[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 00:11:33 CST 2010

[As the following post appeared in a truncated way, I am re-posting it, in
its full form.]

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sri Subramanian,
>> Sir, I did *not* say that there is no such thing at all called the mind.
>>  I
>> only questioned as it being the object.
> [ Thank you for the clarification. ]
>> There is light because you see it with your eyes.  There is music because
>> you hear it with your ears.  There is frangrance of the flower because you
>> smell it with your nose.  There is the delighful sourness of lemon because
>> you taste it with your tongue.  It is hot because you feel it with your
>> skin.  Please tell me with what gnyaanEndhriya would you perceive my mind?
> [ Sir, much of the questioning would be avoided if only you had had some
> basic familiarity with how things operate in Vedanta shAstram.  A study of
> books like Tattva bodha/Vedanta
> Paribhasha/Vivekachudamani/Panchadashi/Bhagavadgita with Bhashyam would
> expose one to the fundamental principles of the Vedanta system.  In the
> absence of this indispensable knowledge it becomes very difficult to argue
> with and convince any questioner.
> You ask: Please tell me with what gnyaanEndhriya would you perceive my
> mind?
> It is rudimentary knowledge for any student of Vedanta that the mind is not
> an object of any of the jnaanendriya-s, sense organs.  This is because the
> mind does not fall under any of the categories of shabda, sparsha, rUpa,
> rasa and gandha.  The five sense organs can grasp only these five.
> Yet, the mind IS an object.  For what? For the sAkshi.  One's own mind is
> the object of oneself, the sAkshi.  That is why/how one is able to know the
> rise of desire, fear, envy, etc. in one's mind.
> For X, Y's mind is definitely an object, but not of pratyaksha, not of
> sAkshi, but for the pramANa of anumAna, inference.  In Vedanta, apart from
> pratyaksha (sensory/direct perception), anumAna, inference is also a valid
> pramANa that can generate valid knolwedge.  Supposing you teach me a concept
> and want to find out if I have grasped it correctly.  You ask me questions.
> From my answers you judge whether or not I have grasped your teaching.  This
> is a simple example.  With your sense organs you hear or read my answers and
> with this basic sensory input you infer my understanding.
> Understanding/grasping is definitely a function/faculty of the
> mind/intellect and this is an object for any other person thru inference.
> For oneself, one's own understanding is an object, of his sAkshi.
> In the same way, the Jnani's expressions of maitri,karuNa, etc. are
> objectified by people with their sense organs and they infer their presence
> in the Jnani's mind.  That is how people conclude: This mahAtma is so
> compassionate, so considerate, his heart melts at the sight of people's
> sufferings, etc.  The Bhagavadgita chapter 13, for instance, teaches what
> faculties constitute the mind: icchA, dveShaH, sukham duHkham etc. They are
> NOT traits/attributes of the Atma.  Atma is nirguNa, kevala chit svarUpam.
> To demand that your mind should be an object of jnAnendriya alone would put
> you in the company of the chArvAka, for he alone admits of only one
> pramANam: pratyaksha. ]
> Regards,
> subrahmanian.v

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list