--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter Sutphen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > --- 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
> >
> > Not really! "One without a second" is alogical
> > to start with.
> >
> > , 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.
> >
> > In Nagarjuna's hands it was a logical game to
> > state the propositions (or rather neg-positions),
> > his undoubted direct Understanding notwithstanding.
> >
> > From what I've read (and I'm hardly a scholar of
> > Nagarjuna, so correction is welcome), each of the
> > Four Negations was the *conclusion* derived from
> > a purely logical argument refuting each in turn of
> > the four positive possibilities (Brahman is the
> > Absolute, is the relative, is both, is neither).
> >
> > The Four Negations, in other words, are not in
> > themselves a logical argument. But when you take
> > them together, logically you have to conclude, as
> > Peter pointed out, that logic leads to Understanding
> > only insofar as it forces you to give up on logic.
> >
> > > Though indescribable
> > > and logically indefensible, this Understanding is
> > indeed a POV --
> >
> > I think you're stretching the definition of
> > "POV" here. ;-)
> >
> > > the
> > > one we always had, but distinguishable from the
> > PsOV we thought we
> > > held when pretending "ignorance of" Brahman.
> >
> > Yowzah.
> >
> > (But I really hate the "pretending" locution.)
> >
> > > > 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 :-)
> >
> > Shorter version: Neti, neti.
>
> ( ).
>
> ().
>
> (.)
>
> .()
>
> ).
>
> (.
>
> .)
>
> .(
>
> )
>
> (
>
> .
>
> (sound of mind popping here).......
>
And we all thought your manasmayakosha was already burned away. Now I
am disappointed.
(to the possibly discriminatively-challenged, there is a difference
between wit (both attempted or successful), used to make a point, and
passive-aggressive behavior. But we all see "who we are".
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/
