Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[Ian Goddard]

 At 01:32 PM 7/9/96 -0700, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

 >> IAN: The traditional non-contradictional logic counter to your analysis
 >> is that "self" *is* contradicted by all the universe that is defined as
 >> "not-self." I can deny that this chair is part of myself, thus the
 >> consciousness that I am, which is the measure of "the Self," is
 >> not universally present. How would you answer this counter?
 >
 > Not necessarily so. The consciousness, "I am" is a prerequisite even to
 > make any statement about the chair or this computer. You may differentiate
 > between self (you) and not-self (chair, computer, whatever else), but
 > remember it is you that does the discrimination, which therefore presumes
 > the discriminator.

IAN: Right, in short: no area in physical space can be identified that
exists free from the awareness of it; therefore, awareness is a necessary
feature of physical space and things. The conclusion does not follow
perfectly, yet it cannot be disproven.

There is a one-to-one corrolation between a unit of physical reality
and the awareness of it; or, we will never measure more physical existence
than we are aware of. But this could be said to be curiosity of subjective
experience. It is not a proof that "objective" physical existence does not
exceed "subjective" awareness of it. Thus I cannot see that it disproves
the false ideation that there exits regions of space-time that are
"not-self". It is an major and not uncommon argumentations for the
universality of consciousness.

 (many excellent points and references deleted for space)

 >> The only answer I can see requires a proof that allows the area of the
 >> universe defined as "not-self" to be included into the area defined as
 >> "self." As a result there is no area that can be defined as "not-self,"
 >> thus my self and the consciousness that I am, is equally everything.
 >
 >The only problem that I find with this is that it seems to presume that there
 >is something that is "not-self" that has to be extraneously included under
 >"self" to begin with. I wish there were some English words equivalent to
 >Atman and brahman, so that one can talk non-duality in English as well as
 >in Sanskrit!

IAN: No, I intended to imply only that there is something * assumed * to
be "not-self." It is only that false assumption that is to be overthrown.

The mind by its nature is able to create the illusion of identity locality.
It is the assumption of not-self and its underling logic that is the structure
of this illusion. The false assumption is built upon Aristotelian rules of
identity which state that A is A,... A is not both A and not-A, ergo this
thing called "self" is your only in your 12 lb brain, it is not in both
your mind and all the universe that is not-your-mind. That is the fallacy.
In fact, due to relational identity, A is both A and not-A at the same time.

It follows that as the illusion is constructed by thought, it can be
dismantled by thought. In other words, every time false thought arises,
one observes its transparent nature by the logic of relational identity.


 >Of course, the realization that there is nothing that is not-self is itself
 >the summum bonum. If you mean to say that the original definition of some
 >part of the universe as not-self is a false one, you are right. But note
 >that the realization of self is partless (akshara). To see parts in the
>partless is the fundamental error.

IAN: Yes, the part is nothing but a feature of the whole, apart from
which it has no existence, thus no part is part from the unified whole.
Indeed, the appearance of separation, or parts, is the proof of unity.

If all that is not-A is removed from the universal set, there could be
no thing left called "A", for A is naught but the A/not-A relation, thus
not-A is a necessary feature of A, and thus the "two" are not-two.

There is only the unified whole. As the origin of A is not-A and not-A A,
all identity in nonlocal and uniform. That is the nature of the Self.


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