Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Suresh wrote:

>> >>   Only Brahman seems to satisfy the requirements you have given above. I
> was
>> >>  arguing
>> >>   from the standpoint of logic alone.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, no. I mean: even mathematical truths like "2+2=4" cannot be denied
>by
>>
>> Actually, yes :-). You are back to "2+2=4"! For advaitins
>> "non-contradictability" means it should be that way in all 3 states. In deep
>> sleep there is no 2, much less "2+2=4".

>  But according to what vidya wrote "2+2=4" is not contradicted in deep sleep.
>  The main question then becomes whether mathematics exists by itself without
>  a perceiver. Natha Bhaktyananda suggested that mathematics can be
>contradicted
>  by the mind. Then it has to be illogical is'nt it?

A hare's horn is not contradicted in deep sleep either. That doesn't make it
"real". There has to be a perception that something "exists" first, to question
it's "reality". We see the blue sky and later realize that it's an optical
illusion. That does not mean we cease to see the blue sky after realizing it.
Similarly from the analysis of the 3 states we can infer that there is no
qualitative difference between the perceptions, be they in the dreams or while
awake. Advaitins do not claim that everything finally "disappears" or something
like that. What cannot be questioned (without infinite regress) is the self.
Everyone knows that he exists. So the job is to find out who that is.

As far as mathematics goes it certainly has a reality in the sense that it
leads to "logical" results. Whether it exists on it's own is merely
speculation. Mathematicians like to think that theorems are discovered and not
invented.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse