Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 3(Inherent natures of jivas)

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

> > What does Dvaita say about Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.4?
>
>I don't know off-hand; look it up.  This is also probably off-topic for
>this forum. I am not getting the feeling that a lot of people welcome
>lengthy expositions of Dvaita here, and would rather let discussion go
>back to normal.  (I have already made more postings in the past few weeks
>than in the preceding five years or so.)  If you wish to continue this
>discussion in private or elsewhere, I would not mind that.


That is not off-topic. I want to know how can the word AtmA in Mundaka
Upanishad 2.2.4 mean Brahman as such?

Personally, I have no problem if the discussion is continued here.(But I
cannot claim to be speaking on behalf of everyone.)There is no point in
giving a decent burial to our philosophies. Successful philosophies must
withstand intense attack from opponents. If however, you wish to talk about
it privately, then I have no problem once again.

>The Upanishad says `me dvitIyaH' -- "my second."  I don't see that there
>is much difference.

The word dvitIyaH however tells something about AtmA. Thus AtmA here cannot
mean Vishnu.

>Everyday usage is but a very poor indicator.  It would be far more
>convincing if you could gather up a corpus of evidence of `gachchhanti'
>being used in the Vedantic literature (sUtra-s, BG, Upanishads) to denote
>temporary transit.

As you are reading something that is not in the normal sense, the burden of
proof lies on you. If you refer to the maxim, it has already been countered.
The existence of recourse from andhaM tamas was already demonstrated. And
your further objections related to that are going to be addressed in the
next mail.

Best Regards
Kalyan





_________________________________________________________________
Beat piracy. Say no to it. http://www.msn.co.in/Computing/antipiracy/ News,
views and more