Now we will take up the objection of Jiva Goswami on Bimba Pratibimba Vada as quoted by the Iskcon blogger
He states as follows
“, Shrila Jiva states, can cast no reflection in its upadhis, or subtle bodies of material existence, because Brahman is devoid of all attributes. Only an object possessing attributes like form and color can cast a reflection. If an object is invisible, how can it be reflected in anything?
If it is countered that the sky, although invisible, casts a reflection in water, Jiva Gosvami replies that it is in fact the stars and planets in the sky that cast reflections in water, not the sky itself. If the sky could cast a reflection, then the wind would also be able to cast one, because air is a grosser material element than sky. According to modern science, the bluish background seen behind the visible bodies in the firmament is an optical illusion created by the refracted sunlight passing through the atmosphere. No concrete, underlying object is there to cast a reflection, only the invisible firmament. Hence the analogy comparing Brahman to the sky being reflected in water is inappropriate here.”
From this quote he makes the following points,
- Only an object possessing form and attribute can cast a reflection in the mirror, since Brahman is without attributes it cannot be reflected in the mirror.
- In a mirror the sky is not reflected the bluish background which we see is an optical illusion.
- Advaitins state Brahman who is like the sky is reflected in a mirror.
Now let us relook at this objection, you will notice a certain amount of ridiculousness in this objection.
1st of all the assumption that Advaitins state that Brahman who is skylike is reflected in a mirror is false. No Advaitin says this. Now all of these objections are on this false assumption. So in short these objections are ridiculous. The analogy taken here is different which this blogger himself says as follows
“it appears to be many, just as the one sun reflected in various receptacles of water appears to be many. In this analogy, the sun remains uninfluenced by the agitation of the water in which it is reflected, even while the reflection is influenced. Similarly, Brahman is never influenced by the changes that its reflections, the jivas, undergo.”
So the analogy is actually sun reflected in droplets of water, here he has shifted the analogy to sky or space reflected in the mirror. So he is refuting the wrong analogy to begin with and he plans to call this a refutation ? Further to explain this blunder committed by him we must understand clearly that an analogy is only given to tell a certain point. Suppose I say to someone your face is moon like I do not mean that I that person’s face white and round like the moon with craters. An analogy is only to tell a certain point, it is not meant to be extended. This is very much against reasonable thinking. I thought that I will explain the relationship between subject and object in this part, but these objections are so pathetic that we do not need to even go there.
Answering ISKCOn 