[Advaita-l] Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta
narayana145 at yahoo.co.in
Thu Feb 9 09:28:16 EST 2017
A lot of interesting exchange of postings is taking place amongst the eminenet scholars of this group.Has anyone tried to put this question to oneself : " Am I a vivarta or a pariNAma?" I am sure it will be an interesting subject and an answer to this question may provide a clue to the problem that is being presently discussed.
With respectful namaskarams,Sreenivasa Murthy
From: Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2017 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: A question on PariNAma and vivarta
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:52 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Here is the link for those who are interested and can understand Sanskrit.
> It concentrates on meaning of different bhAShya-s and pa~nchadashI
Thanks for the elaborate article. I can't claim to have understood
everything, so excuse my questions:
--Is "कारणस्यापारमार्थिकत्वम्" towards the beginning have a typo meant to
read कारणस्य पारमार्थिकत्वम्, since in my understanding कारणस्य
पारमार्थिकत्वम् इष्यते एव।
--"एकविज्ञानेन" अभेदे इति कीदृशी तृतीया? Grammatically, in what category of
तृतीया would you consider अभेद in? Would इत्थम्भूते or प्रकारवाचि be right?
--After न हि केवलाया मृदो ज्ञानेन... किन्तु... इति ज्ञानेन, I can't make
out the next word, is it to read अभिन्नाभावमादाय? Thats how I have
currently understood the word.
> I was observing the thread. I think that a few people are standing in
> support of pariNAmatva of pot.
> H S Chandramouli started, Praveen said a few more things, and
> Venkataraghavan presented it very well.
I was anyway tilting towards both, not only परिणाम। I just mentioned what
the Vyakhya confirmed on 13.51 that the Chandogya quoted examples can be
used for both परिणाम and विवर्त based on the aspects indicated.
> I'm amused to see that how vague can be our understanding about things
> which we read. Many times, I've felt it myself.
Especially if we take everything of the example literally, or if we lose
the तात्पर्य of the example. It is nice to see that you established the
तात्पर्य of वाचारम्भणश्रुति examples.
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list