Bhagavān does not play a direct role in the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the cosmic world. Rather, for this purpose, Bhagavān manifests a specific form, called the first Puruṣa, or Paramātmā.
He is also known as Mahā-viṣṇu or Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and is the source and support of the totality of material energy, called prakṛti. It is from the pores of His body that unlimited cosmic worlds manifest. This first Puruṣa has two further expansions.
The first one is called Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, also called the second Puruṣa, and enters into each of the cosmic worlds. This second Puruṣa further expands as the third Puruṣa, or Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and enters into every living being as a companion of the individual self.
It is the second Puruṣa, who is the source of all the avatāras, called avatārī, in a particular cosmic world.
Learn more: The Source of All Sources: Śrī Kṛṣṇa as Svayaṁ Bhagavān – I
Bhagavān does not play a direct role in the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the cosmic world. Rather, for this purpose, Bhagavān manifests a specific form, called the first Puruṣa, or Paramātmā.
He is also known as Mahā-viṣṇu or Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and is the source and support of the totality of material energy, called prakṛti. It is from the pores of His body that unlimited cosmic worlds manifest. This first Puruṣa has two further expansions.
The first one is called Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, also called the second Puruṣa, and enters into each of the cosmic worlds. This second Puruṣa further expands as the third Puruṣa, or Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and enters into every living being as a companion of the individual self.
It is the second Puruṣa, who is the source of all the avatāras, called avatārī, in a particular cosmic world.
Learn more: The Source of All Sources: Śrī Kṛṣṇa as Svayaṁ Bhagavān – I
I have two questions, please.
1) Is Kundalini a valid part of shakta-tantra?
2) When sat-cit-ānanda is explained as “not inert and not truly troubled” it seems this accounts only for cit and ānanda. What is the meaning of sat? “not unreal”?
If this is the meaning, why are the words direct and not indirect. The English translations are indirect (maybe “negations” is the more correct word for it “NOT inert”, “NOT miserable”). The sanskrit words do not seem to be anācit-annirānand (or something, I am just guessing at actual Sanskrit).
Dear Vic DiCara ji,
1) Yes. Please see https://www.jiva.org/questions-on-gaudiya-vaishnavism/
2) The meaning of sat is that the atma is a real existent. cit means that it is conscious, which is expressed here as not inert. ananda means that there is an absence of misery in the jiva. Please see Paramatma Sandarbha for more details. Or please read: https://www.jiva.org/are-the-vedas-inherent-in-the-heart-2/
Radhe Radhe!
1. Yes.
2. Brahman is nirguna, qualityless. Therefore, no words with direct meaning (mukhyartha) can be used to describe it because a word cannot describe something qualityless. Therefore, negationn is used to describe Brahman. Any positive statement will entail quality or action.
I have a follow-up question, please!
Babaji writes, “Brahman is nirguna, qualityless. Therefore, no words with direct meaning (mukhyartha) can be used to describe it because a word cannot describe something qualityless. Therefore, negationn is used to describe Brahman. Any positive statement will entail quality or action.”
Sat-cit-ananda describes brahman, doesn’t it? These words are not negative. They are mukhyartha – aren’t they?
Sat-cit-ānanda is used not only in reference not to brahman, but also to ātmā and paramātmā – I think, right?
My confusion is: when the statement is clearly mukhyārtha (“ātmā is sat-cit-ānanda”) why is the explanation of the meaning NOT mukhyārtha? (“…it means ātmā is not unreal, not incognizant, and not miserable”)
Q: Sat-cit-ananda describes brahman, doesn’t it? These words are not negative. They are mukhyartha – aren’t they?
A: Truly speaking, according to Advaita Vedanta, here mukhyartha is not accepted. Rather, sat means that it is not asat, cit means that it is not acit, and ananda means it is not nrānanda.
Q: Sat-cit-ānanda is used not only in reference not to brahman, but also to ātmā and paramātmā – I think, right?
My confusion is: when the statement is clearly mukhyārtha (“ātmā is sat-cit-ānanda”) why is the explanation of the meaning NOT mukhyārtha? (“…it means ātmā is not unreal, not incognizant, and not miserable”)
A: Because sat would imply that Brahman has existence and this brings duality. The same is applicable to the other two words.