Same mind?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis and Shri Madathil Nair,

 

In message #44310 (Saturday March 28, Re: An apparent contradiction in

Shankara's comments) Dennis asked:

 

" I don't know that anyone (scholars-scriptures etc) says that the waking mind

differs from the dreaming mind do they? "

 

In answer to this question, I'd point out an essential sense in which no mind

can ever be the same at different times. At each present moment, the mind is

always different from what it was at any previous moment in the past. And

similarly, this present mind is always different from what it will be at some

later moment.

 

At every moment, mind exists as changing thought which differs from one moment

to the next. In order to make sense of this, we do indeed think quite habitually

that one 'same mind' stays somehow present, through different moments and

through different states.

 

But if we ask just what this 'same mind' is, then it turns out that our habitual

thinking is mistaken and confused. It's never mind that is the same: at

different moments, or in different states, or in different persons.

 

As moments change, it is precisely mind that differs, from one moment to the

next. And, as one moment gives way to another, there is a gap in which the mind

completely disappears. In that gap, there is no time-affected mind at all.

There's nothing else but consciousness, found there completely independent of

all change and difference.

 

As waking to an outside world gives way to dream, it is again precisely mind

that differs through this change of state. As waking state or dream gives way to

dreamless sleep, there consciousness again is found completely free of time and

change and difference.

 

In reaching out from petty ego to consider other persons' thoughts and feelings,

we find again that mind is somehow different in different personalities. So much

so that it may all too often seem impossible to know, for sure, what other

persons think and feel. In order to communicate, we each have somehow to

reflect: back to a common consciousness that is impersonally shared beneath our

many differences.

 

In this sense, I'd say it's wrong to think of any one 'same mind' continuing

through different times, or different states, or different personalities. No

sameness ever can apply to time-bound mind. All sameness properly pertains to

unaffected consciousness, beneath all changing show of mind.

 

No 'same mind' is ever found to carry on from waking state to dream. No more

than any such 'same mind' could carry on into deep sleep. If it were so, that

'same mind' could be nothing else but consciousness in which all mind is found

dissolved. Then how could it be 'mind' at all?

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda-ji,

Pedantically, I would have to agree with you, and no doubt the

description you give is in accordance with the teaching of Sri Atmananda.

However, to the extent that it is effectively the mind that defines the ‘person’,

surely this mind *does* continue from waking into sleep. As I pointed

out according to advaita, it is from this (originally waking) mind that is derived

the material for its (the dreaming mind) projected dream. And (at least as far

as both the person and other people who know the person are concerned) it is

the same person waking up as the one who went to sleep – and therefore,

if the definition is accepted, the same mind.

From another point of view, however, are you able to quote from

any scriptures to substantiate your position?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Ananda

Wood

Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:36 AM

advaitin

Same mind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<In

answer to this question, I'd point out an essential sense in which no mind can

ever be the same at different times. At each present moment, the mind is always

different from what it was at any previous moment in the past. And similarly,

this present mind is always different from what it will be at some later

moment.

 

At every moment, mind exists as changing thought which differs from one moment

to the next. In order to make sense of this, we do indeed think quite

habitually that one 'same mind' stays somehow present, through different

moments and through different states.

 

But if we ask just what this 'same mind' is, then it turns out that our

habitual thinking is mistaken and confused. It's never mind that is the same:

at different moments, or in different states, or in different persons…>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_,_._,___

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

However, to the extent that it is effectively the mind that defines the

'person', surely this mind *does* continue from waking into sleep. As I pointed

out according to advaita, it is from this(originally waking) mind that is

derived the material for its (the dreaming mind) projected dream. And (at least

as far as both the person and other people who know the person are concerned) it

is the same person waking up as the one who went to sleep - and therefore, if

the definition is accepted, the same mind.

>

From another point of view, however, are you able to quote from any

scriptures to substantiate your position?

>

> Best wishes,

Dennis

>

Hari Om Shri Dennisji, Pranaams!

 

The mind is not a continuing entity. The successive thought brings an end to

the preceeding thought and hence if mind is made of thoughts, with every thought

it ends. This is clearly stated by AcAryaji in his taittrIya bhashya while

dealing with three types of antyatA to proove the anantatA of brahman.

 

The one who identifies himself with the dream state or deep-sleep state is

essentially the same who identifies with waking state. Thus the one who

identify with single mind is vyaShTi(individual) and total is samaShTi.

 

That it should be the same one who identifies with all three states is

established by two nyAyas 1. paryAyena anubhUyatvAt; 2. pratyabhijnAnAt, in

mAnDUkya.

