Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: size of soul

From the Bhakti List Archives

skaushik • September 19, 1996 


Vidyasankar writes:

"... it has to be described as all-pervading, i.e. infinite in nature."

Couple of questions:

1. Pervading implies something to be pervaded. What does brahman pervade?

2. What does "infinite" mean in the sense of advaita? does it mean that
   the atman cannot be described in terms of space, and hence, for a lack
   of a better word, "infinite" is used to characterize Brahman?

   I realize that this might get deeply into the "neti, neti," but I
   would be interested in getting a birdseye summary of the use of the
   negative in characterizing Brahman (i.e. in terms of what it is
   not, rather than what it is).
   
3. If the notion of size cannot be ascribed to Brahman, why
   then does the Tait. Upanishad specifically mention "size" (or lack
   thereof) in its characterizationof brahman (viz. satyam-jnanam-anantam
   Brahma)? It seems that the upanishad is quite hung up over the
   relative dimension of Brahman.                         

   Out out curiosity, does Sruti mention anything about the "color" of   
   Brahman (or its lack thereof)? I do recall reading something to this
   effect, but I am not sure if it is in a commentary, or is part of
   Sruti? 

   However, it clearly is not in the Tait. Upan. Thus, it is very
   interesting that the portion of the scripture that deals directly
   with the nature of Brahman, does not address Brahman's color.
   It would seem to me  that our ancient rishis viewed sky as
   essentially  infinite in  extent, but yet it possessed color.  It
   would thus seem to me  that our ancient philsophers would be
   tempted to treat color and space as distinct and independent
   attributes (at the phenomenal    level).

sk