Mind and the Self

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

 

Like a fool entering where angels fear to tread, I am offering the

references, which may be helpful.

 

In the Samata Books 7th ed.1977, tr.by Allady Mahadeva Shastry, Gita II:21

[and not 20] is the correct verse.

 

The answer, mind, is qualified in the next sentence: "refined by Sama and

Dama [i.e. subjugation of the body, mind and senses], and equipped with the

teachings of the Scripture and the teacher, constitutes the sense by which

the Self may be seen."

 

The Brih. Up. reference is to IV:iv:19, where the same qualificatins are

re-iterated.

 

Here is one quote form Ramana:

 

"The body is the Cross;the ego is Jesus the 'son of man'; when he is

crucified, he is resurrected as the 'Sonof God', which is the glorious real

Self. One should lose the ego in order to live."Egolife is not truly life,

but death.

 

Maha Yoga, by 'Who',

p.190; 1973, 7th ed.

 

>Dennis Waite <dwaite

>advaitin

>"'advaitin '" <advaitin >

> Mind and the Self

>Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:32:54 -0000

 

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'

>

>Dennis

>

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

If the sloka *were* translated accurately, having Shankara say that only

through the mind can the Self be known, I can't see what he'd mean. I

agree with Francis Lucille's interpretation -- the mind, which the Self

sees, cannot possibly look "back" or "in" and see the Self.

 

Here's another thing. I don't have citations at hand, but Shankara has

this tripartite set of statements regarding the Self and the world:

 

The Self is real.

The world is unreal.

The world is the Self.

 

Some teachers speak in a way that says that all we see, hear, taste, IS the

Self, because there is nothing else. But then there's no reason to give

primacy to the mind as the sloka here does.

 

Good hermeneutic question!

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 05:32 PM 2/11/00 -0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>Dennis Waite <dwaite

>

>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?

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis:

 

You raise some important issues about the mind and the Self and how these

terms are used and I will forward this to as well. The answer

to questions you ask is simple but experiential Dennis. The intellectual

discussions are indeed in vain without enquiry and Realization. Such

discussions may lead to confusion and not clarity unless one is encouraged

to directly become aware and recognize the truth in one's own Heart. There

are so many different ways of expressing the same thing which appear to be

contrary before the dawn of understanding. Therefore, one should firmly

grasp the truth of awareness and know it to be one's very being.

>From one perspective, the mind truly does not exist independent of the Self.

It is Light of Self that animates the mind. Therefore Self-Realization

implies the absence of the mind and what remains is Only Self Seeing It Self

by It Self through It Self. Self-Realized sages know the Nature of the Self

without the intermediary of the mind. So when we speak of the mind existing

as an independent and permanent entity, the Sages rightly point out that

that there is indeed no such thing from their direct experience. Only a

Self-Realized sage can fully grasp this as it is direct knowledge.

 

However, another way to look at this is that Self not only animates the mind

but is indeed the source of the mind. Those who have experienced Nirvikalpa

Samadhi can understand this clearly. Sri Ramana has stated beautifully that

the "mind is a wondrous power arising out of the Self." A mind fully turned

upon itself indeed is recognized as the Self in the Heart as the Heart as

Pure Being." This means that the power that is the mind, when it turns back

into itself without the hindrance of thoughts and concepts, the Self is

Realized. So from this perspective one can say that the Self can be seen by

the Mind Alone.

 

In the first perspective mind is being viewed as a collection of thoughts,

feeling, concepts, etc. There, it is proper to say that Self can be seen by

the Self Alone. That is indeed the Truth. In the second perspective, the

mind is being viewed as the power of the Self that arises from the Self and

disappears back into it. In this perspective one can say the Mind Sees the

Self as It Self. This is the Truth. These two Truth are One Truth.

 

Harsha

 

 

 

Dennis Waite [dwaite]

Friday, February 11, 2000 12:33 PM

'advaitin '

Mind and the Self

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

 

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

 

 

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

 

Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent

Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards

Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the

credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at

<a href=" http://clickme./ad/NextcardCreative1 ">Click Here</a>

 

------

 

Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email

Address: advaitins

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis!

 

Let me share some of my views. I have heard that

understanding wat mind is the toughest problem.

 

people say that mind is like the waves in ocean. When there is calmness

there are no waves.

 

no waves no mind.

 

we turn the mind from outward to inward. Then a stage comes when mind

dissolves it self n then the self is realised.

 

It says mind is not something permanent. Something which is not permanent

doesn't exist. Self being permanent exists everywhere in different forms

relative to the perception of mind and body.

 

 

Self can't be seen.

 

> '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.'

>

[Guest guest]

Greetings Dennis,

 

Please make it a practice to post

difficult questions here!

 

> >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."

 

For what it's worth, I would have to

disagree with this. The statement

that 'Only the Self sees the Self' is

true in the trivial sense that

there is no agent or seer other than the

Self but the mind (buddhi) does see

the self in the sense that it is the

*means* by which the Self sees itSelf

(at least this is my understanding of

the Gita). What other means could

there be?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

To assist the Intellect in grasping the subtlety of Intuition, the

Upanishads have repeatedly resorted to metaphors; the two of the most

frequently quoted ones are the chariot from Katha Upan., and the two birds

from the Mundaka and Shvetashvatara. Combined with

'shravaNa-manana-nididhyaasana'[listen-think-meditate] has been the tested

and proven path.

 

In the parables of Sri Ramakrishna, there is one about the disciple

asking the teacher when God will be revealed to him. The teacher took him to

a pond and dunked him and held his head under water, till the student

struggled and loosened himself off. The teacher asked how he felt; to which

he said I was gasping for air. The teacher said when you feel like that for

God, He will show Himself!

 

[ This may even short-circuit faith!!?]

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

>Ram Chandran <chandran

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Mind and the Self

>Sat, 12 Feb 2000 10:22:02 -0500

>

>The intellectual exercise of understanding the ‘SELF' will take us no where

>and they are likely fall into pitfalls. Consequently, we have to look

>beyond

>our intellect and approach it through ‘faith.'

>we have to seek the teaching of the scriptures such as Gita and follow them

>strictly with great faith to control the mind and senses. Whether the

>scriptures are correct can only be verifiable by a the purified mind. We

>should divert our focus to mind purification and Gita can help us to

>proceed

>to that direction.

>

>Regards,

>

>Ram Chandran

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

The question on the distinction between the mind

and the Self is a most profound one. I shall make

bold to attempt an elaborate answer, subject to

correction by experts. But the attempt itself is

probably only an intellectual exercise and since

the Self is declared to be beyond the intellect

(buddheh paratastu saH), the entire attempt may

turn out to be incomplete, though, hopefully,

not futile!

Let me begin from rock bottom fundamentals. The

technical word in Vedanta for what we call 'mind'

in ordinary parlance, is 'Internal Organ'

(antah-karaNaM). It has four facets. The first

one is 'mind' (manaH) which receives all

impulses, either external or internal with

respect to the body. Desire and Vacillation are

natural to this mind. But the one which

discriminates between contrary desires and sorts

out the confusion created by vacillation, is the

'intellect' (buddhi), the second facet of the

Internal Organ. The intellect analyses past

experience or past knowledge, memories of which

are stored in 'the mind-stuff' (cittam), the

third facet of the Internal Organ. This cittam

is therefore the store-house of all memories. The

fourth is the ego-sense (aham-kAraM), which

claims agency for the desire, for the

vacillation, for the discrimination, and for the

decision and certainly for the action, if any,

which follows. All these four are inanimate

matter. But under the benign presence of the

Self, and because of the self-illuminating

brilliance of the Self, the internal organ (which

we shall hereafter refer to as the Mind, with a

capital initial letter) announces itself as the

Self and refers to itself as 'I'. It stands

between the body and the senses on the one hand

and the Self on the other. It is the leader of

the sense-organs and pervades the entire body. It

is however, independent of the body. It is

actually called the subtle body. Like the gross

body it is also material in nature and so does

not possess consciousness of its own. The gross

body derives its consciousness from the Mind and

the Mind derives its consciousness from the Self.

This derived consciousness is in three levels:

subconscious (guided by instinct), conscious

(guided by reason) and super-conscious (guided by

intuition). The I-consciousness or the ego-sense

is subtle and unmanifest at the subconscious

level; is explicit at the conscious level; and

almost non-existent at the super-conscious level.

