Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[M Suresh]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya at CCO.CALTECH.EDU> wrote :

> Suresh wrote:
> >   The very fact that someone takes support of the fact that something cannot
>  be
> > disproved to stake claim for its truth means that it cannot be proved
 either.
> > So whatever is to be passed of as truth based on the above criterion can
> > neither pe proved nor disproved.
>
> This is correct. With respect to the criterion of truth, Sankara maintains
> that non-contradictability, not just non-contradictedness should be the
> criterion of absolute truth. Non-contradictability means that the truth can
> never be denied by anyone at any time, which holds for the Self. "Non-
> contradicted"ness only means that it has not been contradicted hitherto, which
> does not mean that some argument cannot be given to contradict it in the
 future.
> Contradiction here is obviously more than a statement that contradicts a
> previous one: it assumes that the other statement has been proved to be true,
> which necessarily means that the original statement must be false.

  Only Brahman seems to satisfy the requirements you have given above. I was
 arguing
  from the standpoint of logic alone.

-Suresh.