Guest guest Posted February 11, 2000 Report Share Posted February 11, 2000 Whilst doing some background research for a chapter about 'thinking' (see my biography post), I encountered some statements from Sankara in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita (II 20). The section is called "Knowledge of the Immutable Self is possible" There is an 'Objection', then an 'Answer' followed by an 'Opponent' and another 'Answer'. In is this second interchange, the 'Opponent' says "Because the Self is inaccessible to any of the senses". Sha~Nkara's reply begins: - "Not so. For, the Scripture says 'It can be seen by the mind alone.'" etc. This is supposed to be a translation of the shloka from the BrU. but unfortuantely, there didn't seem to be any further clarification. Now my belief regarding the mind is that (ignoring the fact that it, along with every 'thing' else in the universe, is ultimately an illusion) it is so much grosser than the Self that it could never 'see' it in any real sense. This is all in accord with Kant's effectively proving that the noumenal is forever beyond our perception. I put this to Francis Lucille and his response was that "If Sankara says that, which I doubt, (there might be a problem with the translation of the word mind), he is wrong. The Self can be seen by the Self alone. The mind has no access to that which sees the mind. Only the Self sees the Self." And I am bound to agree. This being the case, how do we explain Sankara's statements? Is it the case that his words have been mis-translated? (This is from the Samata Books version, translated by Alladi Mahadeva Sastry. It would seem surprising if it were wrong.) Any Sanskrit scholars out there with the original Sanskrit? Also, what does the BrU shloka mean? (I will endeavour to look up Sankara's commentary on this in London tomorrow.) I put the question to the Advaita List. Sankaran Jayanarayanan gave a rough translation of the BrU shloka as follows: - "With my meagre knowledge of Sanskrit, this is what I'm able to make of the quote from the Br. up.: manasA eva anudrashhTavyam.h na iha naanaasti kiMchana. mR^ityoH sa mR^ityuM aapnoti ya iha naanaa eva pashyati . "There truly isn't any multiplicity here observed by the mind. Whosoever sees multiplicity here achieves death after death." Here is a rough word by word meaning: manasA : by the mind eva : only, truly, verily anudrashhTavyam.h : observation na: no iha: here naanaa : several, multiplicity kiMchana : any, even a little mR^ityu : death aapnoti : achieve ya : who" Saying that the mind does not see any multiplicity is certainly similar to saying that it sees the Self but not quite (is it?). What does the previous shloka say? i.e. what is the here (iha) that is being referred to? The previous shloka reads: - prANasya prANam.h uta cakshhushhash.h uta shrotrasya shrotram.h manaso ye mano viduH, te nicikyur.h brahma purANam.h agryam.h Sankaran Jayanarayanan also noted that : - 'I was puzzled by something similar in Ramana's teachings. Ramana has said several times that the mind does not exist, as does Shankara in his upadeshasAhasrii. But in one specific place in "Talks," Ramana says, "The mind is the Self." And later into the conversation with the disciple, he says, "It is the mind turned in on Itself.' I think someone else pointed out (or perhaps I located it in my background reading - I can't remember) that Ramana also said "The mind turned outward is the ego; turned inward it is the Self." Clearly this way of looking at things might help explain the statements. What does the List think? Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.