Now we will take up some more pathetic objections , I will put it in the form of points
.1. But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a relation with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium.
2.In response to this contention, the Advaita monists cite the analogy of a clear crystal that appears red when placed in front of a red flower.
3.Just as the red color, which is formless and partless, casts its reflection on the crystal, so it is possible for Brahman to be reflected in its upadhis.
4.But this is a faulty argument. The red color in this analogy belongs to the flower, which projects its image through the crystal,
5.although in the crystal we perceive only the flower’s color. The color exists simply as the flower’s attribute and cannot sustain itself independently.
6.A flower, moreover, has shape, parts, and attributes. In sum, neither the color nor the flower compares adequately to Brahman. Therefore, like the analogy of the reflected sky, this analogy has also been applied incongruously by the Mayavadis.
Now unfortunately I have never seen such a pathetic argument to begin with. We have explained in the last part how the relationship between the Paramartha Brahman and Vyavaharika body and mind are established.
So the 1st point is already answered. Now the second point is flawed, Advaitins or even Yogis the follower of the Patanjali school use the crystal and Rose example, but here he makes an error stating that the redness of the rose is formless and this formless redness is represented by Brahman, this is how ridiculous and pathetic the argument of this blogger is to begin with. Here the crystal represents the witness awareness or consciousness, just as the crystal is never touched by the colours of various flowers similarly the witness consciousness or Atman is never touched by the various changes of the mind. The Samkhyas and the Yogis go ahead and accepts multiple Purushas who are also merely witness consciousness, but they are multiple in nature. Advaita does not accept multiple witness consciousnesses. Unfortunately we will check more nonsensical objections in the next part. In short he takes an example which is not used by Advaitins to even begin with and then goes ahead and refutes it, this is called straw man argument.
Answering ISKCOn 