Critiquing Pratibimbvad school of Advaita Vedanta with Hegelian Ontology

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

What is Pratibimbvad?

Pratibimbvad (translating to the theory of reflection) is a traditional school of Advaita Vedanta which proposes the existence of only one fundamental principle. This fundamental reality is defined as absolute existence identical with pure consciousness. The multiplicity seen in phenomenal reality is but a superimposed illusion . The soul and the world are reflections of the fundamental principle in a limiting adjunct. Philosopher Madhusan Saraswati explains this through the metaphor of a mirror. An object reflected in a mirror produces two distinguishable entities. Yet the reflection is an appearance produced by the mirror and fundamentally only one entity exists.

Nature and attributes of the fundamental principle

Any predicate attached to the fundamental principle is illusionary. Qualities such as omniscience are a result of the fundamental principle being in a limited adjunct. The fundamental principle is described as immeasurable and unknowable. No predicates especially those obtained through phenomenological inferences) can be applied to the fundamental principle .To know the fundamental principle would reduce it to insentience. It exists in a state only defined by itself.

Hegelian conception of Pure Being

In the first chapter of “Science of Logic, Hegel defines the concept of pure being. An entity that can only be defined as “I=I”. The entity lacks any determination or diversity within itself (Hegel, “Science Logic” §132). Hegel compares pure being to nothingness, marking the similarity between both. The absence of determination makes the empty pure being and pure nothingness, basically the same. 

Argument against “Pratibimbvad”

Pure being is defined by the lack of diversity within itself, lack of any determinations, and a state of existence only comparable to itself. Compare this to the first principle–multiplicity is seen as an illusion; lack of any predicates; and its completely unknowable existence. The first principle matches Hegel’s conception of a pure being. The first principle, hence is pure nothingness. But if that were the case, any illusionary multiplicity would not exist in the first place. Going back to Madhusan Saraswati’s metaphor to explain the illusion of multiplicity, for an object to be reflected in a mirror, it must have the ability to shine an incident ray at it. But an entity that is equivalent to pure nothingness cannot produce an incident ray in the first place. A being that is only defined by itself can only exist by itself. Any multiplicity, illusionary or not, would not be able to exist in such a scenario.

Written proof

1. A first principle exists in a state defined by itself, lacks determinations, is one, and lacks multiplicity [Premise]
2. A first principle superimposes in a limited adjunct to produce an illusionary multiplicity [Premise]
3. Pure being is an entity defined by itself, lacking determinations any diversity within itself [Premise]
4. Pure nothingness is defined by an absence of determination and is empty intuition [Premise]
5. Pure nothingness can’t produce anything [(4); Existential instantiation]
6. Intuition about pure being would be an empty intuition as there is nothing to be thought about [(3), Existential instantiation]
7. Pure being is the same as pure nothingness [(4), (6); Law of Identity]
8. The first principle is the same as pure being [(1), (3); Law of Identity]
9. The first principle is the same as pure nothingness [(7), (8); Law of Identity]
10. The first principle can’t produce anything [(5), (9); Substitution of Identicals]
11. The first principle producing an illusionary multiplicity contradicts its inability to produce nothing [(2), (10); Principle of Explosion]
12. The existence of a first principle existing in a state defined by itself that lacks determination or multiplicity; which produces an illusionary multiplicity in a limited adjunct is absurd [(11); Reductio ad absurdum]