[Advaita-l] No Parinama in Brahman says Shankara Bhagavatpada

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Bhaskar Prabhuji,

Change presumes changeless. Without changeless, change cannot be cognised,
cannot be discussed. But this leaves us with two, not one. And that
compromises infiniteness. We are at such a root point that naisargika etc
do not help. Different drishti such as pariNAma drishti etc do not help.
All indicate change.

//And when you realize there is nothing apart from that, then what else
would you have to see, question and hear// What is this "apart of"? If
everything is one, the notion of "apart of" will not arise. "Apart of"
arises when you see a pot and say that pot is not apart of clay. But it
requires space, an entity different from clay.

//And just wondering and asking :  do you think bhAshyakAra’s explanation
is not sufficient to clear the doubt between change & changeless here in
this bhAshya vAkya ??// It is certainly not sufficient. Even if I regard
BhAshyakAra as Supreme Brahman Itself, I should not be dishonest with
myself. It is not convincing.

How I have tried to make sense is as follows: When Shruti says Brahman as
infinite, or changeless -- we *cannot and should not* try to cognise it
because we cannot cognise something which is changeless or infinite. It is
only when we try to cognise infinite and changeless that this question
appears - how from changeless, change occurs. This question itself implies
certain "understanding" of changeless and infinite which is simply not
possible because changeless and infinite cannot be an object of thought, we
cannot have an understanding of it.

So, the words infinite and changeless are used as ~changeable, ~finite and
these are neti, neti alone and are intended to remove us from changeable
and finite - which can very well be cognised and understood.

All talks about how of creation in Shruti is thus merely to indicate that
whatever is seen/felt etc is nothing but Brahman, the one changeless.

How can changeable come about from changeless? You cannot have an idea of
changeless and hence the question itself is improper.

But change is incompatible with changeless!! You cannot have an idea of
changeless and hence your feeing itself is improper. Don't make changeless
an object of thought.

Yet how this all came about! What is all this!! को अद्धा वेद क इह प्रवोचत्
कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः अर्वाग् देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यत
आबभूव!!

Regards,
Sudhanshu.



On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:37 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Don’t you think there is an apriory acceptance of ‘change’ and we are
> talking about changelessness of something from it ?? Do you think shAstra /
> bhAshya erred somewhere in explaining this inexplicable changeless entity
> while pointing at change !!??    If we are seeing change as you said the
> space between pot – clay, it is parichinna drushti due to adhyAsa which is
> naisargika / svabhAvika (anAdirananto naisargikOdhyAsaH). And when you
> realize there is nothing apart from that, then what else would you have to
> see, question and hear??  Even if you have vAlAgramAtramapi assarvAtma
> drushti, it is called avidyA drushti warns bhAshyakAra.
>
>
>
> And just wondering and asking :  do you think bhAshyakAra’s explanation is
> not sufficient to clear the doubt between change & changeless here in this
> bhAshya vAkya ??
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>
>
>
> Clay-pot requires space which is different from clay. Without that the
> drishtAnta does not work. upAdhi-drishti and svarUpa-drishti are not
> possible if there is singular changeless entity. How is upAdhi-drishti
> possible? And even if possible, upAdhi-drishti itself connoted change.
>
>
>
> यदि हि नाम रूप न व्याक्रियेते.. But on the contrary, if there is
> manifestation of name-form, then changelessness is compromised.
>
>
>
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
>


-- 
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com