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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>No, it only "bypasses the question" because you have, once again, forgotten
>what the question is.  Try to remain focused.

Oh I see. Here is/are the original question/s taken from my previous mails.

**********************************************************************
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?

***********************************************************************
>Certainly.  However, the fact remains that being (astitva/sattA in
>Sanskrit) is also the self-same nature of the jIva, proving that it >*has*
>a self-same nature (which was your question).

How does it show that this nature is eternally constant?

************************************************************************

Present sophistry and claim it as logic.

>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.)

Your linking it to eternal damnation is unwarranted.  By the way the wild
postulate of eternal damnation for the prefix abhi comes from your side.

>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.

Sophistry again. There is an inherent stress in saying that one falls into
dark worlds.

> > 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.

Irrationality is manifesting here.

>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.

Either you have not read Sri Adi Shankara's interpretations, or you have
forgotten them or you are simply bluffing.

Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.4 is enough to show you are wrong.


>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.

Dont try to digress. If you are really a vedantic pandit you must be able to
satisfactorily demonstrate that the upanishads support your ideas. The focus
is on the Isa Upanishad. How do you demonstrate that the Isa Upanishad talks
of eternal damnation? And no *could be* or *would be* please. You must show
definiteness and not probability. You must be able to show that the Isa
Upanishad cannot give rise to alternate interpretations.

Best Regards
Kalyan


_________________________________________________________________
Find a partner. For life. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmlql
Meet at Shaadi.com