[Advaita-l] logic and Shastra
mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 16:26:06 CDT 2005
I am sorry to have not kept my word of resting my case but I guess a case
cannot be rested until the final summary is given so I take this liberty to
do that - it will be short to avoid the thread continuing further since you
do not wish to do so.
The biggest issue I had with your arguments is your choosing to call the
maha-vakyas axioms. This has two problems:
1. As elaborated earlier, they are not "simple" and "intutive"
2. As per your statements, the axioms contains "undefined" terms, and hence
their validity as axioms can be questioned seriously.
What the mahav-akyas can be considered as are "truths". A truth is harder
to establish and needs work (sadhana).
Further (and you alluded this to in your last mail) the presence of a Guru
is of paramount importance! The only reason, IMHO, the maha-vakyas can be
considered as truths is that a Guru has realized them. Pratakshya
establishes their truth that no amount of books ever can. If you go only by
books, then every other religion can make the same claim and argumentation
will be never ending. And THAT is what makes Vedanta stand out.
As far as inferring the swarup-lakshana of Brahman, my quest will continue,
via more study and introspection so maybe I might have something more
concrete in the future...
Humble pranams, Mahesh
<<Last mail deleted due to Spam filter problems>>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list