Now to the first point.  Let us assume  that the
　　   catu.sko.ti  statements  do not  have  an isolatable
　　   logical  structure,   and  yet  symbolic   logic  is
　　   utilized.  If one would  grant the applicability  of
　　   Weyl's   remarks,  even  if  there   were   a  valid
　　   utilization  of symbolic logic, it could not account
　　   for the full corpus of the given, as the "given" has
　　   been  explicated  earlier.  So it  may  be merely  a
　　   section   or  subset  of  the  given  whose  logical
　　   structure   is  not   isolatable.   But   then   the
　　   application   of  symbolic  logic  is  a  matter  of
　　   mastering  the  art of the symbols.  And  so one may
　　   presume that it is an arrogated comprehension of the
　　   given--although in fact the symbols are independent,
　　   partially  or  wholly, of  the  given  --whereby  an
　　   undeniably brilliant writer as Jayatilleke takes the
　　   stance  that  he virtually  alone  understands  "the
　　   logic  of the  four  alternatives," while  claiming
　　   that such a renowned  author  as Naagaarjuna  cannot
　　   understand it! Or

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.6

　　   claiming  that a modern writer like Robinson  cannot
　　   understand,  because  he does  not apply  the formal
　　   symbolic system right, that is, has not mastered the
　　   art.  Thus  the  symbolic  system  becomes  a vested
　　   interest, the  users  jealous  of its  misuse, while
　　   they champion its misapplication  to the given,  and
　　   even  to what  may  not  be at hand, for  example, a
　　   correct  translation  of a passage  from  an ancient
　　   text.

　　　　  Then to the second  point.  I do not propose  to
　　   denigrate, in general,  the  employment  of symbolic
　　   systems  for  representing  propositions  of  Indian
　　   philosophy.  But are the catu.sko.ti  statements  so
　　   complicated   that   a   symbolic   restatement   is
　　   necessary, with the implication  of an understanding
　　   already  at hand  to certify  the necessity? Perhaps
　　   there is working a psychological  factor which could
　　   be called "wonder." What mathematics student getting
　　   the "right  answer"  with calculus  has not at times
　　   felt　　 a   wonder　　 at   the   ability　　 of   the
　　   mathematics--beyond his native capacities--say,  to