[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[Anbu sivam2]

"It is not from the standpoint of brahman but from the standpoint of
the jIva only. Just as the body is objectifiable, so is the mind."

This is just a little tricky.  The one who says 'my mind' viz. the ego is
also part of the mind!

Brahman is not an 'object' for jeevas like you and me.   For, such
objectification of Brahman would repudiate his absoluteness.  On the
contrary you and I as jeevas are His objects. How?  Because for you and I as
mithya, He is our adhishtaanam.  Without His support we cannot exist as
jeevas.  Therefore from our standpoint there is a relationship but same
cannot be said of Him.  We are His objects because He is our adhishtaanam.
But in our advidhya we turn around and say He is our object mutually.  The
Truth is He alone IS and there is no object for Him.

When Mukthi takes place this riddle is dissolved.

"Whether
one jIva can know another jIva's mind or not, s/he can still objectify
it. Even when a person A says "I cannot understand what is in B's
mind", it is still an objectification by A of B's mind."

Recognizing that you have a mind as much as I do is plain common sense.  No
one can disagree with that.

If I say "what is in your mind?", I am simply being curious as to what is
your intention.  Is it not?

Regards,
Anbu


On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 9 March 2010 23:41, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "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.
>
> It is not from the standpoint of brahman but from the standpoint of
> the jIva only. Just as the body is objectifiable, so is the mind.
>
> >
> > Tell me when you are certain about the complete success of such
> > neuroscience.  Right now the jury is still out on it.
>
> Let the jury be out on it. It is still besides the point. Again I
> repeat, not being able to know something because of the absence of
> instruments is different from not being able to objectify it. Whether
> one jIva can know another jIva's mind or not, s/he can still objectify
> it. Even when a person A says "I cannot understand what is in B's
> mind", it is still an objectification by A of B's mind.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>