[Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sada ji,

In the Chandogya bhashya Shankara has given both clay-pot and rope-snake
analogies together to convey the same purport: Sat alone is real and
anything other than that, whether it is a transformation or a
transfiguration (vivarta), is unreal:

छान्दोग्योपनिषद्भाष्यम्षष्ठोऽध्यायःद्वितीयः खण्डःमन्त्र ३ - भाष्यम्

………प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, *यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण
यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन ।* असदेव तर्हि सर्वम् ,
यद्गृह्यते रज्जुरिव सर्पाद्याकारेण । न, सत एव द्वैतभेदेन
अन्यथागृह्यमाणत्वात् न असत्त्वं कस्यचित्क्वचिदिति ब्रूमः । यथा
सतोऽन्यद्वस्त्वन्तरं परिकल्प्य पुनस्तस्यैव प्रागुत्पत्तेः
प्रध्वंसाच्चोर्ध्वम् असत्त्वं ब्रुवते तार्किकाः, न तथा अस्माभिः
कदाचित्क्वचिदपि सतोऽन्यदभिधानमभिधेयं वा वस्तु परिकल्प्यते । सदेव तु
सर्वमभिधानमभिधीयते च यदन्यबुद्ध्या, यथा रज्जुरेव सर्पबुद्ध्या सर्प इत्यभिधीयते,
यथा वा पिण्डघटादि मृदोऽन्यबुद्ध्या पिण्डघटादिशब्देनाभिधीयते लोके ।
रज्जुविवेकदर्शिनां तु सर्पाभिधानबुद्धी निवर्तेते, यथा च मृद्विवेकदर्शिनां
घटादिशब्दबुद्धी, तद्वत् सद्विवेकदर्शिनामन्यविकारशब्दबुद्धी निवर्तेते —\\

In the gloss, Anandagiri Acharya too remarks: the first analogy 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).


regards

subbu








On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, 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.
> Hari Om!Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>