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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>RV 6.47.18 and other places.  These are cited in one of B.N.K. Sharma's
>books.

Book details please.

> > How do you know it is eternally constant?
>
>Because the embodied, i.e., the jIva, has been described as `avyaya'
>elsewhere, which means precisely that.

One can understand that avyaya means that soul has no death or decay.
But how does avyaya mean that the soul has a nature and that is  eternally
constant?

>In verse 3, where in connection with `adhaM tamas', the usage is
>`abhigachchhanti' ([they] go for good), rather than just `gachchhanti'
>([they] go).

*abhigachchhanti* is more an indication of reaching or falling or entering
rather than an indication of going for good without coming back.

>([they] go).  The very phrase `andhaM tamaH' also signifies unremitting
>darkness.

It does not necessarily signify that. Nor does it mean that the darkness is
eternal.


>knowledge leading to unending liberation, they care little about the joys
>or suffering of the heaven and hell from which one can return.  When an
>Upanishad warns of unremitting darkness, it is warning of something far
>worse only.

Not necessary again. The darkness could last for a very long period of time
and thus is very bad. No evidence that the darkness is eternal.


>However, if one grants, as the Upanishad itself indicates, that there can
>also be degrees of suffering in damnation (as there are degrees of
>enjoyment in liberation), then there is no issue.

That could as well be termed as speculation. It would be illogical to say
that people who have right knowledge go into a darkness greater than people
with wrong knowledge. Besides if vidya or avidya alone provde very bad
results, how can their combination produce liberation?


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: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:57:45 -0700
>
>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > Namaskaaram,
> >
> > > > Is it not possible for a tamasic person to become a sattvik one?
> > >
> > >No.
> >
> > > > If not,of what use are the scriptures to one who is tamasic?
> > >
> > >They aren't.  No one has said they are.
> >
> > Where does sruti indicate this?
>
>RV 6.47.18 and other places.  These are cited in one of B.N.K. Sharma's
>books.
>
> > >Yes, as per Krishna's explicit word: svabhAvajA.
> >
> > How do you know it is eternally constant?
>
>Because the embodied, i.e., the jIva, has been described as `avyaya'
>elsewhere, which means precisely that.
>
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > >Non sequitur
> >
> > Good. So experience is non sequitur.
>
>No, your response was.
>
> > > > Do you really get this eternal damnation idea from vedanta?
> > >
> > >Yes, for example, from `andhaM tamaH pravishanti ye.avidyAmupAsate'
> > >(Ishavasya U. 9), and also Krishna's word `mAM aprApyaiva kaunteya tato
> > >yAnti adhamAM gatim.h' (having certainly failed to reach me, they reach
> > >the lowest state).
> >
> > 1.How do you link the Isa Upanishad statement to eternal damnation?
>Where
> > does the Upanishad say that andhaM tamaH is eternal?
>
>In verse 3, where in connection with `adhaM tamas', the usage is
>`abhigachchhanti' ([they] go for good), rather than just `gachchhanti'
>([they] go).  The very phrase `andhaM tamaH' also signifies unremitting
>darkness.  As Upanishads, and Vedantic texts in general, are about
>knowledge leading to unending liberation, they care little about the joys
>or suffering of the heaven and hell from which one can return.  When an
>Upanishad warns of unremitting darkness, it is warning of something far
>worse only.
>
> > 2.Besides, if lowest state is great darkness, then what about the
> > worshippers of vidya?
>
>That is essentially Max Mueller's objection to Sri Shankara's explanation
>of the verse.
>
>However, if one grants, as the Upanishad itself indicates, that there can
>also be degrees of suffering in damnation (as there are degrees of
>enjoyment in liberation), then there is no issue.
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
> > Kalyan


_________________________________________________________________
Chat now. Chat this instant. http://messenger.msn.co.in/  Get MSN Messenger