--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > Well, I don't know where Judy got the impression that > > > Nagarjuna had anything to say about the Indian term > > > 'Brahman', since Nagarjuna was a Middle Way Buddhist > > > writing before the advent of Adwaita; from Ken Wilber, > > > I guess. She failed to credit her citation. Whoops! > > > > jstein wrote: > > Here's what Judy actually wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No, here's what Judy actually wrote:
No, the above is what I actually wrote, citing Wilber, and showing you to be a liar. > > 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. > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/141175 > > These of course aren't Nagarjuna's four negations, they are > some made-up 'syllogisms' appended onto a paraphrase of > Nagarjuna, which in any case he never said anything about a > 'Brahman' thingy. Stop being such an a-hole, Willytex. They're obviously not "syllogisms." They're the conclusions of four individual, independent logical arguments. They're phrased in many different ways, depending on the context; the point is, of course, conceptual and not intended to be a direct quotation from Nagarjuna. But you knew that.
