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

[Shrisha Rao]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:

> 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"?

No, it only "bypasses the question" because you have, once again,
forgotten what the question is.  Try to remain focused.  Your question
was, once again, how one knows that a soul has an eternal self-same
nature.  This is known merely from the fact that it has the eternal nature
of existence.  That it has the further nature of sattva, etc., as the case
may be, is known from Bhagavad Gita XVII-2/3.  The self-same nature is
immutable, for if it were not, then even the self-same quality of
existence would be in jeopardy.

> >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.

No lexical authority or traditional interpretation supports such a
reading, and your unlearned say-so is not enough.  (I notice that you
hesitate little in making wild postulations -- learn first to check and
come up with some acceptable authority or support before you do.)

Further, the point is that `gachchhanti' is itself enough to indicate a
fall: why the adverbial modifier?  If you say it "indicates a fall,"
then you have no idea what an adverb is.

> >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.

However, a verb referencing a noun-phrase in the same verse/sentence
cannot be sensibly called as repeating something that has *already been
said*.  Before the verb is used, nothing has yet been "said" yet.

> >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.

Rubbish -- you just don't know what `asAdhAraNyena vyapadeshA bhavanti' is.

> > > 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.

Apparently, you don't need it to tell you anything; your foot remains
stuck in your mouth unaided.

> >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.

Rubbish again; you just don't understand.  What I said is black-letter
Vedantic doctrine; even Sri Sankara accepts that `AtmA' refers to one
thing only, and his criticisms of others in several places are based on
this principle.

I ask that you study up on your Vedanta before venturing to discuss it.
Do you even know the references I gave, and their classical
interpretations? Vedanta is not, contrary to what you imagine, a mere
chimera that you can make up as you go along; you need serious discipline,
as well as the serious commitment to make whatever efforts necessary, and
the humility in learning from a genuine master, before you can be accepted
as making any sense in its regard.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Kalyan