The centres of consciousness are themselves

rather subtle, are six in number, and their

locations are identified by yogic literature as

six cakras along the spinal column. These centres

are windows through which the Mind perceives the

universe. When the Mind dwells in the three lower

centres, it broods only on the three s's, namely,

stomach, sex and the senses. When it rises to the

fourth (anAhata-cakra), it feels a spiritual

longing and makes effort at Spirituality. It is

then that the Mind begins to be in coordination

with the natural urge of the individual

consciousness for a union with Universal

Consciousness. But the ego blocks this direction

of flow of the Mind and makes it egocentric.

When the Mind rises to the fourth cakra, and by

self-discipline rises further, struggling against

the ego, it, with the help of the super-conscious

level of the Mind, ultimately goes beyond the

sixth cakra and merges in the Universal

Consciousness. This process is easier said than

done. Here it is that we have to distinguish

between two Minds, one the Lower Mind and the

other the Higher Mind. The Lower Mind is the Mind

with all its impurities that have been

accumulated through various lives. It is this

Lower Mind that has to be stilled in order to

rise beyond the lower three cakras. The stilling

has again to be done by the Mind itself, now by

the Higher Mind, the purer part of the Mind which

is full of satva. (cf. uddhared-AtmanA AtmAnaM -

One has to elevate oneself by oneself). So when

the scriptures say that mano-nASa (Destruction of

the Mind) has to occur in order that

Enlightenment may dawn on us, they mean the

extinction of the desire-filled Lower Mind by

the satva-filled Higher Mind. Mano-nASa means

the destruction of the present form of the Mind,

with all its emotions, passions and desires. This

(Lower) Mind has to be 'destroyed' in order that

the (Higher) Mind may rise spiritually and become

one with the Absolute. So in one sense the

Absolute is beyond one's Mind, and in another

sense, it is the Mind that has to become aware of

the Absolute.

Now, I think, the following exchange ( extracted

from Sankara's Gita-bhashya: II - 21 and adapted

for modern dialogue style) between Sankara and

the imagined opposition makes sense:

………

Sankara : Just as one obtains the knowledge about

dharma and adharma from the scriptures, what

prevents one from saying that, from the same

scriptures, one can obtain the knowledge that the

Self is changeless, actionless, non-dual, etc.?

Opposition: Because the Self is said to be

incomprehensible by the senses.

Sankara: No. The Self is to be comprehended only

by the Mind, says, Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad.

(manasaiva anudrashTavyaM - Br.U. 4-4-19). By the

teaching of the scriptures, and by the control of

the Mind and the senses and similar disciplines,

the Mind becomes purified and becomes an

instrument for the visualisation of the Self.

(SastrAcArya-upadeSa-Sama-damAdi-saMskRtaM manaH

Atma-darSane karaNaM) .

 

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

Profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The URL of my website has been simplified as

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access both my books from there.

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Dennis:

 

 

The question that you have raised regarding the distinction between mind and

Self is quite complex. Shankara's statement that "we can see the Self through

the mind" is conditional. If and when the mind becomes PURE, it can comprehend

the SELF. The fact that we don't agree with Shankara's statement only

confirms that our mind is not pure!

 

There is an interesting comparison between "Pure Mind" and "Pure Water." Pure

water is a scientific fact and we can comprehend it by its qualities such as

colorless, odorless and tasteless. Pure Mind is a spiritual reality and the

impure human mind can only understand on relative ground. All such relative

comparisons are speculative using the notions created by the impure mind and

consequently are subject to limitations.

 

Also, purity can be attained through removal of impurities. In the case of

water, scientifically, it can be accomplished - boiling the water and

condensing, filtering, etc. However, to accomplish the Purity of Mind, we

have to remove (neti-neti process) all the impurities perceived by the impure

mind! These impurities are speculative notions perceived by the impure mind

and there is no guarantee that we can attain the ‘pure mind.'

 

The intellectual exercise of understanding the ‘SELF' will take us no where

and they are likely fall into pitfalls. Consequently, we have to look beyond

our intellect and approach it through ‘faith.'

we have to seek the teaching of the scriptures such as Gita and follow them

strictly with great faith to control the mind and senses. Whether the

scriptures are correct can only be verifiable by a the purified mind. We

should divert our focus to mind purification and Gita can help us to proceed

to that direction.

