Brahman of the upanishads

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

A simple query. The upanishads describe Brahman in words neti, neti,

not this, not this. According to upanishads, Brahman is without form,

undescribable, undefinable, ungraspable and so on. The philosophical

thought put forward there is profound and one can only admire, marvel

and bow to these ancient seekers and speakers of the Truth.

 

Brahma SutrAs are one or two word aphorisms and do not describe Brahman.

However, the bhAshhyAs on Brahma SutrAs, particulaly by Shri Shankara,

follows the same path as the upanishads and speaks of Brahman as

undescribable and so on.

 

By the time we reach BhagavadgItA, the undescribable has the form of

Lord Krishna, and VishwarUpadarshanam and so on. There is a form and

personality given to this undescribable Brahman and this undescribable

Brahman is called bhagavAn. Lord Krishna refers in many places in

bhagavadgItA as I to refer to Himself and you to refer to Arjuna,

so much so, that uncritical readers see a duality between Lord

Krishna and the mortal Arjuna.

 

Now, my question is: is bhagavadgItA a diluted form of speaking of

the undescribable ? Further, giving a form to this undescribable Brahman,

does it help ferment the growth of dvaita thinking ? This question is

not to slight the bhagavadgItA, but to compare the nature of presentation

of Truth in prasthAnatraya.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------