[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy asks a hard question - quotes four negations
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cardemaister wrote: Anyone know where one could find them on the Net? Erik - Yes, you can find Nagarjuna's negations on the net and in various books about Indian philosophy. There are actually eight negations proposed by Nagarjuna (circa 200 AD). 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! 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. Whether Nagarjuna used the term Brahman or whether he preceded Shankara's Advaita is, of course, entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy asks a hard question - quotes four negations
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: 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. In addition, Judy didn't say where she got the word 'Brahman' since that term isn't given in experience. It's actually a metaphysical term coined by Badarayana around 200 AD. You'd have to be a Sanskrit reader in order to know that, so I guess she picked it up from reading some transliteration of the Upanishads. However, if I were Nagarjuna, I'd ask her where she got that 'Brahman' thingy - from a book? If so, then I'd point out to her that all concepts will be found to be self-contradictory. Whether Nagarjuna used the term Brahman or whether he preceded Shankara's Advaita is, of course, entirely irrelevant to this discussion. What's is relevant is that using the faux-syllogism you stated above, you've made 'Brahman' into an illusion. According to Nagarjuna, all events, things, concepts, are an illusion, an appearance only. Shankara agrees with this, except that he posits a category, 'Brahman', and then seeks to make that the absolute. Why he'd do that after reading Nagarjuna and having his metaphysics blown to bits, I don't know. Maybe Shankara just couldn't put down the book and had to follow along with the Upanishadic concept of the Atman. Maybe Shankara didn't want to admit that he wanted to be a Middle Way Buddhist, but he couldn't go all the way, so he invented the idea of Maya to explain away his pre-conciened assumptions and still remain a orthodox Hindu.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy asks a hard question - quotes four negations
--- 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy asks a hard question
Tom Hickey answers this question in great detail in a book I've been proofreading.ONLY ONE IS is the core truth of almost every wisdom tradition. But as TomT says only YOU can experience it. Tom HIckey is a very clear philosopher who has also experienced that nondualistic state and as clearly as is possible is presenting an argument or explanation for those still stuck in dualism. The book is now called Reframing Christianity. (Previously was Periennial Philosophy the Gospel of Thomas. as the Gospel of Thomas is the clearest thing in Jesus literature that advocated nonduaiism.) Philosophers basically study FRAMES. Tom shows all the differerent factors that have lead normative Chistians to frame Jesus into the Christian tradition. In arguing that Jesus was really teaching the basic core universal truths, Vedanta, Sufism, Kabbalah etc. It will be available for $10 electronically as soon as Janet can index it in WORD get it into a nice pdf I'm sure of interest to a few of you here. It's a huge 550 pages should probably be 3 different books but am happy to have it coming out soon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy writes: snipped 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. TomT: Brahman is that in which both the Absolute and the Relative coexist and that which knows that is you. You are the glue that can know that both can exist and you are the only way that both can be know at the same time. That is why it is called the ultimate paradox. on the one hand is the relative (actually) and on the other hand is the absolute (actually). That which is the only thing that can know both of them as the singularity that is one without a second is you. Enjoy Tom
