" Sankara's formula "

[egodust]

Ian wrote:
>   At 05:35 PM 7/18/96 GMT, egodust wrote:
>
>   > Sankara's advaitic formula [which, in boolean code, is: A = (A + ~A)]
>   > resolves it definitively.
>
> IAN: Can you find a statement in which Sankara most clearly outlines the
> A = (A + ~A) formula, or the closest approximation thereof ?  While
> it is implicit in his teachings, I've not seen him formalize it
> in some fashion that could be defined as "Sankara's formula."
>

I had mentioned it in an earlier post pertaining to an item we were
discussing.  Here it is again, comapared to the boolean equation:

Sankara's advaitic formula:

1) Brahman is the only reality.
2) The world* is maya.
3) Brahman is the world*.

* the world is technically manosohamidam (manas is mind; soh is saguna
brahman or God the Creator; aham is the jiva or ego; idam is the
world-appearance).

***********

A = (A + ~A)
corresponds to
3 = (1 + 2)

key: 3 is the parabrahmam (Absolute One, Without-a-Second)
     1 is nirguna brahman (noumenal Absolute)
     2 is saguna brahman (phenomenal Absolute)


> The closest I've come to finding a perfect match is a stanza
> in the Buddhist Vajracchedika Sutra. which states:
>
>              A is non-A, therefore it is called A.

The popular zen koan is very similar, although it also alludes to
transcending logic, which is the essential thrust of the koan method
and rinzai zen. To wit:

              A is A, therefore A is not A.

(Note that it is specifically written 'not A' and not 'not-A', which
indicates that it suggests an overthrow of logic rather than a strict
advaitic formula.  In which case both ways make advaitic sense, no?)

> An interesting essay on this is found at  http://www1.sony.co.jp/KUROKAWA
> go to "Identity of Opposites." What is significant about this stanza is
> that it observes that the specific identity of a specific thing, A, is
> a result, or derivative, of the unitary identity of A and non-A. In
> short, the unity of opposites does not deny their appearance, but
> rather, their appearance confirms their unity. In this way the
> appearance of duality is the confirmation of nonduality.

Sounds worthwhile to link.

shaanthi.