[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 4 20:49:04 CST 2017

Shreeman - PraNams
Thanks for your clarifications.
Hari Om!Sadananda

      From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 8:53 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com [advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> avasthaantarataapattiH Ekasya pariNAmitaa|
> syaat ksheeram dadhi mRit kumbhaH suvarNam kunDalam yathaa||
​First rule to understand anything which is being said is to not guess,
second avoid confirmation-bias, ​and third follow words.
That will remove most problems, if you are trying to get the meaning of a
sentence uttered by someone else.

Accept what vidyAraNya says, don't superimpose your ideas on it, don't bend
it to fit your ideas.

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.

​Mark the usage of 'irreversible transformation' instead of
'transformation' used previously.
That's superimposing your idea on vidyAraNya.
If he didn't included that in his definition, you should also avoid that if
you are a person willing to understand his words.

> To my surprise, he provides the next two example from Ch. Up which
> actually (in my understanding) should belong to vivarta.

​'Should belong'? On what basis? Any rule?
Just because a person never understood a sentence quoted from a
work/uttered by a person and created a castle of thoughts on wrong ideas,
it doesn't mean that other persons should do same!

> 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

​'Transformation-less transformation'? ​Do you mean vivartta by it? If yes,
what is the similarity between rajju-sarpa and it?

  - 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.

यथा स आदेशो भवति तच्छृणु हे सोम्य — यथा लोके एकेन मृत्पिण्डेन
रुचककुम्भादिकारणभूतेन विज्ञातेन सर्वमन्यत्तद्विकारजातं मृन्मयं
मृद्विकारजातं विज्ञातं स्यात् । कथं मृत्पिण्डे कारणे विज्ञाते
कार्यमन्यद्विज्ञातं स्यात् ? नैष दोषः, कारणेनानन्यत्वात्कार्यस्य ।
यन्मन्यसे अन्यस्मिन्विज्ञातेऽन्यन्न ज्ञायत इति — सत्यमेवं स्यात् ,
यद्यन्यत्कारणात्कार्यं स्यात् , न त्वेवमन्यत्कारणात्कार्यम् । कथं तर्हीदं
लोके — इदं कारणमयमस्य विकार इति ? शृणु । वाचारम्भणं वागारम्भणं
वागालम्बनमित्येतत् । कोऽसौ ? विकारो नामधेयं नामैव नामधेयम् , स्वार्थे
धेयप्रत्ययः, वागालम्बनमात्रं नामैव केवलं न विकारो नाम वस्त्वस्ति ;
परमार्थतो मृत्तिकेत्येव मृत्तिकैव तु सत्यं वस्त्वस्ति ॥
​If someone looks closely then this prakaraNa is to establish one-ness(not
absolute though) of cause(upAdAna) and result(kArya). And that results in
'एकविज्ञानेन सर्व्वविज्ञानम्'.
Watch the portion -​ कथं तर्हीदं लोके — इदं कारणमयमस्य विकार इति ? शृणु ।
वाचारम्भणं वागारम्भणं वागालम्बनमित्येतत् ।
The usage if sentence 'इदमस्य कारणं'(This is it's cause, etc.) will not be
a valid one if upAdAna-kArya were one - was asked. And replies the AchArya,
that such usage of words is not based on reality of difference.
The result is told as if it is absolutely different from the upAdAna, while
it(either bheda or the result qualified by that) is not true.

मृत् or clay was not said उपादानम्  here, it was a lump of clay -
मृत्पिण्डः . It is obvious that such lump is totally transformed and hence
fits as परिणामिकारणम्.
Same for Gold, etc.

The cost of each ornament depends on the gold content and not really on the
> attributive aspects of the ornaments.

​Useless sentence in present context. It is a big contributor to confusion.

BTW, the sentence doesn't stand test, as no shop sells you ornaments
without charging for designing.
You are willingly ignoring that because of insignificance compared to gold,
or the pricing team is good at hiding it.

> 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.

​Yes, this will help you to understand why श्रुति uses मृत्पिण्डः, we
choose to ignore that - is another thing.

> 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.

​Can't get it.

> 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.

​Wow!! That's enough to show that there is some big problem with your
I'll like to avoid to read the post further.
But, let me add a hint-
When you are thinking about 'vivartta', don't think about
'Ishvara/jIva-sRiShTi' division.

H S Chandramauli said the same thing, but without hitting directly. So, it
was less convincing.
My post combined with his, may help some people.

BTW, some people are never willing to shun their
pet-ideas(superimpositions), so it may not work for them. But, anyway every
post is an opportunity to help someone in some corner of world, if not to
Original Poster.

> __,_._,___
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