[Advaita-l] ahaMkArAdi--permission to copy
jivadas3 at yahoo.ca
Sat Dec 2 15:05:42 CST 2006
Thank you for the reference to a previous posting. I would like to post a copy to my Yahoo group. Would this be ok? [I'm sure it will be, but would like the writer's permission.]
The posting was :
>is there any difference between words like
>antaHkaraNa.m, chitta.m, manas or are they all the
>i would also like to know the differences and
>similarities between terms like buddhi, vij~nAnam,
In the gItA itself, manas and buddhi are used distinctly. SankarAchArya also
refers to these two as the antaHkaraNa-dvaya (the two-fold internal organ),
in upadeSasAhasrI, kenopaniShat commentary etc. In the yogasUtra, buddhi is
not used significantly, the terms preferred being chitta and manas.
antaHkaraNa is more vedAntic in its usage and is sometimes used
interchangeably with other words, e.g. manas, hR^idaya, hR^it, chitta and
buddhi. The antaHkaraNa interacts with the physical sense organs, processes
their input and takes action on them. The context usually makes it clear
whether the general "internal organ" or a specific faculty such as manas or
buddhi are intended.
The distinction is that manas is the faculty of intention (sa.mkalpa),
imagination (vikalpa) and doubt (sa.mSaya), whereas buddhi is the faculty of
determination (adhyavasAya) and conclusion (niScaya). chitta, derived from
chit (consciousness), is typically used in a relational sense, in the
context of how the human being interacts with external objects. Therefore,
erroneous perception is in the realm of the manas, whereas right perception
is buddhi, which is therefore often used along with viGYAna. In both types
of perception, relational consciousness is involved. For example, in the
rope-snake analogy, the doubt whether the object is a snake and the
consequent fear are due to manas, while the determination "this is a rope,
not a snake" involves buddhi.
In later works, (I think especially in the vivaraNa school, see
dharamarAja's vedAnta-paribhAShA), antaHkaraNa is considered to be
four-fold, consisting of manas, buddhi, chitta and aha.mkAra. The last is,
of course, the I-sense, generally translated as ego. This four-fold
designation has its origin in the mANDUkya upaniShat, kArikAs and their
commentary. The term ekonavi.mSatimukha in this text is interpreted as the
individual possessing the five sense-organs (GYAna indriya-s), five action
organs (karma indriya-s), five prANa-s, manas, buddhi, chitta and aha.mkAra.
Another term used is saptadaSaka-liN^ga, i.e. seventeen-limbed, where chitta
and aha.mkAra are not counted separately. This is found in bR^ihadAraNyaka
bhAShya and sureSvara's vArttika thereon, as also in the prakaraNa text,
Sadananda's vedAntasAra clarifies that the numbers 17 and 19 can be
reconciled, as the manas and buddhi need to be distinguished whereas chitta
and aha.mkAra do not always need to be counted separately.
Thank you for this interesting analysis.
saMtoSaH paramo lAbhaH sat-saGgaH paramA gatiH |
vicAraH paramaM jJAnaM zamo hi paramaM sukham [Yoga Vasishtha 2.16.19]
= Contentment is the highest gain, Good Company the highest course, Enquiry the highest wisdom, and Peace the highest enjoyment.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list