Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[egodust]

>   At 01:50 PM 7/5/96 -0500, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>   >
>   > I have a question on the method of coming to conclusions in advaita.
>   > In my debate about the apaurusheyatva of the vedas with Shrisha Rao,
>   > he claimed that vedantins accept "what cannot be disproved beyond
>   > doubt as the truth". Does this method of analysis find acceptance
>   > among advaitins?
>
> IAN: Apart from stupidity or blind faith, what other methods for
> acceptance of claims to truth than inability to disprove are there?
>

Methods of logical proof or disproof can only point us in the direction of
jnana; because jnana, although translated as 'knowledge', has nothing to do
with knowledge as we ordinarily regard it--in this case: analytical.
Rather, it has to do with cidakasa (the pure sky of awareness or pure
consciousness), registering in the heart. It's an experience that *no
particular thought or philosophy can describe* OR perhaps it can be said
to be *ALL thoughts conceivable, simultaneously!*

If whatever method we might apply--advaita, zen, sufi, etc--that doesn't
bring us to the state of pure Being, we're failing in terms of connecting our
awareness to the Self [not in terms of what we, a priori, ARE automatically,
no matter WHAT transpires in the field of Mind].  The idea that the Mind [or
the bundle of thoughts] has to be transcended is evidenced in virtually every
approach: advaitins call it 'manonasa': extinction of mind; zens call it
'mu-shin': no-mind; kabalists call it 'ain soph': void of thought; toltecs
call it 'nagual': the unknowable; the sufis have a name for it too (escapes
me).  However, the fact remains that although thoughts may yet continue, the
point is that they're no longer taken as isolated verities, *separate* from
the totality of What IS.

>
> Based upon physical evidence, the dualists have not a leg to stand on.
> Due to the mechanics of relational identity, not a single instance
> of any separation can be identified in all of space and time.
> Dualism -- where "dual" implies that A is free from ~A
> -- is easily proven to be pure fallacy.
>

This should be chiseled in granite.

Namaste.