mind

[billcu]

I know tibetan buddhism teaches that everything is some form of mind. Now what I am understanding here is that mind is self. Self is an illusion really and is not really what we are. So what are we? What is the difference in atman and anatman?

[satay]

Namaste bill,
Where did you read that mind is self?

[Amrut]

I know tibetan buddhism teaches that everything is some form of mind. Now what I am understanding here is that mind is self. Self is an illusion really and is not really what we are. So what are we? What is the difference in atman and anatman?

Namaste,

I have not read buddhist scriptures so I cannot comment. But in Gita SELF or Atman is sometimes taken as body, mind, ego soul, etc

e.g. In chapter 6, Atmasayyam Yog. In this you have to take Atma as Mind. So it's control of mind. some translate as Dhyan Yog (Yog of Meditation) or Abhyasa Yog.

When you say

I am sick, I = Body i.e. you are refering to 'I' as body. We do not say, my body ot this body is sick.
I am hurt, I = Ego
I am intellegent, I = Intellect (buddhi)
I am bored, I = mind
I will do good karma and enjoy it's fruits in heaven, I = Jiva
I am the substratum of Entire universe, I = I (SELF, Atman)

According to Tatva Bodh, and Sri Ramana Maharshi, Mind is nothing but continuous flow of thoughts.

Aum
Indiaspirituality

[smaranam]

Namaste

DSCLAIMER: I have hardly ever paid attention to Buddhism but following is from involuntary general knowledge.

Buddhism calls the anAtma as self (what we call Kshetra (field) in BG Chapter 13: body-mind-intellect-ego-10 senses, distortions (vikaar) etc.)

And since they do not acknowledge the AtmA, they call it "no-self"

So, they call anAtma as self and the actual Self (AtmA) as no-self. Since acc. to them there is no mention of anything beyond PrakRti (matter) - hence Buddhism is shUnyavAd. Becs Buddha stayed silent when asked. He did not say there is nothing beyond th transient. He just kept quiet. But the Buddhism of today is ShUnyavAd as a result.


I say - why bring Buddhism in here?

---------------

To answer what is unatma and atma, please read Bhagvad Gita Chapter 13 Kshetra-Kshetradnya Yog

Kshetra or Field = unatma.

BG 13.5,6 : 5 elements, ego, intellect, the eternal unmanifest PrakRti, 10 sense organs, 5 vishay - subjects of the senses - smell,taste,hearing etc.,
desires,hatred,happiness,sorrow, material body, vigor, intent (dhruti)

all make up the field or kshetra. This is unatma becs atma is OTHER THAN this.

AtmA = Kshetradnya , the ruler of the Kshetra (field) that makes the insentient sentient.

AtmA = pure consciousness, embodied or otherwise.


Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[smaranam]

Oh sorry IndiaSpirituality, i had not seen your post or i would not bother to make mine.

[Amrut]

Oh sorry IndiaSpirituality, i had not seen your post or i would not bother to make mine.

you gave good explanation of atma-anatman.

[billcu]

Namaste


I say - why bring Buddhism in here?

I am familiar with it and BG. I am a beginner so I am trying to learn as I go. Until recently I thought the mahabarata was a veda and not a part of one. I have read some of SB too. The sanscrit in this forum adds somewhat to my confusion but that's to be expected.

B

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

e.g. In chapter 6, Atmasayyam Yog. In this you have to take Atma as Mind. So it's control of mind. some translate as Dhyan Yog (Yog of Meditation) or Abhyasa Yog.

I would ask that you re-consider this translation...
If we look to chapter 6, the 5th śloka of the bhāgavad gītā says,

One needs to raise his self by his Self , let him not debase his Self; he alone is his own friend or own enemy.

Some key words

• the word uddharet is used - note 'ud' = over , above + 'dha' = placing or putting hence to raise
• ātmanā = of ātman
• Now this word ātmā must be considered ( sightly different in writing then ātman) as it appears in this śloka as nātmānam avasādayet.
  From a vedāntic view point it means 'pervading substance' - it is derrived from 'āt' which leads us to 'āta' and is rooted in 'tan' - defined as to stretch (a cord) , extend , spread - and from this we get the notion of all-pervading.
  • But there is an easier way to this word... that is 'āt' gets us to 'a' which is a name of viṣṇu, of which means 'all pervading' i.e. āt = ād vyāpane = to pervade. And what does ātman do in the human body ? It is all pervading.

If we were talking of 'mind' then we would be dealing with manas or mind; manas is always regarded as distinct from ātman and puruṣa.

• avasādayet is telling us avasya = ' to seek favor + adaya = 'unkind' - let the self seek the favor of the Self.

