What is Mind?

[Eastern Mind]

So here's another question to ponder. Is there only one mind, period, and when we are building our individual minds through experience etc, we are merely pulling portions of the one universal mind out, sort of, and using that portion that we pull, as our own? (This theory would certainly help explain how simultaneous discoveries happen.) We also know that only a small portion of our brain is actually in use. What's in the rest? Aum Namasivaya

[Kaos]

Interesting discussion yajvan, saidevo, EM and all.
Thanks for your informative posts.

According to Buddhism, mind is neither physical nor a by-product of physical processes. The mind is a formless continuum that is a separate entity from the body. When the body disintegrates at death, the mind does not cease.

Our superficial conscious mind does not cease, but instead dissolves into a deeper level of consciousness called the "very subtle mind".
This continuum, this very subtle mind has no beginning and no end.



Let's keep up with the discussion, as we try to learn and gain more insights into the nature of "mind". Your inputs are much appreciated.

[yajvan]

Namaste Yajvan.
Then what is mind, as a manifest entity? What is the nature and structure of the mind? Is it matter, energy or both? To what extent is it an extension of Individual Consciousness, which is the individual Atman and substratum of the mind and body?

Namaste saidevo,

excellent responses by all... ( K, EM, etc.). I think we are getting to the crux of this conundrum. It is very difficult to talk of this entity mind, without metaphors and examples.
K offers mind is neither physical nor a by-product of physical processes. The mind is a formless continuum that is a separate entity from the body, from the Buddist perspective, and EM offers more questions e.g. potions of the Universal Mind ( as I tend to agree - if all this is indeed Brahman, it must include Mind, yes?)

So, why is this pursuit of value for us to understand? Its something we use every day. If you asked me to define my car, I could do that to a 99.99% accuracy level; a very complex machine that can be broken down to parts, energy, motion, steel, aluminum, etc. Yet this mind that we use all the time has us kinda still scratching our heads on the matter.

Why pursue? This mind is something the Patanjali says keeps us from knowing our SELF. He says suppress it, be without it. Yet we are not certain what parts we will be without! Hold it - don't throw that part out, I like that part, no, hold it I think I may need this feeling for later or that memory to my gym locker . Yet this muni of enlightened vision and many more say this mind is the obstacle.

If we dump the mind AND if Intellect is connected to it ( I think saidevo you suggest it is part of Mahat or the Comic Intellect, yet this then saying it is not part of manas, or mind? or on loan?) what facility do we have when we're done cleaning house e.g. the mind?

Here is the Implication Of This Matter
Does all of the functioning of us then switch to the Universal Mind, Intellect, etc. and Brahman drives ? I can see without a doubt how prakriti can take care of the body without our interference , this is clear to me. And Krsnsa says be without the 3 gunas. This too makes sense as we exit from the 3 guna influence in the mind, and reside in the SELF.

Yet of the mind? If the mind is Universal Mind ( and I am all for it), why then would each rishi, each guru, swami, each realized being, and exponent of Reality not have the same concepts and philosophy of Brahman, of Siva? of Mother Divine? of Shakti? IF accessing the same mind? the same database.

Extending Saidevo's Personal computer concept, we're going from individual pc's and now hooking directly and functioning from the Main Frame. We are now the mainframe as we gave up the PC and that architecture.


This is a pickle , No?
'There is not even one Rishi whose opinion can be accepted by all' says
Yudhishthira [Yaksha Prasna, – found in Araneya Parva, Mahabharata]

How does one rationalize this?


Om Sri Ramaya Namah

pranams,

[Eastern Mind]

Yajvan: What I think is that we do need to hold parts of the mind, yet get rid of others. All the gridded intellect part, other than that which keeps us spiritual can be done away with. Subramuniyaswami said that one's subconscious should be like a pane of glass. Clear, not muddled with various astral colours. If you read about auras and their colours, they tell you both the conscious mind the individual is in, and also the subconscious mind. The subconscious aura is more of a blob in the middle of the big aura of the conscious. The parts of the instinctive layer that we need are the ones like hunger that fulfill the maintenance of the body, and the instinct to realise the Self, but only at the beginning stages of the path. I guess even that has to be dropped to actually realise the Self. But all the ones like anger, fear, lust, greed, pride, the lower emotions, we need to learn how to control. They eventually will drop off, but the first step is just control. (not in a repressive way of course, then its a volcano waiting to come out, and comes out with more force or lack of direction) The great sages often did not 'think' before responding with wisdom, and just spoke directly from the superconscious with direct cognition.
I do believe in one universal mind, created by Siva, which we tap into.

[atanu]

Namaste All,

Let me add my bit.

Classically mind is said to be jada like all observable objects (like body) but it is said to be pure sattwa so it is able to reflect consciousness (for the consciousness) whereas the body which is more of a tamasic object cannot do so. Mind is the intermediate between consciousness and the objects and when one observes the thoughts cropping up, the mind itself becomes the observed object.

So, some gurus like Ramana Maharshi teach that on observing and enquiring into the source of mind (which is non-different from Aham Kara -- the first "I" call), the mind is not found. It is held to be a power and not an object by Ramana Guru, who of course holds all other objects that reflect in mind as also trans-figuration of Atman alone. Considering that ultimately, the Atman is the reality, this view is finally the correct view. This view is similar to the Buddhist view, except that herein, Brahman the immutable, is considered and the mind is said to rise in immutable Brahman.

I add my intuitive bit. Mind is unique two way mirror that the Atman constructs trans-figuratively, out of itself, to enjoy the delicious objects that it has further plans to construct. Advaitin will say that Atman does not create anything and that the mind is the first product of Maya made of Sattwa Guna, which reflects the consciousness, since it is the purest matter. Mind deludes when one considers it to be an instrument of the body and mind liberates when it is known to be an instrument of Atman that has localised itself for some purpose.

RV5.3.3. For the glory of thee, O Rudra, the life powers make bright thy birth into a richly manifold beauty. When that highest step [The supreme plane of the three.] of Vishnu is founded within, thou guardest by it the secret name of the Ray cows.

Mind is said to be dark matter, not self luminous (similar to Moon). Atman is said to be self luminous (similar to Sun). However, it is Atman that illumines the Sun as well. Western philosophers consider mind to be intelligent and different from matter (Descartes) or to be a property of the body (Materialists). Both views are not acceptable to Vedanta which accepts the Atman as the only intelligence. And the crucial part comes when Atman is known as Advaita. Probably no other religion has this view of One Atman and its One Pragnya, which is the Lord, the Jiva, and the Universe.

That is why Yoga Sutra and all other meditative teachings exhort us to make the mind free of waves and let the Atman (or Purusha) act directly. Nirodha of the mind waves is not arresting the intellect, but unshakling it by making the individual mind disappear (Guru Ramana teaches that Nirodha or arresting is not a correct connotation). Logically also, in deep sleep when there is no mind, one is happy but one fails to partake happiness because one is lying with Yogamaya. So, uprooting the individualised i (mind) allows one to bypass the darkness of Yoga Maya but remain as self luminous Self.


Vedanta also teaches that this Atman (or Purusha) is Brahman. On disappearance of individual mind, whatever thoughts sprout, non-volitionally, belong to Brahman/Ishwara and not to the small "i". Guru Vashista, in Rig Veda, sings eulogy to Vishnu who cries "I am Cipivista". Mind is only one degree away from Atman, whereas the observed objects are said to be four degrees away from the Atman. So, Guru Ramana teaches observation and enquiry into the I, which is the beginning of mind manifesting.

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste All,

Classically mind is said to be jada like all observable objects (like body) but it is said to be pure sattwa so it is able to reflect consciousness (for the consciousness) whereas the body which is more of a tamasic object cannot do so. Mind is the intermediate between consciousness and the objects and when one observes the thoughts cropping up, the mind itself becomes the observed object.

Om

namaste atanu (et.al).
I think we are making progress here overall...
It seems, mind is manas tattva (called samkalpasadhana) - and this tattva brings forth thought. Yet for this thought to arise, the 'inventory' requires at times, bhuddhi tattva , the intellect. It also requires that of Ahamkara tattva , that of the ego ( of me, small 'i'). Intellect contributes discrimination, ego , everything else i.e. emotions, feelings, fears, etc.

re: EM's comment - The great sages often did not 'think' before responding with wisdom, and just spoke directly from the superconscious with direct cognition.
Yes, I agree. this is the goal - no thinking from individual status 'me'. I think we can all agree , without 'mind' [ some call this cittapralaya or thoughtlessness ] the working of speech and response come from Universal SELF - this is most desirable. This is what atanu raises in his post:
On disappearance of individual mind, whatever thoughts sprout, non-volitionally, belong to Brahman/Ishwara and not to the small "i".

If the mind is Universal Mind ( and I am all for it), why then would each rishi, each guru, swami, each realized being, and exponent of Reality not have the same concepts and philosophy of Brahman, of Siva? of Mother Divine? of Shakti? If accessing the same mind? the same database.
Could it be lesh avidya? for those that are new to this term, it is the remnants of ignorance that are left. Say one has a butter-ball in their hands. They put this ball down, yet remain on their hands is this film, the remains of holding the ball. Like that, when Moksha dawns, there is a residue of ignorance that remains - this keeps the tattvas intact, so one is not completely absorbed into Brahman. This is how my teacher has explained it.

pranams,

[Eastern Mind]

Hari Om
~~~~~



If the mind is Universal Mind ( and I am all for it), why then would each rishi, each guru, swami, each realized being, and exponent of Reality not have the same concepts and philosophy of Brahman, of Siva? of Mother Divine? of Shakti?

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan et al: This is a good question. Personally I think they do all have the same concepts. And as you said, they would carry over from their own subconscious training, remnants of the small "i". Some are more realised than others as well. In my readings about the Self, you don't just realise it once, but you realise it over and over again, and are able to explore new worlds as the siddhis come. The other big thing, in my humble opinion, is who they are speaking to. Certain students need certain things. From that superconscious direct cognition, that mind from which a realised soul would speak from, would simultaneously be feeling, and tuning into the audience. I've seen this first hand, when a swami gave a very different speech to a different audience. Its like me adjusting my language level consciously (or subconsciously with much experience) when I am teaching Grade 2 or Grade 8. So a Vaishnava swami while speaking to Vaishnavas would speak to them, (Vishnu is God, worship him as the Godhead) but if he were invited in Hindu solidarity to speak at a Smarta of Saiva conference, he might say, "Siva is God" as that would be what he was feeling in the crowd. In many ways realised souls are just mirrors reflecting back what you already know or think. Another take. Aum Namasivaya.

[saidevo]

Mind in Hindu Texts

[From the book The Science of Peace by Bhagavan Das
downloadable at: http://www.archive.org/details/scienceofpeace029498mbp (22.7 MB)]

Functions-Faculties of Mind

Vedanta speaks of the tetrad of the inner organ, antaH karaNa-chatushtaya--viz, manas, buddhi, ahamkAra, chitta.

Yoga speaks of Chitta with the three shIlas or characteristics.

Nyaya mentions Buddhi and Manas separately (Sutra I.i.9), makes jnAna or cognition (together with other phenomena) a 'mark' or characteristic of Atma (I.i.10), identifies Jnana with Buddhi (I.i.15) and states the distinguishing characteristic of manas to be prevention of more than one 'knowledge' (or 'experience') occurring at one time (I.i.16).

But Nyaya-Bhashya (on I.i.16) says: "Memory, reasoning, acceptance of testimony, doubt, intuition, dreaming, Jnana or knowledge, inferential conjecture, experience of pleasure, desire, etc., are 'marks' of Manas; and besides these, also this one peculiarly, viz., the non-occurrence of more than one 'knowledge' at a time."

And Nyaya-vartika-tatparya-tlka (on the same) seems to identify Buddhi (which as said above is expressly declared in the Sutra to be identical with Jnana) with Manas, thus:

buddhirGYAnasAdhanamiti | budhyate.aneneti vutpatyA mana ucyate |

The reconciliation and explanation of all these may be found in the statements that:

Chitta consists of Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas,' which make up the 'inner organ'; and of these, Manas expresses rajas; Ahamkara, tamas; and buddhi, sattva.' -- Shiva Sutra Vimarshini, iii.1 and Spanda Karika Vivrti, iv.20

Desire-Force as Jivas

Shiva Sutra Vimarshini and Yoga Vasishtha (Chudala Upakhyana) elaborate on this concept thus:

-- This three-functioned mind or Chitta is aNu, atomic, because it 'breathes', aniti, expands and contracts, and keeps moving incessantly, atati, and hence is called the AtmA-jIva-aNu;

