Billy wrote:> > Touche' An astute analysis, bravo! And, > don't argue with her about it anymore. > Billy, I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it - you've got to be the most astute TM Governor on the planet. You nailed this one real good! You have now established Marshy's teaching on Sat-Chit-Ananda and I have established that Adwaita is not Middle Way Buddhism. Nagarjuna's Four Negations do not apply to Shankara's theory of Brahman.
According to Badarayana, Brahman is NOT THIS, NOT THAT, but it is not "nothing" and the author of the Brahma Sutras does not call Brahman a "Void". Brahman is equal to the Atman, the spirit-soul of man of which the attributes are Sat, Cit, and Ananda. Badarayana says that Brahman is the cause of the material universe. There's no spirit-soul theory in Buddhism and no creation. However, it is clear that Shankara was a quasi-Middle Way Buddhist - he takes up the Buddhist notion of "appearance-only", calling it "maya", which may not be supported by Vedic literature, but Shankara refutes the notion that Brahman is merely a metaphysical category, which can be negated. Brahman, according to Shankara, is the transcendental True Person, the sole reality. Nagarajuna's Four negations in a nutshell: Things are not produced - a thing cannot arise out of itself. Motion is impossible - things do not move hither and thither. There is no change - things do not change into other things. Action and its results are unreal - matter is an illusion, an appearance only, just like the horns of hare, a dream, defective vision, or a barren woman's son. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: willytex Date: 1 Dec 2004 Subject: Vivarta and Parinama in the Vedic literature http://tinyurl.com/35p8yg Judy wrote: > > > 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." > > >
