02-11-2005, 01:51 AM
Lessons in Vedanta - Excellent link.
In the previous lesson, while discussing about Atma and Anatma, we had raised a question as to how Atma - which is one and only one - appears as different Jeevatmas. The answer to that question was given by using the analogy called <b>Avachchinna Vaada</b>. The name of another analogy called <b>Pratibimba Vaada</b> was also mentioned there. What is meant by Pratibimba Vaada?
<b>Pratibimba Vaada</b>
It is true that Atma is only one and pervades everywhere. But it is only when it reflects in the inner instrument of cognition that we will be able to recognise it. If it were to pervade everywhere without reflecting in the Antahkarana (inner instrument of cognition), we can not recognise Atma Chaitanya. When the same Atma reflects in different Antahkaranas we tend to believe that there are many Jeevatmas and forget that all the reflections come from the same Atma.
When an object reflects in a mirror, the original object is called as Bimba and the reflection is called as Pratibimba. Only when there is Pratibimba (reflection) we call the original object as Bimba. Otherwise, it is called as an object only.
There is only one sun in the sky. We are able to see sunâs reflection in a sea, a pond, a pot and a small plate. A child which sees these reflections says that because the sunâs reflection in the ocean gives out more rays, it must be a big sun and that because the reflection in a cup of water gives fewer rays, it must be a small sun. indirectly, he implies multitude of suns. On the other hand, an elderly person says that there is only one sun and to think that there are many suns by looking at his reflections in different places is only an illusion. Similarly, men of knowledge assert that the seeming multitude of Jeevatmas is only an illusion and that there is only one Atma just as there is only one sun.
<b>Question:</b> While presenting Avachchinna Vaada, it was mentioned that the Anatma Padartha is only one in the Karana (causal) state, but many in the (Karya) effect state. Now in this doctrine of Pratibimba Vaada, you say that the sun reflected in water. In all the examples, the sun reflects in the same object - i.e., water. Water is the same whether it is in the sea or in a cup. But such sameness can not be attributed to Antahkaranas. Each is different from the other. Therefore, the above example of reflection may not be apt.
<b>Answer:</b> Agreed, water is one. But when you see the same water in one place, you call it as sea. In another place, you call it as pond. In another place, you call it as well. Does anything other than water make the sea? Does anything other than water make the pond? Does anything other than water make the well? No. similarly, although Anatma Padartha is only one, it behaves differently. It is because of this that different Antahkaranas exist. The Atma is reflected in them and appears as different Jeevatmas.
<b>Question:</b> What was elucidated in Avachchinna Vaada is not different from this. Where is the need to present another doctrine - Pratibimba Vaada?
<b>Answer:</b> Although sun reflects in water, he does not acquire the qualities like coolness, mobility etc., which are the characteristics of water (in which he reflects). Similarly, the qualities of Kartritva (doership) and Bhoktritva (enjoyership) do not be transferred to Atma. Donât you know that the movement of sun in the reflection is only illusory and that in reality the sun is stationary? Similarly, to assume that the Atma (which reflects as Jeevatma in the beings) assumes Kartritva (doership) and Bhoktritva (enjoyership) is due to illusion. Therefore Jeevatma is also referred to as âChidabhaasaâ (imagination). It is to make this point clear that the doctrine of Pratibimba Vaada had to be presented.
It is clear from the above that there is no independent existence to the reflections of the Sun. What exists is only one sun. similarly, the Jeevatma is merely a chidabhasa (imagination). Therefore, Paramatma is none other than Jeevatma and Jeevatma is none other than Paramatma.
<b>Question:</b> While presenting Avachchinna Vaada, you did not say that the space in the pot was imaginary. But here, you say that Jeevatma is Chidaabhaasa (imaginary). In other words, Jeevatma is non existent. How can you say that Jeevatma (which is non existent) and Atma (which always exists) are one and the same? Is it not a mistake to say that the non existent is existent?
