difference between mind and intellect

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

having silently followed most of the group discussions since November, I

would like to ask a first question. As I have only just started to get

into studying shruti and learning all those sanskrit expressions needed,

I may ask something that is of no interest to other members. Luckily the

moderators have to approve of my posting anyway, as I am new, and will

dismiss it if needed.

The question was brought up by Sunderji mentioning Katha Upanishad

(1:3:3) where the body is pictured as a chariot, the senses as the

horses, the reins as the mind, the master as the individual (jiva), and

the Intellect as the Charioteer.

So: What exactly is the difference between mind and intellect?

It seems to me that it is very helpful to distinguish clearly between

them. In the thinking of many Western spiritual seekers they are one

and the same which causes a lot of unneccessary confusion. As I

understand it from the discussions so far, it is helpful on the path to

distance oneself from the mind, use it where it is useful and otherwise

not give it too much attention. But the intellect, though it clearly is

also not Self, can be very helpful to recognize Self.

I would be very happy for any corrections and further exposition on

this.

Om shanti

Sitara

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sitara,

 

You asked (message #39838, Feb 29): " What exactly is the difference

between mind and intellect? "

 

It may help to look a little at the etymology of these English words:

 

'Mind' implies attention and concern, towards various different

objects of perception, thought and feeling. This word thus refers to

a changing process that results from the turning of attention from

one object to another. Here, what we experience is a succession of

passing states, with each state displaying a perceived or thought or

felt appearance.

 

'Intellect' implies 'in'-'telling'; and hence it refers to a inner

telling of stories within our minds, through changing appearances

that come and go. For this telling to be meaningful, there must be an

inner principle of knowing which continues underneath our passing

mental states, so as to relate their perceived and thought and felt

appearances into coherent stories.

 

That inner principle is called 'intelligence' or 'understanding'. It

is a silent witness whose knowing stays quietly detached and

unaffected at the underlying depth of mind, while perceptions,

thoughts and feelings clamour noisily to replace each other at the

surface of attention.

 

The mind's perceptions, thoughts and feelings are not truly

intelligent themselves. They only produce competing and conflicting

appearances, which result in distractions and confusions that need to

be resolved and clarified by the truer intelligence of the

disinterested witness.

 

But what then is intelligence itself? What is its final truth, found

utterly unmixed with any confusing falsity? It's a pure knowing that

remains the same, beneath all the appearances that are perceived or

thought or felt in anybody's mind. Remaining thus unchanged, it is

just plain reality -- from which all appearances arise, in anyone's

experience.

 

Distinguishing pure knowing thus brings all distinction to an end, as

knowing in itself is found to be identical with the reality that's

known.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananda,

 

thank you for your reply. Yes, it does help to look into the etymology

of those words, especially " mind " . I think that I understand and

recognize the functions of the mind. And I do understand and recognize

intelligence, plain reality, the Self. But the word " intellect " ,

buddhi, I cannot really grasp yet – though I have kind of an

intuition about it. With this post I would like to ask you or other

learned members of the group to check on my understanding.

 

Mind as you pointed out is concerned with various objects of perception,

thought and feeling, so in my words: it is busy with appearances and

produces appearances.

 

Intellect you said, " refers to telling of stories in our minds,

through changing appearances. " . This seems a bit vague to me, not

sharply differentiated from minds definition.

 

I don't know whether this is possible: can intellect be defined in

practical terms? For example, looking at a beautiful copy of Bhagavad

Gita, I imagine that it is mind which calculates whether I can afford to

buy it, tells me that I do not have the time to buy it because I have to

catch the bus … things like that. Whereas I imagine it is the

intellect, which is aflame with its content. Is this so or am I on the

wrong track here?

 

Also I guess that our discussions in this group are the intellect

operating. Is this so? So is the difference between mind and intellect

to do with the objects they are concerned with?

 

Another postulate to be approved or disapproved of: Intellect seems to

be able to grasp that something like Self exists, whereas mind cannot.

If this is true, another question: Where does the intellect get its

maturity from, I mean which inner ability makes it possible for it to

listen to the scriptures etc.? Is it humility – which the mind does

not seem to have?

 

Lots of questions …

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

 

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Sitara,

>

> You asked (message #39838, Feb 29): " What exactly is the difference

> between mind and intellect? "

>

> It may help to look a little at the etymology of these English words:

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams

 

The Vivekachudamani describes four separate aspects of the inner Organ

(Antahkaranam) as follows:

(translation based on Sringeri Acarya's commentary)

 

nigadyatentaHkaraNaM manodhiiH ahaMkR^tishchittam iti svavR^ttibhiH

manas tusaMkalpavikalpanaadibhiH buddhiHpadaarthaadhyavasaayadharmataH. 93

atraabhimaanaadaham ity ahaMkR^tiH svaarthaanusandhaanaguNena chittam. 94

 

According to its differing activities, the Inner Organ, although one only, is

distinguished into four as manas, buddhi (dhih), aham.krti and citta.

 

Manas - mind - is responsible for cogitating. Sankalpa refers to its determinate

aspect, and vikalpa is indeterminate or doubting aspect. vikalpa means vividham

kalpana : imagining in various ways

Buddhi determines the real nature of its objects;

Aham.krti arises from attachment to the body,etc and a false sense of

superimposition of them as " I "

Citta - is the memory aspect.

