--- In [email protected], boyboy_8 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, even now I still get confused between Brahma and Brahman. Perhaps > Brahman is closer to the J conception of God. Maybe. There are > similarities. > > re: Gita....oh, I'd love to get my hands on that.....pretty please? > > Fred > > [snip] >
I'll try to explain that "difference" from a linguistic POV, although I understand that it might be a bit hard to grasp for people in whose native language the difference between short and long vowels is not very important. In Sanskrit, like in my native language, it is EXTREMELY(!!!) important. Mistä alkaisin? Well, I'm not quite sure why the word referring to the Absolute is in Western sources usually written as 'Brahman'. The reason might be, that the difference between that basic form (nominative singular) of the words 'brahma' and 'brahmaa' is "too" miniscule, or stuff. I guess many of us are familiar with some mahaa-vaakyas, like: ayam aatmaa brahma sarvaM khalvidaM (khalu + idam) brahma We can notice that the word referring to 'Brahman' is actually in the form 'brahma'. One more example from the Giitaa: anaadimat paraM brahma Usually, I believe, in "non-Sanskrit" texts the word 'Brahma' is understood to refer to the Creator, whose nominative singular is actually 'brahmaa', with a long a-sound at the end. I'm not sure, but I guess in this verse from the Rgveda diirghatamaa maamateyo jujurvaan dashame yuge apaam arthaM yatiinaam brahmaa bhavati saarathiH the form 'brahmaa' refers to the Creator, although some translations seem to suggest (because they use the form Brahman) it refers to the Absolute, in which case the long a-sound at the end would be a metrical lengthening. Ouch! I rest my case... :/
