advaitam and Kashmir shaivam

[Prashant Sharma]

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
>  forms.
>
>
> >--Greg
>
>  Anand
>

        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.
Best Regards,
Prashant.