 

1. paryAyena anubhUyatvAt - owing to they happen only successively and one never

become identified with more than one state at any single point of time.

(paryAya - na yugapat - not at the same time).

 

2. pratyabhijnAnAt - owing to recognition. As one cannot recognize unless it is

experienced by him and one is able to recognize he alone slept; dreamt prooves

that it is the same person who identified with all three states.

 

To conclude: a. Mind is not a nitya, ananta entity. b. We can neither say

dreamer, sleeper and waker are same nor different but surely the one identifies

with dream is the same who identifies with the sleep and continue to identify

waking state.

 

Dreamer is not the waker in the sense; the very definition of them differ and

likewise sleeper. bahiShprajnaH , antaHprajnaH etc. Nor different in the sense;

if totally different antarAla-avastha the intermediate state (ubhayata-prajnA)

is totally not possible but is admitted.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 3/28/09, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

 

No 'same mind' is ever found to carry on from waking state to dream. No more

than any such 'same mind' could carry on into deep sleep. If it were so, that

'same mind' could be nothing else but consciousness in which all mind is found

dissolved. Then how could it be 'mind' at all?

 

Anandaji - PraNAms

 

While I agree with the generic content of your post, I like to point out that

there are two aspects involved in understanding the mind.

 

One is that centered on the changing thoughts - what can be called operating

mind.

 

The other is also chidaabaasa - where general background reflection which

remains with or without thoughts flow.

 

In every object thought - there is cognition of the thought by specific

reflection of that vRitti - and also a background - I am the knower - coming

from the general reflection which does not depend specifically on the flowing

thoughts - This Ramana calls as idam vRitti and aham vRitti.

 

In the awareness that you pointed out in the gap between the thoughts the

awareness that one is aware of is this chidaabaasa - also called saakshii

caitanyam - it is the mind only that is reflecting the light of consciousness

but unchanging mind - hence also called akhaadaakaara vRitti. It is this that

remains awake not only in dream state but even in deep sleep state that is aware

of the absence of the other mind or thought-mind and because of which one is

aware experience of the absence of the thought mind and because of which one can

even say ‘I slept very well’ . Being akhandam it is there all the time-

waking, dream and deep sleep states.

 

Without any reflection, consciousness is pure and all pervading; and is beyond

one being aware or not being aware.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sometimes, I wonder if we are overusing the term Mind. When one learned

member uses Mind, he clearly means a variety of vR^itti, when another uses

it is the kUtastha, when another uses it, it is the akhanDAkAra-vR^itti. I

am not even aware of other connotations.

 

More often, it this is this lack of understanding of terminology that

may lead to lot of misconceptions, leading to everyone fighting to have the

last say.

 

Perhaps, all of us should go into research into " analysis of Mind " so that

we could properly " objectify " it and come to a conclusion. Oh. I forgot, we

are more interested in subjective knowledge:)

 

 

Just a thought.

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna

wrote:

 

Hari Om Shri Ramakrishnaji, Pranaams!

 

> Just a thought.

 

 

Oh. I forgot, we are more interested in subjective knowledge:)

 

drshyavAritaM cittamAtmanaH.

cittvadarshanaM tattvadarshanam.h. (V 16 Upadesa Saara)

 

 

> Perhaps, all of us should go into research into " analysis of Mind " so that we

could properly " objectify " it and come to a conclusion.

 

mAnasaM tu kiM mArganekrte.

naiva mAnasaM mArga ArjavAt.h. (V 17 Upadesa Saara)

 

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Sree Ramakrishna - PraNAms

 

Mind or manas itself is used in the scriptures to mean several things - the

emotional aspect or doubting faculty (samShayaatmikam) or sometime in the

generic sense of all aspects of the mind (miind,intellect,chitta and ahankaaara.

One should get the meaning based on the context. Manaeve manushyaanaam .. When

it is said that mind alone that realizes, then we need to understand what

exactly it means too - which mind or the same mind - same mind as what?. The

confusion is inherent in the problem - in psychology mind is understood one way

and in philosophy mind is understood in another - is it matter or does it matter

if it is matter or not - these are expressive questions from different angles.

Confusion gets resolved by clarification - there is no ego involved in the

clarification and discussion of what it is. Mind will have the last say. Just a

clarification. The mind series would clarify what it implies. Everyone is

magnifying one aspect of the mind - ultimately mind includes all - as in dream

world or total mind for the waking world.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Sun, 3/29/09, Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote:

 

 

 

Sometimes, I wonder if we are overusing the term Mind.