Amongst the most engaging and instructive threads in this forum has been "The Origins of Stanzas of Dzyan - A Project". During the discussion, David Reigle mentions the book "Pranava Vada", where the definition of the word "daviprakriti"matched that of the one given by T Subba Row. There is a very interesting story behind the book and the entire book can be read at: http://www.makara.us/05ref/01books/pranavavada/pv_toc.htm
Apart from the origin of "daviprakriti", this book describes the sacred Hindu word, "OM or AUM" in a very different way than is commonly given in other Hindu texts. It says that A represents I or self or I am this, U represents Not Self or what is not I, and M represents the relation of negation that exists between them. “The AUM thus, is equivalent to the Idea or Consciousness I-This-Not-Am.” The letters A, U and M are to be taken as pronounced in Sanskrit and not English.
My request to all the scholars in this forum is comment on this proposition in a way that a common person can understand. Particularly, the last letter M- should it be N if it is to represent Negation.
Additionally, I would request all the scholars here to post the other different meanings of the word AUM that they have come across, in order to arrive at a consensus of the true meaning of the word.
Thank You all.
The Mandukya Upanishad & the Karika by Gaudapada are important sources for the significance of AUM.
It would be helpful if you quoted the passage(s) in the Pranava Vada that you are referring to, it is such a large work.
The explanation is taken from the chapter IV of the preface of the book appearing as the page 41 of the pdf of the Pranava Vada as downloaded from the above website. It is uploaded here.
Following from the explanation of Chapter 1 Agama Prakaranaa of KARIKA by GAUDAPADA from the website:
Following from Swami Krishnananda's Commenatry on Mandukya from the website:
aum ity etad akṣaram idam sarvam, tasyopavyākhyānam
bhūtam bhavad bhaviṣyad iti sarvam auṁkāra eva
yac cānyat trikālātītaṁ tad apy auṁkāra eva.
1. OM! - This Imperishable Word is the whole of this visible universe. Its explanation is as follows: What has become, what is becoming, what will become, - verily, all of this is OM. And what is beyond these three states of the world of time, - that too, verily, is OM.
They do indeed appear very different from what is proposed in Pranava Vada.
You write, "A represents I or self or I am this, U represents Not Self or what is not I, and M represents the relation of negation that exists between them."
Section 1 opens with," A as Self (capital S). --U as Not-Self. --M as the relation between them."
The capital S of Self may hold a clue.
W. Q. Judge states in Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali (1:28), " Ity denotes, as distinct yet union, Braham, Vishnu, and S'iva, or Creation, Preservation, and Distruction. As a whole, it implies 'the Universe'... With regard to cycles affecting any planetary system ( and I would say the _Manvantara _, J.B.), it implies the Spirit, represented by the AU as a basis ( I see that the word 'basis' shoud be highlighted, J.B) of manifested worlds; the body or manifested matter, represented by U, though which the spirit ( not capital, J.B.) works; and represented by M, 'the stoppage or return of sound to its source' the Pralaya or Dissolution of the worlds."
The last page of Book 1 -Part 1 (pg 268) , before the Summing Up, in Madam Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine give the whole story of the One Life, "The same for the Universe, which manifested periodically, for purposes of the collective lifes, the outbreathing of the One Life; in order that the Ever-Becoming, every cosmic atom in this infinite Universe, passing from the formless and intangible, through the mixed natures of the semi-terrestrail, down to matter in full generation, and back again, reascending at each new period higher and nearer the final goal; that each atom, we say, may reach through individual merits and efforts that plane where it re-becomes the one unconditioned ALL."
I can read this as the One, it's manifestation, and the Pralaya. The A as Self, the U as not-Self, and the M as the return to the Self.
Then Madam show's us (at the end of this paragraph) the sacrifice, that leads to the second advent, not in the "dead letter sense".
Any other scholars opinions,
Thanks James. A really interesting and insighful explanation.
Pranava Vada however, appears different from the two possibilities you have mentioned. The principle of creation, preservation and destruction represented by the concepts of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh are easily understood. But, AUM should reflect the principle or the law or the process which results in manifestation of that trinity, or in other words precede that trinity.
The A as Self, the U as not-Self, and the M as the return to the Self.
Pranava Vada describes M as relation of negation between the two. This is where the difficulty arises. Negation should mean that if one is true the other should be false. Therefore, Self and Not-Self should not exist together. But they do. That is the relation, I should think. So, M may represent some movement between the static existences of Self and Not-Self. And, perhaps as you have concluded that movement is of Self trying to return to (or merge into) Not-Self and vice versa. This movement itself may be the force called "Daiviprakriti" or "Fohat".
Above explanation does appear different from the standard one based on Mandukya Upanishad.
The section "Ultimates in their Primal Nature" (page 9 ff) needs to be studied. It makes clear that the relation of negation is only apparent during samsara and from one point of view. Brahman or the Absolute is the Fourth.
I agree with you Nicholas. Further on the book says, the fourth character in the word is Sanskrit "I" representing Daiviprakriti. The book contains many apparent contradictions but explanations are provided, sometimes very different from the standard Hindu beliefs, but very close to theosophical viewpoints. Particularly The Secret Doctrine.
