[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 5 05:26:28 CST 2017
First I agree with Subbuji’s post. 1. Everyone accepts from the Advaitapoint Brahman alone is real and since being infinite it cannot undergomodification or transformation. Hence from Brahman point there is no creationeven. Hence any creation is only apparent. We are now only discussingthe details- may be relevant for those who want to know further.
2. Since we see creation that isdifferent from the seer, Vedanta accounts for the apparent creation from therelative point while still no creation from the absolute point. Apparent isapparent and not real - hence the word used by scripture is vaachaarambhanamvikaaraH naamadheyam. The word mithyaa can be arrived on that basis - as sat asat vilakshanam.Is ring real - real at transactional level but not from the point of substratum level. Hence ontological degrees of reality is evident in the examples.
3. When taking a relative examples toillustrate this phenomenon, Scripture itself uses three examples in theChandogya - to illustrate how knowing one thing one can know all. knowing thecause one can know all its effects - This can be applied only to upaadaana kaaranam - That is the theme Vidyaranya starts in the 13th chapter -how one cannot appy the nimitta kaarana - such as pot maker - for this. Ref.sloka 13-5.
4. Eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanambhavati - knowing one thing one can know everything - was the starting point ofUddalaka's proposition. The same theme occurs in Mundaka when the student asks -teach me knowing that I will know everything where the teacher eventuallyteaches paraavidya.
5. The other example for vivarta isthe dream example where plurality appears but the essence is one.
6. Vivarta has to signify in contrastto parinaama, an apparent transformation while the substantive remainsunaffected. The three examples stated in the Chandogya fullfill the definitionhence scriptures repeats the same theme – vaacharambhanam vikaaraH.
7. In the mud pot and gold-ring example, there is apparent modifications inbecoming pot or a ring, however thesubstantive remains unaffected. Hence it is vivarta only as scripture declaresas vaacaarambhanam vikaaraH. Vidyaranya also illustrates in the 13thin the further slokas Tai. Up statements in term creation how from aatma – space-air-fire-water-earthare formed all the way to the body (bodies).
8. Hence the reference to Chandogya is directly relevant where creation (maynot have all the five – aakaasha to pruthivee) listed before stating that the essenceis the sat swarupam only. Hence we are referring to previous three examples ofgold, mud and iron becoming many are directly relevant as transformation-lesstransformation or vivarta and not parinaama. Parinaama will be valid only ifring becomes a bangle or gold bar becomes ornaments.
9. The rope/snake example is not relevant here since it is related to theaatma becoming many – where maaya Shakti of Iswara is involved. I do not know if Scripture uses this exampleanywhere. As I understand Shankara and Goudapaada also if I remember use thisto point out the adhyaasa. This is different from Iswara sRishti that theVidyaranya is referring to in the above chapter where the analysis is to showthat aatmaananda is the same as brahmaananda.
10 I feel that Shankara did not feel important enough to go into that detail whereAnanda Giri was zeroing in for further clarification.
Hari Om! Sadananda
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
To: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Cc: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste Sri Subrahmanian Ji, Reg << In the gloss, Anandagiri Acharya too remarks: the firstanalogy is as per
the parinama vada and the second is as per vivarta vada. So, Shankara does
not make a distinction between the two methods. Ta he context of the above
bhashya is also interesting: It is the sankalpa of Brahman: Let me become
many and create the world. So, the One becoming many is actually the Sat
appearing as many and both the parinama and vivarta prakriyas are fine in
explaining this. Ultimately, Sat alone is real, whether it is seen as the
Karana (clay) or adhishtana (vivarta, rope).>>, I find it difficult to agree with such a conclusion. SriBhagavatpada certainly makes a distinction between the two methods, parinamaand vivarta. One becoming many could be in both ways. But One becoming many withoutitself undergoing vikAra is only by one method, vivarta. For ease of understanding and to lead to thefinal Truth starting from familiar anubhava, parinama vada is acceptedprovisionally and presented initially toexplain the process of Creation. But it is rejected in the final analysis andonly vivarta vada is accepted by Sri Bhagavatpada. Regards
I think the very Chandogya shruti which gives the example is admitting that the clay-clay products case is a teaching of vivarta only for the usage of 'vikaro naamadheyam' and 'mrttiketyeva satyam' [vikara is mere name, mithya, and the upadana karanam alone is satyam] So, the vivarta vada case need not be introduced by the advaitin with effort. Everywhere. Shankara has held, it is the cause alone that is seen as the effects.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list