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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>If existence is not an eternal property, then the jIva is not eternal, a
>position that no Vedantin accepts.  Therefore, an eternal entity has the
>eternal nature of existence.

That bypasses the question. I am least bothered about existence. How do you
know that a "bad" soul is eternally "bad"?


>Correct, except that the `abhi-' prefix is still not dealt with -- just
>what are its significance and purpose according to you?

Already said that it indicates a fall.

>Except that there can be no suggestion that descent into dark worlds has
>*already been said* in the IU as of verse 3, where `abhigachchhanti' is
>used.  For your reasoning to work, we should have met `abhigachchhanti' at
>the *second* reference on verse 9, or later, when we could have said the
>Upanishad was supporting what had already been said.

No. For you yourself said that sunless worlds indicate something bad.

>Therefore, if we ignore the idea of repetition and simply accept emphasis,
>then that very emphasis (vide the accepted exegetical principle of
>`asAdhAraNyena vyapadeshA bhavanti') serves to show that the transit must
>be eternal

You are just making a forced interpretation.

> > Eg. tat tvam asi.(or atat tvam asi in your point of view. Infact your
> > reasoning jeopardizes atat tvam asi, but I dont want to digress into
> > that now.)
>
>That's fine; besides, you have never studied `atat tvaM asi', so the
>provenience of your arguments would be much in question.

I dont need sruti to tell me atat tvam asi.

>That is probably the *worst* example one could find for your case, as its
>Vedantic meaning is the most fixed: it means the same in, e.g., `AtmA vA
>are drashhTavyaH', &c., and in `gauNashchennAtmashabdAt.h'.  In fact, the
>latter specifically rules out applicability of the word to refer to the
>embodied, living being.

Sruti does not use atmA in the same sense always. You cannot disprove my
statement by quoting random references. You are diverting the main issue.
Introducing the *tat tvam asi* context here is unwarranted.

>Stating that a person is the embodied also is not a non-dual instruction
>(which is the common interpretation).  In fact, it is a mere belaboring of
>the obvious like calling a pot round, and is not a Vedantic statement of
>any kind.  Therefore, even in `sa AtmA' the word `AtmA' means the same.

FYKI, did I give you this specific example in the first place to prove my
assertion that the word atmA is not always used in the same sense?

> > 1. As you are reading in an idea, the burden of justification lies on
>you.
>
>No, it does not in this case.  I have already met my burden.  If you come
>up with an objection to my reading (as you have attempted), then the
>burden of dealing with the absurdities arising out of your objection is
>certainly yours and not mine.

You have just forced an interpretation which by no means can be called as
meeting the burden.

> > 2. Combine vidya and avidya to achieve the goal.(comes immediately next)
>
>Except that such a reading makes no sense, in several ways -- exactly what
>does "combine vidyA and avidyA" mean?

If that does not make sense then sruti does not make sense to you. That's
your own problem. A sensible interpretation must not change the meanings of
words randomly and I know who has done it :-)

>How is one caught in blinding darkness to achieve this?

Method is simple - combine vidya and avidya.

> > 3. Transition of states is a possibility from day to day experience.
>
>However, Vedanta is not about mere daily experience, so the simile is all
>wrong -- one cannot compare dissimilar things and derive conclusions about
>them

Context - It does not contradict experience.

>Besides, in fact, transition of states
>is *not* daily experience, so the antecedent of the proposed inference is
>false as well.

There are innnumerable examples of an obect moving from one state to another
in daily experience.

>Last but not least, if one ignores these problems and
>simply takes transition to be a possibility based on the [alleged]
>similarity with daily experience, then even mukti would become transitory,

May be in dvaita as it attaches absolute reality to phenomenal experiecnes
but not so in advaita.

Best Regards
Kalyan






_________________________________________________________________
Catch the Oscar fever. See winners & losers.
http://server1.msn.co.in/MSNSpecials/oscar2003/index.asp Right here