Guest guest Posted February 16, 2000 Report Share Posted February 16, 2000 Gummuluru Murthy 12th and 13th Feb, looks forward to some illuminating insights from me - I would say tamasoMA jyotir gamaya! Thanks for the reference to the archives - I will look this up. (Does anyone know if and how I can download the entire archive from the server?) You suggest that manas would not be there when brahman is fully known. But (see earlier comment) the sage still moves about in the world. Surely he still needs the senses in order to do this and hence needs manas to transmit the data? You make four statements that appear contradictory: - 1) Manas cannot be an instrument to apprehend Atman. 2) The mind has to destroy itself (how would it do this?) for Atman to shine through. 3) Mind purified by knowledge ... directly realises Brahman. 4) Pure mind is a contradiction in terms since it only arises when there is impurity. Surely all of these cannot be true? R. Viswanathan says 'the mind with ego needs objective and rational interpretations'. For what; by what? Not sure what you are getting at here. You also say 'the mind without ego just "is"'. Is it possible to have a mind without an ego? (See V. Krishnamurthy's exposition on the antaHkaraNa earlier.) I'm afraid I did not follow the bit about two sates and 'going from lower to higher'. Ram Chandran, 13th Feb, thinks the issue cannot be resolved until 'we can comprehend mind or Self or both'. Until who can comprehend? :>) Harsha 13th Feb, looks again at the term 'pure mind' and suggests it might occur when sattva predominates. I didn't understand the statement about 'absorption of the pure mind and reality dominating'. I would probably understand the mind to be pure when there are no thoughts or emotions - i.e. perfectly still and silent, and the attention is not on anything external; manas working correctly in fact and buddhi still but attentive. Doesn't usually last much beyond meditation unfortunately! (To be continued further...) Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2000 Report Share Posted February 16, 2000 The mind -Atman relation looks difficult because we we fail to understand the original metaphor.The sages say Brahman and Atman are vidnanaghan.It may have the same resemblance to human consciousness as a black hole has to a black paint. AntahkaraN is inert,Jada,and the consciousness it shows is a reflection of Atman.The four flashes of consciousness (flashes are the same as vritis but in metaphor of light) manas,budhi,chitta and Ahankar display a rainbow of intermixed satva(white), raja(red) and tama(black).The more satvic the antahkaraN ,the purer the reflection of Atman.Since the Ahankar is the most tamasic( because it is impulsively dvait for survival) and Budhi the most satvic, the latter is the only means we humans have to get a glimps of Atman. Budhi is awakened intelligence, awakened because it reflects Atman more perfectly.Mind understands Atman not actively as an ego understands the nonego but passively when it is completely still. A realised person(jeevanmukta) surely has to live to clear his karma.But the quality of his living is such that it does not generate new karma.You may say he is in meditaiton day and night. ______________ 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...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2000 Report Share Posted February 17, 2000 namaste, Prof. Ranade, in his book "Mysticism in Maharashtra", has quoted Jnaneshvara's commentary on the Gita, which may elucdate some the points: "Jnaneshvara further tells us ....that one can only make an asymptotic approximation to God instead of becoming God oneself. He employs a series of metaphors to tell us how the life in God is attained, and how in the at-one-ment one reaches God so nearly as to be only just short of Him..." [ I shall be happy to type the rest if readers would want it.] Another metaphor Jnaneshvara has used is that of two mirrors facing each other when it is impossible to distinguish which one is reflecting which; such is the identity of the sage's mind and the Atman/Brahman. Regards, s. >Vasant G Godbole <vashug >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Responses to 'Mind and the Self' - Part 2 >Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:43:50 -0800 > >The mind -Atman relation looks difficult because we >we fail to understand the original metaphor. ____ 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 17, 2000 Report Share Posted February 17, 2000 On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Dennis Waite wrote: > Dennis Waite <dwaite > > You suggest that > manas would not be there when brahman is fully known. But (see earlier > comment) the sage still moves about in the world. Surely he still needs the > senses in order to do this and hence needs manas to transmit the data? > You make four statements that appear contradictory: - > 1) Manas cannot be an instrument to apprehend Atman. > 2) The mind has to destroy itself (how would it do this?) for Atman to > shine through. > 3) Mind purified by knowledge ... directly realises Brahman. > 4) Pure mind is a contradiction in terms since it only arises when there is > impurity. > Surely all of these cannot be true? > namaste. Yes, there is contradiction. If there is no contradiction, it means manas (and the intellect) can directly apprehend Brahman. That cannot be the case. The human logic and the human intellect can only take you so far. Beyond that, what is needed is shraddha (a loose translation of that in English is faith, may not be exactly equivalent). It only shows that human logic has its limitations. In the above statements which you labelled 1 to 4, statement 1 is directly derivable by logic based on adhyAsabhAShya, the logic of which I presented in my previous post. To have a feel for statement 2 in its context, we need to see what is manas (the mind) here. Manas is not a sense organ like the eye, the ear etc. In its context, what I mean by this statement is: the concept that *my* manas is comprehending brahman has to die out. Brahman is not an object. Comprehending brahman is recognizing the identity of manas and brahman. When this identity is recognized, brahman being the subject all the time and being the only subject all the time, the feeling that we have until this identity is recognized (the feeling that our mind is the subject doing the exploration) has to die out. That is, the mind dissolves itself in the brahman. That is the mind destroying itself. You say how the sages function without a mind. The sages do function, but their mind functions in a reflective mode without the rise of sense of "I" of the ego. They are simply living their prArabdha karma out. Statement 3 is a rough english translation of shri shankara's explanation after BG 2.21 and Br. u. IV.iv.19. A more detailed explanation of my understanding of that is given above. Statement 4 is my understanding of antahkaraNa. As explained by other List members also, we all have an internal sense organ called antahkaraNa. This is not a physical organ but is the vital one that makes the soul function. This antahkaraNa, for a pure soul, is in an equanimous state without any perturbations. But, most (invariably all) souls are not pure, being perturbed by the six great enemies kAma (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (miserliness), moha (passion), mada (pride) and mAtsarya (jealousy). Because of these impurities, the antahkaraNa will undergo perturbations. The perturbed antahkaraNa is in four forms going from the subtlest to the grossest as cit, ahaMkAra, buddhi, manas. Thus, the origin of the manas is impurity or perturbed antahkaraNa. A sAttvic person has almost a pure mind with emphasis on almost. I was thinking of putting here on how the manas functions, but it may be out of context here. > > > Dennis > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2000 Report Share Posted February 17, 2000 > i.e. perfectly still and silent, and the attention is not on anything > external; manas working correctly in fact and buddhi still but attentive. > Doesn't usually last much beyond meditation unfortunately! > > (To be continued further...) > > Dennis Dear Dennis, Reading your last line made me write the following piece: Be in meditation for ever then!... Be in a meditation --- where you need not close your eyes where you need not sit in a posture where you need not stop talking where you need not stop walking where you need not stop working where you need not stop any thing at all... Be in such a meditation ---- where your mind and intellect are at equilibrium; where you achieve synergy amongst the sense organs; where life seems to you as perfect as it could be; where life looks as perfect as it were; where life looks like it it going to be perfect in future also... Be in such a meditation --- which can shatter the myth of the so-called death; and transcend you into ever present immortality... Be in such a meditation --- which can help you rid of the never present darkness; and make you see the ever glowing light... Be in such a meditation --- which will make you no more afraid of the falsely perceived ignorance; and make you see the all pervading knowledge; A knowledge which is above and beyond, with in and with out... Be in such a meditation for ever... Om Santi Om Santi Om Santi -Madhava 17/2/2000 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.