Abhāsa vāda is closely related to pratibimba vāda (reflection theory), but places extra emphasis on the apparent nature of the world and the individual.

The jīva (the individual) is a reflection (ābhāsa) of Brahman in the medium of avidyā (ignorance). Individual ignorance is an immediate consequence of māyā, but īśvara’s māyā (the source of manifestation) itself is not ignorance.

Consciousness appears (cidābhāsa) in the inner instrument (antahkaraṇa) as an individual self (jīva).

The living entity (jīva) perceived is merely an appearance, just as a mirage or fata morgana is an apparition in the desert, deceiving us. Or like fear, in the imagination, projects a snake on a rope. This appearance arises from ignorance and is mithyā (dependent, impermanent, relatively true), and nothing other than brahman itself.

In this model, there are two upādhis (appearances that radiate their qualities onto their medium, consciousness): māyā and avidyā. These are interconnected. Māyā underlies the cosmic dynamics of appearance, while avidyā causes the individual reflection or experience of it. Thus, we call māyā the upādhi of īśvara, the whole. And thus, we call ignorance the upādhi of jīva, the individual.

This model abolishes jīva (individual experience) (bādha) by declaring it illusory bondage. This negation yields mokṣa, freedom. This model is radical and states that there never was any real suffering. What a relief! It’s as if I discover that the snake (fear) never really existed in the rope (fearless consciousness, I).

Pratibimba vāda, on the other hand, means reflection. Here it is said: The jīva is a reflection (pratibimba) of brahman in the kāraṇa śarīra (causal body). Consciousness is as visible as the sun and its reflections in many waters. Or like one false face in a mirror or many false faces appearing in many adjacent mirrors.

This model uses only one upādhi: māyā/avidyā combined. In this model, īśvara is the bimba (the original light) and jīva its reflection (pratibimba). Here, jīva is a reflection of brahman and dissolves by merging back into brahman through knowledge. This model is more gradual, as it does acknowledge suffering, as long as the mirror of mind/māyā ‘exists’.

Śaṅkara uses both models, depending on the context: Ābhāsa vāda for denying the world (e.g., “Brahma satyaṁ, jagan mithyā”). Pratibimba vāda for explaining the unity of jīva and Īśvara (e.g., “Tat Tvam Asi”).

Swami Paramarthananda prefers ābhāsa vāda for its strong denial of duality, but recognizes the pedagogical value of pratibimba vāda. Depending on the listener, one of the models will be used.

Avaccheda vada takes a somewhat simpler approach, using the spatial metaphor. Just as a pot seems to demarcate space, individual experience seems to demarcate consciousness.

But to explain, for example, that inanimate material objects are also consciousness, we need concepts like “appearance” or “reflection.” Every object is pure consciousness, appearing or reflected as an object.

Ābhāsa vāda states that only subtle bodies (sūkṣma śarīra) can “reflect” consciousness, and inert objects cannot.
Pratibimba vāda states that only a pure mind (as a sattvic medium) can clearly reflect brahman.

And then there are the three views on deep sleep. How do ābhāsa vāda, pratibimba vāda, and avaccheda vāda explain deep sleep (suṣupti)? Deep sleep is a crucial state for Vedānta because it reveals the nature of the jīva beyond the limitations of waking and dreaming. Each theory explains it in a slightly different, yet related, way:

1. Ābhāsa vāda (Sureśvarācārya, vārttika prasthāna):
In deep sleep, the mind ceases to appear and becomes unmanifest in its cause (mūlāvidyā/kāraṇa śarīra), and with it the illusory jīva (cidābhāsa) disappears.
Only Brahman remains, shining as the witness (sākṣī) of the absence of experience. The “false face” (cidābhāsa) disappears because the reflecting medium (the mind) is unmanifest (has ceased to appear). But consciousness (Brahman) remains—that’s why you later remember, “I slept happily.” After waking, the mind manifests again, emerges, and the cidābhāsa (jīva) reappears, along with the accompanying sense of individuality. Think of it like a mirage that disappears at night, while the desert (Brahman) remains.

2. Pratibimba vāda (Padmapādācārya, vivaraṇa prasthāna):
In deep sleep, the reflection (pratibimba) merges back into the original (bimba/Brahman) because the “mirror” (the mind) is folded. During sleep, the vṛttis (modifications of the mind) dissolve, causing the reflected consciousness (jīva) to temporarily merge into Brahman. In other words, the reflected image or consciousness (pratibimba) dissolves into the original image or consciousness (bimba). But the potential for reflection remains. Just as a mirror is covered with a cloth, brahman is covered with a blanket of tamas, the quality or energy type that induces sleep. After awakening, the mind reappears, and the reflection (jīva) reappears. Another comparison is often made with a mirror turned downward. The reflection has “disappeared,” but the original face (the bimba brahman) remains untouched.

3. Avaccheda vāda (Vācaspati Miśra, bhāmatī prasthāna). In deep sleep, the limiting incidentalities (mind) dissolve, temporarily expanding the “pot-space” (jīva) into the universal space (Brahman). During sleep, the “pot” (the mind) breaks, so the limited consciousness (jīva) is no longer limited. But the potential for limitation remains (like a pot that can be reassembled). Upon awakening, the mind reforms, and the jīva appears limited again. Analogy: A clay pot dissolving in water—the “pot-space” merges with total space, but the clay (the potential for limitation) remains.

All three agree that deep sleep proves that you are not the mind (since the mind dissolves, you still exist). The bliss of sleep is the experience of a glimpse of Brahman beyond limitation. The difference in emphasis:

Ābhāsa Vāda: “The jīva was always an illusion.” Pratibimba Vāda: “The jīva is a real but dependent reflection.”
Avaccheda Vāda: “The jīva is Brahman, temporarily limited.”

Deep sleep is a clue to your true nature—whether you interpret it as the disappearance of illusion (ābhāsa), the merging of reflection (pratibimba), or
the removal of limitation (avaccheda).

The best way is for a teacher to give these three lessons in the order of avaccheda, pratimbimba, and ābhāsa vāda. In order of increasing subtlety.

Conclusion: All three are models that can each make something clear at their own level. It is clear that ābhāsa vāda is the model that best approximates reality. Consciousness appears seemingly (vivarta) through māyā and individual ignorance as objects to itself. Consciousness does not actually appear as objects.

That ābhāsa is ultimately the most accurate model is reflected in the nature of the examples. The mental projection of a snake on a rope or a mirage in the desert is much more subtle than the cruder mirror metaphor (pratibimba) or the even cruder (breaking) pot metaphor.

Abhāsa vāda also posits that avidyā is a consequence of māyā, which is also perfectly logical. Īśvara’s māyā is not ignorance; avidyā is its immediate, apparent consequence. The entity who sees a world appear through the senses will believe it to be real and live an ignorant life until this knowledge comes their way.