--- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > If Brahman is One without a second, how can it > > be said to have a POV? Having a POV implies > > the existence of a *different* POV, which would > > in turn imply something other than Brahman ("a > > second") to hold that different POV. > > > > You could say Brahman encompasses *all* POVs, I > > guess. But not only would that flummox your > > point, you would get into the Four Negations, in > > which Brahman cannot be said either (1) to have a > > POV or (2) no POV, nor (3) all POVs, nor (4) > > neither a POV nor no POV. (With apologies to > > Nagarjuna.) > > And in the forgoing koan the mind must stop in the > impossibility of comprehending that which is utterly > outside of its capacity to recognize.
What's interesting (to me, anyway) is that the mind is perfectly capable of recognizing the logic that puts Brahman beyond its capacity to recognize, but cannot, of its own accord, take it the next step and shut the hell up. Or mine can't, anyway... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
