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

kalyan chakravarthy kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Mar 26 12:01:30 CST 2003


>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
>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

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

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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list