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

[Shrisha Rao]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:

> >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.
>
> Already said that the maxim does not necessarily show that the transit must
> be eternal. The maxim can as well show the prolonged duration of the
> transit.

Okay, fair enough.  However, if a prolonged duration is indicated without
any recourse shown as to its end, then that shows an infinite duration
only.

> A pre-requisite for eternal transit is the eternal existence of
> such dark worlds which again has not been indicated(definitely not by andHam
> tamah).

On the contrary, there is no indication that the transit is ever reversed.

> >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
> >claimed.
>
> The claim was not that of repetition but of giving stress or support. You
> will understand it if you contrast it with "going into dark worlds".

A verb does not stress or support a noun.

> The translations are advaitic translations. In the brihadaranyaka upanishad
> 1.2.1, the word AtmA is not taken as meaning either the individual or
> supreme Self but is read as the mind. If you accept it, then you are eating

Let us deal with originals, not with translations (esp. unspecified ones
that cannot be checked).

In his BSB (1.3.1) Sri Sankara has explicitly stated his understanding to
be that the word AtmA is *always* (samyak.h) used to refer to one thing
and that no other meaning may be applied: Atmashabdashcha
paramAtmaparigrahe samyak.h avakalpate, nArthAntaraparigrahe.  I could
scarcely have conjured a more supportive statement were I able to have one
made to order.

Also see, e.g., the early portions of the adhyAsa-bhAshhya (AtmA cha
brahma, &c.) or the discussion of `Atmeti tu upagachchhanti grAhayanti
cha' (4.1.3).

In dealing with the same Upanishad you reference, Sri Sankara has clearly
prohibited any notion that the Atman is an object of worldly dealings (as
the mind is): nAtmano vishhayIkaraNam.h.  (See `tad.h brahma idaM
sharIrasthaM yad.hgR^ihyate...' &c., explaining `tad.h AtmAnaM eva
Avet.h'.)

> your own words. If you deny it, then I can rest assured of your ignorance of
> advaitic interpretations.

I would most cheerfully grant that I am largely, or even almost totally,
ignorant of Advaitic texts (though I couldn't care less about their modern
interpretations), but on this point I have the word of the mUlAchArya on
my side.  Any evidence or inference you may adduce against it will run
stiffly up against his word, `nArthAntaraparigrahe'.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Kalyan