Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 2(Reality and Unreality)
shrao at NYX.NET
Sat Mar 15 13:22:08 CST 2003
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
> > > How do you accept a definition which seriously falls short of explaining
> > > aspects?
> >Short answer: I don't. You haven't even come close to demonstrating that
> >I do.
> These are your own statements -
> 1. That's fine. Even so, it suffices to show that difference is a quality,
> which was the point you questioned.
> 2.Try the dictionary, which defines difference as "the quality of being
> unlike or dissimilar," etc.
> Why would suggest the dictionary, unless you yourself accept its definition?
You raised the question as to why difference should be considered a
property, and that was my answer (I consider "property" and "quality" to
be synonyms in this context). There is no challenge to this that I can
see. If you wish to show that even considering difference a property is
fallacious, you will have to do something more than you have so far.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list