Hinduism - What Is Vivartavada In Hindu Philosophy?

 

What is the Hindu philosophy of Vivartavada?

The world is described as an illusory transformation of the Ultimate Reality or Realities, according to this philosophical model.

The Advaita Vedanta philosophical school is known for its vivartavada model.

The Advaitins believe in a causal model known as satkaryavada, which assumes that effects already exist in their causes and that when they appear, they are simply transformations (parinama) of those causes.

Milk is transformed into curds, butter, and clarified butter as a classic example.

Each of these effects was already present in the cause, according to proponents of asatkarya, and emerges from it through a natural transformation of the cause.

The Advaita school adheres to the philosophical position of monism, which holds that everything is merely different manifestations of a single Ultimate Reality.

Despite the appearance of difference and diversity in the world, Advaita proponents claim that reality is nondual (advaita), that is, that all things are "actually" nothing but the formless, unqualified Brahman.

The Advaitins' belief that an effect already exists in its cause is based on the principle that all things in the universe ultimately rely on Brahman as the first cause.

Simultaneously, the Advaitins refuse to acknowledge that Brahman ever changes because this would negate its eternal and unchanging nature.

As a result, they talk about a fictitious transmission (vivartavada).

The Advaitins believe that Brahman never truly changes because it is eternal and thus unchanging; the apparent changes are only illusory, based on human ignorance through shifting superimposition patterns (adhyasa).

Advaitins are able to maintain Brahman's transcendence while also accounting for (apparent) changes in the phenomenal world in this way.

Proponents of a different approach, which portrays the perceivable world as an actual trans creation of this unified reality, argue against this stance.

Proponents of the Samkhya, Vishishthadvaita Vedanta, and Bhedabhada philosophical traditions, who, like Advaitins, believe in satkaryavada, hold this position.

Each of these three schools thinks that the world as we see it is real, that it is rooted in a single ultimate source, and that this fundamental principle undergoes a genuine metamorphosis through which the universe is born.

This parinama connection permits these schools to explain the phenomenal world, but in a manner that undermines the transcendence of these initial principles by incorporating them within it.

Philosophically, they struggle to explain how the sublime might become commonplace, then transcendent again.

What is the vivartavada view of Advaita Vedanta?

According to the post-Shankara Advaita advaitins' vivartavada view of Advaita Vedanta, the cosmos is only a "illusory mutation" of Brahman.

What does Vivarta mean?

The Sanskrit term vivarta denotes a change in form, a modification, or a changed circumstance. 

The word vivarta is the root of the phrase vivartavada.

The Satkaryavada thesis, which states that the cause precedes the consequence, is accepted by all Vedanta schools. 

However, there are several points of view about how Brahman gave rise to the material universe. 

The concept of parinamavada holds that the universe is a genuine (parinama) metamorphosis of Brahman. 

• The concept of vivartavada holds that the universe is only a fictitious (vivarta) representation of Brahman. 

• According to Vivartavada, despite the fact that Brahman seems to alter, nothing really changes. 

• The multitude of creatures are false manifestations because Brahman, the ultimate truth that is unborn, unchanging, and utterly devoid of any parts, is the only true being.

The Brahma Sutras, early Vedantins, the majority of Vedanta schools, and Samkhya all support parinamavada. 

According to Nicholson, the Advaitins, who are devotees of Shankara, are the "most conspicuous champions of Vivartavada." 

The Advaitins say that before the individual ego may be freed, all of Brahman's consequences must eventually be accepted as unreal, despite the fact that the universe can be represented as conventionally real, continues Nicholson.

However, academics are divided on whether Adi Shankara and his Advaita theory used vivartavada or parinamavada to explain causation. 

Adi Shankara did not support Vivartavada, according to scholars like Paul Hacker and Hajime Nakamura, and his justifications are "far from any connotation of illusion." They claim that the concept of Vivarta was given by the scholar Prakasatman, and it is Prakasatman's thesis that is sometimes mistaken for Adi Shankara's perspective. 

According to Andrew Nicholson, who agrees with Hacker and other academics, Shankara's thoughts are more closely related to parinama-vada than the vivarta-vada, and the vivarta explanation most likely developed gradually in the Advaita sub-school later.

