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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

I don't have the CDs of Sri MDS' talks that you refer to, but that is ok -
if I do happen to get these in the future, will listen.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 12:42 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>
> Reg  // Can I ask how you took the text above to mean that the bimba and
> pratibimba are in different loci? //,
>
> Please refer to the talk by Sri MDS coverage of VPS, CD 9, Hrs 2-47
> onwards.
>
> Reg  // is it that Brahman and jIva must be understood to be in different
> loci because the bimba and pratibimba are in different loci? //,
>
> No. I am not sure if you have seen my earlier post where I have cited this
> part of VPS. It is that Brahman and jIva are in same loci while object in
> front of mirror and image are in different loci (as noted above).
>
> Reg  // totally your prerogative //,
>
> I just want to limit the scope of the discussion. I presume the above
> clarifications would suffice.
>
> Regards
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:54 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 11:54 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>>
>>> The view that ** the pratibimba itself is the bimba - ie they are
>>> absolutely identical** does not affect my understanding in the current
>>> context of how the word **abheda** needs to be understood in the context of
>>> jIva Brahma Aikya vis-à-vis mirror-object reflection illustration. The two
>>> can be identical, but if they are in different locations or loci, then
>>> there is **bheda** between them to that extent.
>>>
>> I am not sure what you are suggesting here - is it that Brahman and jIva
>> must be understood to be in different loci because the bimba and pratibimba
>> are in different loci?
>>
>> This is stated in so many words in VivaraNa Prameya Samgraha itself which
>>> I had cited earlier and copied below for immediate reference.
>>>
>>> Vivarana Prameya Samgraha  (edition with hindi commentary), page 214
>>> states  //  ….दर्पणेन  चैकमेव मुखबिम्बप्रतिबिम्बरूपेण  विभज्यते …..//,
>>>
>>> // …..darpaNena  chaikameva mukhabimbapratibimbarUpeNa  vibhajyate….. //,
>>>
>>> Translation VPS (Prof Suryanarayana Shastri) page 129  // ……and by the
>>> mirror the face which is but one is divided into prototype and reflection
>>> ….//.
>>>
>> Can I ask how you took the text above to mean that the bimba and
>> pratibimba are in different loci? Sure, the error is in assuming that the
>> pratibimba is "in the mirror", but the bimba pratibimbavAda of the
>> panchapAdikAkAra / vivaraNakAra does not admit that the pratibimba is,
>> *in* *fact*, "in the mirror". Rather, it is the bimba itself that is
>> seen as the pratibimba - meaning they are not in different loci.
>>
>> I have not checked in PanchapAdikA or VivaraNa separately. I have assumed
>>> that VPS presents the views of these texts only even if Swami Vidyaranya
>>> were to hold other views by himself.
>>>
>>> I am not going into debate over what the word **identical** means in the
>>> context of this illustration. I am limiting myself to what the commentaries
>>> state about **bheda** and **abheda** as between object and image , and how
>>> they might be interpreted.
>>>
>> Again, I am not clear what you mean exactly by the above -  you do not
>> want to debate the meaning of the word "identical", and that is fine and
>> totally your prerogative, but then aren't you doing just that, when you are
>> talking what the abheda between the object and image means in the
>> commentaries, even if (I assume) you want to say that it does not mean
>> "identical"?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>