advaitam and Kashmir shaivam
psharma at BUPHY.BU.EDU
Fri Aug 1 10:52:45 CDT 1997
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Anand Hudli wrote:
> Gregory Goode wrote:
> >Just had another thought. Doesn't sarvaM khalvidaM brahma translate
> >as something like "all this is Brahman"? If so, then isn't the "this"
> >supposed to be some kind of name and form? Without any name or form,
> >then there would be nirguna Brahman and no appearance or name or form
> > at all. And neither sarvaM khalvidaM brahma nor anything else would
> >be uttered or thought or represented in any way. And if "all this"
> >means "all this name and form," then the sarvaM khalvidaM brahma is
> >identifying name and form with Brahman, which is what Ramana is stressing.
> >But if sarvaM khalvidaM brahma translates as anything else, my apologies....
> The sarvaM khalvidaM brahma statement of the Chhaandogya upanishhad is
> interpreted differently by Shankara. What he says is that the world
> originates, exists, and merges or dissolves in Brahman. It is in this
> sense that he says "All this verily is Brahman." He does not mean,
> at least in this context, that the world of names and forms exists in
> Brahman as a reflection or that Brahman is identified with names and
Does the word khalvidaM break into kalA and vidyA? In which case
the meaning of "sarvaM khalvidaM brahma" is very beautiful. All the kalA
(art => order) and vidyA (perceptible knowledge) is brahma.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list