[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions

[Abhishek RK]

Namaste,

On 8/16/06, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.


When viewed as the Atma, nAmarUpa is also sat. That is the purport of the
Shankara Bhashya on Chandogya I quoted.

 "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".


This contradicts the Shankara Bhashya I quoted.

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||