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

Shrisha Rao shrao at NYX.NET
Sat Mar 29 23:09:47 CST 2003

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:

> 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?

Asked and answered.

> How does it show that this nature is eternally constant?


> >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.

I am not linking damnation to it; I am just pointing out the relevance of
the prefix in light of the maxim `asAdhAraNyena vyapadeshA bhavanti'.  By
the way, you still have not met the burden of proof in regard to your
claimed interpretation of the prefix.

> >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.

Not so separately, however, in the noun-phrase meaning "dark worlds" and
the verb "fall into."  That is the point.  Therefore, one cannot say that
"fall into" repeats something *already indicated by* "dark worlds" as you

> Irrationality is manifesting here.

I noticed.

> >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.

?  Hardly.  You have in any case not provided any hard evidence or
interpretation of commentary; I am least inclined to honor your bare
assertion (elsewhere too).  You in any case seem to prefer unspecified
translations (as per your word elsewhere) and not the original, which is
one reason I am disinclined to trust your understanding.

> 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.

Once again, the maxim of `asAdhAraNyena vyapadeshA bhavanti'.  Pay


Shrisha Rao

> Kalyan

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list