# Dispassion

egodust egodust at DIGITAL.NET
Mon Jun 10 10:27:46 CDT 1996

```Ian wrote:
>  At 04:18 PM 6/8/96 GMT, egodust wrote:
>  >
>  > Any statement regarding Parabrahmam (Absolute Being) is necessarily
>  > false; because the Limitless cannot be circumscribed by any thought,
>  > word or deed.  Yet, the 'tailoring of statements about the absolute'
>  > is necessary as a means to pull the Mind out of its relativity trap.
>  > Once that's accomplished, such concepts become obsolete.
>
>
> IAN: I know what your saying: the description does not contain the described.
> A description of an aroma cannot convey that aroma, it always falls short.
> But are the description and the described a duality? No. Here's why:
>
> When we "circumscribe," or draw a circle, and call the area inside it
> "area A," we've defined area A. Yet in so doing we also define the
> complementary external area ~A that surround the internal area.
> A <=> ~A. We cannot define internal A more than we
> simultaneously define the external ~A.
>

Now you're getting on my nerves. (hahaha! 8-D)

This analogy can only work if your talking about drawing a circle on an infinte
plane of space or [hypothetically] some singular and homogenous substance.
Otherwise it fails--at least from the wholistic perspective.  That is, although
the Particular Effect is never anything intrinsically segregated from the
Universal Cause, to consider that it is the Cause *unto itself*, whole and
complete, is erroneous.  If that were the case, the ego Effect, *unto itself*,
could be relied upon unreservedly.

>
> An interesting observation:
>
> If the statement > All statements about the truth are false < is true,
> then it, being a statement about the truth (defining it as beyond words),
> is false. If it is false, then all statements about the truth are true.
> As it is itself one of those statements, it is true, yet if it is
> true it is false, if false then true, if....  A <=> ~A
>

The statement > All statements, etc... < isn't a statement about the truth, but
a statement *about* statements about the truth.

At any rate, this is a good example of how the Mind can take us on incredible
journeys...that wind up right back where we started: confused and bewildered.

***************

I'm sure you realize [but I'd like to clarify] that there's never been an
argument against your method here.  In fact, I've used it myself [in a slightly
different form--and a less effective one, I might add] for over 30 years.
My only point of contention [in this debate] is that logic, being a
product of thought, cannot have an ultimate value (viz.: that it functions
as a strategic *means* to an end; that once it's accomplished its mission, it
has no further 'executive' purpose.  And furthermore, that upon one's arriving
at the threshold to the final Release {renunciation of ego}, it may actually
prove to be an obstacle!).

As per your [regarded] logical approach: it works perfectly!  It overwhelmingly
illustrates, for example, that illusion arises only if and when a given thing
or event is believed to exist *independent* [or disconnected] from everything
else.  Proving, mathematically and philosophically, the impossibility of
duality.  Yet, as Ramakrishna always says: "after the thorn is used to pluck
out another from under the skin, both are discarded," so is the logic of
advaita, after it's dislodged the ordeal of the logic of Mind [actively
applied to endless judgements, begetting endless sufferings], also discarded.
Whereupon we return to what we ALREADY are.  And nothing's happened.

>

```