--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > Logically sensible
Not really! "One without a second" is alogical to start with. , but Brahman is not (only) logical. Pure paradox is > the closest we may get to describing the indescribable. Nor is it > indescribable. As such, Brahman *is* not the Absolute, and not the > Relative, nor neither, nor both, and so on. This is not a logical > game; it is direct Understanding/apperception. In Nagarjuna's hands it was a logical game to state the propositions (or rather neg-positions), his undoubted direct Understanding notwithstanding. >From what I've read (and I'm hardly a scholar of Nagarjuna, so correction is welcome), each of the Four Negations was the *conclusion* derived from a purely logical argument refuting each in turn of the four positive possibilities (Brahman is the Absolute, is the relative, is both, is neither). The Four Negations, in other words, are not in themselves a logical argument. But when you take them together, logically you have to conclude, as Peter pointed out, that logic leads to Understanding only insofar as it forces you to give up on logic. > Though indescribable > and logically indefensible, this Understanding is indeed a POV -- I think you're stretching the definition of "POV" here. ;-) > the > one we always had, but distinguishable from the PsOV we thought we > held when pretending "ignorance of" Brahman. Yowzah. (But I really hate the "pretending" locution.) > > 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.) > > Actually, this is not a bad "description" of Brahman. Thanks :-) Shorter version: Neti, neti. 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/
