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

[Shrisha Rao]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:

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

Sharma, B.N.K., `Philosophy of Madhvacharya' (and probably also `History
of the Dvaita School of Vedanta), Motilal Banarsidass, hardcover.

By the way, I believe the exact reference is for verses 6.47.16 and
6.47.17; 6.47.18 is also important, but as a follow-on, when it says
`rUpaM rUpaM pratirUpo babhUva tadasya rUpaM pratichaxaNAya'.

> > > 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?

By your own postulation, the *nature* of the soul is to have no decay or
death, and this is eternally so.  It cannot be otherwise even for your
interpretation to work.  Hence, the word does convey as said.

> >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.

No, the prefix `abhi-' is very significant, and your idea does not cover
it.

Your interpretation also does not accord with Vedantic usage: the words
`gachchhati', `gachchhanti', `adhigachchanti', `nigachchhati', etc., are
used many times in the Bhagavad Gita, and not in the temporary sense you
envision.  What you said would make even mukti temporary (`adhigachchati',
etc., being also repeatedly used to refer to the seeker's reaching
liberation).  This is opposed to the sUtra `anAvR^ittiH shabdAdanAvR^ittiH
shabdAt.h' or the Shruti `na cha punarAvartate na cha punarAvartate'.
Therefore, the `abhigachchhanti' refers to an eternal transit only.

> >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?

Again, you are actually assailing Sri Shankara's interpretation, not
something I feel compelled, or competent, to defend.  Your point also does
not correlate with the matter at hand.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Kalyan