Guest guest Posted February 15, 2000 Report Share Posted February 15, 2000 namaste, >Gregory Goode <goode >advaitin >advaitin , "'advaitin '" <advaitin > >Re: Mind and Self so far >Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:58:00 -0500 > >Dennis, > >What a nice and succinct summary of the topic. This post of your is one >for the archives. *** Undoubtedly! It is > >interesting to ask people following these ideas whether, if someone >offered > >Self-realisation to them right here and now, they would accept. Most >people > >seem to have the attitude "Well, not right now, there are just a few >things > >I want to do first"! I wonder how members of the list would respond. For >my > >part I confess that I would not always answer in the affirmative! *** Also depends what kind of phrase would be palatable! eg. Are you willing to let your ego die? or Do you want to be totally conscious even when fast asleep? or Are you prepared to die now for the promise of God's vision? One who has been chosen by a Guru will never have any hesitation. This URL, I think, gives a good summary of Mind by Ramana Maharshi. http://www.hinduism.co.za/newpage21.htm Regards, s. ____ 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 15, 2000 Report Share Posted February 15, 2000 Many thanks to members of the list for their thoughtful and instructive replies to my query regarding Sankara's reference to the 'Mind "seeing" the Self'. Any expectations I might have had (not that I go in for these of course!) regarding the value of joining this list have already been exceeded. Clearly this is the place to be for discussing Advaita! I appreciated all of the responses but below are just a few comments I noted on reading them. Before reading, please excuse any apparent disrespect - none is intended. I have yet to discover the tone of postings on the list. My natural inclination is just to say things as they strike me. I would never be intentionally rude - this could never serve any useful purpose - but I acknowledge that occasionally some of the things I say may appear too outspoken. Of course, on a list such as this, one ought to be able to say anything without upsetting anyone, since there should be very little left of any ego to take offence! (And anyone doing so reveals his undisciplined ego to one and all, as happened once or twice on the Advaita List a few years ago, as I recall!) Greg Goode, Feb 11th: - It was not intended as a hemeneutic question but one of exegesis. (Now everyone else can get their dictionaries out - I needed the OED for that one, Greg!) Dr. Harsh Luthar, Feb 11th: - This almost seems to be saying that it is pointless discussing this unless we are realised. I hope this is not true! I believe that the 'mind does not exist independently of the Self' (though I am not Self-realised). I do not see that it follows that the mind is absent for one who is realised. At the relative level of existence, it must still be available; otherwise how would the Sage move about in the world? And it is already non-existent at the absolute level, whether one is realised or not. I was confused by the third para, about the Self being the 'source of the mind'. (Also isn't someone who has experienced Nirvikalpa Samadhi necessarily also Self-realised?) Is the Self any more the source for the mind than it is the source of everything? (Presumably we agree that nothing at all actually exists anyway?) I suppose my difficulty with the 'second perspective' is in 'power turning back on itself'. I don't really know what this means. I understand that the Self does nothing. Only the guna (appear to) act. anurag (sorry, your name did not appear in my digest) said a stage comes when 'the mind dissolves itself'. Can't see this! I agree with Sunder Hattangadi, Feb 11th, that mind has to have support of scriptures and a teacher, and be 'refined' before it can do anything useful. Patrick Kenny, 11th Feb, suggests that the Self uses buddhi to see itSelf. I'm not sure I agree - if the Self were dependent upon anything, wouldn't that be a limitation? (Though I have read somewhere that the world was created in order that the Self could enjoy itSelf!) In any case, surely it does not follow that, if the Self uses buddhi in order to see itSelf, then the buddhi sees the Self? This would be equivalent to saying that, since I use spectacles in order to read a book, therefore the spectacles are reading the book, wouldn't it? Prof. V. Krishnamurthy provided a very succinct definition of the antahkaraNa. It is a clearly a source of no end of problems that people discuss topics such as this using the general term 'mind' without specifying which 'organ' of mind they are talking about. Unfortunately, this seems to be a particular problem with Ramana Maharshi. I attended the monthly satsang of the UK Ramana organisation on Saturday, at which the topic was 'Mind and Heart' according to RM. A number of readings were given from various RM talks and I found them very confusing for this reason. In the posting, one statement I did not quite agree with was that 'the gross body derives its consciousness from the Mind'. Surely it derives its consciousness from the Self, along with everything else? Also, is the categorisation into 'subconscious', 'conscious' and 'super-conscious' defined within Advaita? I have not come across it. Is it part of the system that talks about the cakras? (Tantra? Samkhya? I am not very knowledgeable about systems out of mainstream Advaita.) The post then goes on to talk of 'lower' and 'higher' minds. How does this map onto the sub-super-consciousness model