[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[V Subrahmanian]

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