Guest guest Posted February 12, 2000 Report Share Posted February 12, 2000 Greetings Harshaji: First, I just want to clarify that it is not my intention to curtail discussions on the topic of Mind and the Self. I do not intend to imply that purity is implied by blanket agreement to everything everyone says. Discriminant intellect is an integral part of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. We should never hesitate to pointout inconsistencies and that is the very purpose of this spiritual forum. We can learn from each other and broaden our understanding from east, west, north and south. 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. Agreements and disagreements can both happen due to ignorance. With wisdom, agreements and disagreements disappear by total silence. The answer to the question whether the Mind can perceive the Self depends on the answer to the paradoxical question: Who comprehends the mind and Self? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Namaste, 'Paradoxes', 'misnomers', etc. happen on all levels of understanding OTHER than the Self. For example: Gita: 10:22: indriyaaNaM manashchaasmi .[of the senses I am the Mind] 9:19: amR^ita.n chaiva mR^ityushcha sadaschchaahamarjuna . [i am the immortality as well as death;existence as well non-existence.] 15:18: yasmaatksharamatiito.ahamaksharaadapi chottamaH . [because I transcend the perishable and am even higher than the imperishable..] These are not unlike the koans of Zen tradion. They serve the purpose of catapulting the perception/view to that ineffable beatitude. Regards, s. >Ram Chandran <chandran >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Mind and the Self >Sun, 13 Feb 2000 09:23:57 -0500 > >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 ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Dear Chuck, No disagreement at all!! I thouht(!) I was making the same point by capitalising the word OTHER. Anything divorced from the self is bound to be a contradiction. Regards, s. >Chuck Hillig <chillig >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Mind and the Self >Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:37:43 -0800 > >At 11:14 AM 02/13/2000 PST, you wrote: > >"Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh > > > >Namaste, > > > > 'Paradoxes', 'misnomers', etc. happen on all levels of >understanding > >OTHER than the Self. > > > >For example: > > > >Gita: 10:22: indriyaaNaM manashchaasmi .[of the senses I am the Mind] > > > > 9:19: amR^ita.n chaiva mR^ityushcha sadaschchaahamarjuna . > > > > [i am the immortality as well as death;existence as well > > > > non-existence.] > > > > 15:18: yasmaatksharamatiito.ahamaksharaadapi chottamaH . > > > > [because I transcend the perishable and am even higher > > > > than the imperishable..] > > > >These are not unlike the koans of Zen tradion. They serve the purpose of > >catapulting the perception/view to that ineffable beatitude. > > > >Regards, > > > >s. > > >Dear Sunder, > > But isn't it all still only the Self? Isn't the Self "big enough" >(for lack of a better phrase) to also include (and actually BE) all of the >paradoxes and misnomers, too? To paraphrase St. Paul, "Outside of the >Self, there is nothing." > > So maybe the idea is not to be free OF thought; maybe the idea is to >be free FROM thought. > > But, then again, isn't that just another thought, anyway? :-) > > With Blessings, > Chuck Hillig > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Yes. Sri Murthyji made a good point in that the use of the term "pure mind" is somewhat problematic. Perhaps it needs to be remembered that the use of the term "mind" is always contextual and it can have a range of meanings according to the function (of mind) under discussion. This is why we even see Sages appear to use the word "mind" in contradictory fashions. I believe this is what Sri Ramji is indicating in his message by pointing out that a number of frameworks can be used to conceptualize entrance into Reality. One way to understand the term "purity of mind" is from a yogic perspective. When Sattva guna predominates, the mind might be considered pure as it is easy to come to stillness or focus on God/dess as one conceives Him/Her. A still and a quiet mind is helpful in meditation and is a willing prey to the Divine Light, being itself a reflection of it. Upon absorption of the "pure mind", ..............Reality dominates in all its nakedness. By the way, I am a Punjabi Hindu and am not familiar much with Sanskrit or other Indian languages (outside of Punjabi and Hindi) and don't understand the term Murthygaru. Does the garu stand for Guru? Is our beloved Sri Murthyji a Guru and if so, is Murthygaru the proper way to address him? Thanks. Love to all Harsha Ram Chandran wrote: > Ram Chandran <chandran > > 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 > > --------------------------- 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 > credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at > <a href=" http://clickme./ad/NextcardCreative2 ">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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar) wrote: > "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar > > [...] > By the way, I am a Punjabi Hindu and am not familiar much with Sanskrit or other Indian languages (outside of Punjabi and Hindi) and don't understand the term Murthygaru. Does the garu stand for Guru? Is our beloved Sri Murthyji a Guru and if so, is > Murthygaru the proper way to address him? Thanks. > > Love to all > Harsha > > Ram Chandran wrote: > > > Ram Chandran <chandran > > > > Hari Om Murthygaru: > > > > Namaskar, > > > > regards, > > > > Ram Chandran > > namaste. No. garu does not stand for Guru. And I am not a guru either. I am originally from Andhra Pradesh, India and I am Telugu-speaking. In Telugu, the word 'garu' is used as a respectable address, having exactly the same meaning as 'ji' in Hindi. I am just one of the gang here, trying to understand what I am. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 namaste, The ineffable nature of THAT is beautifully expressed in Shankara's dashashlokii( last verse, #10): na chaika.n tadanyaddvitiiya.n kutaH syaat.h na vaa kevalatva.n na chaakevalatvam.h . na shuunya.n na chaashuunyamadvaitakatvaat.h katha.n sarvavedaantasiddhaM braviimi .. When there is not One Itself, how can there be two as distinct from It? Neither is there Its absoluteness nor non-absoluteness; Nor is it a void, nor a non-void. The Self being by nature unique, how can I speak of whose existence is established by all the Upanishads? from Prayers Unto Him, 1985, 2nd ed. p. 356 Sw. Chinmayananda, Chinmaya Publications Trust, >"R. Viswanathan" <rvis >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Mind and the Self >Sun, 13 Feb 2000 15:58:03 -0800 > >"R. Viswanathan" <rvis > >Hi! >Rightly put. >The infinite (Atman) can contain the finite (mind) and not vice versa, >however much we try! >-- Vis > >Chuck Hillig wrote: > > > Chuck Hillig <chillig > > > > At 03:23 PM 02/13/2000 -0800, you wrote: > > >"Anand Natarajan" <anandn > > > > > > > > >In one of the discourses that I attended, the speaker said , "The mind >is > > the unrealized Atman". I find this sentence very powerful and it is > > relevent here. By this sentence we can reconcile the difference between >the > > statement that everything is indeed Brahman and the perception of >diversity > > we have. Due to our ignorance, we precieve the Atman has having forms >and > > that is the mind. When the Sun of knowledge dawns , the same mind will > > evaporate its forms and what remains is THAT. > > > > > >Om > > > > > > Anand > > > > > > > Dear Anand, > > > > Very well put! It's important to remember that the "mind" (and its > > so-called diversities) is not a "problem" at all for the Atman. > > > > Atman, however, is a very big problem for the non-existant "mind" >to > > come to terms with because the mind can never hope to contain the > > uncontainable? > > > > With Blessings, > > Chuck Hillig > > > > Author of: "ENLIGHTENMENT FOR BEGINNERS" > > Published by: Black Dot Publications $11.95 (plus 7.25% tax for >CA > > residents) and shipping > > Book Orders: 1-800-929-7889 > > 1-805-640-8825 (phone and fax) > > Web: http://www.blackdotpubs.com > > E-mail: blackdotpubs > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > > FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE! Xpertsite has thousands of experts who > > are willing to answer your questions for FREE. Go to Xpertsite today > > and put your mind to rest. > > <a href=" http://clickme./ad/XpersiteCPC ">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 > > > > >--------------------------- 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 > > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 At 11:14 AM 02/13/2000 PST, you wrote: >"Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh > >Namaste, > > 'Paradoxes', 'misnomers', etc. happen on all levels of understanding >OTHER than the Self. > >For example: > >Gita: 10:22: indriyaaNaM manashchaasmi .