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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

Thank you very much for the references, they were really helpful. Please
share a link to the audio with the group if you happen to find it at some
point in the future.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 11 Feb 2017 10:31 a.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:



On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
>
> Having thought about it, I have come to three conclusions in this regard -
> which is a revision of what I had argued for perviously. I will share with
> the group:
>
> 1) the tAtparya of vAcArambhaNa shruti is also in teaching vivartam (apart
> for kAraNa kArya ananyatvam) -  the shruti in using 'eva'-kAra, as in
> mrittika iti eva satyam, says only the cause is satyam, the effect is not.
> If it wanted to include pariNAma too, it would not be appropriate to use
> "eva" with respect to mrittikA, because both cause and effect are satyam
> for a pariNAma.
>

Dear Venkat ji,

What you state above is exactly reflected in the Ratnaprabhā gloss to the
BSB 2.1.14 words annotating the vācārambhaṇa shruti:
एवकारवाचारम्भणशब्दाभ्यां *विकारसत्तानिषेधात्परिणामवादः श्रुतिबाह्य*
इत्यर्थः । [The shruti by the words 'eva' ('as mrittikā alone' and
'vācārambhaṇa' by negating the existence, sattā, of the vikāra, is teaching
that the pariṇāmavāda is unacceptable to Veda. This is clearly because the
parināmavādin does not accept the kārya to be mithyā.]  This clearly shows
that the clay, etc. analogies are not pariṇāma para.

A few months ago there was a Dvaita-Advaita discussion in Bangalore where
Sri MDS and Dr.Maheswaran Nambuthiri were representing Advaita. Asked about
how the clay-pot example is useful to the Advaitin, the reply was on the
above lines, apart from other reasoning. MN, annotating from the work
'Shankara pāda bhūṣhanam' made an interesting observation: Not just in one
place in the beginning 3 places, but repeatedly later too the Chandogya
shruti makes the statement: .....vācārambhaṇam vikāro...ityeva satyam...
thereby reiterating the vivartatvam of all effects.

Another interesting observation made was: The bhūshana kāra has cited the
example of the BG 16th chapter verse:

आत्मसम्भाविताः स्तब्धा धनमानमदान्विताः ।
यजन्ते* नामयज्ञैस्ते* दम्भेनाविधिपूर्वकम् ॥ १७ ॥

to show that the word 'nāmadheyam' of the Chandogya vācā shruti really
means what the Advaitins take it to be:

Shankara's bhashya to the shruti word:

 विकारो नामधेयं नामैव नामधेयम् , स्वार्थे धेयप्रत्ययः, वागालम्बनमात्रं *नामैव
केवलं* न विकारो नाम वस्त्वस्ति ;


Shankara's bhashya for the BG above is:
यजन्ते नामयज्ञैः *नाममात्रैः *यज्ञैः ते दम्भेन

indicating that it is merely a name, an appearance, a show, with no real
substance underlying it. [in colloquial Hindi it is 'nām ke vāste'
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111018060917AAQeQQA]

I have not yet made serious attempts to secure the recording of that
debate.

regards
subbu






> 2) In the ghaTa drishTAnta, when we are talking about the change in AkAra
> from mrit piNDa to ghaTa, that change of AkAra is pariNAma only.
> 3) When talking of the mrit appearing as ghaTa (ie material), that
> transformation is a vivarta - it is only an appearance, and no actual
> transformation has taken place. I believe this is what the vAcArambhaNa
> shruti is referring to.
>
> vidyAraNya svAmi in 13.8 was referring to (2) above. In 13.46-48, he was
> referring to (3).
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>