[Advaita-l] Mind and Self (was Re: On the forms of Guru)
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Mar 7 19:17:17 CST 2010
In this connection, a dialogue between Ramanar and a devotee/aspirant is
The word 'mano naasam' has a different meaning; all confusion arises when
one takes the meaning in a literal sense. Swami Paramarthananda has
explained this very well in one of his talks:
A pot can be said to have been 'destroyed' in two ways:
1. when the pot is dropped or hit by a stick, the pot breaks and there is
no longer a thing called 'pot'. This is naasam of the pot.
2. When through mere vivekam one realizes that the pot is nothing but its
material 'clay', one can accomplish the 'naasam' of the pot. In this viveka
dRiShti, the pot is merely clay and the pot-name and pot-form are just
Even so, mano naasam means only the latter type; the literal naasam of the
manas is impossible; it happens only when the Jnani's body undergoes death;
videha kaivalyam. For the Jnani, owing to Self-realization, the mind-shakti
has been realized to be just an appearance; there is no longer that shakti
that can bind him to the world. Yet, the apparatus called mind does not
vanish; it remains, has to remain, to enable him to connect to the world as
long as the body remains. When Ramana says 'the mind has been destroyed',
what is meant is only the binding-mind is 'destroyed', rendered
ineffective. He does not mean that the apparatus-mind has been destroyed.
If that has happened, He would not be able to even say anything about the
Jnani to any questioner.
Om Tat Sat
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:35 AM, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 3/5/10, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> > > What differentiates Bhagavan Ramana from all others in
> > respect of the mind
> > > is that He advocated 'manOnaasam'. He, in my
> > conviction, spoke of it after
> > > having achieved it Himself.
> > Even the gauDapAda kArikA, written well before Sankara's
> > times, has
> > a verse that talks of the amanI-bhAva of the manas.
> > There have been
> > innumerable teachers of advaita through the ages, who have
> > described
> > mano-nASa. By the same token, there have also been
> > innumerable
> > teachers of advaita through the ages, who have talked of
> > the mind,
> > its operation and control even for the jnAnI. Each position
> > has to be
> > understood as per context.
> IMO, there are a couple of differences between the mind of the GYAnI (in
> the sense of a sthitapraGYa) and an aGYAnI:
> 1. In the mind of the GYAnI, the ego or "I-thought" (I-am-the-doer) does
> not exist, whereas the I-thought exists in the mind of the ignorant. Vide
> GItA 5.8-9.
> 2. The GYAnI's mind is *completely absorbed* in the Self, but it is not so
> for the aGYAnI. Here are some quotes from Ramana Maharshi's book
> "Q: What is the nature of the mind?
> A: What is called ‘mind’ is a wondrous power residing in the
> Self...When the mind comes out of the Self, the world appears."
> The first part, "What is called ‘mind’ is a wondrous power residing in the
> Self", describes the state of the GYAnI, whose mind is absorbed in the Self.
> The second part, "When the mind comes out of the Self, the world appears",
> describes the state of the aGYAnI, whose mind has wandered outwards away
> from the Self.
> That the GYAnI's mind is absorbed in the Self is again described by RM in
> the book Who-Am-I: "After the mind has been made to stay in the Self which
> is its deity, and has been rendered indifferent to empirical matters because
> it does not stray away from the Self, how can the mind think as
> > Regards,
> > Vidyasankar
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list