Re: Sarveshvara
Originally Posted by
sarabhanga
Namaste,
And note that “pragnya” is a rather confusing word, since it does not distinguish between three quite different conceptions ~ prajñA, prAjñA, and prAjña. So, without further clarification, the term “pragnya” is bound to cause misunderstanding and endless disagreement of opinions.
Namaste Sarabhanga Ji and Others,
The Third Sarvesvara is praGYaanaghana evaanandamayo as per Mandukya. The indescribable Fourth, the Self (called as Samaan as indicatory but really Neti-Neti) is viGYaanaghana as per Brihadaranyaka. Both are ghana (without any parting) and non-dual.
Actually there should not be any confusion in understanding the distinction. The Fourth is the revealer of Consciousness in intellect, whereas the Third is the revealed (pra -- going ahead) consciousness in the intellect.
So, Self is the being whose revelation to us is Ishwara (who is nothing but Self revealed to intellect). Iswara, as if (on account of Avidya), is further differentiator in Hiranyagarbha of subtle forms and names and in AgniVaisvanaro of gross forms and names. Upanishads clarify that knowing the third fully means knowing the Self --- yes. (And Upanishads also teach dancing with women in Brahmaloka, that is in the domain of Hiranyagarbha -- the father of Gross Sun. Upanishads do teach that reaching the domain of Hiranyagarbha ensures a condition of no-return for the Bandha Jiva. From the world of Hiranyagarbha, a special Purusha picks up the jivas and takes them to Param Brahman).
On understanding this, one can make a decision that there is absolutely no creation and that the Self is absolutely not an agent of Work or Creation. All this is simple projection on a cinema screen, as if.
Buddhists, in general, do not make a distinction between the revealer of conciousness (the being-the Self-the immutable) and the revealed consciousness and thus miss out theoretically on the immutable. Buddha had stated a practical difficulty -- relating to strengethening of false identification of sadhaka's ego 'i' with the true I-I, (praGYaanaghana) -- for not bringing in the distinction between the revealer and the revealed.
VA proponents on the other hand say that Consciousness itself is modifiable as opposed to immutabilty in Advaita, which uses a term called as transfiguration rather than saying that "a pot is a modification of consciousness".
After breaking head for many nights, I have now come to a near settled comprehension, that condition of the Self being Samaan, immutable, and free of karma cannot be supported by any other thought system but Ajativada (but of course who can say anything with certainty about Him).
I hope this is helpful for some readers.
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 20 January 2008 at 07:53 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Bookmarks