sista at ECN.PURDUE.EDU
Tue May 12 22:07:42 CDT 1998
Nanda Chandran writes:
> Srinivas writes :
> >The statements like "There is no being or non-being", ..etc
> > refer to the intellectual concepts of the mind.
> With this you say (or that's what I think!) that the Paramartika state
> is beyond the intellect, as the concepts of Being and Non-Being are
> limited only to the level of the intellect. OK, all the texts are
> unanimous on that.
> >It is a well known fact that "being" cannot be negated.
> But here you say that "being" cannot be negated. Above, this concept has
> been sidelined as the Paramartika state is beyond the intellect. So why
> now give credence to "being" which is only a concept limited to the
Ok, I see your confusion. The "being" in the 2nd statement is NOT the
intellectual concept. The negation is at the intellectual level. Do you see!
I thought that the switch away from intellectual concepts was obvious.
I probably should have been explicit. The credence is given to the "being"
as it is and not its associated concept. You can only negate concepts.
You cannot negate that which "is". Because the negation too "is".
That which "is" is "being". Hence, I was saying that "being" cannot be
> The philosopher who made the four fold negation, neither Being, nor
> Non-Being, neither nor both *didn't* subscribe to the logic that in the
> final analysis Reality could be defined as a *being*. Rather he
> refrained from forwarding any view of his own, thereby stressing that
> Reality was inexplicable.
Yes, since it is inherently non-characterizable, one is free to postulate
or refrain from postulating any theories about it.
He seems to be actually discarding all his prior conceptions, no doubt based
on different philosophical systems.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list