[Advaita-l] Difference across Avaccheda, Abhasa and Pratibimba vaadas - English

[V Subrahmanian]

Please use this link to access the article:

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:

Avaccheda, ābhāsa, and pratibimba-vāda
<http://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/06/avaccheda-abhasa-and-pratibimba-vada.html>
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
<http://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/05/laksana-vrtti-in-maha-vakya.html>).
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
reflection*1* 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
<http://www.vicharasagara.com/2013/01/four-types-of-caitanya.html>.)

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 mirror*2*.

*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
<http://www.vicharasagara.com/2014/11/is-ajnana-one-or-many.html>).

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 valid*3*.

*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).


On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 3:24 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> https://www.vicharasagara.com/2015/06/avaccheda-abhasa-and-pratibimba-vada.html
>
>