[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> I am saying that one can talk of one's own mind being privy to it but not of
> the minds of others yet the mind of all is claimed to be known on the basis
> of the knowledge of one's own mind and acted on. The reason imputed in this
> is that as long as an assumption regarding all minds is not countered then
> that assumption is right. The point made is that the logic of existence of
> 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 entity
> 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,

Vidyasankar

          
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/