chitta and Manas

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté bhaktajan

Pursuant to defining chitta and Manas

I must re-state:
There are 3 Tattvas that comporise the entire creation, namely
1] Brahman +
2] Param-atma +
3] Bhagavan

To distill the discussion to "Essense" is to do a disservice to the seeker of Vedic Knowledge.

There are hundreds of thousands of words in The Vedas ---and I do not except that they are all for the purpose of aiming at an impersonal universal Spirit manifested To pick for adoration ---to which they return

Who is returning? To whom do we return? ---the primodial Spirit who exist not?

Yes, I do know, "Brahman into brahman" ---but that is a law of the material science od Physics.

The quest to acheive, manipulate & replicate the Properties of the Void (aka, 'absolute-zero') has alluded the wetern scientists and will continue to do so. Why? Because it is non-Material. The spirit soul is infintestimally atomically small yet large enough to be a sepearte entity distinguishable from the Brahman prevading all material elements.

So in my above paragraph I have painted a picture that has three aspects:

The Indiviual Being;
The Field;
The 24 Elements

3 Components, ie: The Cow, The grass field, the Sun/Moon/Earth water ---the milk drinker justs wants the nectar without too much butter-fat.

Thank you for your POV and the intensity of your resolve...I see a few ideas in your offering (above). What my vision lacks to see in your offer is that of samasta - that which pervades the whole. This has been my point all along and my message to you for your kind consideration.

What more can one say about this underlying whole? Let me offer the following. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad , a vedāntic view assists our (my) understanding. The 1st chapter ( some call a chapter a prapāṭhaka or adhyāya) does a fine job of assisting one with brahman, ananta (infinity, boundless), ākāśa and the like. My favorite appears at 1.13.3 .
It says ( and happy to provide the verse in saṃskṛt if there is truly an interest) the following:
The one underlying Reality, the indefinable One ( anirukta&#185 is the 13th stobha, the sound¹ hūṁ or हूं

That is, this essence appears as 'all and many' ~mutable~.

And the significance of hūṁ? It is the bīja of śiva. This is not a position or argument of who is Supreme; it is the offer of what Reality is, and its continuum, its underlying whole, (samasta) of everything.

From another view, what does kaśmir śaivism have to offer ?

Yatsattatparamārthohi paramārthastataḥśivaḥ
It says, that which is Existence (sattā) is the highest (param) Reality, the Universe is of the nature of that Reality, therefore everything is śivaḥ.

This is from Abhinavagupta's work Parā-trīśikā Vivaraṇa. It is a śloka where he gives praise to anuttara ( the Supreme, unsurpassable).
He recognizes yatsaḥ sarvam- from whom proceeds all, and yasmin sarvam - in whom resides all - this is anuttara.

I will end on that note and consider my contribution to this notion ( and string) complete. More words me thinks, will only cause mischief.

praṇām
words and comments

• anirukta अनिरुक्त unuttered , not articulated, unspeakable.
• this hūṁ is हूं
  • In the various śastra we find different praṇava. We know in the veda we find oṁ as praṇava; In the Śakta tantra ( that of Śrī Devī) we find hrīṁ, and in the Bhairava tantra we find hūṁ. The following śloka below outlines its 3 components of hūṁ:
    Ha śivah kathito devī ū bhairava ihocyate |
    Parārtho nādo śabdastu bindurduhkhaharārthakah |
    Varmabiijatrayo hyatra kathitastava yatnatah ||

Oh goddess (devi), (the letter) "ha" (ha) is said to be (kathitah) Śiva (śiváh), (while the vowel) "ū" (uu) is said to be (ucyáte) Bhairava (bhairavah) here (ih&#225. The sound (śábdah) nādá or half-moon (nādáh) signifies (árthah) Pára or Highest (árthah) certainly (t&#250, (and) bindú or dot (bindúh) means (arthakah) destroyer (hara) of pain (duhkh&#225. Here (átra) the three (letters) (tráyas) (forming) the armor (varma) seed-mántra (bīja) are spoken (kathitah) to You (táva) diligently and with effort (yatnata-s) indeed (h&#237 ||

[bhaktajan]

Is Brahman absolute?

Is Brahman seperate from the existance of the 'Void'?

Is Brahman the 'Void'?

Practically speaking --shall we not study the connection between 'everything and its connection with Non-everything (Brahman).

Is Brahman 'everything and nothing' simultaneously?

Why is Brahman more valuable than 'everything'?