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

[Shrisha Rao]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Shrisha Rao wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> Sure there is.  Both Ish. 11 and 14 talk about "mrtyu tirtva" crossing
> over death.  The "people who kill the Self" go into the asurya lokA
> that are characterized by blinding darkness after death.  (Ish 3.)  But if
> death can be crossed over then it logically follows that the blinding
> darkness is not a permanent state.

That amounts to equating mR^ityu with andhaM tamas, which is unsupported
as the latter follows the former.  That death can be crossed over does not
automatically imply that andhaM tamas can be crossed over as well.

Further, there is no indication that the people referenced vide `mR^ityuM
tIrtvA amR^itaM ashnute' are the same people who are stated to go to
andhaM tamas.  Just as in the Bhagavad Gita, it is not indicated that the
cruel asura-s who "certainly fail to reach Me" (mAM aprApya eva) are the
same "un-selfish saints who enter [Me]" (vishanti yadyatayo vItarAgAH).

> > > 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).
>
> Take a look a little further on at 1.2.4:
>
> so'kAmayata dvitIyo ma AtmA jAyeteti
>
> He [Hiranyagarbha] wished "Let me have a second body."
>
> Atma obviously means body here because having two souls is absurd.  No
> Vedantic acharya would say that so why would Shankaracharya?  His gloss on
> the text above is
>
> dvitIyAM me mamAtmA sharIraM yenAhaM sharIrI syAM sa jayetotpadyeta
> ityevametadakamayata |
>
> Now if we go back to 1.2.1 we can see that atma there must refer to the
> first body otherwise the reference to the second body makes no sense.

That seems to make sense, yes, though I will wait till I can look at
Anandagiri's commentary first.  (It will take me a couple of weeks to lay
hands on a copy.)

> First it should be noted that this particular Brahmana of the
> Brhadaranyakopanishad doesn't deal with jnana at all but is an upasana on
> the origin of the fire used in the Ashvamedha yajna.
> (agnerashvamedhopayogikasyotpattiruchyate as Shankaracharya puts it.) A
> word may have different meanings in the different contexts of karma,
> upasana, or jnana.  This work as the name suggests is both aranyaka and
> upanishad and is embedded in the Shatapathabrahmana (all its' chapters are
> called brahmanas) and contains elements of all three types of Vedic
> subject-matter.

This being so, wouldn't you say the `AtmA' in that portion is not a
Vedantic usage, but a ritual one?

> > 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.

> Secondly BSB 1.3.1 is against the Samkhya.  They wouldn't interpret the
> reference to atma in brhad. 1.2 differently either.  Rather the problem is
> they say atma refers to pradhana (manifest prakrti) which is manifest in
> multiple ways whereas Shankaracharya say the Vedic texts do not admit to
> such a meaning but only to a singular entity.

I would prefer to look at the subcommentaries first.  Even granting your
explanation, however, I don't see that the conclusion is weakened.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Tue Apr  1 12:11:53 2003
Message-Id: <TUE.1.APR.2003.121153.0000.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 12:11:53 +0000
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Brahma Sutra Baashyam of Srikantha Sivaachaarya
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

>Was this bhashya from Siddhanta or Vira Shaiva point of view?  I'm not
>sure.

"Veera Shaivism" was more a "caste reform" movement though ofcourse they
have their specific texts, rituals etc - it is mainly restricted to
Karnaataka.

But Saiva Siddhaanta is a highly spiritual siddhaanta and has its origins in
TamilNadu. Srikantha belonged to this stream as did Appaya.


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail