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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 प्
> रकृतिमात्रस्य दृष्टान्ते सत्यत्वावधारणात् , वाचारम्भणशब्देन
> च विकारजातस्यानृतत्वाभिधानात् , दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ‘ ऐतदात्म्
> यमिदꣳ 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.
>

We can draw the above message of nirvikāratvam/asangatvam from this
bhashya:  In the Chandogya 6.2.3 bhashya Shankara clarifies:

तत् सत् ऐक्षत ईक्षां दर्शनं कृतवत् । अतश्च न प्रधानं साङ्ख्यपरिकल्पितं
जगत्कारणम् , प्रधानस्याचेतनत्वाभ्युपगमात् । इदं तु सत् चेतनम् ,
ईक्षितृत्वात् । तत्कथमैक्षतेति, आह — बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय
प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय,* यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण
बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन ।*

Here, Brahman resolved to become many. This is what creation is in this
shruti. Shankara clarifies here that 'becoming many' is of the nature of
buddhiparikalpitam of mṛt being imagined to be of the forms of pot, etc. or
rope, etc. being imagined to be of the form of snake, etc. By saying this,
Shankara implies that there is no vikāra/sanga in Brahman; it is only the
imagination of manifoldness that is spoken of as creation by the shruti.


 सदेव तु सर्वमभिधानमभिधीयते च यदन्यबुद्ध्या,*यथा **रज्जुरेव** सर्पबुद्ध्या
सर्प इत्यभिधीयते, यथा वा पिण्डघटादि मृदोऽन्यबुद्ध्या
पिण्डघटादिशब्देनाभिधीयते लोके ।*

Creation here means, says Shankara, Sat alone 'named' as everything in
creation as something 'other'. And he goes on to give the two analogies.
So, creation is nothing other than seeing the nānāntva as different from
Brahman.

regards
subbu

 *रज्जुविवेकदर्शिनां** तु सर्पाभिधानबुद्धी निवर्तेते, यथा च
मृद्विवेकदर्शिनां घटादिशब्दबुद्धी, तद्वत्
सद्विवेकदर्शिनामन्यविकारशब्दबुद्धी निवर्तेते *— ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते ।
अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (तै. उ. २ । ९ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya?page=2&id=T_C02_S09_V01&hl=%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%C2%A0%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B9>
 इति, ‘अनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने’ (तै. उ. २ । ७ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya?page=2&id=T_C02_S07_V01&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87>
 इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः

>
> 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
>
>
>
>