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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

I am keeping this short as I feel that it would be unfair if two persons
argue with you simulataneously. So you can take your own time to reply.

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

The reference from the Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.4 is given to show that even in
non-ritualistic usage AtmA is not always used in the same sense.

Brahman is the target. Brahman is unconditioned. AtmA which is the arrow is
the Self in the conditioned state. If the AtmA were to mean Brahman as such,
then the initial state and final state being eternally same, it makes little
sense to say that the final state is the goal of the initial state.(like the
target being the goal of the arrow.) Thus the AtmA can mean only the Self in
the conditioned state. If you object to the advaitic interpretation, then
tell me how, even in dvaitic usage, can the word AtmA here mean Brahman?

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

Since Dvaita does not accept division into karma kanda and jnana kanda, how
would you say which is ritualistic and which is not?

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

If you remember the original argument, it was that sruti does not always use
a particular word in the same sense. As both karma and jnana kandas are
sruti only, and as the Br U reference is part of sruti, do you now accept
that sruti can use the same word and especially the word AtmA, in different
senses?


Best Regards
Kalyan






_________________________________________________________________
Chat now. Chat this instant. http://messenger.msn.co.in/  Get MSN Messenger