> > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > However, in a previous post you did seem equate > > > > Brahman with 'nothing' > > > > > > > No, I didn't. > > > > > Yes you did, > > Judy wrote: > Nope, didn't, and wouldn't. > Yep, you did and apparently still do.
We TMers do not call Brahman a "Void" - that's Middle Way Buddhism. Brahman is not "nothing" - it is Sat, Chit, and Ananda; that's the way TMers explain Shankara's Vedanta. We do not get mixed up by reading Ken Wilber and confuse Nagarjuna's dialectic with Shankara's metaphysics. Billy was correct, Marshy has never called Brahman the "Void" or "nothing". It may be a subtle difference to you, but for Shankara, who was at great pains to distinguish Adwaita from Madhyamika, it was apparently a very big deal. It's not really an argument, so why you're trying to argue with Billy about this, I don't know. There is a difference in the arguments used by Shankara to explain Adwaita: Shankara does not use Nagarjuna's Four Negations in his argument, although Shankara was surely aware of them, since Shankara directly quotes the Buddhist logician Dharmakirti. 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."
