Mind and the Self

[Guest guest]

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