Casual connection is depicted by Vijnanabhiksu as having three terms: effect, variable locus cause, and immutable locus cause. 

The locus cause cannot be separated from the changing cause and effect and does not originate in them.

By proposing the theory of Svatantryavada (the "Universal voluntarism"), which maintains that Effect develops from Cause due to the sovereignty of God's Will, the Pratyabhijna philosophy of Somananda disproves the Arambhvada (the "Realistic view" of the Nyaya-Vaisesika), the Parinamavada (the theory of Transformation of the Sankhya-Yoga), and the Vivart.

Ramanuja recognizes Prakrti as the material cause, but Madhava disputes this claim since a material cause does not necessarily imply control or supervision. 

Madhava also disagrees with the Vivartavada because it does not acknowledge the need to account for any effects. 

In his pure non-dualism (Shuddhadvaita) philosophy, Vallabhacharya also opposes "vivartavada" and asserts that Maya (or the "Jagat") is real and is only a power of Brahman who manifests as Jiva and the world of his own volition. 

In doing so, there is no transformation of Brahman; it still remains only gold. 

As a result, Shuddhadvaita is also called as "Avikta Parimavda" (Unmodified transformation).

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Vivartavada mean?

The concept of vivartavada holds that the universe is only a fictitious representation of Brahman. 

According to Vivartavada, despite the fact that Brahman seems to alter, nothing really changes. The multitude of creatures are false manifestations because Brahman, the ultimate truth that is unborn, unchanging, and utterly devoid of any parts, is the only true being.

What distinguishes Parinamavada from Vivartavada?

The non-advaitin doctrine of real change is referred to as parinama-vada.

Vivartavada, the advaita theory of seeming change, is distinct from this. The idea is that the cause really changes into the consequence.

References And Further Reading:

• Majumder, B. and Ray, S., 2022. Rajju Sarpa Bhranti-A Metaphysical Analysis of Visual Illusions in Light of Doctrine of Vivarta Vada. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrated Medical Sciences, 7(5), pp.80-90.

• Sayanolibavan, M., 2022. The importance attributed to Mandukya Karika in the tradition of Advaida Vedanta.

• Roodurmum, P.S., 2002. Bhåamatåi and Vivaraòna Schools of Advaita Vedåanta a Critical Approach.

• Chari, S., 2011. Indian Philosophical Systems: A Critical Review Based on Vedānta Deśika's Paramata-Bhaṅga.

• Majumder, B. and Ray, S., 2022. Doctrines of Different Philosophical Schools Regarding the Theory of Cause & Effect and Their Validation in Light of Charaka Samhita. Journal of Ayurvedic and Herbal Medicine, 8(2), pp.94-100.

• Bhattacharyya, S.P., 2000. Sarvajñātmamuni's contribution to Advaita Vedānta.

• Brooks, R.W., 1963. Śaṁkara: A Psychological Study.

• Isaeva, N.V., 2009. Vivartavada.

• Duquette, J., 2015. Is Sivadvaita Vedanta a Saiddhantika School? Parinamavada in the Brahmamimarrisabhasya. Journal of Hindu Studies, 8(1), pp.16-43.

• Chaliha, A., 2017. ON SRIBHASYA-THE BASIC BOOK ON THE THEISTIC VEDANTA. The Philosophical Journal of JB College (Autonomous), Jorhat Assam, India, p.10.

• Goswami, N., The concept of aventa philosophy of Sankaracharya.

• Singh, P., 2021. The Problem of Causation: Nagarjuna Vs Hume. Journal Of International Buddhist Studies College (JIBSC), 7(1), pp.66-75.

• Gupta, A.S., 1958. Ramanuja on causality. Philosophy East and West, 8(3/4), pp.137-148.

~Kiran Atma

Amazon | Goodreads | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest

You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.

Samkhya

 

(“enumeration”) The Samkhyakarikas, authored by Ishvarakrishna in the third century B.C., is the foundational book of one of the six schools of ancient Hindu philosophy.

Samkhya believes in an atheistic philosophical dualism in which two basic principles are held to be the origins of all things.

Purusha ("person") is the first of them, which is conscious yet entirely passive and unchanging.

It is seen as a passive observer of the changes taking on around it.

