"Brahman" has been defined as the Supreme Ultimate Reality, Self-effulgent, one without a second (Adwiteeyam) and without qualities, (Nirguna). One who has realised Brahman is Brahmin. While Brahman signifies transcendental (Para), without any qualities, the word "Tamil" refers to a language, which is a means of expression. Would it be appropriate to bring the means of expression into a universal concept which is an experience by itself? When Brahman is without qualities (Nirguna), does He require an adjective as Tamil? When Brahman is beyond time and space, should He be associated with a language that is confined to a region?
I am not questioning anyone. I am just expressing my doubt. Please enlighten me.
I am not questioning anyone. I am just expressing my doubt. Please enlighten me.