For the logicians among you

[Jonathan Bricklin]

MC1 at aol.com writes:

>Vedic testimony and perception are at odds concerning the non-duality
versus
>the plurality of this world. How to reconcile?

>Sureswara argues (reference supplied on request) that perception does not
>reveal difference! Difference is determined by the non-existence of one
>object in another -- there is non-existence of a horse in a cow and vice
>versa.

Relative non-existence only.  That a horse is not a cow is not an argument
for the existence of nothingness.  In fact, once consciousness becomes
consciousness of objects then the existence of any one given object
*necessitates* rather than negates other objects.  The not-the grass,
not-my-mommy, not-my-car, not-a-horse thing making that funny sound all
make possible the question:  "What is that?"


>Difference then, is about non-existence and perception requiring an
>object has nothing to do with non-existence -- it can only manifest
objects,
>not draw conclusions about them. Inference, which can draw conclusions,
being
>dependent upon perception also cannot determine non-existence.

Perception has, as you say, "nothing to do with non-existence."  It has
only to do with existence or somethingness.   And inference,  for its part,
cannot validate a nothingness since nothingness (as opposed to a
nothingness with borders, such as a hole in paper) is the one thing which,
by definition does not exist.

Jonathan Bricklin