[Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,

I have reviewed the position. I have already cited Shruti vAkyAs themselves
which as per your own criteria lead to the parinama conclusion. But you
have already declared that you can never accept such a position. The
discussion has reached a dead end. I now feel that at least from my side it
is best to close the discussion by agreeing to disagree and withdraw. I am
sure you concur.

It was indeed very interesting and fruitful as far as I am concerned.

Pranams and Regards

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:03 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>
> Clay is the material cause of all the modifications including clod,jar,pot
> etc. By knowing one such modification, namely clod, all other modifications
> of clay become known.
>
> Regards
> ----------------------
>
> Chandramouliji - PraNams
>
> The correct interpretation is by knowing the essence of one of the clay
> products the essence of all clay products are known. It is the knowledge of
> the material cause or upaadadna kaarana. Yes it is the knowledge of the
> material cause clay not clod or pot or clod modifying pot etc that is
> relevant here. The knowledge of the material cause is possible only since
> it is vavarta and not parinaama - unlike the case of milk to curds.
>
> Since the material cause is unaltered it is vivarta while the names and
> forms of the products are different as naama-ruupas are different.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:51 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Namaste Sri Subrahmanian Ji,
>
> Also please clarify in what sense this passage is relevant to the current
> topic under discussion. I have tried but unable to connect.
>
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:36 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste Sri Subrahmanian Ji,
>
> English translation by Ganganath Jha of what is cited by you is as follows
> (for the benefit of members not familiar with Sanskrit)
>
> << Just as, in the ordinary world, in the morning, one seesthe potter
> gathering clay for the making of the jar etc; and then having gone away to
> some other place, and returning in the evening, he finds in the same place
> various such articles as the jar, the cup, and the like; and then, the idea
> in his mind is that “ all this jar etc was only clay in the morning”; in
> the same manner, we have the present assertion – “In the beginning, this
> was *Pure Being*.” >>
>
> Please indicate which part of this is applicable in the context of our
> current discussion. Is it सदेवेदमग्र आसीदिति (sadevedamagra AsIditi) (“In
> the beginning, this was *Pure Being*)  or the part prior to it. I will
> respond accordingly after your confirmation.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>