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran wrote:

> Ram Chandran <chandran

>

> Greetings Dennis:

>

> The fact that we don't agree with Shankara's statement only

> confirms that our mind is not pure!

>

 

Well that is your statement Sri Ramji and not Sri Shankra's! And it is totally

hilarious! :--). If purity of mind could be reduced to agreement or disagree

with certain points of view, it would be quite easy to achieve. Perhaps giving

up of all

points of view might become worthy of consideration at a certain point :--).

 

Love to all (and thanks for the smile Ramji! My apologies as I do not wish to

offend anyone. My sense of humor overcomes me and I don't know how to stop it! I

am very weak that way! We bow to the genius of Sri Ramji!)

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

For me:

 

"mana" in sanskrit means mind. Mind is the expression of Maya. Mind along

with ego produces the Jeevabhava (individualism). Mind devoid of Ego

produces the dEvabhava (universalism).

 

If you reverse the word "mana" it becomes "nama", which means "not belong to

me". This is complete surrenderance. What ever we perceive in this world,

we perceive them *only* through the five sense organs! Mind is said to be

the one which attaches the reality to the objects. Reverse the mind, you go

beyond what can't be seen, you hear what can't be heard, you can touch what

can not be touched. You will become the Deva who is nothing but the *self*.

 

You are that, but mistaken to be something else. You are all-pervading self

(mind less state), but mistaken to be a limited individual (mindful state).

 

Regards,

Madhava

 

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

Hi!

Can we say that the mind with ego needs objective and rational interpretations?

And the mind without ego just "is" and therefore all rational interpretations

are unnecessary distractions?

The former needs two states so that it can device a mechanism to go from the

"lower" to "higher" state and the uphill battle to do that providing the sense

of courage and achievement to the rational mind.

The latter needs just "surrender" and "acceptance" without any two states and

therefore lives in the present without judgment.

 

Standing in front of a dusty mirror one can see one's image blurred and

distorted. To make the image clear one has to just clean the mirror. When the

egotistic mind is cleaned one sees the true Self.

 

Another way to look at this is this. One does not see one's image in a mirror if

there is complete darkness. If the person is illumined with bright light he/she

sees the clear reflection in the mirror. This illumination of the normal self

occurs

through faith (acceptance and surrender) and Grace (Ishwara Kripa).

 

How does it all relate to Immanuel Kant and Chakras is an exercise to the active

mind!

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Ram Chandran <chandran

>

> Greetings Harshaji:

>

> [...]

> I believe that the question, What is pure mind? can only be comprehended by

> the person who has the pure mind. It is same as saying that the Brahman is the

> only knower of the Brahman. Pure Mind, Self, and Brahman are experiences that

> all that perceive about them are incomplete.

> [...]

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" wrote:

>

> > .......

> > If purity of mind could be reduced to agreement or disagree with certain

points of view,

> > it would be quite easy to achieve. Perhaps giving up of all

> > points of view might become worthy of consideration at a certain point :--).

> > ....

> > Harsha

>

 

A small point which may or may not have a place in this discussion.

 

Swami Venkateshananda, in his lectures on Yoga VashiShTa, says very

clearly that pure mind is a mis-nomer. Mind arises only when there

is impurity. Thus, pure mind is a contradiction in terms.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Murthygaru:

 

Namaskar,

 

I agree with you that 'pure mind' is mis-nomer in some frame-work. Mind is

considered as the collection of thoughts. When the thoughts are pure, the

collection of thoughts will be pure. The thoughts of Andal and Meera were pure

- only on Vishnu (Brahman) and they were able to realize the Brahman through

their thoughts. This is another framework!

 

The point is that the issue of 'mind' is quite complex - as complex as the

realization of Brahman. We have two unknowns - 'mind' and SELF.

Mathematically, it can't be resolved until we can comprehend either or both.

This is the paradox!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> A small point which may or may not have a place in this discussion.

>

> Swami Venkateshananda, in his lectures on Yoga VashiShTa, says very

> clearly that pure mind is a mis-nomer. Mind arises only when there

> is impurity. Thus, pure mind is a contradiction in terms.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy