On Jul 16, 2007, at 12:22 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vaj wrote: > > Advaita vedanta is largely a reaction to > > Nagarjuna and the growing Buddha-dharma > > of that time. It's rather common these > > days to see the two confused (or even with > > Dzogchen for that matter) despite the very > > different Views and results. > > > So, what's the difference, Vaj? > > > This is particularly common among perenniallists. > > > So, you are saying that Judy is a perenniallists > and that she got confused and tried to use Nagarjuna's > Four Negations to prove that Brahman is devoid > of Being. Um, nope, didn't do any such thing. > She doesn't seem to understand dialtetics. You don't seem to understand English a great deal of the time (nor can you spell). What's funny about Vaj's comment is that he doesn't appear to realize that it's his hero Ken Wilber who characterizes Nagarjuna as an Advaitin.
Number one, Ken Wilber is not my hero. I like some of his stuff, but most of it I find unreadable.
Two, I would be surprised if Ken called Nagarjuna an advaitin (as in Advaita Vedanta), but unless you provide a quote, a source and a context, it's difficult to evaluate this rather unusual claim. Ken has and does say some unusual things. I certainly do not agree with everything he writes or says.
