Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical Argument

[Guest guest]

Dear Bobby,

 

it's been a while since you wrote, and I apologize for the late reply. I

have been away for a few days of skiing with the family.

 

You are quite right about this discussion going deeper than logic. In fact,

I am fully convinced that all phenomena whatsoever point to something deeper

(or higher) than logic, namely, to God or, if you prefer, to the Self.

 

However, I have never read anything written by Sri Ramana or Swami Shankara

or any other true Master that did not also completely satisfy the

requirements of logic. To my knowledge, and I have tried to look closely,

they never introduced any circular or inconsistent arguments in any of their

writings or sayings.

 

As far as we know, the universe seems to be subject to the structures of

mathematics and logic everywhere. "As above, so below - as below, so above."

That's what Hermes Trismegistos taught. In fact, in the Bhagavad-Gita the

Lord declares, "In abstract reasoning, I am discriminative logic (vadah

pravadatam aham)."

 

The teachings of the great Masters as also the sayings you quoted do indeed

bear witness to that. Logical clarity is, to me, one of the hallmarks of Sri

Ramana's teachings. However, I am not aware of Sri Ramana ever having said

to anyone, "you are unreal," nor, to the best of my knowledge, did he teach

that the observer is unreal (which would also be logically questionable).

Instead, he told his devotees to relinquish their mistaken identity with the

ego and to find out who they truly were, to discover their (or the

observer's) true identity with the Self. Which is not only deep wisdom but

also impeccable logically.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Michael

 

> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> Von: texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham]

> Gesendet: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 03:41

> An:

> Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical

> Argument

>

>

> Dear Michael

>

> The significance of the unreality of the observer and the observed

> goes deeper than logic.

>

> If all you are saying is don't cancel my argument about anything by

> saying I'm not real then I concur, but the way your post reads it

> seems to me to go counter to many wise teachings. I picked up a book

> by Ramana and randomly opened it twice.

>

> "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by Arthur Osborne

> p192

> "after the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The

> screen again. So it is with the Self. That alone exists; the

> pictures come and go."

>

> p164

> "of course we talk loosely of Self-realization for want of a better

> term, but how is one to realize or make real that which alone is

> real? What we all are doing is to realize or regard as real what is

> unreal. This habit has to be given up. All spiritual effort under

> all systems is directed only to this end. When we give up regarding

> the unreal as real, then Reality alone will remain and we shall be

> That."

>

> A thing is by definition Real. An Illusion is a real thing; its

> Content is by definition not real but illusion. Once a course is set

> upon based on a misconception, the future of the world unfolds along

> that course as if on firm ground. The Seeker wants the truth to

> prevail at all times. If the truth prevailed at all times the

> instrument of seeing (the body-mind complex) would not receive the

> idea that it has existence as a Seeker and would not identify with

> an illusion.

>

> Much love and appreciation for your presence.

>

> Bobby G.

>

> ps The zero argument is a good one.

>

>

> , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote:

> > Dear all,

> >

> > in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or "nonexistence"

> has been

> > proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be

> aware that

> > this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will

> lead to

> > overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here is

> a simple

> > analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the

> > intricacies of Predicate Calculus.

> >

> > Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to which

> number,

> > when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking for

> some number

> > x for which the equation

> >

> > 2.x = 10

> >

> > would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is only

> one such

> > number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves

> our "philosophical"

> > question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of

> mathematical

> > logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying

> with

> > 1/2), and we would get the correct solution.

> >

> > Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of the

> equation

> > with 0 (zero), which gives

> >

> > 0.x = 0

> >

> > This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we have

> done.

> >

> > The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally

> useless for

> > finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced

> spurious

> > solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal

> rights

> > with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By

> applying this

> > multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed

> ourselves of

> > the power to solve the original problem.

> >

> > By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument

> into any

> > line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which now

> could be

> > traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If

> all

> > things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then anything

> goes.

> > Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true

> then,

> > because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which is

> totally

> > useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any

> statement, in the

> > same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding

> the

> > correct solution, 5.

> >

> > Kindest regards,

> >

> > Michael

>

>

>

> /join

>

>

>

>

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places,

> sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and

> exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves

> rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from

> Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come

> and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart

> Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A

> true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

> spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

> a.

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>