Questioning in Sadhana, etc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rajeshji,

I think C.N. is conflating the areas of

discussion on Name and Form, namarupa, and

the word, vakvada is it? One has to do with

creation as it is and the other with the creative

powers of the word which is possibly itself

constituitive of name and form. The vak

theory has its analogues in Cabbala, Greek,

and Arabic lore and is mixed in with numerology.

Altogether a heady brew!

 

However in relation to Name and Form

I find in Sankara's commentary on the

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad II.iv.11:

"It is name and form in all their stages

that constitute relative existence."

Previously he states: "Name and Form are

the limiting adjuncts of the Supreme Self,

of which when they are differentiated,

it is impossible to tell whether they

are identical or different from It,

as is the case with the foam of water."

 

It is the upadhis that being in the presence

of pure consciousness seem to take on its

qualities "so from the limiting adjuncts

of the elements, transformed into the body

and the organs, the self (ego) comes out clearly

as an individualised entity."....."And when they

are destroyed like the foam and bubbles of

water, this individualised existence is

destroyed with them".

 

This suggests that name and form go

the way of the foam and the bubbles.

Relative existence is transcended.

The self(ego) has no more particular

consciousness. This is even the case

sometimes in the state of deep sleep.

 

Further in II.iv.14 commentary:

"When to the knower of Brahman

everything, such as name and form,

has been merged in the Self and has

thus become the Self, then what object

to be smelt should one smell, who

should smell, and through what

instrument?"

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michael-ji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> I think C.N. is conflating the areas of

> discussion on Name and Form, namarupa, and

> the word, vakvada is it? One has to do with

> creation as it is and the other with the creative

> powers of the word which is possibly itself

> constituitive of name and form.

 

If one tries to see what 'creation as it is' is, one may discover that

it is like the smile of the Chesire cat. And then if one tries to find

out how the smile comes to be on the face of the cat, one might

discover that the magic of Vak brings it there. And if one tries to

describe the whole thing, one is likely to end up speaking Jabber-wocky!

 

I have exceeded my quota for the day by 150%, and beg the forgiveness

of the moderators.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan