureśvarācārya in the following verse: yayā yayā bhavet puṃsāṃ vyutpattiḥ pratyagātmani, sa saiva prakriyeha syāt sādhvī sā cānavasthitā (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya Vārtika 1.4.402).
2. In pratibimba-vāda, the phenomenon of reflection is described as follows. The very moment an antaḥ-karaṇa-vṛtti objectifies the mirror, it is reflected off the mirror and objectifies the face as well. As a result, the face is perceived to be located in the mirror. However what is perceived as a reflection of the face in the mirror is actually the original face alone.
3. This is stated by Sureśvarācārya in the following verse: yayā yayā bhavet puṃsāṃ vyutpattiḥ pratyagātmani, sa saiva prakriyeha syāt sādhvī sā cānavasthitā (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya Vārtika 1.4.402).
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sep 29, 2025, 1:45:29 AM (8 days ago) Sep 29
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Hari Om,
Very well explained.
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/CAKk0Te2BBpXMoS1ZWJJHBkSA_vmDGBbQ--cGeF70-WGvfOp7XA%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages