---That's why Brahman is a paradox. Can't be fit into "either - or".
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Judy: "First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind > > ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at the > > end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the Absolute. > > Huh??" > > > > Edg: Let the poetry begin. Shotgun time. Hopefully a pellet or two > > will hit the target. > > Nope, sorry, not this target. > > Can the Absolute be found only by the mind ceasing > to exist? > > Or can there be no finding of the Absolute when > the mind ceases to exist? > > (See quote above.) > > <snip> > > Judy: Let me ask you something, though. Where do you (if you do) > > fit Brahman into your scheme? > > > > Edg: I hold that the word Brahman is best used as a synonym for > > the Absolute. > > Here's Nagarjuna's Four Negations: > > Brahman is not the relative. > Brahman is not the Absolute. > Brahman is not the relative and the Absolute. > Brahman is not neither the relative nor the Absolute. > > Each of these negations was the conclusion of > a rigorous logical process, each responding to a > question: "Is Brahman the relative?" "Is Brahman > the Absolute?" "Is Brahman the relative and the > Absolute?" "Is Brahman neither the relative nor > the Absolute?" > > That's the Advaita take on Brahman, in other > words--no matter what you say about It, you're > wrong. > > From what I can painfully glean from your > exchanges with Barry, and your response just > now, you think Brahman is the Absolute, and > Barry thinks Brahman is both Absolute and > relative. >
