> > 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. > Well, I guess it was a ghost that 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
