[Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Chandramouliji - PraNAms.
No problem.
I responded only because you had included in your post cc to my name. Please check that post. 

Thanks
Hari Om!Sadananda

      From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
 To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> 
Cc: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
 Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 8:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A question on PariNAma and vivarta
   
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 modificationsincluding clod,jar,pot etc. By knowing one such modification, namely clod, allother 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 byyou is as follows (for the benefit of members not familiar with Sanskrit)  << Just as, in theordinary world, in the morning, one seesthe potter gathering clay for themaking of the jar etc; and then having gone away to some other place, andreturning in the evening, he finds in the same place various such articles asthe jar, the cup, and the like; and then, the idea in his mind is that “ allthis jar etc was only clay in the morning”; in the same manner, we have thepresent assertion – “In the beginning, this was *Pure Being*.”>>   Please indicate which part of this is applicable in the contextof 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 accordinglyafter your confirmation.   Regards