The Fodder of First causes

[Robert Zydenbos]

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:50:50 -0500, Edwin Bryant wrote:

> If the Jiva is distinct from an eternal Isvara in so far as the jiva is
> subject to maya while the former is not, then how did jiva find itself
> under the influence of Maya? If Isvara placed it there (and Madhva is
> indeed peculiar here in his extreme position of jivas being placed in
> samsara for eternity), then Isvara is cruel.

At the risk of nit-picking, maybe I should add that (a) Madhva's notion
of maayaa differs from the Advaitic, to such an extent that he wrote a
text titled _Maayaavaadakha.n.dana_ (i.e., a refutation of Advaitic
illusionism); (b) only one of three categories of jiivas is termed
nityasa.msaarin (the other two being muktiyogya and tamoyogya);
(c) this 'jiivatraividhya' is considered simply the way things are, and a
notion of 'cruelty' is a projection of human sentiments where they are
not appropriate (this kind of explanation is also found in other theistic
traditions).

The question of a first cause could also be explained away in a
similar manner as (c). Perhaps not intellectually satisfying, but it's a
possibility.

RZ