Billy wrote: > > > > If it's like nothing you haven't experienced it!! > > > > Pure bliss is not *nothing*..... > > > > > > jstein wrote: > > > We've already been through this, BillyG. I'm going > > > to explain one more time how I understand MMY's > > > teaching, and that'll be it; I'm not going to argue > > > with you about it: > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > However, in a previous post you did seem equate > > Brahman with 'nothing' > > > No, I didn't. > Yes you did, that's why Billy accused you of equating Brahman with "nothing", and that's why I tried to point out to you that, over and over, the Upanishads say that the attributes of Brahman are Sat-Cit-Ananda. Brahman is not "nothing", "empty", or a "void" - Brahman is the Absolute which is equal to Atman, the the very basis of Vedanta. There is no Atman in Middle Way Buddhism.
You need to get some smarts, Judy - the Vedanta of Shankara is not Buddhism - Madhyamika. There are many differences. There is no absolute in Nagarjuna's Middle Way Buddhism. According to Nagarjuna, the Shunya has no atrributes, it is empty of OWN BEING. In Adwaita, the BEING is the Transcendental Person. According to S. Vidyasankarmost, Brahman is the material cause of the universe. But Nagarjuna blows to bits this metaphysical notion in the first of his Four Negations: there is no creation. Now I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore. Maharishi's teaching on this subject has been established by Billy. You attempted to explain Shankara's Vedanta by equating it with Nagarjuna's Four Negation, which don't apply to Adwaita. You were incorrect - you've been reading too much Ken Wilber. S. Vidyasankar on Adwaita Vedanta: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html Judy wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/141175 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. Judy wrote: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: willytex Date: 16 Feb 2005 14:02:14 -0800 Subject: Re: Nagarjuna's Four Negations http://tinyurl.com/2c3hyf It cannot be called void or not void, Or both or neither; But in order to point it out, It is called "the Void."