<b>Answer:</b> Are not water, wave and bubble different entities? What is a wave? Is it different from water? Is there anything other than water in it? No. When there is nothing other than water, why is it being given another name? If it is said that there is something else, it must be possible to show it. There is no substance other than water in the wave. Because of its special form, we call it a wave. Similar is the case with water bubble. Because of its special shape, it is called as a bubble. The wave is the substratum for the bubble. Similarly water is the substratum for the wave. The three are different states of water.
Similarly there are three states for Jeevatma. They are Paramarthika (real) state, Vyavaharika (practical existence) state and Praatibhaasika (appearing as though existing) state.
When the Jeeva is in the dream state, he is called as Praatibhaasika Jeeva (Jeeva appearing as though existing). In the wakeful state, he is called as Vyaavahaarika Jeeva (a state accepted for the purpose of Vyavahaara - transactions). In the state of sushupti (deep sleep state), he is called as Paaramaarthika Jeeva (a truly existing state).
The Paaramaarthika is like water, while the Vyaavahaarika is like the wave. The Praatibhaasika is like the bubble. Just as wave form came from water and the bubble form came from the wave, so also the Praatibhaasika comes from the Vyaavahaarika and the Vyaavahaarika comes from the Paaramaarthika existence.
The qualities of water - namely sweetness, coolness etc., are present in the wave also and in the bubble too. Similarly the cardinal attributes of Atma - namely âSatâ, âChitâ and âAnandaâ are present in all the three states of the Jeeva.
No bubble without the wave and no wave without water. Similarly, Praatibhaasika can not exist if there is no Vyaavahaarika and Vyaavahaarika can not exist in the absence of the Paaramaarthika. Thus, just as water is the basis for both the wave and the bubble, so is Paaramaarthika the base for both Vyaavahaarika and Praatibhaasika.
Whether we call it a wave or a bubble, what exists there is nothing but water. Similarly, whether we call it Vyaavahaarika or Praatibhaasika, what exists there is nothing but the Paaramaarthika.
Another name of the Paaramaarthika Jeeva is âParamatmaâ. Another name is <b>âKootasthaâ</b> (koota - a raised iron platform on which the gold smith places gold for beating). The goldsmith places gold on the platform and subjects it to different processes while making an ornament. The gold undergoes modifications while the platform remains unchanged. It is to denote such changeless nature that the name Kootastha is given.
The water bubble is not different from water. We do not see any reason why the can not be considered as one and the same. Similarly we do not see any reason why we should not consider Jeevatma as Paramatma.
The same truth was deduced in the Avachchinna Vaada when it was said that the Ghataakaasha and Mathaakasha are not different.
We can understand one more aspect in this doctrine of reflection (Pratibimba Vaada).
When the Paramatma Chaitanya reflects in the Anaatma Padartha, (i.e., in ignorance), it is called as Ishwara. When it reflects in the Antahkarana, it is called as Jeeva.
When we place a small red rose flower behind a big and crystal-clear Shivalingam, we do not see the flower. But the Lingam appears red. "Because of its proximity to the flower, it causes an illusion which makes us think as though the lingam itself if red" - say knowledgeable persons.
If we consider the Paramatma Chaitanya to be the crystal lingam, the rose is like the ignorance which is of the nature of Anatma. It means to say, when the Atma Chaitanya is close to Ajnaana (ignorance), it gets the name Ishwara. When it reflects in the Antahkarana of the nature of ignorance, it is called as Jeeva.
When an object reflects in a mirror, the original object is called âBimbaâ, while its reflection is called as âPratibimbaâ. Extending the same logic, it can be said that the Bimba Chaitanya (the original principle) is Paramatma. When this becomes Ajnaana Upahita (appearing as though influenced by ignorance - just as the crystal lingam appears as though it is red), it is called Ishwara or Bhagavanta. When it reflects in the Antahkarana, it is called as Jeeva.
By this discussion, it becomes clear that Jeeva, Ishwara and Paramaatma are merely different names and not different entities. This is the use of presenting the doctrine of reflection (Pratibimba Vaada).
Thus, when we apply the Avachchinna Vaada and Pratibimba Vaada, to analyse Atma Padartha and Anaatma Padartha, it becomes clear that the Atma is only one and that it is real. It also becomes evident that it is not different from âIâ. This is the conclusion that we have arrived at in the previous lessons.
