In section thirty-six, the author of Tattva-sandarbha says that the distinctions between the two entities cannot be explained by theories called Pariccheda-vada and Pratibimba-vada.
The Sanskrit “na” negation that we find at the beginning of the sentence is peremptory, which means that there is no possibility that these two Mayavada theories can find space in the Gaudiya Vaishnava world.
Pariccheda-vada was already mentioned above. We propose it again: the space contained in an amphora is actually one with the total space; it is the walls of the amphora that will make you believe that it is something else. By breaking the amphora it will return to what it has always been, that is, one with space.
The Pratibimba-vada, or reflection theory, holds that just as the sun appears to be plural when reflected in various bodies of water and appears to move when water moves, Brahman appears to be multiple when reflected in the minds of the jivas and when he appears to adopt the characteristics of the jiva.
It is the same Jiva Gosvami who, with these words, responds to the Pariccheda-vada:
“If the limiting superstructures (upadhi) were objectively real and not the result of ignorance, then Brahman, which is beyond the objective realm, could not be subjected to any dissection.”
In other words, using the same example as Advaitavadi, if amphorae were real, then the theory that only Brahman exists would be nullified. If, on the other hand, amphorae were unreal, Brahman could not be limited by them.
This is a section of the book “Tattva Sandarbha”, in English.
To buy the complete book, click here
Leave a Reply