[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions

[Abhishek RK]

Namaste,

Apologies for jumping into this.

> But is the advaitic Atman the same as what is mentioned above? Is
> there such a thing as Ramesh's Atman, Jaldhar's Atman, Kartik's Atman,
> etc? There isn't. The Atman is non-dual. Atman/brahman is not an
> entity that exists. It is that which lends existence to all entities,
> be it the computer, the table or the jIva. It is existence itself.
> What is, is Atman/brahman.

I have some issues with the above. Firstly, It is wrong to say
"Atman/brahman is not an entity that exists". This is really
unbelievable seeing this in a advaita- list.
And "It is that which lends existence to all entities, be it the
computer, the table or the jIva. It is existence itself. What is, is
Atman/brahman" This sound more like Bauddha mata to me. So far I've
never heard of any advaitin speak this way!

> To say that brahman is "knowable" is a reflection of the limitations
> of language. There is no-one and no-thing apart from brahman that can
> "know" it. brahman is not an object of knowledge.
>
> And if brahman can be said to be "knowable", so can shUnyatA. How does
> that help us?

Brahman is not said to be "knowable" in the paramArthik sense. It was
used here to emphasise that Brahman is existence and that we "know"
because of Brahman.

> And it was the theistic vedAntins who referred to the advaitins as
> pracanna bauddha-s.

May I remind you that these are allegations? And allegations are *not* facts.

>Commonalities of vaidika pramANa, etc
> notwithstanding, it is much easier to appreciate the difference
> between the advaitins and (say) the mAdhva-s, than the difference
> between the advaitins and the bauddha-s.

If one is biased towards towards physics or chemistry, one could
easily say advaita and such subjects are so similar.

> Have you ever heard of a scholar claiming that the views of the
> mAdhva-s and the advaitins are the same? At least I haven't. But the
> relationship between the advaitins and the mAdhyamaka/yogAcAra
> bauddha-s is more nuanced.

Only to some people who have internalised their opponents' arguments
as their own.

Regards,
Abhishek

-- 
satyena dhAryate pR^ithvi satyena tapate raviH|
satyena vAti vAyushca sarvaM satye pratishThitam||

calA lakShmIshcalAH prANAshcalaM jIvita yauvanaM|
calAcale ca saMsAre dharma eko hi nishcalaH||