[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question - quotes four negations
cardemaister wrote: > Anyone know where one could find them on the Net? > Erik - Yes, you can find Nagarjuna's negations on the net and in various books about Indian philosophy. There are actually eight negations proposed by Nagarjuna (circa 200 AD). Well, I don't know where Judy got the impression that Nagarjuna had anything to say about the Indian term 'Brahman', since Nagarjuna was a Middle Way Buddhist writing before the advent of Adwaita; from Ken Wilber, I guess. She failed to credit her citation. Whoops! I pointed this out on several occasions: The concept of 'Brahman' is an illusion according to Nagarjuna; a mere metaphysical construct, not an object of cognition. 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 would be more likely that Shankara (circa 788 AD) read the works of Nagarjuna and presented himself as a quasi-Buddhist in order to gain adherents to Adwaita. It is interesting to note that Shankara put on the ochre robe in imitation of the Buddhist sramanas, during the time in Indian history that Buddhism was flourishing all over India. jstein wrote: > Here's Nagarjuna's Four Negations: > > 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. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/141175 The Negations of Nagarjuna: "From the absolute standpoint there is neither destruction nor production, neither nihilism nor eternalism, neither unity nor plurality, neither coming in or going out" (Sharma 90). The four negations summary in a nutshell: Things are not produced - a thing cannot arise out of itself. Motion is impossible - things do not move hither and thither. There is no change - things do not change into other things. Action and its results are unreal - matter is an illusion, an appearance only, just like the horns of hare, a dream, defective vision, or a barren woman's son. Source: 'Madhyamika Karika' By Nagarajuna p. 11 Cited in: 'A Crtitical Survey of Indian Philosophy' By Chanradhar Sharma, M.A., D.Phil., L.B., Shastri 'Muula Madhyamaka Kaarikaa' Translation by Professor Richard Hayes http://www.geocities.com/jiji_muge/mmk.html
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question ( was: Re: What Does The self Fear Most?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > I'm in the middle of moving. Your reply deserves my fuller attention, > but let me at least say that I have no problem with Nagarjuna's Four > Negations. I guess N's negations are originally in Sanskrit. Anyone know where one could find them on the Net?
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question ( was: Re: What Does The self Fear Most?)
Judy, I'm in the middle of moving. Your reply deserves my fuller attention, but let me at least say that I have no problem with Nagarjuna's Four Negations. The Absolute that I try to talk about simply cannot be talked about, and hey, didn't I just now talk about it despite not being able to? Me brains ache. The concepts about the inconceivable ARE wordifiable though! More later mebets Zoom, Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > wrote: > > > > ---That's why Brahman is a paradox. Can't be fit into "either - or". > > The thing about Brahman, as Ken Wilber points > out, is that It is "One without a second," One > without an opposite. If you say It is X, that > means It is not not-X, which gives not-X an > existence independent of Brahman; it gives > Brahman an opposite, a second. > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > > > > > Judy: "First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind > > > > ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at > > the > > > > end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the > > Absolute. > > > > Huh??" > > > > > > > > Edg: Let the poetry begin. Shotgun time. Hopefully a pellet > or > > two > > > > will hit the target. > > > > > > Nope, sorry, not this target. > > > > > > Can the Absolute be found only by the mind ceasing > > > to exist? > > > > > > Or can there be no finding of the Absolute when > > > the mind ceases to exist? > > > > > > (See quote above.) > > > > > > > > > > Judy: Let me ask you something, though. Where do you (if you > > do) > > > > fit Brahman into your scheme? > > > > > > > > Edg: I hold that the word Brahman is best used as a synonym for > > > > the Absolute. > > > > > > Here's Nagarjuna's Four Negations: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Each of these negations was the conclusion of > > > a rigorous logical process, each responding to a > > > question: "Is Brahman the relative?" "Is Brahman > > > the Absolute?" "Is Brahman the relative and the > > > Absolute?" "Is Brahman neither the relative nor > > > the Absolute?" > > > > > > That's the Advaita take on Brahman, in other > > > words--no matter what you say about It, you're > > > wrong. > > > > > > From what I can painfully glean from your > > > exchanges with Barry, and your response just > > > now, you think Brahman is the Absolute, and > > > Barry thinks Brahman is both Absolute and > > > relative. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question
Judy writes: snipped The thing about Brahman, as Ken Wilber points out, is that It is "One without a second," One without an opposite. If you say It is X, that means It is not not-X, which gives not-X an existence independent of Brahman; it gives Brahman an opposite, a second. TomT: Brahman is that in which both the Absolute and the Relative coexist and that which knows that is you. You are the glue that can know that both can exist and you are the only way that both can be know at the same time. That is why it is called the ultimate paradox. on the one hand is the relative (actually) and on the other hand is the absolute (actually). That which is the only thing that can know both of them as the singularity that is one without a second is you. Enjoy Tom
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question ( was: Re: What Does The self Fear Most?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---That's why Brahman is a paradox. Can't be fit into "either - or". The thing about Brahman, as Ken Wilber points out, is that It is "One without a second," One without an opposite. If you say It is X, that means It is not not-X, which gives not-X an existence independent of Brahman; it gives Brahman an opposite, a second. > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > > > Judy: "First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind > > > ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at > the > > > end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the > Absolute. > > > Huh??" > > > > > > Edg: Let the poetry begin. Shotgun time. Hopefully a pellet or > two > > > will hit the target. > > > > Nope, sorry, not this target. > > > > Can the Absolute be found only by the mind ceasing > > to exist? > > > > Or can there be no finding of the Absolute when > > the mind ceases to exist? > > > > (See quote above.) > > > > > > > Judy: Let me ask you something, though. Where do you (if you > do) > > > fit Brahman into your scheme? > > > > > > Edg: I hold that the word Brahman is best used as a synonym for > > > the Absolute. > > > > Here's Nagarjuna's Four Negations: > > > > 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. > > > > Each of these negations was the conclusion of > > a rigorous logical process, each responding to a > > question: "Is Brahman the relative?" "Is Brahman > > the Absolute?" "Is Brahman the relative and the > > Absolute?" "Is Brahman neither the relative nor > > the Absolute?" > > > > That's the Advaita take on Brahman, in other > > words--no matter what you say about It, you're > > wrong. > > > > From what I can painfully glean from your > > exchanges with Barry, and your response just > > now, you think Brahman is the Absolute, and > > Barry thinks Brahman is both Absolute and > > relative. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question ( was: Re: What Does The self Fear Most?)
---That's why Brahman is a paradox. Can't be fit into "either - or". In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Judy: "First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind > > ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at the > > end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the Absolute. > > Huh??" > > > > Edg: Let the poetry begin. Shotgun time. Hopefully a pellet or two > > will hit the target. > > Nope, sorry, not this target. > > Can the Absolute be found only by the mind ceasing > to exist? > > Or can there be no finding of the Absolute when > the mind ceases to exist? > > (See quote above.) > > > > Judy: Let me ask you something, though. Where do you (if you do) > > fit Brahman into your scheme? > > > > Edg: I hold that the word Brahman is best used as a synonym for > > the Absolute. > > Here's Nagarjuna's Four Negations: > > 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. > > Each of these negations was the conclusion of > a rigorous logical process, each responding to a > question: "Is Brahman the relative?" "Is Brahman > the Absolute?" "Is Brahman the relative and the > Absolute?" "Is Brahman neither the relative nor > the Absolute?" > > That's the Advaita take on Brahman, in other > words--no matter what you say about It, you're > wrong. > > From what I can painfully glean from your > exchanges with Barry, and your response just > now, you think Brahman is the Absolute, and > Barry thinks Brahman is both Absolute and > relative. >
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question ( was: Re: What Does The self Fear Most?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy: "First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind > ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at the > end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the Absolute. > Huh??" > > Edg: Let the poetry begin. Shotgun time. Hopefully a pellet or two > will hit the target. Nope, sorry, not this target. Can the Absolute be found only by the mind ceasing to exist? Or can there be no finding of the Absolute when the mind ceases to exist? (See quote above.) > Judy: Let me ask you something, though. Where do you (if you do) > fit Brahman into your scheme? > > Edg: I hold that the word Brahman is best used as a synonym for > the Absolute. Here's Nagarjuna's Four Negations: 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. Each of these negations was the conclusion of a rigorous logical process, each responding to a question: "Is Brahman the relative?" "Is Brahman the Absolute?" "Is Brahman the relative and the Absolute?" "Is Brahman neither the relative nor the Absolute?" That's the Advaita take on Brahman, in other words--no matter what you say about It, you're wrong. >From what I can painfully glean from your exchanges with Barry, and your response just now, you think Brahman is the Absolute, and Barry thinks Brahman is both Absolute and relative.
