[Advaita-l] logic and Shastra

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams:
 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>>