[Advaita-l] Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you Subbuji, Sadaji. I am not disagreeing that when it comes to
creation, jagat is a vivarta of Brahman, not its pariNAma. Im in total
agreement here.

The question here is limited in determining the scope of vAcArambhaNa
shruti - is it limited to kAryasya kAraNa vyatirekena anritatvam or is it
also to establish the nirvikAratvam of Brahman, therefore also proving that
all creation is only a vivarta, not a pariNAma.

The same sUtra bhAshya that you referred to (BS 2.1.14) also says this in
response to the bhedAbheda vAdin-
नैवं स्यात् — ‘ मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ इति प्रकृतिमात्रस्य दृष्टान्ते सत्
यत्वावधारणात् , वाचारम्भणशब्देन च विकारजातस्यानृतत्वाभिधाना
त् , दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ‘ ऐतदात्म्यमिदꣳ सर्वं तत्सत्यम्’ इति
 चपरमकारणस्यैवैकस्य सत्यत्वावधारणात् , ‘ स आत्मातत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’
इति च शारीरस्य ब्रह्मभावोपदेशात् ।

Here Shankara draws a nice parallel between the drishTAnta and dArshTAnta.
He says, in the mud pot example in Ch 6.1.4 , the prakriti, material cause
is satya, whereas the vikAra, the effect, is anritam. However, we cannot
take this relationship between two vyAvahArika vastus as a pAramArthika
satya - mithyA one - within the vyAvahArika plane itself one is "satya" and
the other "anritam". This satya anrita relationship of laukika cause effect
pairs can be said to be true for  both pariNAma and vivarta kAryas and
kAraNas.

So according to this interpretation of what the shruti is saying,  "like"
the clay and pot share a satya-anrita relationship (as effect is non
different from the cause), Brahman and the world also share a satya anrita
relationship. It need not be exactly the same for the drishTAnta to be
useful, similarity is sufficient.

satya-anrita relationship (ie kArya ananyatvam) for the kArya and kAraNa in
the drishTAnta is true for both pariNAma and vivarta, whereas in Brahman's
case it is true because it is a vivarta. Thus the similarity between
drishTAnta and dArshTAnta.

The nirvikAratvam/asangatvam of Brahman is not brought out here in this
part of the shruti. It certainly is elsewhere. It is only when these
concepts are introduced that we can conclude that a vivarta is being talked
about.

Having said that, as pointed by Subbuji, the fact that Shankara gives the
examples of mirage water and pot space in thus context is good evidence to
suggest that the vivartatvam should also be included in the scope here.
Needs some further thought.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan