The mind, according to advaita Vedanta-1

December 31, 2008

(This is being sent in three parts).

(I am surprised to find that some portions have been underlined, though I did not underline them in the original message which I typed out separately first. Please ignore the underlining).

The conception of the mind (also known as antaHkaraNam) varies in the different systems of Indian philosophy, as stated below.

The nyAya-vaisheShika system considers the mind to be an eternal substance, atomic in size. The prAbhAkara school of pUrva mImAmsA holds the same view. The bhATTa school of pUrva mImAmsA maintains that the mind is all-pervasive and is in eternal contact with the all-pervasive Atman; that Atman and mind, in contact with each other, function only within the sphere of the body with which they happen to be associated; and the possibility of several cognitions arising at the same time cannot be ruled out. The sAnkhyA and yoga systems consider the mind to be of the size of the body.

According to advaita vedanta the mind is a subtle substance (dravya). It is neither atomic nor infinite in size, but it is said to be of madhyama pariNAma, medium size, which may be taken to mean that is pervades the body of the particular jIva to which it belongs. The mind of each jIva is different. It has a beginning, as is proved by such shruti statements as, "It (Brahman) projected the mind" (br. up. 1.2.1). (VedAnta paribhASha).

The mind, which is called 'internal organ' (antaHkaraNam), is produced from the sattva part of all the five subtle elements together. It is known by four different names according to the function. The four names are-manas, buddhi, chittam and ahamkAra. (Sometimes only two names, manas and buddhi, are mentioned, as in Panchadashi.1.20, the other two being included in them). The function of cogitation is known as the manas or mind. When a determination is made, it is known as buddhi or intellect. The function of storing experiences in memory is called chittam . Egoism is ahamkAra. The word 'mind' is also used to denote the antaHkaraNam as a whole when these distinctions are not intended.

Chandogya upanishad, 6. 5. 1 says: "The food that is eaten becomes divided into three parts. The grossest part becomes excreta. The medium constituent becomes flesh. The subtlest part becomes mind (antaHkaraNam)".

In his bhAshya on this mantra Shri Shankara says: "Getting transformed into the mind-stuff, the subtlest part of the food nourishes the mind. Since the mind is nourished by food, it is certainly made of matter. But it is not considered to be eternal and partless as held by the vaisheShikas".

There is difference of opinion among advaitins on the question whether the mind is an indriya, organ, or not. VAchaspati Mishra, the author of bhAmatI, considers the mind to be an indriya. PrakAshAtma muni, the author of vivaraNa, takes the view that the mind is not an indriya. The author of VedAnta paribhAShA also takes the same view. This difference is reflected in the different theories held by these two on the question of how Self-knowledge arises from the mahAvAkyAs like 'tat tvam asi', as explained below.

According to one theory, known as the prasankhyAna theory, attributed to MaNDana Mishra, the knowledge which arises from the mahAvAkya is relational and mediate, like any other knowledge arising from a sentence. Such a knowledge cannot apprehend brahman which is non-relational and immediate (aparoksha). Meditation (prasankhyAna) gives rise to another knowledge which is non-relational and immediate. It is this knowledge that destroys nescience. In this view the mind plays an important role in the production of Self-knowledge.

The view of Sureshvara is the opposite of the above. Knowledge of brahman arises directly from the mahAvAkyas. Whether the knowledge given by a sentence is mediate or immediate depends on whether the subject-matter of the sentence is mediate or immediate. Since Brahman is immediate, the sentence which gives knowledge about it does produce immediate knowledge. The difference between the two theories is that, while, according to Sureshvara, the knowledge of the Self arises from the mahAvAkya itself, according to BhAmati the knowledge of the Self arises from the mahAvAkya only with the help of the mind.

Following the view of MaNDana, VAchaspati Mishra holds that the mind is the instrument for the attainment of Self-knowledge. Following the other view stated above, PrakAshAtman, the author of VivaraNa says that the mahAvAkya itself is the instrument, though the knowledge no doubt arises in the mind.

(To be contd)

S.N.Sastri