Purusha is eventually connected with an individual's genuine and everlasting Self as the source of consciousness.

Given the large number of aware individuals and the reality that one person might attain enlightenment while the others remain in slavery, Purusha is assumed to be multiple.

The second basic principle is prakrti ("nature"), which gives the purusha's subject with an object.

Prakrti is more accurately described as force or power than as a definite physical thing.

Prakrti has three primal characteristics (gunas): sattva is excellent, rajas is active or passionate, and tamas is dark and decaying.

These three forces exist in perfect harmony in the primordial prakrti, each perfectly balancing the other.

Purusha and prakrti are two separate, separable, and independent principles.

When prakrti's original equilibrium is disrupted, it sets in motion a process of evolution that gives rise to both the physical and psychological worlds.

Mahat ("the big one") comes from prakrti, and it has as its psychological equivalent the subtlest type of mental activity (buddhi).

Ahamkar, which contains the first meaningful conceptions of individual identity, develops from buddhi.

The intellect (manas), sense organs (jna nendriyas), action organs (kar mendriyas), and subtle elements (tanmatras) all develop from ahamkar; from the last, the gross components that make up the material universe emerge.

All of these evolutions, whether material or mental, have a different balance of the three gunas, which defines their healthy, active, or unwholesome nature.

Purusha stays untouched throughout this evolutionary process, only seeing prakrti's constant transformations.

The metaphor of the lame man (purusha) being carried by the blind man is used to symbolize their mutual functioning (prakrti).

According to the Samkhya school, the ultimate root of bondage is people's inability to distinguish between these two principles.

The Self (purusha) seems to be an agent, and the evo lutes (from prakrti) appear to be con scious, due to this lack of distinction between the two.

The rose behind the crystal, which looks to be colored but is really unchanging, is used by the Samkhyas to demonstrate this misunderstanding.

The major concern for the Samkhyas prakrti is epistemological—that is, how one learns to know things—rather than ontological, or based in the nature of things themselves.

Because the purusha never changes, there is no way to turn it into anything else or get it back to the way it was; the true issue is distinguishing between the two realities.

The development of prakrti is supposed to reverse after this, leaving the purusha in its glorious solitude once again (kaivalya).

Of course, discrimination becomes much more difficult if one has formed (if incorrect) ideas about (traditional) personality.

This erroneous belief serves as the foundation for one's volitional acts (karma) and emotional dispositions.

The concept of a Self underpins both one's behaviors and dispositions, which reinforce one another.

The yoga philosophical school absorbed the Samkhya metaphysics in its entirety, and the two schools are often cited together—Samkhya as the theoretical underpinning, and Yoga as the practical component.

The notion of the gunas, a fundamental concept in Hindu culture, is one of Samkhya's enduring contributions to Indian thinking.

Their concept of evolution, which has been modified by other schools but is generally subsumed under the istic assumptions in which God is the source of both awareness and the material universe, is another prominent but less pervasive theory.

Given their initial assumptions, the Samkhya could never solve the philosophical challenge of explaining the genesis of bondage.

How could purusha and prakrti interact—much less confuse one for the other—and how did the evolutionary process begin if they are completely separate? Their contributions were mainly overtaken by Vedanta, which stated that the issue is ignorance of the Self and not-Self, and that the world around us is an illusory metamorphosis rather than a true development (vivarta).

Vivartavada is the name of this philosophical system.

A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, edited by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, was published in 1957, and Samkhya, edited by Gerald Larson and Ram Shankar Bhattacharya, was published in 1987.

Parinamavada

 

 (“transformation-relationship”) The world is described as a genuine transformation of the Ultimate Reality or realities, according to a philosophical viewpoint that explains the link between the Ultimate Reality or realities and the perceivable world.

Proponents of the Samkhya, Vishishthadvaita Vedanta, and Bhedabhada philosophical traditions hold this stance.

All three of them believe in a causal hypothesis known as satkaryavada.

The satkaryavada paradigm believes that effects exist before they manifest in their causes, and that when they arise, they are transformations (pari nama) of those causes.

The transformation of milk into curds, butter, and clarified butter is a famous illustration of this paradigm in action: each of these consequences was previously present in the cause, emerges from it via a natural change of that cause, and is causally tied to it.

