[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[Anbu sivam2]

Dear Rameshji,

Namasthe.

"The meaning of the terms "object" and "objectifiable" are quite
different from what you seem to have understood above. Whether I can
know what is in your mind is quite different from whether I can
objectify your mind. The reason I cannot know what is in your mind is
not because I cannot objectify it (in fact I very well can) but
because I don't have the requisite instruments to know."

That was precisely my point.

"As far as the mind goes, in all the Indian darshana-s it is treated as
"material" and is definitely objectifiable."

This is from the standpoint of Brahman which alone is the subject. What was
under discussion was from the standpoint of the jeeva.  Jeevan Muktha as
Brahman has separated himself from all objects including the mind.  But a
jeeva is no jeeva without his mind.  However much we may generalize the mind
we should not forget that each jeeva has a unique identity with his mind
that is inseparable from him.

"Theoretically therefore,
there is nothing to prevent one person from knowing another's mind, as
long as s/he has the requisite instruments. Modern neuroscience has
made considerable progress in mapping specific emotional/mental states
to specific kinds of neural activity and therefore it is possible to
 at least approximately ascertain what is in another person's mind."

Tell me when you are certain about the complete success of such
neuroscience.  Right now the jury is still out on it.

If I can know your mind then you cannot prevent me from manipulating your
mind by which your unique identity can be taken away and you can be made
into a machine at my beck and call.  This would repudiate our karma theory
where Easwara alone is the destiner and that a jeeva would be in no position
to enjoy and suffer his karmaphala that was destined to him by the Lord.

"Traditionally also, we accept the possibility of yogin-s being able to
read others' minds. It must also be understood that all these
instruments are only extensions of the j~nAnendriya-s."

A yogin is no yogin if he subverts your mind.  In any case such a yogin is
an exception and not the rule.  If there is such a yogin, you as a supporter
of the modern science would like to examine as to why he possesses such
ability that others would not have.  If you are a statistician you would
remove him from your data.

"But all this is besides the point. The very fact that we are able to
think in terms of "reading others' minds" is a third-party
objectification of the mind."

Or shall we say the mind's flight of fancy!

Regards,
Anbu





On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste Anbu-ji,
>
> On 9 March 2010 18:03, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "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?"
> >
>
> The meaning of the terms "object" and "objectifiable" are quite
> different from what you seem to have understood above. Whether I can
> know what is in your mind is quite different from whether I can
> objectify your mind. The reason I cannot know what is in your mind is
> not because I cannot objectify it (in fact I very well can) but
>


> because I don't have the requisite instruments to know.
>
> For example, I cannot presently know for sure whether life exists in
> the Andromeda galaxy because I do not have the instruments/technology
> to do so. However, if the said technology develops in future, then we
> will be able to know. Similarly, a 100 years ago it was not possible
> to conclusively establish the parentage of an individual. But today it
> is possible through DNA testing. Hence knowability is different from
> objectifiability.
>
> As far as the mind goes, in all the Indian darshana-s it is treated as
> "material" and is definitely objectifiable. Theoretically therefore,
> there is nothing to prevent one person from knowing another's mind, as
> long as s/he has the requisite instruments. Modern neuroscience has
> made considerable progress in mapping specific emotional/mental states
> to specific kinds of neural activity and therefore it is possible to
>


> at least approximately ascertain what is in another person's mind.
> Traditionally also, we accept the possibility of yogin-s being able to
> read others' minds. It must also be understood that all these
> instruments are only extensions of the j~nAnendriya-s.
>
> But all this is besides the point. The very fact that we are able to
> think in terms of "reading others' minds" is a third-party
> objectification of the mind.
>
> The only "entity" that cannot be objectified at all is the Atman.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>