advaitam and Kashmir shaivam

[Anand Hudli]

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
 forms.


>--Greg

 Anand