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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>They certainly are; in fact, that is Krishna's explicit word on the
>subject.  There is no getting away from the adjective `svabhAvajA' in
>reference to them.  Overlaid qualities (or qualities relating to the body)
>can and do change, but a destruction of the self-same quality is
>tantamount to destruction of the jIva itself, which no Vedantin accepts.

Is it not possible for a tamasic person to become a sattvik one? If it is,
then one cannot claim that his nature does not change. If not,of what use
are the scriptures to one who is tamasic? Can sattva, rajas, tamas be an
inherent property of the soul itself? If they are, then all persons with
tamasic nature are bound for damnation(like in dvaita philosophy). Do you
really get this eternal damnation idea from vedanta?

>Foods are themselves not classed into categories, except by reference to
>the type of jIva that likes each.

But the difference in their actions show that prakriti acts in a
heterogenous fashion. Experience says that. You cannot deny experience. Your
wish however if you choose to deny it.

>To take the reductio ad absurdum route, if, as you say, a person's
>shraddhA is not constant, then ultimately all spiritual labor is
>meaningless.

No,for a theist may get converted to an atheist. An atheist anyway has least
regard for spiritual labour. Similarly, an atheist may get converted to a
theist. Would you deny these possibilities? Would you still say faith is
constant?

>Even changes made in
>improving spiritual or good conduct do not constitute progress, as the
>individual's character essentially is only doing a random walk and will
>regress later.  No true seeker of any stripe will look upon such a
>possibility with anything but extreme dread.

You are making a far-reaching generalization. Faith is the major casuality
in today's world. Change of faith is possible. Dont you see many people
changing their religions? Who is a true seeker and who is not, who knows?

>The Vedanta and its associated mythology does speak of good people who
>wander from the right path or temporarily get overlaid with bad qualities
>(because of sins, curses upon them, etc.), but even in such cases the
>person does eventually gravitate toward a position reflecting the nobility
>of his own nature, as the BG has said elsewhere

Well, even bad people get reformed. Dont they? Does a bad person remain bad
forever? May be in this birth. What about other births?

>In regard to what you said, anecdotal experience is never a good empirical
>tool, and is not so considered even in terms of the scientific method.

But anecdotal experience should not go against the theory itself. Theory
must be universally applicable.

Best Regards
Kalyan














>From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at NYX.NET>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Re: Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 3(Inherent natures of jivas)
>Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:18:49 -0700
>
>On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > >He further adds (XVII-3)
> > >that in line with one's own nature does one's shraddhA form, and that
> > >whatever a person's natural shraddhA, that verily is he (i.e., a person
> > >with sAttvikI-shraddhA is a sAttvika, one with rAjasI-shraddhA is a
> > >rAjasa, &c.).  In defining what the natural states of behavior for
>these
> > >types of jIva-s are, Krishna adds that they worship differently, the
> > >sAttvika-s worship deva-s, the rAjasa-s worship yakSha-s and rAxasa-s,
> > >whilst the tAmasa-s worship ghosts, spirits, and other low entities
> >
> > But the natures are not fixed for eternity. That should mean a lot for
> > dvaita.
>
>They certainly are; in fact, that is Krishna's explicit word on the
>subject.  There is no getting away from the adjective `svabhAvajA' in
>reference to them.  Overlaid qualities (or qualities relating to the body)
>can and do change, but a destruction of the self-same quality is
>tantamount to destruction of the jIva itself, which no Vedantin accepts.
>
> > >so on.  There is no statement in the BG conveying the impression that
>the
> > >foods cause the qualities in the persons;
> >
> > The foods act differently on a person who eats them, thus indicating the
> > heterogenous action of nature on jivas. The proof follows from the
> > BG.(Chapter 17)
> >
> > Foods in the first category promote life, vitality and give strength,
>
>Foods are themselves not classed into categories, except by reference to
>the type of jIva that likes each.
>
> > jIva; Krishna first says (BG XVII-2) that there are three types of
> > >shraddhA in the jIva-s, born of their self-same natures (svabhAvajA),
>and
> >
> > By experience we see that shraddha in a person is not constant. That
>means
> > the individual nature does not remain constant as shraddha is born of
> > individual nature. Proof once again that the individual natures are not
> > eternal. That should mean a lot for dvaita.
>
>To take the reductio ad absurdum route, if, as you say, a person's
>shraddhA is not constant, then ultimately all spiritual labor is
>meaningless.  A person is ultimately just like a weather-vane that will
>point whichever way the prevailing winds do.  Even changes made in
>improving spiritual or good conduct do not constitute progress, as the
>individual's character essentially is only doing a random walk and will
>regress later.  No true seeker of any stripe will look upon such a
>possibility with anything but extreme dread.
>
>What you are attempting is essentially a refutation of the 'Gita, which a
>dyed-in-the-wool Vedantin would find shocking.  It is all right in terms
>of being intellectually honest to question all premises including
>adherence to the BG's word, but it does leave your own position rather
>precarious.
>
>In regard to what you said, anecdotal experience is never a good empirical
>tool, and is not so considered even in terms of the scientific method.  I
>would also add that it certainly has not been my experience that a
>person's shraddhA is inconstant: I have never seen the person who prefers
>to worship deva-s one day and prefers ghosts and demons the next, or so
>on.  In my experience, preferences for purity of behavior and conduct are
>rather remarkably constant; sometimes one sees stunningly good qualities
>even in very young children, and in other cases even old people who should
>know a lot better do not refrain from preferring bad behavior.  Of course,
>a lot of deceipt is attempted, but the old adage, "A man's character is
>what he does when he thinks no one is looking," comes to mind.
>
>The Vedanta and its associated mythology does speak of good people who
>wander from the right path or temporarily get overlaid with bad qualities
>(because of sins, curses upon them, etc.), but even in such cases the
>person does eventually gravitate toward a position reflecting the nobility
>of his own nature, as the BG has said elsewhere (chapter 6).
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
> > Kalyan


_________________________________________________________________
Go Bonkers over cricket with
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/bdm/index.asp Balram D Maity