Mahesh Ursekar mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Mon Jun 20 11:37:55 CDT 2005

```Pranams:
Thanks for your comment. But, let me share with you the defintion of axiom
I found on the net:
Quite a few I read include "self evident truth" as an axiom defintion. Is
Sat-cit-ananda self-evident?
Of course, for a Jnani, it probably is but for a sadhaka, far from it.
Humble pranams, Mahesh

On 6/20/05, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > to call the
> > maha-vakyas axioms. This has two problems:
> > 1. As elaborated earlier, they are not "simple" and "intutive"
>
> What makes you think an axiom has to necessarily be "simple" and
> "intuitive"? Many branches of Mathematics have axioms that are
> not at all "simple" and "intuitive".
>
> Certain kinds of non-Euclidean Geometry consider the axiom:
>
> "Given a line and a point not on the line, there exists more
> than one line passing through the given point, that is parallel
> to the given line."
>
> Which is equivalent to:
>
> "Parallel lines are not everywhere equidistant."
>
> There is nothing whatsoever that is "simple" and "intuitive"
> about the above axiom. In fact, the exact opposite ("parallel
> lines are everywhere equidistant") is taught to all high school
> students as Euclidean Geometry for the precise reason that it is
> "simple" and "intuitive".
>
> -Kartik
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "As they say in Silicon Valley, where I live, if you haven't failed
> recently, you're not trying hard enough." -Keith Devlin
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports