Judy, I'm in the middle of moving. Your reply deserves my fuller attention, but let me at least say that I have no problem with Nagarjuna's Four Negations. The Absolute that I try to talk about simply cannot be talked about, and hey, didn't I just now talk about it despite not being able to?
Me brains ache. The concepts about the inconceivable ARE wordifiable though! More later mebets.... Zoooooom, Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > <mathatbrahman@> wrote: > > > > ---That's why Brahman is a paradox. Can't be fit into "either - or". > > The thing about Brahman, as Ken Wilber points > out, is that It is "One without a second," One > without an opposite. If you say It is X, that > means It is not not-X, which gives not-X an > existence independent of Brahman; it gives > Brahman an opposite, a second. > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 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. > > > > > >
