[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

Namaste,

On 16/08/06, Abhishek RK <rkabhi at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is in the context of a particular prakriya. One cannot selectively
> quote such statements, instead it would make more sense within the
> particular context. That is why when I saw Sri Ramesh just say randomly that
> the Atma does not exist I was quite amazed.

What Sri Amuthan & Sri Lakshminarayana said is precisely what I meant.
The Atman is not an object of perception.

My thanks to Sri Amuthan & Sri Lakshminarayana for their posts.

Sri Amuthan wrote and Sri Abhishek responded:
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
>
> Yes but in what sense? sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM
> svatastu anR^itameva. So all forms *are* sat (not mithya) when viewed as the
> Atma, but independent of that Atma they are mithya.
--------------------------------------------------------------
What is meant by "independent of that Atma"? When viewed as the Atman,
there is no nAmarUpa, as the Atman is undifferentiated. When one uses
the word 'pot', it connotes a particular nAma-rUpa, which is mithyA.

As Amuthan said above - "existence is brahman and the pot is mithyA".
Hence my earlier statement - "What is, is Atman/brahman". This is more
accurate than saying "Atman exists".

I am making this request once again - pl read the article named
"Samadhi" by Sw. Dayananda Saraswati. Here is the link again:
http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/Samadhi_One.pdf

Ramesh