Atman-Brahman in Buddhism

[Kirran]

From page 207 of Bhattacharya's conclusion:

The Buddha certainly denied the åtman. That åtman,
however, is not the Upanishadic åtman. Better still: the true
spiritual åtman, for the Upanishads as for the Buddha, is the
negation of that which men generally consider to be the
åtman, that is, the psycho-physical individuality.

In actual fact, our controversy is nothing but an argument
over words. The authentic åtman, being the negation of
the empirical åtman, is anåtman; and anåtman is a negative
expression which indicates the authentic åtman, which is ineffable
and—from the objective point of view—“non-existent.”

There is no contradiction between åtman and anåtman. The
åtman, which is denied, and that which is affirmed, through
that negation itself, pertains to two different levels. It is only
when we have not succeeded in distinguishing between
them, that the terms åtman and anåtman seem to us to be
opposed.

Thankyou for this. Very interesting.

Unless one happens to meet Atman on the road, in which case that person would need to know how to properly honor Atman.

But the road is atman! And how better to honour a road than to walk upon it? Mindfully, that is.