message to my friends

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, f. maiello wrote:

> As you well know, our goal, the paramarthika state, is beyond theories
> and philosophies.  There are no answers because there are no questions
> there--ontological, epistemological, or otherwise.

But you're not there you're here.  So the situation there is irrelevant.

> Therefore, en route
> to that "stateless state," any philosophic world conception only amounts
> to a means of getting there, and therefore, by definition, it must be
> purely arbitrary...

No, once you're there it is arbitrary.  Once again I remind you, you are
not there.  So your above statement is a non sequiter.  You cannot
arbitrary flip-flop between two different scales of measurement.  It would
be as absurd as asking how many pints to a mile.

> which thereof amounts to a [discardable!] strategy
> suitable to the developed temperament of the individual.
>

And if the temperament of the individual is to booze and drugs, partaking
of those becomes a "strategy" I suppose.  Basing sadhana on what "I" find
convenient is the very opposite of Vedanta.

> This is my line of logic, which is also suitable to my temperament,

So you say.  Can your words be trusted?  Without any independant means of
verification they cannot.  Even by you.

> as well as, for argument's sake, 20% of advaitins.

Are we sure this hypothetical 20% are even Advaitins in the first place?
Or is an Advaitin anyone who says he is one?  In any case is a popularity
contest the right means for deciding truth?

>  Yours may be
> suitable to 40%.  So even if you've got me doubly logically beat,
> doesn't mean your right and I'm wrong,

You see the beauty of logic as Vidyashankar is using, is that it does not
depend on him only on facts.  It remains true if 100%, 40% or even no one
finds it suitable. That's why it is truth.   That's why he is right and
you're wrong.

> if our respective approaches
> deliver the same goods.

How do we know your approach delivers the same goods?

> I don't stand a great chance in "arguing"
> with you any further on this anyway! :-)
>

...so i'll just keep rolling along in my own delusions.  Uh-huh.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>