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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste SadAji,

Yes agreed - in fact I think we were all agreeing on 2 and 3.

I wasn't sure you thought 2 below was pariNAma initially which I thought
may have led you to ask the question, but you later clarified it.

Where I changed my view was on 1.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 11 Feb 2017 1:36 a.m., "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms


Beautiful. This is exactly what I have been stating. Vidyaranaya too says
mRit iti eva satyam - uses the example as vivarta only. In the sloka 8 he
is only referring to parinaama as transformation of one clump to pot. That
is how I have resolved the apparent contradiction in the two slokas 8 and
49 of Ch. 13, since the rest of the discussion of the chapter is based on
only vivarta.

Hari Om!
Sadananda


------------------------------
*From:* Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
*To:* A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
vedanta.org>; V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 11:16 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta

Namaste Subbuji,

Having thought about it, I have come to three conclusions in this regard -
which is a revision of what I had argued for perviously. I will share with
the group:

1) the tAtparya of vAcArambhaNa shruti is also in teaching vivartam (apart
for kAraNa kArya ananyatvam) -  the shruti in using 'eva'-kAra, as in
mrittika iti eva satyam, says only the cause is satyam, the effect is not.
If it wanted to include pariNAma too, it would not be appropriate to use
"eva" with respect to mrittikA, because both cause and effect are satyam
for a pariNAma.
2) In the ghaTa drishTAnta, when we are talking about the change in AkAra
from mrit piNDa to ghaTa, that change of AkAra is pariNAma only.
3) When talking of the mrit appearing as ghaTa (ie material), that
transformation is a vivarta - it is only an appearance, and no actual
transformation has taken place. I believe this is what the vAcArambhaNa
shruti is referring to.

vidyAraNya svAmi in 13.8 was referring to (2) above. In 13.46-48, he was
referring to (3).

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the answers, Subbuji. I have a slightly different understanding
> of the below, but I will defer forming a definite view until I study
> further. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>

> On 9 Feb 2017 3:32 p.m., "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the answers, Subbuji. I have a slightly different
>> understanding of the below, but I will defer forming a definite view
until
>> I study further. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>> On 9 Feb 2017 3:32 p.m., "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta
>> To: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org