(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[egodust]

Prashant Sharma wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, egodust wrote:
> >
> > > Even from the vedantic perpective the atman can be equally regarded
> > > as sunya, in the special sense that it can be thought of as merely
> > > a temporal reference point with respect to the jiva (viz. it is
> > > none other than brahman, and its name ['atman'] is only necessary
> > > due to the existence of the jiva.  That is, it has the connotation
> > > that its nature [the word 'atman,' as a separative individualized
> > > consciousness] is eternal, which isn't true).
>
>         When you say that "it isn't true that its nature is eternal" are
> you saying this because you also said that "it is only necessary due to
> the existence of the jiva", and since the jiva is ephemeral it follows
> ...
>

Yes, exactly.

Namaste.

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust