The mind according to Sri Shankaracharya.

[Kiran B R]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:24:22 -0700, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram
<srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>Hari Om !!
>
>--- Kiran B R <kiranbr at ROCKETMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> pass. Of course, such powers should not be expected
>> in
>> non-braHmajnAnis.
>>
>
>Why ????
>
>This is your fundamental mistake, based on which you
>have been taking people in circles. I do not know why
>others are not objecting to this line of thinking.
>

It is surely a fundamental mistake if you're not ready to question the
fundament. But I like the mistake which empowers a seeker with the ability
to move every atom in the universe at will. And if this ability is to be
achieved by an X-vidyA other than brahmavidyA, I'd call X-vidyA as
braHmavidyA and braHmavidyA as vidyA.

>Here the word unreal should not be construed as
>'non-existant'. If it were so we should have used it
>as non-existant' like a hare's horn. Here, the word
>'unreal' means it is not in a similar level as Atma
>which is Desa-Kala-vastu aparicheda. The mind itself
>is un-real. The mind changes continuously, and also it
>is not the same in two similar situations etc. This is
>the unreality. First of all Mind itself is 'mAyA'. In
>the Yoga Vasishta the Mind itself is negated. When
>Lord Rama asks a similar question, Sage Vasishta
>replies, what is MIND ??????


If the mind is unreal, then anything obtained by changing the configuration
of an unreal thing is also unreal. The process of focusing the mind on
the "real" is unreal, since in the ultimate analysis it is just a
transormation of "anna". That state of mind which is devoid of all chitta-
vruthti is also unreal. What is experienced or perceived or seen or known
in that state is also unreal. THAT is unreal, since it is only percieved in
a certain configuration of the mind which is unreal. It is just a
fabrication of the mind. You may argue that the mind is "dead"
or "inactive" or "without vruththis" in nirvikalpa samADhi or in the case
of a jIvanmukta - but in the end that is nothing but a modification of
anna. People may claim or be acclaimed to have transcended the limits of
the mind, but what they have really done is -  they have reconfigured their
minds in a particular way.

I think it is a useful to think of the mind as a bag full of scrap iron-
filings which point in arbitrary directions for lack of unity among the
individual bits and because of objects of sense which attract groups of
these bits like magnets. Reorganizing all these iron filings to point in
one direction is possible, and that is the ultimate state the human mind
can reach. That requires physical work (as in force X distance) against
those deadly material magnets.

No mukti is possible without that state. That state is a necessary
condition for mukti. Some claim that that state is the braHman. Some claim
that that which is perceived in this "cave of the mind" is braHman. Some
claim that this is knowledge, and give the name braHman to it. Some others
don't like to give the name braHman to it. Some others say nothing is
perceived in it.

They are all right. But there's one more thing common to all of them. With
each other they all fight!

There is an answer to Sage Vashishta's question. Mind is that without which
he could not have said "what is MIND?????". Those words first arose in his
mind. That which gave birth to those words is mind. Those scrap iron
filings which ordered his lips to move and say "what is MIND????" form part
of that which people call the mind.

>While it is difficult to give you an answer by boiling
>water, it is explained in Yoga Vasishta that it is
>'Kaka-Taliya'. i.e when a kAka a was sitting under a
>tAla tree, its fruit fell and the kAka died. We can
>not assign a cause and effect relationship here. It is
>just accidental. This is what sage vasisHta explained
>to Rama.

                     "Believe not because..."

                        -Gautama Buddha

>
>Swami Sivananda in a lecture explained in the
>following way: why is there only one Sun  to everyone
>in the dream ? and similarly, in the waking state all
>the apparent events are 'alike'.
>

How does he know that I don't dream about two suns? How does he know that
water doesn't freeze on boiling in my dreams?


>If you need more, scientific answer, you can continue
>to waste your life time, pursuing further.
>
>You will save yourself a lot of trouble, if you read
>mANDUkya and bhAshya and listen to it from a true
>advaitic teacher and scholer.
>

Don't call the mANDukya and bhAshya unscientific, my friend!! And don't
call others' methods as intrinsically troublesome either, my friend!! They
are intrinsically troublesome to you, from your seat on your fundament.

Dhanyavaad
Kiran