Purusha and prakrti are the initial principles for the Samkhyas, deity Vishnu for the Vishishthadvaitas, and Brahman for the Bhedabhadas.

Everyone believes that genuine objects emerge from true transformations of these initial principles.

By making these initial principles part of the universe, Parinamavada allows for an expression of the phenomenal world that compromises their transcendence.

Their philosophical issues stem from attempting to explain how the sublime may become commonplace, then transcendent again.

The Advaita Vedanta philosophical school, which maintains a philosophical viewpoint known as monism, is adamantly opposed to the transformation connection (the belief that a single Ultimate Reality lies behind all things, and that all things are merely differing forms of that reality).

Despite the appearance of distinction and diversity in the universe, Advaita proponents say that reality is non dual (advaita), that is, that all things are "really" the formless, unqualified Brahman.

Because Brahman is the sole true object, and Brahman never changes, the parinama paradigm, which requires genuine change, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the ultimate nature of things.

The Advaita explanation for the nature of the relationship and the universe is known as vivartavada ("illusory manifesta tion"), in which the ultimate seems to change but never changes in actuality.

A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, edited by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore, was published in 1957, and Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, edited by Karl H. Potter, was published in 1972.

Hinduism - What Is Causation In Indian Philosophy?

 

Causal Chains is a term that refers to a series of events that lead to the ultimate goal of all Indian philosophical systems is to discover and comprehend the causal factors that keep humans trapped in samsara, or the endless cycle of rebirth. 

Indian thinkers tried to accomplish this in a variety of ways, including formulating different chains of cause and effect that detailed the process by which humans became bound by karma. 

They believe that by knowing this process, they would be able to control it, leading to the ultimate emancipation of the soul (moksha).

The Buddha and the Jains were the first to construct causal chains. 

The causal chain in each of these theories is started by avidya, or a lack of true knowledge. 

These causal linkages may be broken in the Buddhist and Jain traditions by a religious discipline that starts with moral action and progresses to meditation and knowledge at higher levels. 

Causal chains in Hindu philosophy have a lot in common with these ideas, especially the idea that avidya is the root of the issue. 

Gautama, a Nyaya philosopher, proposed a five-fold causal chain in the Nyaya Sutras: 

pain, 

birth, 

activity, 

flaw, 

and incorrect idea. 

Each of these components is caused by the one before it, and it is removed when the cause is destroyed. 

This paradigm was also utilized by the Vaisheshika school, which was historically associated with the Nyayas. 

The Samkhya philosophical school's causal chain, as articulated by its founder, Ishvarakrishna, ascribes bondage to the process of development, resulting from a misunderstanding between purusha (conscious soul) and prakrti (unconscious spirit) (primal matter). 

These two fundamental principles, according to Samkhya, are always distinct from one another, yet people may mix them up. 

This paradigm was also utilized by the Yoga school, which was historically associated with the Samkhya. 

The Vishishthadvaita Vedanta school's founder, Ramanuja, offers an evolutionary system similar to Samkhya's, except that instead of dualism, all things develop from a single source, Brahman. 

Advaita Vedanta is the only major Hindu philosophical system without a causal chain. 

The concept of parinamavada is used by all other schools to describe the connection between the Ultimate Reality (in most instances, Brahman) and the perceivable universe. 

This philosophical viewpoint accepts the universe as it is seen, as well as the assumption that changes in the material world entail actual transformation (parinama) of one item into another, which can be explained by cause and effect. 

The Advaita school adheres to a philosophical stance known as monism, which is the idea that all things are simply different manifestations of a single Ultimate Reality. 

This one reality, according to Advaitins, is the formless, unqualified Brahman. 

The appearance of variety and diversity in daily life is explained by Advaitins as an illusory rather than a real change of Brahman, a philosophical perspective known as vivartavada. 

This deceptive metamorphosis is produced by a human mind characteristic that causes the mental superimposition (adhyasa) of an erroneous understanding over the true one. 

The fundamental issue for Advaitins, like for all other schools, is avidya, or erroneous knowledge, which must be replaced with right understanding. 

Whereas all other systems place some emphasis on deeds, Advaitins believe that avidya is the only source of suffering and that removing it is the only cure. 

Karl H. Potter (ed. ), Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, 1972, has further information. 

You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.