[Advaita-l] No Parinama in Brahman says Shankara Bhagavatpada

[V Subrahmanian]

Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.1.14

 ननु मृदादिदृष्टान्तप्रणयनात् परिणामवद्ब्रह्म शास्त्रस्याभिमतमिति गम्यते ;
परिणामिनो हि मृदादयोऽर्था लोके समधिगता इति ।

Question: From the analogies of clay, gold and iron, it appears that
Brahman is subject to transformation since it is admitted in the world that
clay, etc. undergo transformation to yield their effects of pot, ornament,
etc.

Reply:  It is not so. The shruti passages such as This Atman is unborn,
beyond death, old age, etc. not gross, not subtle, etc. preclude the above
conclusion. These passages teach that Atman is immutable, kUTastha. Can we
say that one Brahman alone is endowed with the attribute of transformation
and also the absence of it? Not so since we have stated Brahman to be
kUTastha, immutable. Such a Brahman cannot have conflicting attributes such
as movement and fixed in one place. Brahman is kutastha and nitya because
it is devoid of all transformations. It is also not the case that just as
the realization that Brahman is verily the Atman leads to moksha, the
transformation of Brahman, independently, is aimed at giving some fruit (to
the aspirant), as there is no pramana for such a contention. The shruti
teaches that the moksha phala is attained only by realizing the kuTastha
brahman (and not by knowing Brahman to be subject to transformation). It is
the firm conclusion that while there is the fruit (of liberation) only by
knowing Brahman as kUTastha, there is no fruit stated in the shaastra for
knowing Brahman as endowed with transformation as the world, the latter is
only a means to realize Brahman as kUTastha resulting in moksha. There is
absolutely no fruit in knowing Brahman as the one transforming into the
world.

नेत्युच्यते — ‘ स वा एष महानज आत्माजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्म’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ ।
२५)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=4&id=BR_C04_S04_V25&hl=%20%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B7%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%9C%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE>
 ‘ स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ९ । २६)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=3&id=BR_C03_S09_V26&hl=%20%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B7%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE>
 ‘ अस्थूलमनणु’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ८ । ८)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=3&id=BR_C03_S08_V08&hl=%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%81>
 इत्याद्याभ्यः सर्वविक्रियाप्रतिषेधश्रुतिभ्यः ब्रह्मणः कूटस्थत्वावगमात् ; न
ह्येकस्य ब्रह्मणः परिणामधर्मत्वं तद्रहितत्वं च शक्यं प्रतिपत्तुम् । स्थिति
गतिवत्स्यादिति चेत् , न ; कूटस्थस्येति विशेषणात् ; न हि कूटस्थस्य ब्रह्मणः
स्थितिगति-वदनेकधर्माश्रयत्वं सम्भवति ; कूटस्थं च नित्यं ब्रह्म
सर्वविक्रियाप्रतिषेधादित्यवोचाम । न च यथा ब्रह्मण आत्मैकत्वदर्शनं
मो-क्षसाधनम् , एवं जगदाकारपरिणामित्वदर्शनमपि स्वतन्त्रमेव
कस्मैचित्फलायाभिप्रेयते, प्रमाणाभावात् ; कूटस्थब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानादेव हि
 फलं दर्शयति शास्त्रम् — ‘ स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘ अभयं वै जनक
प्राप्तोऽसि’ (बृ. उ. ४ । २ । ४)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha?page=4&id=BR_C04_S02_V04&hl=%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%88%20%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%95%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF>
इत्येवंजातीयकम् । तत्रैतत्सि-द्धं भवति — ब्रह्मप्रकरणे
सर्वधर्मविशेषरहितब्रह्मदर्शनादेव फलसिद्धौ सत्याम् , यत्तत्राफलं श्रूयते
ब्रह्मणो जगदाकारपरिणामित्वादि, तद्ब्रह्मदर्शनोपायत्-वेनैव विनियुज्यते,
फलवत्सन्निधावफलं तदङ्गमितिवत् ; न तु स्वतन्त्रं फलाय कल्प्यत इति ।

In the above discourse we see that Shankara, even though has stated that
Brahman 'became/transformed' into the jagat in an earlier sutra bhashya
(आत्मकृतेः परिणामात्), his asserting here that there is no parinama,
becoming the jagat, for Brahman, the earlier mention of parinama is not in
the sense of any real transformation but only a case of Brahman appearing
as the jagat, vivarta.  Shankara has elsewhere denied any parinama even in
the case of clay, etc. The Chandogya and Manukya karika bhashya-s are the
references.

Om Tat Sat