[Advaita-l] Omnisience .........

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste.
>
>  At this stage I thought it best to bringout the views of some experts in
> the field for members to take a view on the issue.
>
> Mahamahopadhyaya R A Satyanarayana
>
>  Quote < It is interesting to note that two sUtras of bAdarAyaNa deal with
> pariNAmavAda. The first of these is: AtmakR^iteH pariNAmAt [1-4-26]. Here
> is what shrImadachArya writes in this context:
>
> pUrvapakSha: kathaM punaH pUrvasiddhasya sataH kartR^itvena vyavasthitasya
> kriyamANatvaM shakyaM saMpAdayitum?
> AchArya: pariNAmAditi brUmaH, pUrvasiddho.api hi san AtmA visheSheNa
> vikArAtmanA cha pariNAmo mR^idAdyAsu prakR^itiShu upalabdhaH |
>


In RatnaprabhA gloss for the above sUtra (and bhAShya sentence) says:

atra sUtre pariNAmashabdaH kAryamAtraparaH, na tu
satyakAryAtmakapariNAmaparaH, 'tadananyatvam' (2.1.14) iti vivartavAdasya
vakShyamANatvAt.  [In the sutra the word 'pariNAma' refers to only the
effect and not to a real transformation into the effect since the sUtra
2.1.14 is going to be about the vivartavAda.]





>
> The second sUtra is: tadananR^it(yatvam)vamAraMbhaNashabdAdibhyaH
> [2.1.14].
> pariNAmavAdin, the pUrvapakShi here, states thus:
>
> pUrvapakshi: nanu mR^idAdi dR^iShTAnta praNayanat pariNAmavat
> brahmashAstrasyAbhimatam iti gamyate |
>
> AchArya, quoting Ishvara gItA, gItA, bR^ihadAraNyakopaniShad and
> brahmasUtra (2,1,13), concludes that there is no vyavahAra for Brahman in
> paramAvasthA. Having said so, he still does not completely negate pariNAma
> mata, which in this context appears to have the puShTi of sUtrakAra
> (bAdarAyaNa), of ChAndogya shruti (6,1,1) and he seems to do this more so
> for the sake of loka vyavahAra:
>

The 'puShTi' referred to come from the sUtra 1.4.26 is shown above as not
pariNAmapara since the sUtrakAra himself has the vivartavAda to be
established in the 2.1.14.  As per the Chandogya 6.1.4 (the ref. no. given
above 6.1.1. is not the relevant one) both in the ch.up. bhashya and the
BSB 2.1.14 Shankara consistently gives the vivarta-meaning alone:

1. Chandogya bhAShyam:  While the up. itself explains the term
'vikAra'(transformation) in that mantra as 'nAmadheyam' (just a word and
nothing substantial)  the bhashyam gives: na vikAro nAma vastu asti
paramArthataH, mRttiketyeva tu mRttikaiva satyam vastu asti. [there is no
such thing as a real transformation (transformed object) in the absolute
sense; clay alone is the real object there  (in the case of a pot spoken of
in the world as a transformation of clay]

2. BSB 2.1.14 : After quoting the Ch.up.6.1.4 at the very beginning of this
lengthy bhaShyam Shankara says: na tu vastuvRttena vikAro nAma
kashchidasti. nAmadheyamAtram he etad anRtam, mRttiketyeva satyam iti. [In
truth there is no such thing called an effect, transformation; it is mere
name and is false; the real thing there is clay alone. iti: Thus says the
ch.up.]

So, neither is the sutra 1.4.26 nor the chandogya shruti in the light of
Shankara bhashyam gives the 'puShTi', strength, for the contention of the
author to conclude that Shankara admits pariNAma prakrityA for vyavahAra.
The admittance of pariNAmaprakriyA for vyavahAra and saguNopAsana is not
therefore based on the above two references.

>
> apratyAkhyAyaiva kAryaprapa~nchaM pariNAmaprakriyAM chAshrayati saguNeShu
> upAsaneShu upayokShyate iti |
>
> So, how is one to interpret the mata of shankara in this regard? Here is
> the answer: pariNAma prakriyA is the vAda that jagat is the pariNAma of
> Brahma. Though this prakriyA is not possible owing to brahma being
> kUTastha, for the sake of vyavahAra, shruti states sR^iShTi to illustrate
> prapancha (which only *appears* to be true) as non-different from Brahman.
> Having accepted this prakriyA, there is adhyAropaNa of some desirable
> qualities of kArya prapancha on Ishvara, for the sake of saguNopAsanA.
> Such an upAsanA is needed by the mandAdhikArins.
>
> Thus, it is not incorrect to interpret that shankara directs the teaching
> of vivartavAda towards an uttamAdhikArin and pariNAmavAda/shrIvidyA tantra
> towards a madhyamAdhikArin. >.Unquote
>

There is not anything to disagree with the above since it is well known
that the 'no creation' 'ajAti' vAda is not for a beginner; it is the
ultimate position, siddhAnta, for realization of the Truth.  There are a
few verses in this connection:

विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।
व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥

I think it is from the SankshepashAreeraka.

[The doctrine of transformation (Sankhya) is the one that just precedes the
doctrine of transfiguration (vivarta) of the Vedanta.  Once the former is
well grasped, the latter falls in place by itself.]

The Ratnaprabha for BSN 2.1.14 at the end quotes a verse in this
connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम्  (source
not provided). [‘The unprepared aspirant understands only the ‘creation,
transformation’ scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all
dross is able to appreciate the ‘transfiguration’ vivarta of Atman/Brahman
as appearing as the world and jIva-s.’]