[FairfieldLife] Judy asks a hard question ( was: Re: What Does The self Fear Most?)
Judy: "First you say the Absolute can be found only by the mind ceasing to exist; then you say when the mind ceases to exist at the end of the mantra trail, there can be no finding of the Absolute. Huh??" Edg: Let the poetry begin. Shotgun time. Hopefully a pellet or two will hit the target. I will take on the cloak of authority for convenience only. If my words are incongruent with Ramana's, then I hope someone will point such out to me. I'm a goodly intended messenger, not an authority, so, beware, I might be paving another road to hell. But you knew that. "The Absolute" cannot be an "object to be found." No thought of it can be it. Map vs territory thingy. "The manifest ego" tautologically asserts that it "is manifest," because it has the thought "I'm manifest" and identifies with the thought completely. That's a linear expression for what happens "all at once." The intellect (a subset of ego) worshippingly insists that, logically speaking, since ego has manifested, well, it must be from somewhere, and that somewhere is the Absolute -- BUT the mind cannot symbolize (model with neurons) the Absolute by any processing with any hope of completeness. The ego cannot know what it is talking about no matter how cleverly it symbolizes and processes. What "the mind comes up with," as a symbol, that, indeed, can be "found." Most thoughts, as symbols, as processes, are jarringly unfit for the role, but OM is "almost perfect" and can be experienced, and it wins the Absolute's symbol-contest "by default." But OM is no Jack Kennedy. And if ANY symbol is "refined" -- that is, if any buzzing process is attended to at ever more subtle levels, it will be resolved eventually to being a variant of amness' potential -- a color in a Being-spectrum. But if that process, or any other process, is attended to "just a titch more," all colors of the spectrum "turn out to be 'more' whiteness." The mantra disappears. All thoughts end except one. Perfect amness prevails, and it belts out this one big OM note -- as if it were Pavarotti and deserved to put its massive bulk in front of the priest, Absolute, when it sings and hogs the entire spotlight, but the priest is the one "whispering to Pavarotti from behind" like Cyrano -- writing his music (emotions) and his lyrics (concepts.) (Hee hee: Sudden thought, picture Pavarotti singing Hammer's "Can't touch this." With gold lamay balloon pantaloons, natch.) "Mind" is exactly and only "a flow of thoughts." It is typical to find the "mind" defined as "the container" of thoughts, but Advaita teaches that if no thoughts are present, no mind can be "found," "sensed," or "have any basis for separate status." The mind is like noise of a train -- it comes with the train, is of no use to the train, but the train can't move without it. (If one wants to talk about thoughts, "mind," as a concept, is handy -- like how the concept "square root of minus one," an imaginary number, helped Newton and Leibnitz invent the calculus. They "inserted the Absolute" as a fudge factor to "correctify" their math, cuz without a leash on the infinite, specificity's salt doll takes a deep dive. Later, Godel could be heard laughing, "You guys left out a lot. Silence for instance." And, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell are spinning in their graves crying to have one more go at this discussion.) "Amness" is one thought being processed -- OM. OM -- the primal ego. God. It is perfect. Sacred. Balanced. No parts. Point value. Psychic singularity. Big Bang before sound was invented and ready-and-able-but-not-itching-to manifest. Peace. Seemingly it is an experience of silence -- if one winks and ignores the shrieking OM. Amness is a symbol -- a processing of a nervous system that re-MINDs us of the Absolute. Primal, not yet sinful, amness is ego is God. When we have amness solely, we've transcended, become solely soul, and soul is realized as angel hearted individuality, sinless because no ego yet im-person-ates God. Only after the amness-thought has "passed" (and thoughts other than amness begin,) do we hear the ego speak -- then, amness explodes into every possible thought, and the idiosyncratic nervous system's choosing mechanisms decide which thought to have first, then next, then next. Daisy petals. God loves me, God loves me not. In samadhi, no mind. "Mind" is the word used for the supposed "canvas/space" on/in which thoughts occur, but this is a contrivance borne of a necessity -- we say it must exist in order to "explain" how a "stream" can "flow" and doncha know, it's gotta have some banks or other boundaries to flow within. The "mind" is never there; like a burnt rope's mirage of "snake," the mind's "real status" is only a placeholder-concept for an ununderstandable mystery -- the Absolute. But as long as the concept "snake" is there, the rope's amness is interpreted to be snake to its core. Snake colored glasses. When thinking happens,
