> > 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. > > Judy wrote: > Um, nope, didn't do any such thing. > Yeah, I guess I got confused - I'm just a nitpicker, I guess:
Judy wrote: 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."