In the previous lesson, while discussing about Atma and Anatma, we had raised a question as to how Atma - which is one and only one - appears as different Jeevatmas. The answer to that question was given by using the analogy called <b>Avachchinna Vaada</b>. The name of another analogy called <b>Pratibimba Vaada</b> was also mentioned there. What is meant by Pratibimba Vaada?
<b>Pratibimba Vaada</b>
It is true that Atma is only one and pervades everywhere. But it is only when it reflects in the inner instrument of cognition that we will be able to recognise it. If it were to pervade everywhere without reflecting in the Antahkarana (inner instrument of cognition), we can not recognise Atma Chaitanya. When the same Atma reflects in different Antahkaranas we tend to believe that there are many Jeevatmas and forget that all the reflections come from the same Atma.
When an object reflects in a mirror, the original object is called as Bimba and the reflection is called as Pratibimba. Only when there is Pratibimba (reflection) we call the original object as Bimba. Otherwise, it is called as an object only.
There is only one sun in the sky. We are able to see sunâs reflection in a sea, a pond, a pot and a small plate. A child which sees these reflections says that because the sunâs reflection in the ocean gives out more rays, it must be a big sun and that because the reflection in a cup of water gives fewer rays, it must be a small sun. indirectly, he implies multitude of suns. On the other hand, an elderly person says that there is only one sun and to think that there are many suns by looking at his reflections in different places is only an illusion. Similarly, men of knowledge assert that the seeming multitude of Jeevatmas is only an illusion and that there is only one Atma just as there is only one sun.
<b>Question:</b> While presenting Avachchinna Vaada, it was mentioned that the Anatma Padartha is only one in the Karana (causal) state, but many in the (Karya) effect state. Now in this doctrine of Pratibimba Vaada, you say that the sun reflected in water. In all the examples, the sun reflects in the same object - i.e., water. Water is the same whether it is in the sea or in a cup. But such sameness can not be attributed to Antahkaranas. Each is different from the other. Therefore, the above example of reflection may not be apt.
<b>Answer:</b> Agreed, water is one. But when you see the same water in one place, you call it as sea. In another place, you call it as pond. In another place, you call it as well. Does anything other than water make the sea? Does anything other than water make the pond? Does anything other than water make the well? No. similarly, although Anatma Padartha is only one, it behaves differently. It is because of this that different Antahkaranas exist. The Atma is reflected in them and appears as different Jeevatmas.
<b>Question:</b> What was elucidated in Avachchinna Vaada is not different from this. Where is the need to present another doctrine - Pratibimba Vaada?
<b>Answer:</b> Although sun reflects in water, he does not acquire the qualities like coolness, mobility etc., which are the characteristics of water (in which he reflects). Similarly, the qualities of Kartritva (doership) and Bhoktritva (enjoyership) do not be transferred to Atma. Donât you know that the movement of sun in the reflection is only illusory and that in reality the sun is stationary? Similarly, to assume that the Atma (which reflects as Jeevatma in the beings) assumes Kartritva (doership) and Bhoktritva (enjoyership) is due to illusion. Therefore Jeevatma is also referred to as âChidabhaasaâ (imagination). It is to make this point clear that the doctrine of Pratibimba Vaada had to be presented.
It is clear from the above that there is no independent existence to the reflections of the Sun. What exists is only one sun. similarly, the Jeevatma is merely a chidabhasa (imagination). Therefore, Paramatma is none other than Jeevatma and Jeevatma is none other than Paramatma.
<b>Question:</b> While presenting Avachchinna Vaada, you did not say that the space in the pot was imaginary. But here, you say that Jeevatma is Chidaabhaasa (imaginary). In other words, Jeevatma is non existent. How can you say that Jeevatma (which is non existent) and Atma (which always exists) are one and the same? Is it not a mistake to say that the non existent is existent?
<b>Answer:</b> Are not water, wave and bubble different entities? What is a wave? Is it different from water? Is there anything other than water in it? No. When there is nothing other than water, why is it being given another name? If it is said that there is something else, it must be possible to show it. There is no substance other than water in the wave. Because of its special form, we call it a wave. Similar is the case with water bubble. Because of its special shape, it is called as a bubble. The wave is the substratum for the bubble. Similarly water is the substratum for the wave. The three are different states of water.
