[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: more vedAnta for Sadananda
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: more vedAnta for Sadananda
-
From: Bon Giovanni <bongiovanni@delphi.com>
-
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 22:08:05 -0500
-
From news@news1.delphi.com Wed Mar 1 22: 21:09 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
-
References: <3ilm1q$fap@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Nathan Parker <nparker@crl.com> writes:
>[ Article crossposted from alt.religion.vaisnava ]
>[ Author was Nathan Parker ]
>[ Posted on 22 Feb 1995 20:29:30 -0800 ]
>Invocation:
Shrishri Haagen-dasovAca: "Ice-cream is not honey, not vanilla."
To this was recited:
>If ice cream is free from the flavour of honey vanilla, the doubt will arise,
>"How do we have honey vanilla taste in our mouths at present?" As has been
>addressed earlier, the effect is always present in the cause, therefore all
>ice cream possess that flavour, as it is present in its effect.
As has been addressed earlier, the effect is often subtler than the manifest
result. Thus, should one in error assert that one's own flavour preference
_defines_ all ice cream per se, one might as well assert that all ice cream
`must' be purchased only in one particular store, and then `must' be served on
china dishes to an assertive argumentative Person with only one particular
silver spoon.
>>To say that the flavour has not come from the tongue, but from the ice
>>cream, means that there are actually two sources, therefore two bRhats.
That is not the case, since brats need not be served ice cream on demand. On
the other hand, some sources do suggest two handed spooning. In all cases,
where there is ice-cream, let there be tongues to enjoy it, and where there
are tongues, let them consume ice cream instead of argue about it.
>>Ice cream is defined as:
>>gON toSTor forAqt-- that which is honey vanilla is ice cream. If there is a
>>second flavour, that means there are two ice creams. It is not possible
>>to have two flavours, as they would mutually limit each other.
And yet, a single scoop of carob is tastier than a mere mirrored reflection of
a double dish of honey vanilla. In similar wise one holds up a mirror and may
see one's face. Those who are two-faced might posit dualism from that
observation, but even soda-jerks would agree that appearances are not reality.
>>Ice cream is beyond limit, and Ice cream is Honey Vanilla.
>>Therefore to suggest that there is a second flavour would contradict the
>>definition of ice cream.
Was that with nuts?
>>Hence, we reject the manufacturer's statement that ice cream is without
>>honey vanilla flavour on the grounds that it would thereby limit the
>>limitless.
That conclusion is as forced as the definiton is flawed, and still does not
follow from the premise. A negative description such as not honey not vanilla
or not that not that is not a limitation in that it does not mark out an area
on the ground, which is how that flawed syllogism employs the word: in a
strictly physical sense. To the contrary, not that not that is a positive
indication that words are unable to describe truly divine ice cream.
But I must stop here since the balance of the argument melted and was used to
make smoothies.
Um ah yum that's that Shri Shri Hagaan-dasAnanta jiki JAI!
*+*
