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
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?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I guess N's negations are originally in Sanskrit.
Anyone
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. I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
---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;
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mathatbrahman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
