Nara + Narayana

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste sarabhanga,

I have doubts and thought you can assist me. Regarding Nara and Naryana. On some previous posts we started to offer some simple equalities to help define terms.

With the equality below, you offered the first 5 components, and I added the 6th e.g. Arjuna and Krsna ( in blue).

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara= Arjuna
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = prajñAnasya = nArAyaNa=Krsna


You then returned the equality with the edits below in purple.

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora

I asked you of this, and your kind recommendation was to review the following HDF Post (which I did)
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1878 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1878)

My brain cramp (vicikitsa)
I cannot discern/comprehend why nara is Krsna, and not Arjuna. Why so? I look at it in this simple mannor…

Nara + ayana or Nara's direction (ayana) - or one that helps/assist the human to the goal i.e. moksha, liberation, etc. as I see it being used in various shastras:

Nara as human , and thus as Arjuna
Narayana as the Supreme ( Krsna, Visnu, Siva)
The compound or tatpurusha is Nara + ayana or Nara's direction (ayana).

Please correct me as I have been unable to shift to this new definition offered with understanding & comprehension. Any help from you would be welcomed.



pranams,

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

If you have considered my post(s), the following should be familiar ~ but (remembering that a and A are different letters) try reading these lines again.

nara is “the primeval man” (as “the eternal spirit pervading the universe”); and nArAyaNa is the “son of the primeval man”.

nara is the old man; and nArAyaNa is the young man.

nara is the original undivided puruSa; and nArAyaNa is his divided self-conception.

nara is aja and ekapada; while nArAyaNa is prajA and sahasrapAda.

nara is hara (the one paramAtman); and nArAyaNa is hari (the many jIvAtmAna).

nara is akala (“not in parts”); and nArAyaNa is his kalam (“seed”), which is kAla (“enumerated”).

In yoga, nara and nArAyaNa are realized as non-different (a perfect twin), and the naranArAyaNau is observed.

And naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa.

The turya (brahma) is known as hara or nara.
The turIya (brahmA) is known as hari or nArAyaNa (or nArAyaNau).
And the turIyAtIta (brAhma) is known as nAra and nAri, or hAra and hAri.

hari is nArAyaNa, but secretly nArAyaNau; and this innermost twin has its own twin implications ~ implying both nAra-nArAyaNa and nara-nArAyaNa.

As above, so below ~ and likewise above and below that as well!

In practice, the hidden nArAyaNau is the key to the whole equation.

The starting point is always nAra or nAri, and the final destination is always nara (the paramaM padam), but the path can only be via the nArAyaNau, and so (in practice) that vital guheSa must always be the aim. And once the guheSa is truly known, the full knowledge of hara and paramaM padam comes automatically ~ and the goal is attained.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Yajvan,

If you have considered my post(s), the following should be familiar ~ but (remembering that a and A are different letters) try reading these lines again.

nara is “the primeval man” (as “the eternal spirit pervading the universe”); and nArAyaNa is the “son of the primeval man”.

nara is the old man; and nArAyaNa is the young man.

nara is the original undivided puruSa; and nArAyaNa is his divided self-conception.

nara is aja and ekapada; while nArAyaNa is prajA and sahasrapAda.

nara is hara (the one paramAtman); and nArAyaNa is hari (the many jIvAtmAna).

nara is akala (“not in parts”); and nArAyaNa is his kalam (“seed”), which is kAla (“enumerated”).

In yoga, nara and nArAyaNa are realized as non-different (a perfect twin), and the naranArAyaNau is observed.

And naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa.

The turya (brahma) is known as hara or nara.
The turIya (brahmA) is known as hari or nArAyaNa (or nArAyaNau).
And the turIyAtIta (brAhma) is known as nAra and nAri, or hAra and hAri.

hari is nArAyaNa, but secretly nArAyaNau; and this innermost twin has its own twin implications ~ implying both nAra-nArAyaNa and nara-nArAyaNa.

As above, so below ~ and likewise above and below that as well!

In practice, the hidden nArAyaNau is the key to the whole equation.

The starting point is always nAra or nAri, and the final destination is always nara (the paramaM padam), but the path can only be via the nArAyaNau, and so (in practice) that vital guheSa must always be the aim. And once the guheSa is truly known, the full knowledge of hara and paramaM padam comes automatically ~ and the goal is attained.

Namaste Sarabhanga,
this is helpful and its as I thought ... 'A' vs. 'a'. yet the nuance's of this I do not 'own' in my mind as yet.

So now I need to think it through and let it soak as I have one part of the formula down. e.g. nara is “the primeval man” and naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa.

thank you for taking the time to lay this out (again).

pranams

[atanu]

Namaste All,

I wish someone could collect and bring here the original Vedic references from Samhitas on Narayana.

As far as I know (and my knowing may be very inadequate) Purusha suktam of Rig Veda is known to have been from Narayana Rishi. Where else in Samhita Narayana is mentioned?

Any help would be welcome as this part of understanding eludes me largely. As on today, I understand Narayana as the Pragnya of the Atman. The following is the understanding of Advaita Asrama.



The name Narayana originates from two Sanskrit terms coming together - Nara which means water and ayana which means movement. This indicates the all-pervasive nature of Narayana as that of an Infinite Ocean (consciousness) in which the never-ending movement of birth, life and death of the cosmos occurs.

The book, Sri Ramanuja, His Life, Religion, and Philosophy, published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai, India, states that the name "Narayana" means, "He who is the dwelling place, i.e., the source, support and dissolving ground of all Jivas or souls, including inert matter."




Mahanarayana

XIII-1-3: This universe is truly the Divine Person only. Therefore it subsists on Him – the self-effulgent Divine Being – who has many heads and many eyes, who is the producer of joy for the universe, who exists in the form of the universe, who is the master and the cause of humanity, whose forms are the various gods, who is imperishable, who is the all-surpassing ruler and saviour, who is superior to the world, who is endless and omniform, who is the goal of humanity, who is the destroyer of sin and ignorance, who is the protector of the universe and the ruler of individual souls, who is permanent, supremely auspicious and unchanging, who has embodied Himself in man as his support (being the indwelling Spirit), who is supremely worthy of being known by the creatures, who is embodied in the universe and who is the supreme goal.

XIII-4: Narayana is the Supreme Reality designated as Brahman. Narayana is the highest (Self). Narayana is the supreme Light (described in the Upanishads). Narayana is the infinite Self. [Narayana is the most excellent meditator and meditation.]

XIII-5: Whatsoever there is in this world known through perception (because of their proximity) or known through report (because of their distance), all that is pervaded by Narayana within and without.






Maho Upanishad

I-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Ishana, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy.
From the (desire of) the Paramatman, the Yajnastoma (hymn known as Avyakta) is said to have arisen.

-----
lakshyaalakshyamati.n tyaktvaa yastishhThetkevalaatmanaa .

shiva eva svaya.n saakshaadayaM brahmaviduttamaH .. 85..adhishhThaanamanaupamyamavaa~Nmanasagocharam.h .nitya.n vibhu.n sarvagata.n susuukshma.n cha tadavyayam.h .. 86..

He who remains giving up what is implied and expressed is Shiva himself, the best of the Brahman-Knowers. That un-decaying being is the substratum (of all), without comparison beyond words and mind, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and subtle.

sarva.n shaanta.n niraalamba.n vyomastha.n shaashvata.n shivam.h .anaamayamanaabhaasamanaamakamakaaraNam.h .. 45..

na sannasanna madhyaanta.n na sarva.n sarvameva cha .
manovachobhiragraahyaM puurNaatpuurNa.n sukhaatsukham.h .. 46..

V-45. All is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, auspicious, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.

V-46. Neither existent nor non-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.




From the definition given above from the Ramakrishna Math -- Nara is Narayana. Since Nara (Water-Consciousness) is the movement (ayana) also. In other words, there would be no movement had there been no Nara. From Mahanarayana Upanishad, it is gathered that whatever is known is pervaded by Narayana that would mean that Narayana is the manifest consciousness (manifest Brahman) and not the indescribable Turya.


From Maho Upanishad, which seems to term Narayana as Param Atman, however, also says that He was not happy alone. And in later passages describe Shiva as the one who is bliss, neding no support at all. Probably Sarabhanga and Me have same/similar understanding regarding this. Narayana is actually Brahma -- the unhappy creator father, whithin whom is hidden the bliss called Shiva.

Shiva is called Neither existent nor non-existent Self (unmanifest Turya) and Krishna himself says He is sat and asat (manifest Pragnya)

I would like to know of the exact verses in Veda Samhitas that are on Narayana.

(In Rudra Gita, Shiva says that all worship him alone as Narayana.)


Om

[sarabhanga]

Purusha suktam of Rig Veda is known to have been from Narayana Rishi. Where else in Samhita Narayana is mentioned?

Namaste Atanu,

nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA, but the name (as I have often mentioned) is a standard patronymic form, derived from nara.

For example:


bAdarAyaNa is “the son of badara”
bAhumitrAyaNa is “the son of bahumitra”
bhArgAyaNa is “the son of bharga”
cAkrAyaNa is “the son of cakra”
dArbhAyaNa is “the son of darbha”
dhArmyAyaNa is “the son of dharmya”
dhaumrAyaNa is “the son of dhUmra”
gairAyaNa is “the son of giri”
gArgyAyaNa is “the son of gArgya”
graiSmAyaNa is “the son of grISma”
jAlaMdharAyaNa is “the son of jalaMdhara”
kaiMkarAyaNa is “the son of kiMkara”
kASAyaNa is “the son of kaSAya”
kaumArAyaNa is “the son of kumAra”
khAdirAyaNa is “the son of khadira”
khArapAyaNa is “the son of kharapa”
khArjUrAyaNa is “the son of kharjUra”
krauSTrAyaNa is “the son of kroSTri”
maitrAyaNa is “the son of mitra”
mATharAyaNa is “the son of mAThara”
paiÑgarAyaNa is “the son of piÑgara”
pArAsharyAyaNa is “the son of pArAsharya”
pauSpAyaNa is “the son of pauSpi”
pAvitrAyaNa is “the son of pavitra”
raudrAyaNa is “the son of rudra”
saukRtyAyana is “the son of sukRtya”
svArAyaNa is “the son of svara”
vAdhyoSAyaNa is “the son of vadhyoSa”
vaishvAnarAyaNa is “the son of vishvAnara”
yaugaMdharAyaNa is “the son of yugaMdhara”
shAbarAyaNa is “the son of shabara”

And nArAyaNa is “the son of nara” !!

nara = brahma
nArAyaNa = brahmA

And nArAyaNa is “the son of man” who is truly the son of God.

[atanu]

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Excellent. What you say makes good sense to me and this matches with the meaning of Narayana given by Ramakrishna Math.

ayana -- the movement, the extention, which cannot be without Nara as the substratum. And It is mind that only brings knowledge to Self, so it is natural that the son will bring wisdom to the father.

nara = brahma
nArAyaNa = brahmA

The above is excellent. However, in the second line, an intermediate something may be required, since Maha Upanishad says that:

They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Ishana ------ He could not be happy (Maha Upanishad).

-------------------------------

Or, as I understand, that Nara (apparently limited man) first realises its Narayana nature (infinite Purusha nature of thousand heads which according to me means the mind attached to infinite objects), through three steps of Mandukya, through its own Pragnya -- and realises that BrahmA and Ishana are its own Pragnya (Sarvesvara)? But still happiness eludes.

Further, it searches and finds "I am Shiva": "I am happiness itself"




Maha Upanishad

lakshyaalakshyamati.n tyaktvaa yastishhThetkevalaatmanaa .
shiva eva svaya.n saakshaadayaM brahmaviduttamaH .. 85..

adhishhThaanamanaupamyamavaa~Nmanasagocharam.h .nitya.n vibhu.n
sarvagata.n susuukshma.n cha tadavyayam.h .. 86..

He who remains giving up what is implied and expressed is Shiva himself, the best of the Brahman-Knowers. That un-decaying being is the substratum (of all), without comparison beyond words and mind, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and subtle.

sarva.n shaanta.n niraalamba.n vyomastha.n shaashvata.n shivam.h
.anaamayamanaabhaasamanaamakamakaaraNam.h .. 45..

na sannasanna madhyaanta.n na sarva.n sarvameva cha .
manovachobhiragraahyaM puurNaatpuurNa.n sukhaatsukham.h .. 46..

V-45. All is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, auspicious, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.

V-46. Neither existent nor non-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.


And it makes sense that Soma is the progenitor of earth, heaven, vedas, surya, Indra, Vishnu. It also makes sense that Vedas say that by worshipping Vishnu one worships Soma.

In the stage of purification, Soma is Narayana. Purified Soma is Shivam alone.

In other words, Narayana is extention, power, or son of Nara. Narayana is the cognitive mind, which knows self as limited Jiva (Nara), as thousand headed purusha, as creator Brahma, as Ishana -- Shulapani, and ultimately as Self (Shivam) - when it is advaita and fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

V-46. Neither existent nor non-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

Om

[sarabhanga]

According to Manu, nArAH indicates “the waters” and ayana is “a place of refuge”, and the shining nArAyaNa (i.e. brahmA) was so named because “the waters” were his first residence.

nArAH is the plural of nAra (“mortal man” or “an inhabitant of hell”), and Manu is presumably referring to both the (macrocosmic) “depths” of immortal nara and to the (microcosmic) heart of mortal nAra.

nara = brahmayoni
nArAyaNa = brahmabIja

[sarabhanga]

According to Manu, nArAH indicates “the waters” and ayana is “a place of refuge”, and the shining nArAyaNa (i.e. brahmA) was so named because “the waters” were his first residence.

nArAH is the plural of nAra (“mortal man” or “an inhabitant of hell”), and Manu is presumably referring to both the (macrocosmic) “depths” of immortal nara and to the (microcosmic) heart of mortal nAra.



nAra is lost.
nAra seeks nArAyaNa.
nAra becomes identified with nArAyaNa (and thus nAra-nArAyaNa).
nArAyaNa is already familiar with his own parent nara (and always together they are nara-nArAyaNa).
nAra (as nAra-nArAyaNa) is immediately realized as nara-nArAyaNa and as one with nara.

In the beginning, mortal nAra vaishvAnarAyaNa suffers in nAraloka, but he must go deeper to find nArAyaNa (into a veritable pAtAla, where yama himself must be confronted). And in the end, he arises as immortal nara nArAyaNa, to live happily ever after in the bliss of svarga, even in naraloka.

[sarabhanga]

nara = brahma = paramAtman = prajñAtman = kevalAtman
nArAyaNa = brahmA = sUtrAtman = prANAtman = karmAtman
nAra = brAhma = jIvAtman = pratyagAtman = kAmAtman

[sm78]

Just a small information on the matter...Vishnu has been referred as nara in the sahasranama (verse 27 i think) of badarayana.

Thanks to sarabhanga for the posts in this thread.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Singhi,

It is at the end of verse 26 ~ nArAyaNo naraH.

[atanu]

nara = brahma = paramAtman = prajñAtman = kevalAtman
nArAyaNa = brahmA = sUtrAtman = prANAtman = karmAtman
nAra = brAhma = jIvAtman = pratyagAtman = kAmAtman




Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

What is brAhma? Is it Brahmana?

Thanks

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

brAhma is an adjective of brahman, meaning “relating to brahma or brahmA, or to sacred knowledge”, “holy, sacred, divine, scriptural or prescribed by the veda”, or “relating or belonging to the brAhmaNa, or belonging to an inhabitant of the world of brahmA”.

As a noun, brAhma is “sacred study, or study of the veda”, and it is a patronym of nArada.

The standard term, brAhmaNa, could equally have been used; but I preferred to retain the adjectival notion, and the simple logical flow of brahma-brahmA-brAhma.

[atanu]

Hello and Namaste All,

Back in August, the following was my understanding and it has not changed.



Brahman is that which runs common as a thread runs through a garland. Thus life breath is Brahman. The vision is Brahman for all Forms etc. etc. Pragnya is common for all that can be understood or cognised. It is Narayana and it is the source of Saguna Brahmans which operate in waking and dreaming stations. Narayana is also the common thread for them.



I stand by the above, since some upanishads definitely speak of Narayana as Param Atman or Param Brahman Tattva, at the same time indicating that the desireless happy ONE is SHIVA. Thus I wish to know the meaning and reference of Narayana from the Samhitas. And I deplore some Vaisnava texts for trying to show that Nara is abominable, since I feel that without Nara, Narayana is simply non-existent.

Ayan, being the son, movement, gati, refuge, etc. all support one thing. It is my understanding from the verse of Mahanarayana Upanishad that Narayana is Pragnya -- the third step of Self (as in Mandukya) --- the constant consort of Nara. From that comes all my vichara. Self's Pragnya, I assume to be same as Narayana. I say assumption and therefore my question remains "where in Vedas Narayana is first mentioned and as what?"

From this angle, if one considers that Nara is the Self, then Nara is high, low, and middle -- and Narayana is its constant companion that guides it from its low to high (and may be also the reverse). These going up and coming down, I consider as Vishnu's steps -- Jiva's steps when going up and Param Atman's steps when coming down. And the division between Nara and Narayan is one of convenienvce -- merely for understanding. It is impossible to separate a man from his intelligence.