Of course there is this famous couple of verses from Amalananda's Kalpataru
(which is a commentary on the bhAmatI for which Appayya Dishitar wrote the
ParimaLa) says:

निर्विशेषं परं ब्रह्म साक्षात्कर्तुमनीश्वराः ।
ये मन्दास्तेऽनुकम्प्यन्ते सविशेषनिरूपणैः ॥
वशीकृते मनस्तेषां सगुणब्रह्मशीलनात् ।
तदेवाविर्भवेत्साक्षादपेतोपाधिकल्पनम् ॥

The meaning is:

It is beyond the ken of many to realize the Supreme Brahman that is without
any attributes.  The scripture talks about Brahman with attributes
with aview to help these people, out of compassion.  Once their mind
becomes
attenuated by practicing saguNabrahma disciplines, with not much effort the
upAdhi-free Brahman realization comes about to be realized.

So, Shri Chandramouli ji, there is not anything really that we are
disagreeing here.  The thread started by me was about the apAramArthic
nature of omniscience etc. in Advaita and that all such attributes are only
world-jiva dependent and that without the world-jiva there is no place for
the said attributes in Brahman and that the idea of dependent reality,
paratantra sattA/satyam is no different from the vyAvahArika satyam
otherwise known as mithyA or sadasadvilakShaNa.  I have not disputed or
rejected the vyavaharic nature of omniscience etc. I have also emphasized
that even the clay-pot example of the upanishad does not go against the
vivartavAda analogies of rope-snake, etc. In fact the BSB 2.1.14 clubs both
in one breath:

एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं प्रतिज्ञाय दृष्टान्तापेक्षायामुच्यतेऽयथा सोम्यैकेन
मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं
मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्ऽ (छा. ६.१.१) इति   ।

एतदुक्तं भवति - एकेन मृत्पिण्डेन परमार्थतो मृदात्मना विज्ञातेन सर्वं
मृन्मयं घटशरावोदञ्चनादिकं मृदात्मकत्वाविशेषाद्विज्ञातं भवेत् ।

यतो वाचारम्भणं* विकारो नामधेयं वाचैव केवलमस्तीत्यारभ्यते   *।

विकारो घटः शराव उदञ्चनं चेति   । नतु वस्तुवृत्तेन विकारो नाम कश्चिदस्ति   ।

नामधेयमात्रं ह्येतदनृतं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यमिति   । *एष ब्रह्मणो दृष्टान्तः
आम्नातः   ।*

तत्र श्*रुताद्वाचारम्भणशब्दाद्दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ब्रह्मव्यतिरेकेण
कार्यजातस्याभाव इति गम्यते   ।*

पुनश्च तेजोबन्नानां ब्रह्मकार्यतामुक्त्वा *तेजोबन्नकार्याणां
तेजोबन्नव्यतिरेकेणाभावं *ब्रवीतिऽअपागादग्नेरग्नित्वं वाचारम्भणं विकारो
नामधेयं त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् (छा. ६.४.१) इत्यादिना   । [here, even in
the level of transformation of one element the upanishad itself denies
reality to the transformed element as a real effect apart from its
constituent entities.]

आरम्भणशब्दादिभ्य इत्यादिशब्दात्ऽऐतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यं स आत्मा
तत्त्वमसिऽ (छा. ६.८.७),इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा (बृ. २.४.६),ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्
(मु. २.२.११),आत्मैवेदं सर्वम् (छा. ७.२५.२),नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन (बृ.४.४.१९)
इत्येवमाद्यप्यात्मैकत्वप्रतिपादनपरं वचनजातमुदाहर्तव्यम्  ।

नचान्यथैकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं संपद्यते   ।

तस्माद्यथा घटकरकाद्याकाशानां महाकाशानन्यत्वं, *यथाच
मृगतृष्णिकोदकादीनामूषरादिभ्योऽनन्यत्वं *
दृष्टनष्टस्वरूपत्वात्स्वरूपेणानुपाख्यत्वात्, एवमस्य
भोग्यभोक्त्रादिप्रपञ्चजातस्य ब्रह्मव्यतिरेकेणाभाव इति द्रष्टव्यम्  ।


So, Shankara does not differentiate between the clay-pot example (supposed
to be a pariNAmavAda example) from the mirage water, etc. examples
(admittedly vivartavAda examples) when it comes to establishing the
non-difference of cause and effect.  The words 'satyam, anRtam, abhAvaH'
are clearly vivartavAdic in nature and are used by Shankara with reference
to the clay-pot,  fire, water, earth transformations taught in the upaishad.


warm regards

subrahmanian.v



r. I have no
> where stated that the Real Karanam ( Brahman ) undergoes vikara. I have
> mentioned that it is through Maya that it appears to undergo vikara in the
> form of creation. This is the start of vivarta. Upanishads do ascribe
> reality to begin with for this vikara and followup with negating reality
to
> this creation through the use of karana-karya prakriya. It is during this
> negation that it uses the principle that karya is not different from
karana
> as it is dependent on karana. You had mentioned in your first mail that
> rope snake is the ONLY example of depndence of this nature. This is what i
> had disputed. There is certainly a difference between the two types of
> dependence, rope snake and clay pot. Whatever you have quoted from the
> upanishads is only with reference to Brahman and that has no where been
> disputed by me. We are discussing only the methodology adopted by
> upanishads to bring home this truth.
>
> Regards
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org