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

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Chandramouli ji - PraNams

Sorry if my post is not clear.

Three examples that Chandogya  gives are 


1. Gold ornaments to gold - ekena lohamaninaa sarvam lohamayam vijnaataa - loham iti eva satyam- vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naama dheyam, relating to rings and bangles - Gold alone is real. Hence if one knows Gold, the essential knowledge of all gold-ornaments are as well known. Looking at ring we can say - before it became a ring - it was gold. while it is ring it is still gold and even if ring is destroyed to make bangle, it is still gold. Hence I said the value of the ring depends on how much gold it has. As shree Sarmaji pointed out, he wares ring only because it is and has gold and can be sold back since it is gold.


2. Pots to clay - eken mRitpindena sarvam mRinmayam vijnaataa - mRittikityevan satyham - vaachaarambhanamm vikaaro naamadheyam relating to pots - clay alone is real - and knowing clay the essential knowledge of all clay products are as-well known.


3. iron tools to wrough iron - ekena nakha nikRitanena sarvam kaashnaayasam vijnaata - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam relating to nail cutters etc iron tools.  Knowing the iron, the essential knowledge of all iron tools are as well known. 


The transformation is vivarta as I have saying this in my past posts too. 

Gold can declare - I pervade all ornaments - yet their avasthaas do not affect me, the gold - that is the ID and ODs and elliptical of the ring, its utility, its date of birth or death, or its utility or transactability, etc. They are al lin Me and Yet none of them are in Me -  look at my glory or vibhuti since I was, is and will be gold;  'the example is at vyaahaarika level' 


Hence eka vijnaananena sarva vijnaanam bhavati.

The conclusion as Uddalaka applies to Sat - is aitadaatmya idagam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatmaa - and the he makes a mahaavaakya statement - tat tvam asi. 


Since the self that I am is the self in all. Hence  vidyaranyas title  brahmaanande aatmaanandaH. 


In chandogya the creation is discussed only as three bhutas. By samanvayam with other upanidhad statements (Tai. Up) all five panchabhutas have to inferred. 


Hope I am clear.

Hari Om!
Sadananda




      From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
 To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 2:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta
   
Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,

I did not follow your response. What I have cited from Chandogya now (6-4-1 to 6-4-3) cites creation through trivritkarana for vacharambhanam etc. As as example, to repeat from 6-4-1 वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम्  ( vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM trINi rUpANItyevasatyam ). 

This is analogous to milk-curd illustration only.  

Regards

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

Chandramoulili - PraNAms
Vaachaarambhanam sruti does not give milk-curds example for vaachaarambhanam since milk-curds is parinaama.
fortunately it gives example of gold-ornaments, mud-pots and iron-tools - which are all vivarta and not parinaama. 

Yes vaachaarambhanam sruti applies easily to vivarta only.
Hari Om!Sadananda


      From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
 To: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita- vedanta.org> 
Cc: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>; kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 1:48 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta
   


Pranams SriSadananda Ji and Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,   Reg  << Thequestion here is limited in determining the scope of vAcArambhaNa
shruti >>,   SriSadananda Ji also maintains that since the clay/pot illustration forms part ofthis shruti it represents vivarta and not parinama. According to him whilemilk-curd illustration would be an example for parinama, clay-pot is forvivarta only, for reasons already given by him. One of these being thatmilk-curd transformation is irreversible whereas clay-pot is a reversibletransformation.   We can referto the Chandogya Upanishad statement itself at 6-4-1 to 6-4-3.  यदग्ने रोहितꣳ रूपं तेजसस्तद्रूपं यच्छुक्लं तदपां यत्कृष्णं तदन्नस्यापागादग्नेरग्नित्वं वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् ॥ १ ॥  यदादित्यस्य रोहितꣳ रूपं तेजसस्तद्रूपं यच्छुक्लं तदपां यत्कृष्णं तदन्नस्यापागादादित्यादादित्यत् वं वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् ॥ २ ॥  यच्चन्द्रमसो रोहितꣳ रूपं तेजसस्तद्रूपं यच्छुक्लं तदपां यत्कृष्णं तदन्नस्यापागाच्चान्द्राच्चन्द् रत्वं  त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् ॥ ३ ॥   (yadagnerohitaꣳ rUpaM tejasastadrUpaM yachChuklaM tadapAM yatkRRiShNaMtadannasyApAgAdagneragnitvaM vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM trINi rUpANItyevasatyam || 1 || adAdityasyarohitaꣳ rUpaM tejasastadrUpaM yachChuklaM tadapAM yatkRRiShNaMtadannasyApAgAdAdityAdAdityatv aM vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM trINirUpANItyeva satyam || 2 || yachchandramasorohitaꣳ rUpaM tejasastadrUpaM yachChuklaM tadapAM yatkRRiShNaMtadannasyApAgAchchAndrAchchand ratvaM vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM trINirUpANItyeva satyam || 3 ||  Thesepresent how creation is effected  throughthe process of तृवृत्करण (tRRivRRitkaraNa ).  This is clearly analogous to milk-curdillustration as regards irreversible nature of transformation. But theUpanishad itself states here that it is in accordance with the वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं (vAchArambhaNaMvikAro nAmadheyaM ) statement.  Since SriSadananda Ji is accepting the milk-curd illustration to represent parinama, whatmore authority is needed to confirm that वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं (vAchArambhaNaMvikAro nAmadheyaM ) statement  representsparinama and not vivarta.   Regards