--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- 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. ( ). (). (.) .() ). (. .) .( ) ( . (sound of mind popping here)....... ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com 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/
