Mythos & Logos

[Guest guest]

Shanti Madathil Nair and Michael,

 

 

Thank you for a very worthwhile exchange.

 

Vivekacudamani in talking about the subtle body (linga sarira) states

various

things:

 

««««

 

93. The antahkarana, internal organ of the mind, depending on its

modifications

(vrittis), is called: manas, buddhi, ahamkara and citta.

 

94. Manas when it takes on the function of thinking the pros and the

cons of data

(samkalpavikalpana); buddhi when it knows the degree of truth of things

 

(padartha); ahamkara when it takes on the function of the sense of

self; citta

when it joins with its own object of desire (svarthanusandhnagunena

cittam).

 

.....

 

100. The atman, which is pure intelligence, utilizes this subtle body

(lingamidam)

as a tool, as a carpenter would his instruments. This atman is therefore

perfectly

free.

 

»»»»

 

 

The way I understand it is this:

 

When we become liberated we are actually totally decoupled from the

subtle body

and we pick up the analytical tool, manas, or other, if and when we need

it. Our

state of consciousness though does not, and never again, fall back and

identify with

such tool, nor with the subtle body. In this sense the mind exists only

when

we purposely activate it, but it does not exist in itself, for itself

and by itself.

Conversely in our un-liberated state of consciousness it does exist, in

that we

identify with its activity, and further the ahamkara makes us believe

that we are it.

 

Sankara says (and I am paraphrasing here because I cannot put my hands

on the

quotation itself) that things are real in the degree in which we

identify with them.

This applies to mind as well, if not primarily (!) to it. Conversely

things lose their

hold on reality as our consciousness moves away from them, and

permanently so

upon true realization.

This is why it is said that maya exists and does not exist.

 

Two quotations are good here:

 

The first one from M.P. Mahadevan in, The Advaita Philosophy:

«Maya can be studied from three different points of view. The common

individual

defines it as reality (vistavi). He who comprehends the scriptures

considers it as

unreal (tuccha). The metaphysician who positions himself form the

transcendental

point of view maintains that it is neither real nor unreal

(anirvacaniya)».

 

The second on is from Patanjali's Yogasutras (II, 22):

«For he who has attained the aim, it [the visible] becomes non-existent,

 

nevertheless it is not destroyed being [still] common to the other

ones».

 

And on a light note I would like to quote Sogyal Rimpoche, a Tibetan

Buddhist

monk, who told his audience:

"Just get enlightened, and you solve all your problems!"

 

 

Shanti,

 

Carlo

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Shri Frua. That was about thorough - the way you built right

from Vivekachudamani upto the Tibetan quote. I couldn't, in my

circumstances, have quoted so many convincing authorities to explain

my understanding of mind and mAya. Your attempt really helped me a

lot. Wonderful.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____

 

advaitin, Carlo Frua <cfda@s...> wrote:

> And on a light note I would like to quote Sogyal Rimpoche, a Tibetan

> Buddhist

> monk, who told his audience:

> "Just get enlightened, and you solve all your problems!"