That is why a scholarly study and explanations are requested.
I keep thinking with this - sorry of the tought -of that Louis Powels - the creator with Jaques Bergier - the return of the sorcerers - he mentions some experiment in mid XX century of quantum physics.
When the foton passes AT THE SAME TIME between two contiguous microscopic holes, trough the SAME HOLES AT SAME TIME; so, what is that?
the negation of the self as synonim to the return of the self...
someone wroted in the 60's some phrase on the wall that said "This is NOT THERE"
you have to meditate on this to get it.
cheers...i know that is not on the subject of linguistics, but i believe it could help...
It is not the Negation of the Self but Negation of the Relation between Self and Not-Self, together with the role of silent "I (Sanskrit)" - Daiviprakriti, in this nagation of relation which is a comlpex concept to fathom. Petrhaps a lot more backgorund information is required before the concept becomes clear. I am working on that.
While I have missed the result of Photon particles through two contiguous microscopic holes, the closest I can think of is the "Embedded Platonic Information System at Planckian Scale" by Roger Penrose - The Noted Physicist, described in his book, "The Emperor's New Mind". I am trying to figure out if that is Daiviprakriti.
Pranava Vada also has some sections about matter and energy which should interest the current Qunatum Physicists greatly as it was written before Einstein gave theory of relativity.
Despite several attempts in the past, I have not been able to meditate as the mind wanders.
Thanks David. A most enlightening explanation. True without the complete text, Pranava Vada in its present form raises more questions than it answers. Yet, even a cursory glance through the book generates the feeling that there may be some very profound truths in it. And, a complete explanation may leave a very deep impression on the "World Process", (a word occuring numerous times in the book).
How much deciphering is required can be gauged from the two pages I am uploading explaining "Daiviprakriti", "Mulaprakriti", "Paraprakriti" and "Aparaprakriti". While the explanation appears logical, it is difficult then to link T Subba Row's view of "Daiviprakriti" being "Fohat" of the stanzas. Or, should we try to reinterpret stanzas within the I-This-Not-Am framework of Pranava Vada.
All very confusing really. And, the complete text is a must.
"But just as the opposite poles of subject and object, spirit and matter, are but aspects of the One Unity in which they are synthesized, so, in the manifested Universe, there is “that” which links spirit to matter, subject to object. This something, at present unknown to Western speculation, is called by the occultists Fohat. . . . Fohat is thus the dynamic energy of Cosmic Ideation." (SD 1.16)
Thanks David. The clarity with which you write is exceptional. Perhaps our ancient tecahers should have written like this.
The reasons from ny confusion can be gauged from the three passages I quote below from the uploaded pages.
1. In one view, Mulaprakriti may be said to dwell within Daivi-prakriti and Pratyagatma within Mulaprakriti. It is the energy of the necessity of both. That by means of which illumination, irradiation, play takes place divyate anaya, that is Daivi…..
2. ….As the Yoga Sutra says: There is an appearance of conjunction between subject and object as between light and darkness. The necessity of manifestation of opposition between them on the other hand is Maya. That which lights up and throws into relief both I and This, and is inside of and immanent in both is Daivi-prakriti. In a transcendent and universal aspect it is Maya. In a description of the World-Process, as the necessity of the contradiction of the unity of I and This, it is Daivi-prakriti.
3. … in a limited samsara it is Mula-prakriti, in a brahmanda, Apara-prakriti. So, the universal and transcendent aspect is Maya; that shown in a samsara, Daivi-prakriti, that in a brahmanda Para-prakriti.
Passage 1 defines Mulaprakriti to dwell within Daivi-prakriti and (Mulaprakriti) is the cause of illumination, irradiation, play etc. Should Mulaprakriti then be FOHAT? Illumination, irradiation, play etc. perhaps refer to Electro-magnetic energy. However, T Subba Row did not seem to think so.
Passage 2 take the view as Maya (Veil over Parbrahman - Mulaprakriti as per T Subba Row) being the transcendent aspect of Daivi-prakriti and in its immanent aspect it is Daivi-prakriti.
Passage 3 is even more curious as Para-prakriti and Apara-prakriti are introduced here as the universal aspects of Daivi-prakriti and Mulaprakriti. If Daivi-prakriti is limited only to samsara (our solar system) then how T Subba Row could equate it to FOHAT which has universal application.
From another point of view, as I am now being to led to think that Pranav Vada deals with Physics. The clue being the name of this book (Pranava Vada - The Sacred Science of AUM) and other books by Bhagwan Das, all dealing with science. Mr. Bal Krishna Sharma also confirmed this. Physics tells us about four universal forces, namely Gravity, Electromagnetic Energy, Weak Nuclear Force and Strong Nuclear Force. If FOHAT was sent to harden the atoms, then it should correspond to Strong Nuclear Force which keeps the Electrons and Protons in orbit around the nucleus Neutrons. Mulaprakriti may be the Electromagnetic force (illumination, irradiation, play etc.). Daivi-prakriti could be the weak nuclear force which is due to the Virodha of nucleus and the strong nuclear force. How all of this can be confirmed or denied?
Indeed a lifetime of study is required just to understand this. Thank you David for pointing the way.