Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00497)

<<<It seems to me that Jerry gets too caught up in trying to use "logic" in these matters. >>>>

Daniel, yes I fully agree. I can't seem to grasp the finer points of your "logic" in calling a monad a duad and even a triad. Gee. I wonder what is wrong with me?

Jerry S.

PS. Dan and Peter - I don't think we are fooling anyone here with all this crap about my logic. The Buddha taught that "all aggregates are maya" and so, of course, the "logic" here is that if atma-buddhi is a aggregate, then it is mayavic, but if it is monadic then it is not (there is clearly little need to go into mysticism here). I say it is a mayavic compound, and have shown how this is a logical conclusion from two basic initial assumptions. You seem to be saying that it is both a monad and a duad and are thus trying to eat your cake and have it too. And calling your position mystical instead of logical doesn't help. I have challenged anyone to put together a logical framework in which atma-buddhi is a monad. So far, all I have received in response is a bunch of quotes. Admit it guys, you can't do it, can you?
--