|
The ‘Temple’ as reference
frame in a vedāntic-procedural register Ṛta as Nirguṇa Brahman, Ātman
as Brahman-Iteration, and Worship as Local Function-Completion By the druid Finn Abstract This
essay reconstructs the concept of temple within a Vedāntic-procedural
framework grounded in the Vedic notion of Ṛta and the Upaniṣadic declaration “sarvaṃ
khalv idaṃ brahma” (“this
whole world is Brahman”). Ṛta is reframed as Nirguṇa
Brahman: the invariant, attribute-less generative order of reality. Ātman is understood as Brahman instantiated locally;
hence ātman = Brahman, not as mystical
identity, but as procedural identity: each bounded emergence, as
identifiable reality, is a full local run of the same invariant order. Saguṇa Brahman is treated as the aggregate field of
n such instantiations. A temple is defined functionally as a bounded
reference frame in which alignment with this order is enacted. Worship is
reframed as local function-completion within such a frame; the terminal goal,
an identifiable real-time actuality, is contingent, while closure itself is
the operative effect. The essay concludes that n ātman
function as n self-reference nodes of Brahman, and worship is the procedural
alignment by which an iteration completes and releases its local task. 1. Ṛta Renamed
as Nirguṇa Brahman: Invariant Generative
Order (as Turing Machine style set of rules/constraints) In the
Vedic stratum, Ṛta names the invariant order by which phenomena arise,
persist, and dissolve. Ṛta is not a deity and not a moral code in its original
register; it is the rule-structure of generation and constraint. In Upaniṣadic abstraction, this invariant order is
named Brahman. When spoken of as Nirguṇa
Brahman, the term indicates not a hidden substance but the attribute-less
generative structure that makes any attribute-bearing manifestation
possible. Thus: Nirguṇa Brahman
= Ṛta redescribed as invariant
generative constraint. This
preserves transcendence without mystification: Nirguṇa
Brahman is not an object of experience but the condition of possibility
for experience, identity, and order. It is not an agent, not a subject, and
not a moral governor; it is the rule-set by which any order can appear at
all. 2. Ātman = Brahman:
Procedural Identity via Local Instantiation The Upaniṣadic declaration “sarvaṃ
khalv idaṃ brahma” (“this
whole world is Brahman”) grounds the identity claim: Ātman = Brahman. Here this
identity is understood procedurally, not mystically. The meaning is
not that a hidden metaphysical substance sits inside individuals, but that each
bounded emergence is a full local instantiation of the same invariant
generative order. There are not parts of Brahman; there are iterations
of Brahman under local constraints. Hence: ·
Ātman =
Brahman-as-locally-instantiated ·
Nirguṇa Brahman =
invariant generative order ·
Saguṇa Brahman = the
aggregate field of manifested instantiations (n ātman) This
yields the structural claim: n ātman are n self-reference nodes of Brahman. Brahman
has no global point of view. It appears only as operational order within
bounded instantiations. Each ātman is
therefore not a fragment of Brahman but a complete local run of
Brahman under specific constraints. 3. Temple as Reference Frame (Mandira as Procedural
Interface) A temple
(mandira) is here defined not as a dwelling place of a god, but as a bounded
reference frame deliberately constructed to localise and stabilise
alignment with Saguṇa Brahman. Functionally: A temple
is a cut-out space in which the invariant order (Nirguṇa
Brahman) is approached through a localised manifestation (Saguṇa
Brahman) by means of repeatable procedure. The
temple: ·
delimits space, ·
suspends ordinary instrumental causality, ·
installs a specialised interpretive and
behavioural protocol (ritual, mantra, iconography). The
deity-form is an interface, not the essence. The temple
is a procedural device for managing contact between invariant order
and local life. From
this, a generalisation follows: Each ātman
is itself a living temple. The
body-mind system is a bounded reference frame in which Brahman appears as
operational coherence. The architectural temple externalises what every
emergent already is structurally: a cut-out zone of alignment. 4. Worship (Upāsanā
/ Pūjā) as Local Function-Completion Within
this framework, worship is not flattery of a transcendent agent. It is
a procedural alignment protocol: Worship =
deliberate self-constraining alignment of a local instantiation (ātman) with the order it instantiates (Brahman),
culminating in functional completion of a complete identifiable reality. Ritual
effects are structural: ·
reduction of degrees of freedom, ·
repetition and rhythm, ·
stabilisation of attention, ·
compression of uncertainty into a finite sequence
of acts. The
decisive abstraction is: Worship
is function-completion; the terminal goal (as identifiable real-time reality) is
contingent. The
specific goal-object (deity-form, vow, promise of merit or liberation, i.e. any
actual goal or dream-to-be made true) is replaceable. What matters is that
behaviour is structured toward completion (hence certainty, hence truth).
Completion generates release (i.e. moksha, liberation): a measurable
reduction in internal tension and uncertainty. Thus: Any goal
that can coherently terminate/complete behaviour within a bounded frame will
function as worship. The “god”
is an efficient interface; closure is the operative effect. 5. Mokṣa as Procedural
Release In this
register, mokṣa is not
escape from Brahman (impossible, since all is Brahman), but: The
release/relief that follows successful local functional completion by an ātman. Mokṣa is
therefore not annihilation of individuality, nor metaphysical absorption, but
the after-effect of coherence: when a local instantiation resolves its
operative tensions, release follows as a functional state-change. This
explains why traditions treat mokṣa both as
momentary and as structurally repeatable: it is the reward signal of
successful completion. 6. Conclusion Reconstructed
in a Vedāntic-procedural register: ·
Ṛta, renamed Nirguṇa Brahman, is the invariant generative order. ·
“This whole world is Brahman” grounds ātman = Brahman as procedural identity. ·
Saguṇa Brahman
is the aggregate field of manifested instantiations. ·
Each ātman is a
local temple: a self-referential reference frame of Brahman. ·
Worship is procedural alignment culminating in
local function-completion. ·
The specific goal is contingent; closure is the
operative effect. Minimal compression Brahman
is the rule of arising. |