[Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 4 04:20:39 CST 2017
Venkatraghavanji - PraNams
Thanks for the input. I still have a problem in appreciating the parinaama vs vivarta in the examples provided.
I would have agreed with your explanation, other than the fact that Shree Vidhyaranaya is discussing about the creation in terms of upaadaana kaaraNam as the following slokas provide. In that sense the topic is directly relevant to the Chandogya Up. statements - vaachaarambhanam vikaara naamadheyam. Unmanifested gold cannot be perceived also if we exclude all forms of its appearances.
Not sure if rope/snake example is provided by Upanishads, at least it is not common - may be some rare upanishad.
Shree vidyaranya is discussing in this chapter about maaya shakti and its locus, Iswara; and the discussion pertains to Iswara srushTi only and not to jeeva srushti as in the case of rope/snake example. Perhaps mirage water would have been a better example where errors in perception is universal.
From: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
Namaste Sadaji,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 pariNAma.
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 Ch.
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.
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