Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 07:33:20 CST 2013

```smart argument. may i ask if you from thanjavur, kumbakonam or tirunelveli?
:)

On Sri Subrahmanian's post and yours, a. we need definition of absolute
from sastras and b. whether sastras, which are dependent on ishwara for
their manifestation at the start of every cycle, can define ishwara?

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I don't see why you say anyone is changing the rules. The logic is simple.
> "If P, then Q" implies, "if not-Q, then not-P". It says nothing about if
> not-P, then what.
>
> If spatio-temporal limitations, then not-absolute. This means, If
> absolute, then no spatio-temporal limitations. This leaves open a
> possibility for the existence of some entity that has no spatio-temporal
> limitations, yet is not-absolute.
>
> Here is another mathematical way to think about it. You are no doubt aware
> of the conceptual difference between countable and uncountable infinities.
> Think of saguNa brahman as countably infinite, one guNa after another, and
> of nirguNa brahman as uncountably infinite.
>
> Vidyasankar
>
>
> > From: rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> > Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:05:45 +0000
> >
> > You can't arbitrarily change the rules to defend a siddhanta. If you
> reject some thing as non-absolute because it has spacio-temporal
> limitations, then you have to accept saguna brahman as absolute. He is, by
> definition, the creator of space and time and beyond limitations. When you
> accept saguna brahman as such, you have to do so with his maya. Sun and His
> heat are non-different.
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
> >
>
>  _______________________________________________