| Part ofa series on | |
| Hindu philosophy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Orthodox | |
| Heterodox | |
Sub-schools | |
| |
Pratibimbavada (Sanskrit: प्रतिबिम्बवाद) or thetheory of reflection, whose origin can be traced to theBrahma Sutra II.iii.50, is credited to Padmapada, the founder of theVivarana School ofAdvaita Vedanta and the author ofPancapadika which is a commentary onSankara’sBrahma Sutra Bhasya. According to theVivarana School,Brahman is the locus ofAvidya, and which, with regard to the relation existing between theJiva andBrahman, concludes that the Jiva is a mere reflection (pratibimba) of its prototype (bimba) i.e., of Brahman, and therefore, identical with its essence, Brahman. This school holds the view that themahavakya,tat tvam asi, is sufficient for the attainment of enlightenment, of the realization of the identity between the self and Reality.[1]
The followers ofAvacchedavada, the theory of limitation credited toVacaspati Misra, the founder of theBhamati school, are of the view thatPratibimbavada fails to explain how absolute consciousness, which has no sensible qualities, can be reflected; the followers ofPratibimbavada are of the view that limitation, implying ignorance, actually separates the Universal Self from the individual self which cannot be the locus ofAvidya, that the modified consciousness cannot be the ground or support for the limiting adjunct which produces it.[2]
But, both theAvacchedavada and thePratibimbavada do not escape thedualism incipient in them, from which drawback Sankara's concept ofanirvacaniya maya does not suffer;anirvacaniya means – something, although positive, is neither determinable as real, nor as unreal. The former lays emphasis on the aspect ofabheda ('non-difference') and the latter emphazises more on the aspect ofbheda ('difference').Sankara sees no connection whatsoever between the Self (Atman) and the mind-body complex except throughavidya that gives no real connection but only an imagined connection.[3]
Vadiraja, although refuting non-dualism since plurality of Brahman's attributes is inescapable if the primary sense of the scriptures interpreted is taken seriously, accepts a limited similarity between Jiva and Brahman but contends that if the reflection of Brahman stands for the Jiva, the embodied soul, the same, owing to the obvious dissimilarities referred to, cannot be identified with Brahman then such a comparison only succeeds in annihilating the soul.[4] Sankara regards the reflection of consciousness (Chidabhasa) as wholly unreal.[5] In hisManeesha Panchakam (St.2), Sankara argues that distinctions if any between the one Consciousness reflected in the hearts of all and its reflection are delusory. According to theVedanta the 'Light of Consciousness' reflected in the pools of thought in the mind-intellect is the individualised sentient ego in each one of us; this is the Theory of Reflection.[6]Vidyaranya reiterates thatAbhasa andPratibimba refer to slight or partial manifestation which resembles the real but does not have the properties of the real entity.[7]
The individual soul is only the reflection of the Atman on the mind; this reflection gives rise to a separate sense of ego. The pure consciousness of the Atman is unchangeable; as the reflection of its consciousness falls upon the mind the mind takes the form of the Atman and appears to be conscious. The mind is able to perceive because it reflects both the Atman and the object of perception (Yoga Sutras IV.21-22).[8] Whereas Padmapada in hisPancapadika and Prakasatman in hisPancapadikavivarna hold thatIshvara andJiva as reflections of pure consciousness, the reflection thatavidya ('nescience') superimposed on Brahman receives, that the reflected image is as real as the prototype, Sarvajnatman in hisSamksepasariraka states that Pure Consciousness reflected in nescience isIshvara and the same pure consciousness reflected in the inner sense is theJiva on which accountIshvara, as a reflected image, is subject to the defects ofavidya in as much as when characterized by nescience the self is construed as a witness; when identified with the intellect, it is taken to be the knower.[9]
Pratibimbavada[10] states that the Self (Brahman orAtman) is reflected or projected onto its own inscrutable (anirvachaniya) power oravidya ('nescience'). Thus theJiva is the reflection (effect), and is non-different fromBrahman (since effect doesn't have a separate or independent existence from the cause, just like a gold bangle or a gold ring doesn't have a separate existence from the lump of gold). This leads to the inference that the changing existence orSat-Asat (empirical/objective existence orVyavaharika, and the imagined/subjective existence orPratibhasika), as well as the unchanging, unborn, attribute-less, absolute existence orSat (Paramarthika), are all Brahman (Everything is Brahman[11][12]).
Sloka VIII.32