Similarly there are three states for Jeevatma. They are Paramarthika (real) state, Vyavaharika (practical existence) state and Praatibhaasika (appearing as though existing) state.
When the Jeeva is in the dream state, he is called as Praatibhaasika Jeeva (Jeeva appearing as though existing). In the wakeful state, he is called as Vyaavahaarika Jeeva (a state accepted for the purpose of Vyavahaara - transactions). In the state of sushupti (deep sleep state), he is called as Paaramaarthika Jeeva (a truly existing state).
The Paaramaarthika is like water, while the Vyaavahaarika is like the wave. The Praatibhaasika is like the bubble. Just as wave form came from water and the bubble form came from the wave, so also the Praatibhaasika comes from the Vyaavahaarika and the Vyaavahaarika comes from the Paaramaarthika existence.
The qualities of water - namely sweetness, coolness etc., are present in the wave also and in the bubble too. Similarly the cardinal attributes of Atma - namely âSatâ, âChitâ and âAnandaâ are present in all the three states of the Jeeva.
No bubble without the wave and no wave without water. Similarly, Praatibhaasika can not exist if there is no Vyaavahaarika and Vyaavahaarika can not exist in the absence of the Paaramaarthika. Thus, just as water is the basis for both the wave and the bubble, so is Paaramaarthika the base for both Vyaavahaarika and Praatibhaasika.
Whether we call it a wave or a bubble, what exists there is nothing but water. Similarly, whether we call it Vyaavahaarika or Praatibhaasika, what exists there is nothing but the Paaramaarthika.
Another name of the Paaramaarthika Jeeva is âParamatmaâ. Another name is <b>âKootasthaâ</b> (koota - a raised iron platform on which the gold smith places gold for beating). The goldsmith places gold on the platform and subjects it to different processes while making an ornament. The gold undergoes modifications while the platform remains unchanged. It is to denote such changeless nature that the name Kootastha is given.
The water bubble is not different from water. We do not see any reason why the can not be considered as one and the same. Similarly we do not see any reason why we should not consider Jeevatma as Paramatma.
The same truth was deduced in the Avachchinna Vaada when it was said that the Ghataakaasha and Mathaakasha are not different.
We can understand one more aspect in this doctrine of reflection (Pratibimba Vaada).
When the Paramatma Chaitanya reflects in the Anaatma Padartha, (i.e., in ignorance), it is called as Ishwara. When it reflects in the Antahkarana, it is called as Jeeva.
When we place a small red rose flower behind a big and crystal-clear Shivalingam, we do not see the flower. But the Lingam appears red. "Because of its proximity to the flower, it causes an illusion which makes us think as though the lingam itself if red" - say knowledgeable persons.
If we consider the Paramatma Chaitanya to be the crystal lingam, the rose is like the ignorance which is of the nature of Anatma. It means to say, when the Atma Chaitanya is close to Ajnaana (ignorance), it gets the name Ishwara. When it reflects in the Antahkarana of the nature of ignorance, it is called as Jeeva.
When an object reflects in a mirror, the original object is called âBimbaâ, while its reflection is called as âPratibimbaâ. Extending the same logic, it can be said that the Bimba Chaitanya (the original principle) is Paramatma. When this becomes Ajnaana Upahita (appearing as though influenced by ignorance - just as the crystal lingam appears as though it is red), it is called Ishwara or Bhagavanta. When it reflects in the Antahkarana, it is called as Jeeva.
By this discussion, it becomes clear that Jeeva, Ishwara and Paramaatma are merely different names and not different entities. This is the use of presenting the doctrine of reflection (Pratibimba Vaada).
Thus, when we apply the Avachchinna Vaada and Pratibimba Vaada, to analyse Atma Padartha and Anaatma Padartha, it becomes clear that the Atma is only one and that it is real. It also becomes evident that it is not different from âIâ. This is the conclusion that we have arrived at in the previous lessons.