[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

2017-02-07 22:25 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> We also have yet another reference in Shankara's bhashya where he hols the
> 'vācārambhaṇa śruti' to identify the vivarta vāda:
>
> सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् ।
> यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं
> तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । *अतो विकारोऽनृतम् , **‘ वाचारम्भणं
> विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४)
> ​ ​
> एवं
> सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।*
>
> The above is from the Taittiriya bhāṣya, for the word 'satyam'. Shankara
> says that whatever undergoes transformation, vikāra, is mithyā, anṛtam. And
> he goes on to cite the Chandogya passage and further affirms that the
> Shruti emphasizes that 'Sat', Existence, the mūlakāraṇam, alone is Satyam.
>

​It is true that he is saying that the thing which doesn't change is satyam
and others are anRRita.
But, do you think that Mud, Gold, etc. are also satyam as is brahman?
If not, then you have to accept that he is talking only of kArya and
kAraNa, and holds that the name and form of kArya, which appear to give it
separate existence, are not real. The kAraNa is real.
The anRRitatva taught here is not what is known as mithyAtva(imagined by
ignorance of substratum on the same) famously. It's just that there is no
separate existence of kArya.


Also, in the Brahmasutra bhashya 2.1.14 (ārambhaṇādhikaraṇa) too Shankara
> reiterates that very principle: the unreality of the effects and the
> reality of the cause alone:
>
> कार्यमाकाशादिकं बहुप्रपञ्चं जगत् ; कारणं परं ब्रह्म ;
> तस्मात्कारणात्परमार्थतोऽनन्यत्वं व्यतिरेकेणाभावः कार्यस्यावगम्यते । कुतः
> ? आ
> रम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः । आरम्भणशब्दस्तावदेकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं प्रतिज्ञाय
> दृष्टान्तापेक्षायामुच्यते — ‘ यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं
> विज्ञातꣳ स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ ।
> १ । ४)
> ​ ​
> इति
> ; एतदुक्तं भवति — एकेन मृत्पिण्डेन परमार्थतो मृदात्मना विज्ञातेन सर्वं
> मृन्मयं घटशरावोदञ्चनादिकं मृदात्मकत्वाविशेषाद्विज्ञातं भवेत् ; यतो
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम् — वाचैव केवलमस्तीत्यारभ्यते — विकारः घटः शराव
> उदञ्चनं चेति ; न तु वस्तुवृत्तेन विकारो नाम कश्चिदस्ति ; नामधेयमात्रं
> ह्येतदनृतम् ; मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् — इति एष ब्रह्मणो दृष्टान्त आम्नातः ;
> तत्र श्रुताद्वाचारम्भणशब्दाद्दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ब्रह्मव्यतिरेकेण
> कार्यजातस्याभाव इति गम्यते ।
>

​The objection stays same.
And, hence the limitation of this example is also obvious.
​
By the way, what does he mean when he says that the effect is not real?
Does that mean that it is absolutely non-existent, then is it in same
category of hare's horn?
Or, does it mean that it is imagined by ignorance, and hence falls in
category of rope-snake, and hence doesn't need stick, etc.?
Or is there anything else being said here?

Have a thought.
bhgavatpAda's words are not shabda-pramANa. He is writing a logical text,
his words must be verifiable. Just proclaiming is not enough.
I hope we are not learning to not test views of our elders by passing years.




To add,
Many of us are trying to drag the shruti to prove that mud-pot is vivartta,
since it is obvious that if it vivarrta the kArya can be easily said mithyA.
While that is true and easy way to go; we are trying to say that even
pariNAma is not absolutely different from it's cause and hence is taught as
if it were mithyA owing to the fact that it has no existence apart from
it's cause(similar to vivarrtta.). And that's why vidyAraNya has to try
hard to justify anRRitatvam in 13th chapter.

BTW,
those who think that pa~nchadashI's 13/46-49 are enough to prove mud-pot as
an example of vivartta, they must try hard to find harmony with 13/8 too.
Otherwise, it will just mean that we read one shloka and don't remember any
other shloka and hence are happy in ignorance.
Or, if we are not ignorant, then the pa~nchadashI must have some serious
problem, since it talks something initially and teaches opposite later.


And, for interested ones:
Since *pariNAma *is anRRita hence it doesn't need *satya-kAraNa - *was said
by AchArya-s of old times. And shrI-madhusUdana-sarasvatI says that it
means - स्वविषयकाज्ञानानपेक्षस्य तद्भाव इत्येव सत्यरूपापत्तिपदेन
विवक्षितत्वात्. So, it comes that स्वविषयकज्ञानापेक्षस्य तद्भावः is
विवर्त्तः and स्वविषयकज्ञानानपेक्षस्य तद्भावः is परिणामः .
If that's the case, since the mud doesn't need ignorance(of mud) to appear
as pot, hence it is pariNAmI-kAraNa and pot is pariNAma.


​I'm starting a sanskrit thread on शास्त्रम् GoogleGroups, so that we can
try to solve this problem.
I'll be collecting valid objections from this thread to make it difficult
to solve for us.​