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

kalyan chakravarthy kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM
Thu Apr 3 14:24:53 CST 2003


>I would accept that (not necessarily that it is correct, but that it is
>classical Advaitic doctrine) if it were so stated by Sri Sankara or his
>commentators, but to my knowledge such an identification is not made by

I expected this. That is precisely the reason why I said "being under the
control of death". According to Advaita, one must fall from pitr loka or
deva loka ultimately and take birth as human. So, I was perfectly justified
in my interpretation. Thus, the original equivalence holds in the context of
crossing over death.

>`mR^ityoH sa mR^ityuM Apnoti/gachchhati' does not mean "goes from death to
>death," and is not so read by anyone to my knowledge.  It means "upon
>death, he obtains/goes to death."

Of course. What else did you think I meant?

>The second "death" which is mentioned
>applies to one who is already dead in the standard sense, and is thus
>certainly different from the usual death

Whatever it means, it definitely means that one is not free from the control
of death still. As Yama himself says that deluded people fall under his sway
again and again. Thus people in andhaM tamas are not free from the control
of death.

>We also have other evidence, e.g., that of the Bhagavad Gita, to assure us
>that realized souls obtain liberation after death -- their death is not
>equivalent to andhaM tamas by any means.

As they are free from the control of death once they are liberated, what I
said does not go against BG.

>doubtless reach Him.  Therefore, it is incorrect to identify death with
>andhaM tamas.

The context was that of crossing over death which definitely means becoming
free from the control of death.

Best Regards


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list