> > > 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? > > Vaj wrote: > It would depend what you were comparing. > So, some people get confused - that's what I said.
Nagarjuna says that the ultimate reality is devoid of Being (Shunyata); that existence is composed of a bundle of sensations, (Skandhas) nothing else. Shankara says that the utimate reality is Being (Brahman), whose atrribute is Sat-Chit-Ananda, and that the material world is an illusion, three constituents (Gunas), born of nature. But Marshy, Judy and Micael Dean Goodman apparently got confused and tried to prove the existence of Brahman by using Nagarjuna's Four Negations. This simply won't work, because of the fact that the term "Brahman" is a metaphysical category that we know about only by reading religious scriptures. Brahman is not given in experience - it is a category, a theory, a concept and thus can be negated through the use of dialectics. However, there is one fact here that cannot be disputed: no Adwaitan ever called the ultimate reality a "Void" - that's Middle Way Buddhism. Adwaitans all call the ultimate reality "Brahman", from the Upanishads. 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."
