[Advaita-l] Fwd: Avaccheda and Pratibimba illustrations in the Yajnavalkya Smriti

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbu ji,

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:34 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for this response.  Could it be a case of the Parimalakara
> upholding the preference of the Bhamatikara?
>
> Perhaps. However, there are instances in the parimala, where a view
espoused by the Bhamatikara / Kalpatarukara which happens to be contrary to
the Bhashyakara is refuted and the Bhashyakara's view is reinstated as the
correct position.

This specific conclusion drawn by Sri Sharma in the vAkyArtha happens to be
based on the grounds that certain defects are identified with the
pratibimba paksha from the perspective of the avacCheda vAdin, whereas from
the perspective of the pratibimba-vAdin, avacCheda is accepted.


> This is from the Taittiriya Bhashya:  जलसूर्यकादिप्रतिबिम्बवत् प्रवेशः
> स्यादिति चेत् , न ; अपरिच्छिन्नत्वादमूर्तत्वाच्च । परिच्छिन्नस्य
> मूर्तस्यान्यस्य अन्यत्र प्रसादस्वभावके जलादौ सूर्यकादिप्रतिबिम्बोदयः स्यात्
> , न त्वात्मनः ; अमूर्तत्वात् , आकाशादिकारणस्य आत्मनः व्यापकत्वात् ।
> तद्विप्रकृष्टदेशप्रतिबिम्बाधारवस्त्वन्तराभावाच्च प्रतिबिम्बवत्प्रवेशो न
> युक्तः ।   where the Bhashyakara is technically warding off the pratibima
> possibility of Atman.  In the Sutra bhashya too there is such a discussion
> where, at the end, he defends the Sutrakara's pratibimba analogy on the
> grounds that: it is only to show that the vikara, etc. found in the
> pratibimba (reflected Sun in the water subjected to movement, etc.) being
> wrongly attributed to the original.  To this extent alone the analogy is
> admissible/relevant.
>
> Maybe such is the argument/idea of the Parimalakara.
>
Yes, the argument advanced by the Parimalakara is along the lines of what
was said in the ubhaya-lingAdhikaraNam (3.2.5th adhikaraNam), specifically
the sUtra-s  अम्बुवदग्रहणात्तु न तथात्वम् 3.2.19 and
वृद्धिह्रासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावादुभयसामञ्जस्यादेवम् 3.2.20.  The argument that
the Parimalakara advances is that wherever a pratibimba is spoken of, it is
only a similarity with a pratibimba, not the pratibimba itself.

He quotes the bhAShya to the Sutra 3.2.19 and says that to form a
reflection, a distance between the original and the reflecting medium is
needed, which is not possible in the case of the Atma which happens to be
all pervading (from the bhAShya - न तु आत्मा मूर्तः, न चास्मात्पृथग्भूता
विप्रकृष्टदेशाश्चोपाधयः, सर्वगतत्वात् सर्वानन्यत्वाच्च ।), which is the
same argument as that taittirIya bhAShya above. The grounds for similarity
to a reflection is established in Sutra 3.2.20's bhaShya, where it is said
that like a reflection, the Atma appears to take on the properties of the
upAdhi, when in reality it undergoes no change:

किं पुनरत्र विवक्षितं सारूप्यमिति, तदुच्यते — वृद्धिह्रासभाक्त्वमिति ।
जलगतं हि सूर्यप्रतिबिम्बं जलवृद्धौ वर्धते, जलह्रासे ह्रसति, जलचलने चलति,
जलभेदे भिद्यते — इत्येवं जलधर्मानुविधायि भवति, न तु परमार्थतः सूर्यस्य
तथात्वमस्ति ; एवं परमार्थतोऽविकृतमेकरूपमपि सत् ब्रह्म
देहाद्युपाध्यन्तर्भावात् भजत इवोपाधिधर्मान्वृद्धिह्रासादीन् ।
एवमुभयोर्दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः सामञ्जस्यादविरोधः ॥

The interesting thing is how the Parimalakara refutes the view that the
Bhashyakara supports pratibimbavada in the bhashya to the sutra आभास एव च
2.3.50.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan