What is Real? Everything

[Ian Goddard]

 At 04:22 AM 6/22/96 GMT, egodust wrote:

 >> IAN: If we define "logic" as "that which is true," then yes.
 >
 > As best I can tell, samadhi is within yet beyond logic and illogic. If this,
 > in turn, can be defined as logic, then 'logic' can mean virtually anything.

IAN: If samadhi is true, and if logic means true, then samadhi is logical.


 > Samadhi is the *experience* of the Absolute.  The Absolute has no relative
 > characteristics.

IAN: Samadhi does have relative characteristics, the mind and its myriad
of relations, relative to which the not-mind of samadhi is "samadhi."
Not-mind is not-mind relative to mind, therefore, the existence
of not-mind implies the existence of mind which is therefore
a necessary relative characteristic of not-mind.
In this way, the Self contains all.


 > How can samadhi, therefore, be ITSELF logical or [as you
 > stated later in the post] of "the clear light" or any other feature?

IAN: You've not shown that samadhi is not relative, or that even
if it is not relative, that it is therefore not logical.


 > The vedantins have come up with the idea--in attempting to describe
 > the indescribable--that it's conveyed in terms of: not not-Being,
 > not not-Consciousness, not not-Bliss.

IAN: There are many ideas, some are logical -- why is this one of them?
(May be a good topic for a separate thread.)


 > "The Mind is the slayer of the Real."

IAN: The real cannot be slain.


 > Is logic something that needs to be ACTIVELY APPLIED in order to sustain
 > the samadhi state?

IAN: Reality is the application of logic. You don't need to do anything.


 > Do we have to continuously apply these formulas and methods, for example,
 > AFTER jivanmukti (permanent Liberation)?

IAN: Those who do not want to apply formulas or methods need
not apply them, at any time. I make no recommendations.


 > Logic (as well as ALL methods, including Self-enquiry) is a means,
 > not an end.  Once the goal is reached, the method can be discarded.

IAN: This separation between logic and the absolute is merely assumed,
I've not seen a case presented to support it. I've not seen a case
to support the claim of any separation / duality.



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