[of the senses I am the Mind] > > 9:19: amR^ita.n chaiva mR^ityushcha sadaschchaahamarjuna . > > [i am the immortality as well as death;existence as well > > non-existence.] > > 15:18: yasmaatksharamatiito.ahamaksharaadapi chottamaH . > > [because I transcend the perishable and am even higher > > than the imperishable..] > >These are not unlike the koans of Zen tradion. They serve the purpose of >catapulting the perception/view to that ineffable beatitude. > >Regards, > >s. Dear Sunder, But isn't it all still only the Self? Isn't the Self "big enough" (for lack of a better phrase) to also include (and actually BE) all of the paradoxes and misnomers, too? To paraphrase St. Paul, "Outside of the Self, there is nothing." So maybe the idea is not to be free OF thought; maybe the idea is to be free FROM thought. But, then again, isn't that just another thought, anyway? :-) With Blessings, Chuck Hillig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 In one of the discourses that I attended, the speaker said , "The mind is the unrealized Atman". I find this sentence very powerful and it is relevent here. By this sentence we can reconcile the difference between the statement that everything is indeed Brahman and the perception of diversity we have. Due to our ignorance, we precieve the Atman has having forms and that is the mind. When the Sun of knowledge dawns , the same mind will evaporate its forms and what remains is THAT. Om Anand A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 At 03:23 PM 02/13/2000 -0800, you wrote: >"Anand Natarajan" <anandn > > >In one of the discourses that I attended, the speaker said , "The mind is the unrealized Atman". I find this sentence very powerful and it is relevent here. By this sentence we can reconcile the difference between the statement that everything is indeed Brahman and the perception of diversity we have. Due to our ignorance, we precieve the Atman has having forms and that is the mind. When the Sun of knowledge dawns , the same mind will evaporate its forms and what remains is THAT. > >Om > > Anand > Dear Anand, Very well put! It's important to remember that the "mind" (and its so-called diversities) is not a "problem" at all for the Atman. Atman, however, is a very big problem for the non-existant "mind" to come to terms with because the mind can never hope to contain the uncontainable? With Blessings, Chuck Hillig Author of: "ENLIGHTENMENT FOR BEGINNERS" Published by: Black Dot Publications $11.95 (plus 7.25% tax for CA residents) and shipping Book Orders: 1-800-929-7889 1-805-640-8825 (phone and fax) Web: http://www.blackdotpubs.com E-mail: blackdotpubs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Hi! Rightly put. The infinite (Atman) can contain the finite (mind) and not vice versa, however much we try! -- Vis Chuck Hillig wrote: > Chuck Hillig <chillig > > At 03:23 PM 02/13/2000 -0800, you wrote: > >"Anand Natarajan" <anandn > > > > > >In one of the discourses that I attended, the speaker said , "The mind is > the unrealized Atman". I find this sentence very powerful and it is > relevent here. By this sentence we can reconcile the difference between the > statement that everything is indeed Brahman and the perception of diversity > we have. Due to our ignorance, we precieve the Atman has having forms and > that is the mind. When the Sun of knowledge dawns , the same mind will > evaporate its forms and what remains is THAT. > > > >Om > > > > Anand > > > > Dear Anand, > > Very well put! It's important to remember that the "mind" (and its > so-called diversities) is not a "problem" at all for the Atman. > > Atman, however, is a very big problem for the non-existant "mind" to > come to terms with because the mind can never hope to contain the > uncontainable? > > With Blessings, > Chuck Hillig > > Author of: "ENLIGHTENMENT FOR BEGINNERS" > Published by: Black Dot Publications $11.95 (plus 7.25% tax for CA > residents) and shipping > Book Orders: 1-800-929-7889 > 1-805-640-8825 (phone and fax) > Web: http://www.blackdotpubs.com > E-mail: blackdotpubs > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE! Xpertsite has thousands of experts who > are willing to answer your questions for FREE. Go to Xpertsite today > and put your mind to rest. > <a href=" http://clickme./ad/XpersiteCPC ">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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2000 Report Share Posted February 13, 2000 Dennis, I think the connotation of mind is different to different people in different times and in different cultural mind-sets.In Indian philosophy a mind is conceived as an instrument psycholgy ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. 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.