Ha, ha...we got your point!! Touche' An astute analysis, bravo! And, don't argue with her about it anymore...ha, ha!!
--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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." >
