Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[Ian Goddard]

At 03:29 AM 7/6/96 GMT, egodust wrote:

 >> IAN: Since nothing exists external to the Self, nothing can bar access
 >> of anything to the Self. The idea that thoughts lead away from the
 >> Self is a dualistic fallacy.
 >>
 >
 > Is not the idea (thought) expressed as: "The idea that thoughts lead away
 > from the Self is a dualistic fallacy," ITSELF a dualistic fallacy [because
 > it, being a particular thought, is leading one away from the truth]?


IAN: You are correct, indeed, as "true" is derived only from the relation
of true to false, it follows that false is a necessary feature of true.
If all statements were always 100% true, no statement could be defined
as a "true" statement, since "true," free from false, would have no
meaning. As such, one cannot lead away from but only to the other.

We can conclude from this that thinking leads nowhere --  I am already here.


  > From this one might infer that there are therefore true
  > thoughts vs fallacious thoughts.

IAN: In fact, if there are true thoughts, there must be false thoughts.
I assert that there are true vs false thoughts; thought vs nonthought.


  > More dualism--and more overt than the dualism that preceded it!

IAN: As A is derived only from the A/not-A relation, the appearance
of duality only confirms non-duality -- i.e., unity --  hence, the more
examples of duality we have, the more examples of nonduality we have.



> Technically, you're
>partly correct, IMO.  Adi Sankara's triune formula addressed maya definitively:
>***1. Brahman is the lone Reality;  2. The world is maya;  3. Brahman is the
>world.***  And the important thing to remember in the formula is that the world
>(which is the Mind or realm of thoughts) is maya only in the sense if/when we
>consider it isolated and unto itself--separate from brahman.  Which leads me to
>point out that I was talking about 'philosophical analysis', which implies a
>*separative* belief system pertaining to the nature of reality which must be,
>by Sankara's advaitic formula, illusory.


IAN: Right; and therefore how can we maintain the idea of separate levels
in jnana yoga? The Self is uniform and self-similar in all locations.
There is no area that is different. Levels is the illusion.


Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = (A + ~A)

Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A

absolute reality: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html