[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions
rkabhi at gmail.com
Wed Aug 16 01:03:24 CDT 2006
On 8/16/06, Amuthan <aparyap at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> 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
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.
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. This is what I have
> btw, i don't see any possible way by which the above
> statement can be interpreted as a buddhist view. it's
> advaita proper.
As I said earlier, I could be wrong in saying that this *is* a buddhist
view, as I am not familiar with bauddha mata.
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||
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list