--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Michael Dean Goodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> Then came his famous quote about Brahman - these were his exact words: > >> > >> "Like the Absolute IS, Brahman is NOT. > >> Brahman is not the Absolute. > >> Brahman is not the relative. > >> Brahman is not both of them together. > >> Brahman is not neither of them. > >> Brahman is The Knower." > > > > authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > MMY really quoted Nagarjuna's Four Negations? > > I don't know; in that talk he did not mention Nagarjuna that I remember. > He could have been quoting him. > He could have been quoting his own teacher. > He could have been speaking from his own simple, direct experience. > I have no way of knowing.
Well, the inner four statements *are* Nagarjuna's Four Negations. The first and last are his additions. As I understand it, each of the Negations was the conclusion of a rigorous logical analysis that began with a question: Is Brahman the Absolute? If not, is Brahman the relative? Well, maybe it's both? No? Then it must be neither, right? Nagarjuna, in other words, took each of the apparent possibilities in turn and showed it to be false--pure logic demonstrating its own limitations. > I think the really key thing here is NOT the four negations themselves, > but what Maharishi put before and after them, to put them in context, > to reveal through his commentary the core meaning, to compassionately > give us some hints that help us "solve" the riddle. Yes, they're very useful. If you're so inclined, I'd love to hear more about the distinction between Rishi and The Knower.
