[Advaita-l] Re: Buddhism Related Discussions

Ramesh Krishnamurthy rkmurthy at gmail.com
Wed Aug 16 03:54:27 CDT 2006


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:


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list