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

Kotekal, Srinivas [Non-Employee/0200] srinivas.kotekal at PHARMACIA.COM
Fri Mar 28 16:45:05 CST 2003


I would like to give some pointers regarding the subject being discussed
here. Hope it serves the purpose.

The issue what I understood is ;

"How would one postulates eternal damnation to tamasic jIvis ?"

or more specifically ;

"How do we know jIvis have *unchanging* intrinsic nature so that they can be
labeled as sattva/rajas/tamas jIvis in the first place ?"

To address this particular issue, I invite you to take a look at Dvaita's
position and its scriptural support for 5th prameya located at the very same
site  http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.html .

As one can notice, this position is discussed with support from Bhagavad
Gita, IshAvAsya Upanishad and most importantly the logic behind the basic
poorvapaXa's question like "But why can it not be argued that there are no
qualities of one's own nature, at all, but all qualities are merely acquired
by association?".

Since this whole thread started on objection to prameya # 4 from the very
website, it is quite truthful on one's part if one read and understand the
doctrine in its entirety as oppose to debate on bits & pieces.


-----Original Message-----
From: kalyan chakravarthy [mailto:kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 3(Inherent natures of jivas)


>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

>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

Find a partner. For life. http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=hmlql
Meet at Shaadi.com
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Sat Mar 29 11:30:49 2003
Message-Id: <SAT.29.MAR.2003.113049.0000.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:30:49 +0000
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
From: nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Vivekachoodaamani
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

286. In sleep, in talking with others, in hearing music etc one is apt to
forget the thought of oneness with the Atman. Given these distractions no
opportunity, but carefully do away with your ignorance of identifying the
Self with the non-self.

287. Think of the Self in the self, not in the body or mind. This body which
has sprung from the dirt of father and mother, give up as something filthy,
but be established in the real self. Be and become Brahman. Be perfect.

290. In the consciousness that is ever blissful, put your consciousness that
is in this body. Give up this gross and subtle body and be one, universal

292. The atman is reality itself. That is your own real self. That is pure
consciousness, one without a second, blissfulness itself, without form and
without actions. Take that and give up this unreal body as the actor gives
up his dress after the play.

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list