This is my understanding till I see a samhita verse that contradicts.


(Frankly speaking I do not see an Arjuna and Krishna. I see only Arjuna, who cleared his own doubts by conference with his wisdom [self] called Krishna. The reverse can also be thought to be true when Krishna as Guru is the only one. The wisdom has always been there as Sarvesvara and the Advaita Self -- the seed of I wisdom-- has also always been there. These two are ONE).

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

brahma = paramAtman = prajñA = nara
brahmA = sUtrAtman = prAjña = nArAyaNa
brAhma = jIvAtman = AjñA = nAra

As previously mentioned, nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA; although, the puruSa sUkta (RV 10.90) is attributed to nArAyaNa (by the brAhmaNA), and nArAyaNa is clearly identified in the manu smRti.

Anywhere that brahmA (or any equivalent concept) is mentioned, however, nArAyaNa could equally be supposed. :)

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

brahma = paramAtman = prajñA = nara
brahmA = sUtrAtman = prAjña = nArAyaNa
brAhma = jIvAtman = AjñA = nAra

As previously mentioned, nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA; although, the puruSa sUkta (RV 10.90) is attributed to nArAyaNa (by the brAhmaNA), and nArAyaNa is clearly identified in the manu smRti.

Anywhere that brahmA (or any equivalent concept) is mentioned, however, nArAyaNa could equally be supposed. :)


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Yes, this is acceptable to me. Aitreya Upanishad says that Atman built up Purusha out of the waters (consciousness). So, Purusha, as I see it, is Atman, when endowed with a mind, and inherently dualistic (due to movement which is nature of mind). And Narayana, I suppose in absence of supporting or contradictory samhita verse, to be thousand headed, thousand armed, thousand footed Purusha. Some Upanishadic verse however defines Narayana as Nirguna. That I feel is the Paramarthika view that essentially Purusha is Atman, but when immersed in Prakriti, is viewed as mortal man.

Atman in itself, on the other hand, is Advaita. Nara in reality is Atman but can be seen as Narayana, and/or mortal man under protection of Narayana.

Om

[sm78]

Namaste Atanu,

brahma = paramAtman = prajñA = nara
brahmA = sUtrAtman = prAjña = nArAyaNa
brAhma = jIvAtman = AjñA = nAra

As previously mentioned, nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA; although, the puruSa sUkta (RV 10.90) is attributed to nArAyaNa (by the brAhmaNA), and nArAyaNa is clearly identified in the manu smRti.


I regularly recite nArAyaNa sukta...where does it come from ??

( Sahasraa sirsham devam viswaasham viswaasambhuvam
Viswam naaraayanam devamaksharam pramam prabhum).

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Singhi,

From the taittirIya AraNyaka:




nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi
tanno viSNuH pracodayAt

sahasrashIrSaM devaM vishvAkshaM vishvashaMbhuvam
vishvaM nArAyaNaM devamaksharaM paramaM padam
vishvataH paramannityaM vishvaM nArAyaNaM harim
vishvamevedaM puruSastadvishvamupajIvati
patiM vishvasyAtmeshvaraM shAshvataM shivamacyutam
nArAyaNam mahAjñeyaM vishvAtmAnaM parAyaNam
nArAyaNaH paro jyotirAtmA nArAyaNaH paraH
nArAyaNaH paraM brahmatattvaM nArAyaNaH paraH
nArAyaNaH paro dhyAtA dhyAnaM nArAyaNaH paraH
yacca kiMcijjagathsarvaM dRshyate shrUyate'pi vA
antarbahishca tathsarvaM vyApya nArAyaNassthitaH

[atanu]

Namaste Singhi,

From the taittirIya AraNyaka:
nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi
tanno viSNuH pracodayAt

-



MAHANARAYANA UPANISHAD

i-29: May we know Narayana. For that, may we meditate upon Vasudeva. May Vishnu impel us towards it.

OM

[atanu]

Paingalopanishad belonging to the Sukla-Yajur-Veda (Italics mine)

I-1. Then indeed Paingala approached Yajnavalkya as a disciple, and, having served him for twelve years, said: Instruct me in regard to the supreme mystery of Aloneness.


I-2. The eminent Yajnavalkya replied: Dear one, in the beginning this indeed existed. It was the eternally free, immutable, everlastingly one, secondless Brahman, full of Truth, Knowledge and Bliss (Shivamachyutam).


