[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions

[Amuthan]

namo nArAyaNAya!

dear shrI abhiShek,

--- Abhishek RK <rkabhi_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

why? it's very much in tune with advaita vedAnta.
since AtmA is the dRk and never a dRShya, there is
nothing wrong in saying that AtmA does not exist as an
entity. please note that the word 'entity' is
typically used for something that is a dRShya, i.e for
an object. as far as brahman is concerned, it is
reasonable, within vedAnta in general, to say that
'brahman exists as an entity'. but within advaita
vedAnta in particular, since AtmA is taught to be the
same as brahman, such a statement becomes
incompatible. 

thus the above mentioned statement made by shrI ramesh
is certainly in accordance with advaita vedAnta. 

--- Abhishek RK <rkabhi_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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!

i'm afraid you're again wrong. take any experience
such as 'a pot exists'. in this, 'existence' is
brahman and the pot is mithyA. to hear an advaitin
speak this way, please refer to AchArya's bhAShya on
gItA 2.16. 

btw, i don't see any possible way by which the above
statement can be interpreted as a buddhist view. it's
advaita proper.  

vAsudevaH sarvaM,
aparyAptAmRtaH.


		
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/