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

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Wed Jan 1 01:08:00 CST 2014


 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 |

The second sUtra is: tadananR^itvamAraMbhaNashabdAdibhyaH [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:

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

I will followup with a few more in due course.


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste.
> Since my earlier mail was held back by the Moderator due to exceeding the
> permitted length, presumably due to clubbing together of all mails therein,
> I have taken the liberty of resending this as a separate mail.This is in
> reply to Sri Sji's mail.
>  Namaste.
> Sorry. The earlier mail went thru by mistake in the computer. 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list