 

A small point I would add here is that various places in the Upanishads and the

Gita, the word " manas " may refer to various aspects of or in some cases the

entire Inner organ itself. Also there seems to be some degree of overlap in

these differentiations. Elsewhere in the panchakosha viveka prakriya, as

primarily described in the Taittriya Up., the manomayakosha and the

vijnanamayakoshas are elaborated - and represent respectively the mind and the

intellect, and these two terms seem to be treated a little differently there.

 

The maturity of the antahkaranam/inner organ is called chittashuddhi and is

determined by the relative lack of vasanas, and colorations in the subconscious

mind (called kashaya). This is achieved by means of sadhana which falls under

the broad category of karma-yoga. Values such as humility, etc are extremely

valuable in this regard as well.

 

Trust this clarifies to some extent.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

Sitara <smitali17

advaitin

Friday, February 29, 2008 1:03:50 PM

Re: difference between mind and intellect

 

 

Namaste Shri Ananda,

 

I don't know whether this is possible: can intellect be defined in

practical terms? For example, looking at a beautiful copy of Bhagavad

Gita, I imagine that it is mind which calculates whether I can afford to

buy it, tells me that I do not have the time to buy it because I have to

catch the bus … things like that. Whereas I imagine it is the

intellect, which is aflame with its content. Is this so or am I on the

wrong track here?

 

Also I guess that our discussions in this group are the intellect

operating. Is this so? So is the difference between mind and intellect

to do with the objects they are concerned with?

 

Another postulate to be approved or disapproved of: Intellect seems to

be able to grasp that something like Self exists, whereas mind cannot.

If this is true, another question: Where does the intellect get its

maturity from, I mean which inner ability makes it possible for it to

listen to the scriptures etc.? Is it humility – which the mind does

not seem to have?

 

Lots of questions …

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sitara,

 

You asked (message #39862, March 1):

 

" ... can intellect be defined in practical terms? For example,

looking at a beautiful copy of Bhagavad Gita, I imagine that it is

mind which calculates whether I can afford to buy it, tells me that I

do not have the time to buy it because I have to catch the bus …

things like that. Whereas I imagine it is the intellect, which is

aflame with its content. Is this so or am I on the wrong track here?

 

" Also I guess that our discussions in this group are the intellect

operating. Is this so? So is the difference between mind and

intellect to do with the objects they are concerned with? "

 

As you say, mind is what turns attention to the copy, thinks that it

is beautiful and then goes on to how it may be procured. The

intellect is what makes this superficial turning of attention

meaningful, through a deeper discernment of what is true and right

from what is false and wrong.

 

The mind is thus concerned with differect and changing objects that

it attends to in the world, while the intellect reflects upon the

meaning and the value of these objects that appear at the surface of

the mind. Reflecting thus upon meaning and value, our intellects ask

questions about assumptions and beliefs that are taken for granted,

in the attention that we pay towards objects in the world.

 

In short, it is the mind that is concerned with an apparent variety

of differing objects, while the intellect asks questions about common

principles that we know more truly, beneath the differentiation of

objective appearances.

 

It's thus through intellect that we attempt to penetrate from

different objects of mind's changing attention to common principles

that are more truly known, in the course of continued experience. But

a question arises here. Are such common principles just more

expansive objects that we imagine more broadly and more fancifully in

our imagining minds?

 

How can we be more accurate and more realistic, in our knowing of

underlying principles to which our intellects reflect? That can only

be achieved by clearing mistakes and confusions, in our assumptions

and beliefs. As we do this, we reflect subjectively, away from

changing objects of the turning mind's attention.

 

The intellect is thus required to ask its way down into the depth of

mind, beneath the changing objects that come and go at the surface.

Eventually, it has to go all the way back down, to an unchanging

consciousness that is purely subjective. All objects there

mustdisappear, in a non-dual reality where difference is not found.

 

In search of that reality, our intellects must question down, into

their own assumptions and beliefs. And they must question so far down

that all discernment is destroyed, and thus no intellect remains to

question anything.

 

In our discussions on this group, it is our intellects that operate,

as you point out. But the ideas we discuss are intended to lead

eventually beyond all intellect, to an extent that cannot possibly be

accomplished here, of course, in this kind of discussion.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Shri Ananda and Shyamji

 

Pranams,

 

thank you very much for your most useful exemplifications about the

difference between mind and intellect!

 

From what Shri Shyam said I get that buddhi in itself is not necessarily

mature (as I thought). How then would an immature buddhi operate? Does

the degree of the maturity of antakaranam determine how deeply buddhi is

able to explore the real nature of its objects?

 

Could it be that in an immature antakaranam buddhi is not yet active at

all?

 

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams

>

> The Vivekachudamani describes four separate aspects of the inner Organ

(Antahkaranam) as follows:

> (translation based on Sringeri Acarya's commentary)

>

> nigadyatentaHkaraNaM manodhiiH ahaMkR^tishchittam iti svavR^ttibhiH

> manas tusaMkalpavikalpanaadibhiH

buddhiHpadaarthaadhyavasaayadharmataH. 93

> atraabhimaanaadaham ity ahaMkR^tiH svaarthaanusandhaanaguNena chittam.

94

>

> According to its differing activities, the Inner Organ, although one

only, is distinguished into four as manas, buddhi (dhih), aham.krti and

citta.