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

[kalyan chakravarthy]

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.

The first class of foods has been said to increase the duration of life,
purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and
satisfaction. Notice that this is with respect to the general way in which
the food acts on the person who eats it. It is not necessary that it
produces such a result only on one who is sattvic. These foods just happen
to be dear to the sattvik. The result produced by these foods is the same
when eaten by either a sattvik, rajasic or tamasic person. Does it not show
the action of prakriti in a heterogenous way ?

>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
either from the BG or from the day to day experience, where you can see the
same people eating both rajasic as well as sattvic foods. As for tamasic
foods, which are said to be putrid, I dont think a majority eats them. Cross
eating prevails.


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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:32:28 -0700
>
>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>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.
>
> > Is it not therefore logical to say that the jivas do different actions
>and
> > have different desires and differnt levels of joy(in this world)due to
> > prakriti being heterogenous and acting heterogenously on them and not
>due to
> > their own inherent natures being different?
>
>No, because your interpretation of the relevant scriptural text is clearly
>incorrect.
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
> > Thus, the attempts to divide jivas based on their different levels of
> > suffering or joy is mere sophistry.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Kalyan


_________________________________________________________________
Cricket World Cup 2003- News, Views and Match Reports.
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/