or the buddhi-manas-citta model? Is this not complicating things? My understanding is that reality is not ACTUALLY like any of these models; they are only 'maps' to give some concept of the nature of the terrain. I suppose it might be useful to have three different maps if one were going to a foreign country but then again... Ram Chandran, 12th Feb, suggests that understanding the Self intellectually will take us nowhere and that faith is necessary. I do not believe we can 'do' anything and think that 'following a path' of any sort only really satisfies the ego (which obviously cannot attain Self-realisation). However, I thought Sankara insisted that jnana was the highest yoga and that other techniques (presumably you are implying bhakti?) are only pre-cursors for this. (This, of course, is in line with his suggestion that the mind CAN see the Self, when purified, we agree.) Again, perhaps we are not really disagreeing here. I would accept that we can bring manas under control through karma or bhakti yoga but I wouldn't have said they directly affect buddhi. Buddhi is indirectly affected because it can only operate properly when manas IS under control and itself working correctly. Madhava Turumella 12th Feb, made some nice observations including Sanskrit roots. I have not come across the use of 'individualism' and 'universalism' in Advaita before. 'Nama', "not belong to me" is also the mark of reverence of course - the "bow", which ties in nicely with your 'complete surrender'. A remarkable language, Sanskrit! Sunder Hattangadi 12th Feb, reminded us of several metaphors from the Upanishads and quoted from Ramakrishna. I am familiar with these. We were also told in the School that the one desire that one is allowed to have is the desire for truth. (Don't know the derivation of this.) It is interesting to ask people following these ideas whether, if someone offered Self-realisation to them right here and now, they would accept. Most people seem to have the attitude "Well, not right now, there are just a few things I want to do first"! I wonder how members of the list would respond. For my part I confess that I would not always answer in the affirmative! I'm going to stop now. I haven't finished going through all of the replies yet by some way but, because I have run out of time today, and this post is becoming rather long, I'll send this to be going on with. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2000 Report Share Posted February 15, 2000 Dennis, What a nice and succinct summary of the topic. This post of your is one for the archives. You seem to be interested in advaita vedanta's consceptual scheme of the micro- and macro-cosm, the person and world. I have a great graphic image in Visio 5 format of the pancakosa, very much like a map. It relates the 5 sheaths, 3 bodies, and 3 states, along with the locus of vasanas, ignorance, Isvara, etc. Authored by Dr. George Romney of the Chinmaya Mission's Manhattan Study Group, and computerized by me. It is large, in 11 x 17" format. I can ask George for permission, then if he OK's it, I can put it in PDF format and send it to you. You're right that this is not a map of any external or internal territory, but just a way of representing the unrepresentable. This to facilitate the sublation of concepts, freeing us ever more from attachment to concepts, until none attach. Regards, --Greg At 09:25 PM 2/15/00 -0000, Dennis Waite wrote: >Dennis Waite <dwaite > > >Many thanks to members of the list for their thoughtful and instructive >replies to my query regarding Sankara's reference to the 'Mind "seeing" the >Self'. Any expectations I might have had (not that I go in for these of >course!) regarding the value of joining this list have already been >exceeded. Clearly this is the place to be for discussing Advaita! > >I appreciated all of the responses but below are just a few comments I >noted on reading them. Before reading, please excuse any apparent >disrespect - none is intended. I have yet to discover the tone of postings >on the list. My natural inclination is just to say things as they strike >me. I would never be intentionally rude - this could never serve any useful >purpose - but I acknowledge that occasionally some of the things I say may >appear too outspoken. Of course, on a list such as this, one ought to be >able to say anything without upsetting anyone, since there should be very >little left of any ego to take offence! (And anyone doing so reveals his >undisciplined ego to one and all, as happened once or twice on the Advaita >List a few years ago, as I recall!) > >Greg Goode, Feb 11th: - It was not intended as a hemeneutic question but >one of exegesis. (Now everyone else can get their dictionaries out - I >needed the OED for that one, Greg!) > >Dr. Harsh Luthar, Feb 11th: - This almost seems to be saying that it is >pointless discussing this unless we are realised. I hope this is not true! >I believe that the 'mind does not exist independently of the Self' (though >I am not Self-realised). I do not see that it follows that the mind is >absent for one who is realised. At the relative level of existence, it must >still be available; otherwise how would the Sage move about in the world? >And it is already non-existent at the absolute level, whether one is >realised or not. I was confused by the third para, about the Self being the >'source of the mind'. (Also isn't someone who has experienced Nirvikalpa >Samadhi necessarily also Self-realised?) Is the Self any more the source >for the mind than it is the source of everything? (Presumably we agree that >nothing at all actually exists anyway?) I suppose my difficulty with the >'second perspective' is in 'power turning back on itself'. I don't really >know what this means. I understand that the Self does nothing. Only the >guna (appear to) act. > >anurag (sorry, your name did not appear in my digest) said a >stage comes when 'the mind dissolves itself'. Can't see this! > >I agree with Sunder Hattangadi, Feb 11th, that mind has to have support of >scriptures and a teacher, and be 'refined' before it can do anything >useful. > >Patrick Kenny, 11th Feb, suggests that the Self uses buddhi to see itSelf. >I'm not sure I agree - if the Self were dependent upon anything, wouldn't >that be a limitation? (Though I have read somewhere that the world was >created in order that the Self could enjoy itSelf!) In any case, surely it >does not follow that, if the Self uses buddhi in order to see itSelf, then >the buddhi sees the Self? This would be equivalent to saying that, since I >use spectacles in order to read a book, therefore the spectacles are >reading the book, wouldn't it? > >Prof. V. Krishnamurthy provided a very succinct definition of the >antahkaraNa. It is a clearly a source of no end of problems that people >discuss topics such as this using the general term 'mind' without >specifying which 'organ' of mind they are talking about. Unfortunately, >this seems to be a particular problem with Ramana Maharshi. I attended the >monthly satsang of the UK Ramana organisation on Saturday, at which the >topic was 'Mind and Heart' according to RM. A number of readings were given >from various RM talks and I found them very confusing for this reason. In >the posting, one statement I did not quite agree with was that 'the gross >body derives its consciousness from the Mind'. Surely it derives its >consciousness from the Self, along with everything else? Also, is the >categorisation into 'subconscious', 'conscious' and 'super-conscious' >defined within Advaita? I have not come across it. Is it part of the system >that talks about the cakras? (Tantra? Samkhya? I am not very knowledgeable >about systems out of mainstream Advaita.) The post then goes on to talk of >'lower' and 'higher' minds. How does this map onto the >sub-super-consciousness model or the buddhi-manas-citta model? Is this not >complicating things? My understanding is that reality is not ACTUALLY like >any of these models; they are only 'maps' to give some concept of the >nature of the terrain. I suppose it might be useful to have three different >maps if one were going to a foreign country but then again... > >Ram Chandran, 12th Feb, suggests that understanding the Self intellectually >will take us nowhere and that faith is necessary. I do not believe we can >'do' anything and think that 'following a path' of any sort only really >satisfies the ego (which obviously cannot attain Self-realisation). >However, I thought Sankara insisted that jnana was the highest yoga and >that other techniques (presumably you are implying bhakti?) are only >pre-cursors for this. (This, of course, is in line with his suggestion that >the mind CAN see the Self, when purified, we agree.) Again, perhaps we are >not really disagreeing here. I would accept that we can bring manas under >control through karma or bhakti yoga but I wouldn't have said they directly >affect buddhi. Buddhi is indirectly affected because it can only operate >properly when manas IS under control and itself working correctly. > >Madhava Turumella 12th Feb, made some nice observations including Sanskrit >roots. I have not come across the use of 'individualism' and 'universalism' >in Advaita before. 'Nama', "not belong to me" is also the mark of reverence >of course - the "bow", which ties in nicely with your 'complete surrender'. >A remarkable language, Sanskrit! > >Sunder Hattangadi 12th Feb, reminded us of several metaphors from the >Upanishads and quoted from Ramakrishna. I am familiar with these. We were >also told in the School that the one desire that one is allowed to have is >the desire for truth. (Don't know the derivation of this.) It is >interesting to ask people following these ideas whether, if someone offered >Self-realisation to them right here and now, they would accept. Most people >seem to have the attitude "Well, not right now, there are just a few things >I want to do first"! I wonder how members of the list would respond. For my >part I confess that I would not always answer in the affirmative! > >I'm going to stop now. I haven't finished going through all of the replies >yet by some way but, because I have run out of time today, and this post is >becoming rather long, I'll send this to be going on with. > >Dennis > > > >--------------------------- 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 15, 2000 Report Share Posted February 15, 2000 Dennis Waite wrote: > Dennis Waite <dwaite > My natural inclination is just to say things as they strike > me. I would never be intentionally rude - this could never serve any useful > purpose - but I acknowledge that occasionally some of the things I say may > appear too outspoken. Of course, on a list such as this, one ought to be > able to say anything without upsetting anyone, since there should be very > little left of any ego to take offence! (And anyone doing so reveals his > undisciplined ego to one and all, as happened once or twice on the Advaita > List a few years ago, as I recall!) What a great sense of humor you have Dennis! Strictly minor league though, cosmically speaking! :--). Harsha > > 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.