i adore this discussion. today, i was able to read only the first page.... i wish to get back and continue reading further...
One denotes in usage Brahman, the other Brahma (the creator)I queried not about the sandhi rule but about your usage.
So what then is the difference between ब्रह्म & ब्रह्मा ?? Pls can you clarify?
So how does ब्रह्मन् change to ब्रह्मा ?One denotes in usage Brahman, the other Brahma (the creator)
The point that was made in usage of examples is to show how Dwitha school of thought arrives at exactly the opposite meaning (Tatvam Asi is in their thinking actually Atatvam Asi)
I am trying to understand if the above is a valid argument presented by shri tks (assuming he has done the above grammar breakup and not quoted from any source).The argument that AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) cannot happen just as brahmaa + ashiraha(ब्रह्मा+अशिरः) cannot is not valid. In the word brahmārpanam (ब्रह्मार्पणम्), it cannot be split as brahma+ rpanam (ब्रह्मा+ र्पणम्), but it can only be brahma+ arpanam (ब्रह्मा+अर्पणम्). One cannot even argue that since rpanam is meaningless, it has to be arpanam. The argument that AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) cannot happen is baseless, just as brahma+arpanam (ब्रह्मा+अर्पणम्) cannot happen is also baseless. AtmA+atat(आत्मा+अतत् ) means Atman+atat(आत्मन्+अतत् ).
I thought I had answered all relevant questions but just noticed this.So how does ब्रह्मन् change to ब्रह्मा ?
Welcome to the forum ! .. You are right that as our knowledge expands, our understanding of the laws of nature expands. Sat is not just about nature only though.Asathoma satgamaya, We human move from smaller truth to bigger truth. "Sat" or "Truth" expands withe the expanding knowledge of humans.