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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>He further adds (XVII-3)
>that in line with one's own nature does one's shraddhA form, and that
>whatever a person's natural shraddhA, that verily is he (i.e., a person
>with sAttvikI-shraddhA is a sAttvika, one with rAjasI-shraddhA is a
>rAjasa, &c.).  In defining what the natural states of behavior for these
>types of jIva-s are, Krishna adds that they worship differently, the
>sAttvika-s worship deva-s, the rAjasa-s worship yakSha-s and rAxasa-s,
>whilst the tAmasa-s worship ghosts, spirits, and other low entities

But the natures are not fixed for eternity. That should mean a lot for
dvaita.

>so on.  There is no statement in the BG conveying the impression that the
>foods cause the qualities in the persons;

The foods act differently on a person who eats them, thus indicating the
heterogenous action of nature on jivas. The proof follows from the
BG.(Chapter 17)

Foods in the first category promote life, vitality and give strength,
health, happiness and satisfaction. Foods in the second category cause
grief, misery, disease etc. This we see again from experience. Proof -
Onions increase libido. So, saying that foods can cause some qualities has a
more sound logical basis.

Conclusion - Prakriti acts in an inhomogenous way.

Further proof - There are three qualities of material nature. When nature
itself is inhomogenous it cannot be expected that its action on jivas will
be homogenous. Take the examples from the first posting.

jIva; Krishna first says (BG XVII-2) that there are three types of
>shraddhA in the jIva-s, born of their self-same natures (svabhAvajA), and

By experience we see that shraddha in a person is not constant. That means
the individual nature does not remain constant as shraddha is born of
individual nature. Proof once again that the individual natures are not
eternal. That should mean a lot for dvaita.


Best Regards
Kalyan


>From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at NYX.NET>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Re: Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 3(Inherent natures of jivas)
>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:18:16 -0700
>
>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > Namaskaaram,
> >
> > Actually, in the BG, it is clearly the jIva-s, and not the foods, who
>are
> > >labeled as sAttvika, etc.  The usages in chapter XVII are clearly
>`AhArAH
> > >sAttvikapriyAH' (foods dear to sAttvika-s), `AhArA rAjasasyeshhTAH'
>(foods
> > >liked by rAjasa-s), and `bhojanaM tAmasapriyam.h' (meal dear to
>tAmasa-s).
> > >To support your contention, the usages *should have been* `AhArAH
> > >sAttvikAH' (foods that are sAttvika), &c.
> >
> > Agreed that the label is not given to the foods as such. But that does
>not
> > in anyway reduce the strength of the argument.
>
>If you think closely, it does.  If I recall, your precise words in this
>regard were, and I quote:
>
>   In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna tells Arjuna about sattvic, rajasic
>   and tamasic foods. Each kind of food when eaten produces a different
>   result. Otherwise, if all foods act on the jiva in the same way, then
>   it is useless to classify them. For example, rajasic foods increase
>   rajas.
>
>Clearly, unlike what you said before, Krishna is *not* labeling foods
>themselves as rAjasa, etc., as you now accept.
>
>The question in the BG is the preferred natural behavior of each type of
>jIva; Krishna first says (BG XVII-2) that there are three types of
>shraddhA in the jIva-s, born of their self-same natures (svabhAvajA), and
>that these are sAttvikI, rAjasI, and tAmasI.  He further adds (XVII-3)
>that in line with one's own nature does one's shraddhA form, and that
>whatever a person's natural shraddhA, that verily is he (i.e., a person
>with sAttvikI-shraddhA is a sAttvika, one with rAjasI-shraddhA is a
>rAjasa, &c.).  In defining what the natural states of behavior for these
>types of jIva-s are, Krishna adds that they worship differently, the
>sAttvika-s worship deva-s, the rAjasa-s worship yakSha-s and rAxasa-s,
>whilst the tAmasa-s worship ghosts, spirits, and other low entities.
>
>It is in this context that even the food (AhArastvApi) is said to be liked
>in three ways by the jIva-s: the sAttvika-s like healthful, delicious
>food, the rAjasa-s like food that is overly hot, bitter, salty, etc., and
>so on.  There is no statement in the BG conveying the impression that the
>foods cause the qualities in the persons; rather, persons have, based on
>their own natures, likes for certain kinds of food.
>
> > The first class of foods has been said to increase the duration of life,
> > purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and
>
>Notice that it is not stated *what* foods have these properties (which
>would be inappropriate, of course, as the 'Gita is not a manual of food or
>health).  It is merely said that food that is of such nature is liked by
>sAttvika-s.  Again, the qualification is of the person, not of the food.
>
> > >No, because your interpretation of the relevant scriptural text is
>clearly
> > >incorrect
> >
> > My interpretation does stand. An assumption that a sattvik always eats
>only
> > sattvic foods or a rajasic person eats only rajasic foods does not
>follow
>
>Agreed, and no one is saying that it does.  What is being said by Krishna
>is that certain types of food are *liked* by certain types of people.  It
>is a given that no one always obtains what he or she likes, but the likes
>themselves do not change for that reason.
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
> > Kalyan


_________________________________________________________________
Get ball by ball action on your desktop.
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/cricketdownload/contest.asp Get Hutch
MSN Cricketer