[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[Anbu sivam2]

"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."

Thanks for lecturing me on Vedantha.  On the above quote if you had read
what I have written before Viz.

"Sir, when I say 'my mind' it is certainly an object for me, however it is
no object for everyone.  You would know of my mind if I speak about it,
otherwise you would not know.  You cannot even question the truth of what I
speak of my mind.  Would you agree?"

then you would not have to labour so hard with your posting.

This ends my discussion with you since you have answered my single question.

Regards,
Anbu

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:48 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>