(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[Prashant Sharma]

> On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, egodust wrote:
>
> > Even from the vedantic perpective the atman can be equally regarded
> > as sunya, in the special sense that it can be thought of as merely
> > a temporal reference point with respect to the jiva (viz. it is
> > none other than brahman, and its name ['atman'] is only necessary
> > due to the existence of the jiva.  That is, it has the connotation
> > that its nature [the word 'atman,' as a separative individualized
> > consciousness] is eternal, which isn't true).

        When you say that "it isn't true that its nature is eternal" are
you saying this because you also said that "it is only necessary due to
the existence of the jiva", and since the jiva is ephemeral it follows
...

Regards,
Prashant.