[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions
narayana_kl_71 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 15 13:08:02 CDT 2006
> 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.
Dear Abhishekji, One thing that I have learnt about
brahman from my experience is that some statements
about brahman are neither completely right nor
completely wrong. When Rameshji said that Atman is not
an entity that exists, I believe he was meaning it in
the context of existence as an object. Of course there
are statements in the upanishads which talk of the
Atman as if it is an entity. But please also refer to
the bhagavad gIta 13.12 and Sankara's commentary on
it, where it is said that brahman cannot really be
captured by the words "sat" or "asat". I dont think
this means a denial of brahman itself.
> 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!
Abhishekji, I think you have written the above words
on the spur of the moment. If you interpret lending
existence as meaning dependance i.e., that the jIvas
have no independant existence, then the above
statements are more closer to dvaita than to bauddha
mata. I cannot imagine a bauddha saying that brahman
lends its existence to all. And no advaitin would
outrightly reject the statement that everything
depends on brahman.
My impression is that you are seeing bauddha doctrine
in Rameshji's statements when there is none. My
apologies if this post offends you.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list