/lit/ - Literature

>>20286428
>>You are not a part of Brahman
>>It doesn't affect you (speaking about you in your real identity as the ever-liberated Atman-Brahman)
>so which one is it?
The two sentences you quoted are not contradictory or inconsistent, when I denied that your real identity was a "part of Brahman", it was because I was asserting that your real identity is INSTEAD the entirety of Brahman and not just an incomplete part of Brahman (who is without parts).

>>20286543
>you didn't understand what i'm asaying
I did, but it was illogical nonsense that leads to absurdities like 47 = -5 when applied across the board to other situations
>, is not the object but the negation the one doing the determination, x,y,5,Pr is irrelevant, the imprtant thing here is the negation in play, you can spell all theletter in the alphabet that doesn't change the fact that something being not being and not non-being is like saying (X=-X) which breaks the LNC,
No, that's totally wrong, because denying that anything (x) belongs to a certain category (P) doesn't automatically make that thing (x) into the opposite of that category (-P) in situations where the category (P) and it's opposite (-P) are non-exhaustive, and you cannot assert that the categories of being and non-being are exhaustive to begin with without recourse to circular reasoning (since that's what you are trying to prove so that cannot be cited as a reason why its true) which is a logical fallacy and hence self-refuting. All of your arguments when analyzed boil down to sophistries and circular reasoning!

Saying that falsity isn't being or non-being isn't saying (X = -X), it's saying that X and -X are non-exhaustive and that something which fits into neither category is neither X nor -X, so if A (being) and C (non-being) are opposites and falsity is B, then A =/= B =/= C.

Recognizing that something (falsity) fits into neither of two non-exhaustive opposites doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction, since it's not affirming two mutually exclusive statuses about anything. Not belonging to either of the two opposites isn't mutually exclusive when they are non-exhaustive and they cannot be asserted to be exhaustive without the fallacy of circular reasoning.

>>20019872

"When doubts haunt me when disappointments stare me in the face, and I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad-Gita and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day."
- Mahatma Gandhi

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"The Bhagavad-Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity."
- Aldous Huxley

"From a clear knowledge of the Bhagavad-Gita, all the goals of human existence become fulfilled. Bhagavad-Gita is the manifest quintessence of all the teachings of the Vedic scriptures."
- Adi Shankara

"The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion."
- Herman Hesse

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavat Geeta, since whose composition years of the gods have elapsed, and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial…"
- Henry David Thoreau

(The Bhagavad Gita is) "The most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue ....perhaps the deepest and loftiest thing the world has to show."
- Wilhelm von Humboldt