Definitely Visvakarman is defined as the creator from the outside, and the controller of the worldly outcomes. (R.V.10.82)
Again Hiranyagarbha creates and controls by determined ordinances, the earth, heavens, etc. (R.V. 1. 121)
Sure that Prajapati is the Lord controlling the creatures it has produced.
But what about this Upaniṣadic Atman = Brahman?
Note that in the Ṛg Veda, soul is called manas, atman and asu.
Atman became (the ubiquitous & pervasive) “vital breath” in later Indian philosophy. And (the ubiquitous & pervasive) Manas was, in satta, viewed as the seat of thought and emotion in the brain/heart locus.
How this atman as vital breath, did become the ultimate essence or reality in man and the cosmos, would have remained a mystery, if there had not been some passages in the Vedic litterature to clarify the matter.
First, in the Ṛg Veda, there is this excerpt where the Ṛsi (sage), discriminating deeper and deeper, moves from the vital breath (asu) to the blood, and thus to atman, as the inner self of the cosmos.
Then in TaittĀr. 1.23, Prajapati after having produced his self (as the cosmos) with his self, moved into it. And in TBr., this atman is defined as being ubiquitous (pervasive).
Thus we have a pre-Upaniṣadic Vedic literature with an atman defined first as the “vital breath” in man, then as the “self of the world”, and then as the “self in man”.
But what is this inner reality of man, of the Upaniṣads?
There is quite an equivocalness attached to its nature; as it is defined in a diversity of senses.
- essence of food (physical part/body) - annamaya atman.
- vital breath - pranamaya atman - behind the scabbard of the body.
- will - manomaya atman - behind the vital breath. [control?]
- consciousness - vijñanamaya atman - within the will.
- self as pure bliss - anandamaya atman - behind the consciousness. (TUp.)
Therefore, was “control” the primary concern of Buddha; or was it “bliss”, when it comes to “self”? - like in:
I dwell contemplating impermanence in all formations, perceiving suffering in what is impermanent, perceiving nonself in what is suffering, perceiving abandonment, perceiving fading away, perceiving cessation.
SN 55.3
or
If, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction.
SN 22.59
We have already seen above that “control” is the prerogative of mano, and is more related to the “I” (as will) than the “self” (as bliss).
Again, mano is, for the first time in Indian philosophy, located solely in satta in Buddhism. (maybe a relevant remark here - or maybe another insane statement from a troll ?).
To resume: "It is not self, because it is dukkha - and dukkha is not “bliss”.
And where dukkha comes from? -Impermanence.
Simple!
I really can’t understand why some people have to go over such lengthy, abysmal and pseudo-intellectual logorrhean knowledges, to dilute such a simple understanding - (or maybe I do )