[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 23 06:57:04 CDT 2010
Permit me to differ. hRt is the Antahkarana or the Chit, which consists of the Mind, Buddhi and Ahankara. The Atma's psition is in the Chit or the Antahkarana in the sense that .there is reflection of the atma in the Chit when there is preponderence of the Sattva guna. A difficult concept is'nt it?
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
--- On Mon, 3/22/10, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 4:43 AM
"No. It is not only an assumption that all living beings have minds.
Sruti and smRti also convey to us information about the mind.
When bhagavAn kRshNa says, ISvaras sarvabhUtAnAM hRd-deSe
'rjuna tishThati, we are explicitly taught that all beings (sarva
bhUta) have something called a hRt, which is but another term
for what is called mind in the English language. As such, I don't
need to assume anything at all about the existence or otherwise
of another's mind. As I said in an earlier post, there can be no
loka vyavahAra at all, without granting the mental processes of
all beings. Whether the mind is ultimately real or not, or whether
it is destroyed or not, or when it is destroyed, that is not the
issue at all for your fundamental argument above."
I missed this one. The word hRt is used for the aathman and not the mind.
Take Bhagavan's UpadhEsa Saaram for example in which he says:
hrtsthalE mana: svasthathaa kriyaa |
bhakthiyOgabOdhaascha nischitham ||
The practice of fixing the mind in its own source viz. the Heart is, without
doubt, true bhakthi, yoga and gnyaana.
When Maharshi was asked specifically about this verse by Devaraja Mudaliar
"What is the heart referred to...?"
Maharshi replied: "That which is the source of all, that in which all live,
and that into which all finally merge, is the heart referred to."
Mudaliar continued: "How can we conceive of such a heart?"
Maharshi replied: "Why should you conceive of anything? You have only to
see from where the 'I' springs."
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I am saying that one can talk of one's own mind being privy to it but not
> > the minds of others yet the mind of all is claimed to be known on the
> > of the knowledge of one's own mind and acted on. The reason imputed in
> > is that as long as an assumption regarding all minds is not countered
> > that assumption is right. The point made is that the logic of existence
> > the mind is made on the basis of assumption.
> No. It is not only an assumption that all living beings have minds.
> Sruti and smRti also convey to us information about the mind.
> When bhagavAn kRshNa says, ISvaras sarvabhUtAnAM hRd-deSe
> 'rjuna tishThati, we are explicitly taught that all beings (sarva
> bhUta) have something called a hRt, which is but another term
> for what is called mind in the English language. As such, I don't
> need to assume anything at all about the existence or otherwise
> of another's mind. As I said in an earlier post, there can be no
> loka vyavahAra at all, without granting the mental processes of
> all beings. Whether the mind is ultimately real or not, or whether
> it is destroyed or not, or when it is destroyed, that is not the
> issue at all for your fundamental argument above.
> > Also the mind which is a subject entity is being made into an object
> > which 'object' is an assumption rather than real. If it was really an
> > object then I have laid down by my logic as to how amenable it is to be
> > controlled by another.
> Not really. It is a matter of experience for everyone on this earth
> that there exist objects that are quite beyond one's control. The
> mere existence of an object is not a guarantee that it can be
> controlled by anyone who sees that object.
> However, let me not get into too much of an argument on this
> count. All I will say is that the mind is NOT subject in and of
> itself. In fact, the fundamental avidyA is to think that the mind
> is truly the subject. The only true subject is the Atman. If I may
> make a suggestion, with all due respect, please re-study what
> is said in the vedAnta about pramAtR, prameya and pramANa
> with respect to the mind.
> > You jump in to say that a gnyaani could control his own mind! Sir, do you
> > forget that we have fundamental difference here viz. whether or not a
> No, I do not jump at all. You talked about another person
> controlling the jnAnI's mind and to bolster your case, you
> claimed that one person's mind is never an object for another.
> I have shown that this position is fundamentally flawed, with
> examples. Only then have I talked of the mind being controlled
> by a jnAnI, because according to my paksha, a jnAnI has a
> mind, which he can control and use as and when needed,
> without falling into the habitual misidentification of the ajnAnI.
> In your position, a jnAnI lives, breathes, eats, sleeps, talks,
> walks and teaches in a physical body, but all of this is without
> a mind at all. Please read the gauDapAda kArikA-s on the true
> state of affairs of amanI-bhAva.
> Others on this list are doing a much more admirable job of
> quoting the primary texts and their bhAshya-s, so let me
> withdraw by agreeing to disagree with your position.
> Best regards,
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list