[Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[Nithin Sridhar]

Thank you. Look forward to comments from other learned members.

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:27 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Nathinji - PraNAms
>
> Thanks for your input. your explanations seem to be reasonable.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nithin Sridhar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> *To:* kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion group
> for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> *Cc:* Advaitin <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 4, 2017 10:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
>
> Dear Sadananda ji,
>
> Though I have not read Panchadashi itself, from your email this is what I
> could gather. I am not a scholar, just a student. Please feel free to point
> out any error.
>
> 1. I think though the examples of mud being pot or gold being ring can be
> used for vivarta while stressing the point that pot ultimately is just mud
> or both ring and necklace is just gold. But, the Acharya uses it as an
> example of Parinama to illustrate a completely different point. This can be
> understood from his example of rope/snake for vivarta, where he says
> vivarta is appearance as another state without change. Unlike the state of
> rope/snake, where rope remains a rope and a form of snake which is
> completely unrelated to rope is perceived, thus making rope transform into
> snake without any change,in the case of mud/pot, mud, which has undefinable
> form is transformed into a pot with specific form. Similarly, gold
> available in nature is transformed using human effort into ring or
> necklace. That is, some "effort" was applied to bring out the change from
> mud to pot, gold to ring. But, no such effort was applied in rope/snake. I
> think the Acharya was trying to illustrate this point that parinama
> involves some effort, some change in the Upadana, even if it is only in
> form. While in Vivarta, there is no change in Upadana, there is only an
> appearance.
>
> 2. Regarding the second query, I think, the example of rope/snake may have
> been used to show because-
> a. It best illustrates the point Acharya seems to make that vivarta is
> appearance of sristi, without any kind of change, whatsoever it may bee to
> the Upadana (Brahman). In case of mud/pot etc, there is still a change with
> respect to form, from indefinable unspeakable form of mud to a specific
> form of pot. But, Brahman only "appears" as srishti, so to speak.
> b. Also, in the case of rope/snake, the appearance is due to mistaken
> identity, ignorance. So is in the case of Jagat, which is perceived because
> of misperception and due to ignorance about Brahman.
> I think, Acharya has used this example only as an illustration and hence,
> we need not worry that the example belongs to pratibhasika, while the topic
> is Ishwara sristi. I remember reading of the Sringeri Shankaracharya's
> advising a person that if the example used for metaphor is identical in
> every respect with the thing we are trying to illustrate then they both
> would be one and the same. I.e. there would be always those elements in the
> examples used as metaphor, which does not agree with/conform to the tenets
> of the concept being illustrated.
>
> Regards,
> Nithin
>
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nithin S
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
Nithin S