--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Brahman is One without a second, how can it
> be said to have a POV? Having a POV implies
> the existence of a *different* POV, which would
> in turn imply something other than Brahman ("a
> second") to hold that different POV.
Logically sensible, but Brahman is not (only) logical. Pure paradox is
the closest we may get to describing the indescribable. Nor is it
indescribable. As such, Brahman *is* not the Absolute, and not the
Relative, nor neither, nor both, and so on. This is not a logical
game; it is direct Understanding/apperception. Though indescribable
and logically indefensible, this Understanding is indeed a POV -- the
one we always had, but distinguishable from the PsOV we thought we
held when pretending "ignorance of" Brahman.
> You could say Brahman encompasses *all* POVs, I
> guess. But not only would that flummox your
> point, you would get into the Four Negations, in
> which Brahman cannot be said either (1) to have a
> POV or (2) no POV, nor (3) all POVs, nor (4)
> neither a POV nor no POV. (With apologies to
> Nagarjuna.)
Actually, this is not a bad "description" of Brahman. Thanks :-)
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