We can continue word for word if requested...


iti śivaṁ

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Smaranam

Gosh, if what you say is the Buddhist viewpoint (though I am not sure if Siddhartha would agree 100 percent with Buddhists), then I am sure glad I am a Hindu (and not a Buddhist). Of course a Buddhist might say it is impossible to be a Buddhist, or be anything for that matter.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Amrut]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�


I would ask that you re-consider this translation...
If we look to chapter 6, the 5th śloka of the bhāgavad gītā says,

One needs to raise his self by his Self , let him not debase his Self; he alone is his own friend or own enemy.

Some key words

• the word uddharet is used - note 'ud' = over , above + 'dha' = placing or putting hence to raise
• ātmanā = of ātman
• Now this word ātmā must be considered ( sightly different in writing then ātman) as it appears in this śloka as nātmānam avasādayet.
  From a vedāntic view point it means 'pervading substance' - it is derrived from 'āt' which leads us to 'āta' and is rooted in 'tan' - defined as to stretch (a cord) , extend , spread - and from this we get the notion of all-pervading.
  • But there is an easier way to this word... that is 'āt' gets us to 'a' which is a name of viṣṇu, of which means 'all pervading' i.e. āt = ād vyāpane = to pervade. And what does ātman do in the human body ? It is all pervading.

If we were talking of 'mind' then we would be dealing with manas or mind; manas is always regarded as distinct from ātman and puruṣa.

• avasādayet is telling us avasya = ' to seek favor + adaya = 'unkind' - let the self seek the favor of the Self.

We can continue word for word if requested...


iti śivaṁ

Namaste Yajvan ji.

Thank you for pointing out the translation.

I will honestly tell you. I have not even read Full 700 verses in Gita. I do not know sanskrit and like you I cannot split word-by-word.

I was told to listen to a concise Gita commentary, in which all important slokas were taken into account. An explanation was given in such a way that nothing important was left out. The commentary was in Gujarati language recorded in 1989 or maybe 1979 by Swami Tadrupanand Saraswati. It was a set of 26 audio cessette and there were 50 tracks (side A + Side B). I had listened this whole set many times, maybe 21 or 24 times. Apart from this I have not read or studied any commentary nor was told to learn sanskrit.

I have not read many of them, just a select few, with a lot of repetitions, sometimes for as long as 8 years, as in case of Sri Ramakrishna Jivan Charitra until I was told to stop reading them. I have not read any upanishads, as I was told for my personal growth, they were not needed.

So my knowledge is very very limited and whatever.

With this base in mind, all my posts are more or less extracted from this discourses. Again, I have left Listening Gita since 5-6 years and my memory is weak.

As, far as I remember correctly, it was this verse which Swamiji was referring and saying that if you consider Atma as Brahman /Atma, then how can you control which is beyond mind and intellect. So with reference to context (w.r.t.), it has to be taken as 'Mind' and not literally 'Atma'

Again, if you translate in English word-by-word, it will be, "Stand on your shoulder". This will create confusion. So you will have to interpret atma and mind. In entire Gita, you have to take into consideration w.r.t. i.e. with what reference it is being said, and specially in chapter 6, else you wont understand chapter 6 correctly. You can control mind but not atma. It is the mind that has to be controlled or checked or 'to be kept under check'.

I would further like to add that I do not know or have never thought of splitting atman and atma. All I have done is listen to the discourse (I have never met Swamiji face-2-face). Later on during meditation, or through any issue, the lines would click and I would experience the same thing.

revelation began to happen mostly after I was able to sit for 3 hours on OM. From my experience, I had experienced detachment from mind, and later body after I could regularly meditate for 3 hours. After detachment, peace and bliss follows and the entire interpretation of shastras changes. doubts dissolve.

This is the way I have understood shastras.

Now new things are happening.. Now, I am forgetting everything. sometimes I begin to think and after some time say 2-3 or 5 minutes, suddenly something wipes of thoughts and I am in Blank state. Even after trying to recollect what was I thinking just second before, I could not recollect. Repeatedly, one thought is gaining strength, "Why Think'

I also like a Quote from Rumi,' There comes a time, when nothing is meaning except surrendering to love. Do it!"

I have created a wallpaper having this quote, which is currently on my desktop.

Though my learning days are over (after getting orders to stop reading), as far as reading shastras are concerned, If there is something that I have misinterpretated or understood, please let me know and I will correct it.

Also, if you find anything my this or past or future posts, feel free to correct them directly, as there are others who read it and it gives one a direction in life.

I respect your knowledge about shastras and sanskrit. I am just an average guy, who lives a spiritual life.

Aum
Indiaspirituality.