105
It is the seventh principle of the Theosophists,*[1] Yoga-Acharyas, Tantrikas and Shivas, called in Brahmavidya or Mahavidya.†[2] The Mahomedan Theosophists believe and teach of the existence of this star before Creation, or before Táus (peacock) was prodnced. Temples dedicated to this allegorical Star are yet to be found among several nations of Asia; and some great Theologians speak of this star as "Spirit." We hermits—if any valae be attached to our words—regard it as kutastha and liable to be merged into the eighth principle or Tatpada‡[3] as such. We do not understand, how it can
- ↑ * Strictly speaking Pranaca is not Jivatma or the 7th principle in man. It represents the condition or the aspect of the 7th principle in the highest state of Nirvana—T. Subba Row.
- ↑ † The 7th principle itself can never be called by either of tbose names, though it may be the subject of Brahmavidya or Mahavidya.—T. S. R.
- ↑ ‡ The statement is not quite in accordance with the doctrines of Adwaita philosophy. If the star in question is taken to indicate the 7th principle in man as above stated,—it is not Kutastha from the standpoint of a real Adwaitee. As is well-known to learned Adwaitee a clear line of distinction is drawn between Kutastha and Uttamapurusha (otherwise called Paramatma) in a well-known Sloka of Bhagavat-Gita:—
द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एवच ॥
क्षरः सर्वाणि भूतानि कूटस्थोऽक्षरउच्यते ॥अध्या॰ १५ श्लो॰ १६.Now if Kutastha means the 7th principle in man, the distinction thus drawn will really be a distinction between Paramatma and Jeevatma. This distinction or separation is denied by real Adwaitees. Hence, as is clearly pointed out by Sankaracharia in his able Commentary on the above-mentioned Sloka, as well as in the other portions of his "Bhashyam," Kutastha is not the 7th principle in man. It is merely called Vignanatma by Sankarachariar and corresponds with the 7th spiritual Ego or the 6th principle of the Theosophists.
It is absurd to say that the "Tatpada" is the 8th principle. Now, this Tatpada is either identical with the 7th principle or it is not. If it is really identical with the Tawampada of the Mahavakya it is impossible to understand why it should be described as the 8th principle. If it is not, the views of the learned Hermit are opposed to the fundamental doctrine of the Adwaita philosophy and the grand truth indicated by the Samaveda Mahavakyam alluded to. I invite the great Paramahamsa Swami of Almora to explain what he really means.
T. SUBBA ROW.