I-3. In it existed the primordial and indefinable Prakriti, consisting of Gunas in a state of equipoise, red, white and dark, resembling (the existence of) water, silver, a man and outlines (respectively) in the mirage oyster-shell, a stump and a mirror; what was reflected in it was the Witness Consciousness. (Rudra).


I-4. Having been modified, with the preponderance of Sattva, and named Avyakta (the Unmanifest), it (Prakriti) became the power of concealment. What was reflected in it became God Consciousness. He has Maya under His control, is omniscient, is the initial cause of creation, sustenance and dissolution (of the world) and has the form of the sprouting world. He manifests the entire world dissolved in Him. Due to the power of the Karmas of living beings is the (world) spread out like this cloth and due to their exhaustion again is (the world) concealed. In Him alone does the entire world exist as a folded cloth (Mahadeva).


I-5.From the power of concealment controlled by God arose the Power of Projection called Mahat. What is reflected in it is the consciousness of Hiranyagarbha. He has the conceit of ownership as regards Mahat and has a body partly manifest and partly unmanifest (BrahmA)


I-6. From the projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha arose the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. What was reflected in it was the consciousness of Virat. That Virat who has conceit in the Ego, a manifest body, and is the Supreme Purusha, Vishnu is the protector of all gross things. From that Self (Virat) arose ether; from the ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth. These five root-elements are composed of the three Gunas (Vishnu).


I-7. Desiring to create, that world-Cause (God), controlling the quality of Tamas, sought to render the subtle root-elements gross. He bifurcated each of the extremely limited elements and again made (the halves) four-fold and added each of the five halves to one-eighths of the other four. With those quintuplicated elements he created endless Crores of macrocosms and for each of these fourteen appropriate worlds and globular gross bodies fit for each planes of them all.


Om

[atanu]

Aparokshanubhuti
by Adi Sankaracharya
Translated by Swami Vimuktananda
Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkata

-----
31. The Supreme (Purusha) known as “I” (ego) is but one, whereas the gross bodies are many. So how can this body be Purusha ?

32. “I” (ego) is well established as the subject of perception whereas the body is the object. This is learnt from the fact that when we speak of the body we say, “This is mine.” So how can this body be Purusha ?

33. It is a fact of direct experience that the “I” (Atman) is without any change, whereas the body is always undergoing changes. So how can this body be Purusha ?

34. Wise men have ascertained the (real) nature of Purusha from that Shruti text, “(There is nothing) higher than He (Purusha),” etc. So how can this body be Purusha ?

35. Again the Shruti has declared in the Purusha Sukta that “All this is verily the Purusha”. So how can this body be Purusha ?

36. So also it is said in Brihadaranyaka that “The Purusha is completely unattached”. How can this body wherein inhere innumerable impurities be the Purusha ?

37. There again it is clearly stated that “the Purusha is self-illumined”. So how can the body which is inert (insentient) and illumined by an external agent be the Purusha ?

38. Moreover, the Karma-kanda also declares that the Atman is different from the body and permanent, as it endures even after the fall of the body and reaps the fruits of actions (done in this life).

39. Even the subtle body consists of many parts and is unstable. It is also an object of perception, is changeable, limited and non-existent by nature. So how can this be the Purusha?

40. The immutable Atman, the substratum of the ego, is thus different from these two bodies, and is the Purusha, the Ishwara (the Lord of all), the Self of all; It is present in every form and yet transcends them all.
------

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Some Upanishadic verse however defines Narayana as Nirguna. That I feel is the Paramarthika view that essentially Purusha is Atman, but when immersed in Prakriti, is viewed as mortal man.

Atman in itself, on the other hand, is Advaita. Nara in reality is Atman but can be seen as Narayana, and/or mortal man under protection of Narayana.

Om


Namaste atanu,
yes. this is where, at times, causes second considerations in various HDF discussions that is 'Narayana as Nirguna'. I think in this manner just due to the years of thinking of Narayana on the coils of ananta, and in the ocean of milk, all Puranic ideas, yet gives the visual of Infinity nicely.

Yet I like what you say here 'Purusha is Atman, but when immersed in Prakriti, is viewed as mortal man'.

Then what tends to cover-up the concept is, in the final analysis, all this is Brahman. I do not say this as an epiphany but from the perspective that many a conversation starts from here and we work backwards, and some other conversations start from the other end, and come to the same conclusion. That is, why even bother with the details if in the end all this is Brahman... the answer is IMHO to know Brahman better.

thank you for a most salient post.

pranams,