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

[Venkatraghavan S]

The suitability of the clay-pot example as pariNAma is accepted in the
bhAShyas also .

In BS 1.4.26, Shankara says: विकारात्मना च परिणामो मृदाद्यासु
प्रकृतिषूपलब्धः, the transformation of clay is available as empirical
evidence.

In Taittiriya 2.6.1, in reply to the PP who says न हि
घटपरिणामव्यतिरेकेण मृदो घटे प्रवेशोऽस्ति, AchArya does not say that
clay-pot transformation is not an instance of pariNAma - that is, the
reality of the change is not the basis for refuting the pUrva pakshi,
instead he says मृदात्मनस्त्वनेकत्वात् सावयवत्वाच्च युक्तो घटे
मृदश्चूर्णात्मनानुप्रवेशः, मृदश्चूर्णस्य अप्रविष्टदेशत्वाच्च । न त्वात्मन
एकत्वे सति निरवयवत्वादप्रविष्टदेशाभावाच्च प्रवेश उपपद्यते ।

Or in Br Up 2.1.20 पृथिवीद्रव्यवत् अनेकद्रव्यसमाहारस्य सावयवस्य परमात्मनः,
एकदेशविपरिणामो विज्ञानात्मा घटादिवत् ।

Going to the broader question of what the vAcArambhaNa shruti is trying to
establish - is it the absence of independent existence of kArya from
kAraNa, or is it to establish that jagat is a vivarta of Brahman?

The bhAshya to BS 1.4.23 gives a clue. The sUtra itself is helpful in the
current discussion प्रकृतिश्च प्रतिज्ञादृष्टांतानुपरोधात् - the drishTAnta
and the pratijnA must not be in contradiction, hence Brahman must be the
material cause too.

Shankara's words establishes what the primary purport of the shruti, the
pratijnA, is: प्रतिज्ञा तावत् — ‘उत तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः येनाश्रुतꣳ श्रुतं
भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ३)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S01_V03&hl=%E0%A4%89%E0%A4%A4%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A4%EA%A3%B3%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D>'
इति ; तत्र चैकेन विज्ञातेन सर्वमन्यदविज्ञातमपि विज्ञातं भवतीति प्रतीयते ;
तच्चोपादानकारणविज्ञाने सर्वविज्ञानं सम्भवति, उपादानकारणाव्यतिरेकात्कार्यस्य
;

Therefore, this upanishad vAkya is not setting out to prove that the jagat
is a vivarta of Brahman, but to establish the basis for "how by knowing
one, all can be known", and it does by proving that :
1)  the kArya has no independent existence from its kAraNa - importantly,
this is true whether it is a vivarta kAraNA or pariNAmi kAraNa. See BGB
2.16: यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत् ,
तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसन् - note, he says sarvo vikAra:,
and not qualify this to only vivarta kAryas.

2) Brahman is the ultimate kAraNa for creation - it is the ultimate "stuff"
for every blessed thing in creation. Hence, by knowing that one kAraNa,
everything can be known, as all effects are non-different from that one
kAraNa. This should also answer Sri Shrinivas Gadkari ji's query I hope.

Coming back to our discussion, because the true purport of the shruti here
is not to establish jagat vivartatvam here, to go on to use that as a basis
to argue that the examples that it quotes must be for vivarta is logically
flawed.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan