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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

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

Thank you.

>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.

A being cannot be equated to a quality that it is known to possess at a
given instant of time. Thus an undecaying soul does not imply that the soul
is good or bad eternally. By the way I only said that the  soul is
undecaying.

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

It can indicate a fall.(not necessarily eternal)


>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.

As for this, there is no guarentee that a particular word is used in sruti
in always the same sense. As liberation is a state to be reached, there is
nothing wrong in using gachchhati and co. That liberation is eternal is
anyway known from other portions of sruti. Thus the usage of abhigachchhanti
does not necessarily signify eternal transit.

>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.

It is the context that decides the meaning when there is a doubt.

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 23:42:18 -0700
>
>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


_________________________________________________________________
Cricket World Cup 2003- News, Views and Match Reports.
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/