[Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Feb 4 02:05:58 CST 2017
The difference because what is the focus of what is being conveyed is
different in the two places.
In the particular place in Panchadashi, Swami Vidyaranya is seeking to
distinguish pariNAma and vivarta. The basis of the differentiation is
whether the substratum is transformed or not. In the case of gold, the gold
bar is moulded into jewelry, so a physical transformation occurs.
The vAcArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam shruti is saying that because we are
talking of the ultimate cause in the context, no real transformation is
possible. Therefore even though we talk of separate things such as
ornaments, instruments or pot, they are merely different names and forms
for the underlying cause. The focus here is not on how the cause came to be
the effect (whether through a physical transformation or merely an
appearance), but on there being only vastu, with two names and forms.
On 4 Feb 2017 4:16 a.m., "kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> PraNams to all.
> Would welcome your thoughts on the following.
> We are currently doing the 13th Ch. of Panchadashi.
> I encountered this sloka - 13-8. In discussing the creation aspect, Shree
> Vidyaranya presents this sloka as examples of PariNAma
> avasthaantarataapattiH Ekasya pariNAmitaa|syaat ksheeram dadhi mRit
> kumbhaH suvarNam kunDalam yathaa||
> avasthaantarataa aapatthiH - transforming into another state is
> pariNAmitaa - Essentially a transformation from one state to another state.
> The first example he gives is ksheeram dadhiH - milk truning into curds or
> yogurt. This is an irreversible transformation and well quoted example for
> To my surprise, he provides the next two example from Ch. Up which
> actually (in my understanding) should belong to vivarta. The next examples
> provided in the above sloka is - just as clay becoming pot and gold
> becoming ornament. The later ones Uddlaka uses for transformation-less
> transformation - and upanishad uses the word for this as -
> vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH - or namesake or naamkevaaste transformation
> since gold still remains as gold but appears as different ornaments each
> differing from the other - yet all are gold. The cost of each ornament
> depends on the gold content and not really on the attributive aspects of
> the ornaments. Transformation of ring into bangle can be called pariNAms
> since like Gold it is destructive transformation since that particular ring
> is destroyed to make bangle - it is similar to milk becoming curds.
> In sense the first example milk turning into curds is not of the same type
> as gold appearing as ornaments or clay appearing as pot.
> Most surprising is for vivarta - he gives the example of rope/snake -
> which is more like praatibhaasika error and belongs to Jeeva sRiShTi than
> Iswara sRiShTi that the topic is primarily concerned. The next sloka says:
> avasthaantara bhaanamtu vivarto rajju sarpavat| Appearance as another
> state without undergoing a change is vivarta. Here the appearance of snake
> without rope undergoing any change is called vivarta, at the outset appears
> to be right but appearance of the snake on the rope does not come under
> Iswara sRiShTi - Which shree Vidyaranya exhaustively discusses in the 4th
> Question, how did Shankara interpreted the Ch. Up. examples with
> vaachaarambhanam vikaara naamadheyam statements that is repeated 3 times -
> for Uddlaka to illustrate - ekavijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati - by
> knowing one thing one can know everything.
> I am puzzled.
> Hari Om!Sadananda
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list