-- Atma, really Omnipresent, therefore motionless, appears as moving (atat) when, colored by desire, vAsanA, it puts on a-khyAti (a-vidyA, a-jnAna), non-knowledge or forgetfulness of Its-Own-Nature, and, instead of Omnipresent, becomes aNu, a limited atom;

-- when enveloped in the triple organ and the five tan-mAtras, it is the experiencer-Chitta;

-- this sheathing is due to desire, will to live: the essence and core of mind may well be said to be desire'; while, no doubt, the three aspects of the mind are co-equal, yet, if a 'distinction between the prophets' may be made at all, we would have to say that very soul of soul is desire; for desire, emotion, the ruling passion, makes the individuality, the peculiarity and character of the person, is the individualising, finitising, characterising, distinguishing principle; any given person feels his separate existence most fully and keenly when he is expressing a particular emotion most intensely; creation of krtyAs, (Tibetan tulku) 'artificial' elementals and Devas, by means of mantras, i.e., manana, ideation, with intense desire, is only an illustration of this fact, as also the theosophical doctrine of 'individualising' of souls from lower into human kingdom under stress of intense emotion, like 'crystallisation' under stress of chemicophysical forces corresponding to emotions; 'desire is the shakti par excellence, shakti-tama;' cognition and action are shaktis only with the energy borrowed from desire.

Mind is World-Process

Yoga Vasishta (III.ch.84) says:

'The Chit-element in Chitta, is seed of omniscience; the Jada-element in it, is all this Jagat, moving illusion. Chitta, mind, contains all the World-Process within itself. It should be reflected upon, controlled, cultivated, refined'.

After all, is it not literally true, that every experience, and all that is contained or implied in it and by it, all its contents, is a mood of mind, a vrtti of antah-kararaNa, i.e., of the Self identified with, or imagining It-Self as, anttah-karaNa? To think, to say, 'this is my-self's experience, that is another-Self's experience, this mountain is outside of Me' is not all this, My experience or thought? Is not all distinguishing of one-Self and another-Self, together with both the thus distinguished selves, within the One Self which distinguishes? Indeed there is Only One Self which includes all selves and all not-selves, all thoughts and all things, all subjects and all objects.

Aspects of Mind

It is true that the ancient works lay stress on the indivisible oneness of mind, manas, in all its psychoses i.e., the psyche's functionings, moods, modes; thus:

'Love and passionate desire, resolve, doubt, faith, disbelief, patience, impatience, modesty, clear insight, fear--all these are but Manas, mind.' -- Brhad-Aranyaka, 1.v.3

These psychoses (mind's functions, mentations), are typical of the scores mentioned in different works of various schools of philosophy; e.g., Alochana, pure sensation, and pratyaksha, perception (which are the basis of all other mental operations, as said, in Sankhya Karika,30, and in Nyayabhashya, I.i.8),

adhyavasAya, or ascertainment, abhimAna, egoistic desire, sankalpa or vyavasAya, resolve, viparyaya or viparyAsa, error, samshaya, doubt, vikalpa, imagination, svapna, dreaming, nidrA, sleep, praty-avamarsha or pratyabhijnA, recognition, ichchhA, desire, rAga, liking, dvesha, disliking, krti, volition, abhi-sandhi, determination, anubhava, experience, presentation, smrti, memory, etc. all these are only moods of the one mind.

Names Vary with Functionings

From the Maha Upanishad and Yoga Vasishtha:

'Self-born Brahma spreads out the worlds by Manas. Wherever there is sankalpa-ideation, there is Manas at work. There is no difference between the two. When ideation ceases, Self As-One remains. It is indicated by such names as Atma. By and in ideation, Space-Time-Motion appear, and Chit-consciousness becomes kshetra-jna, cogniser of the 'field', the 'This'. Ideating vasana-desires, it becomes 'aham-kAra'-ego-ism; that, making determinations, free of doubt, a-kalanki, becomes 'buddhi'; that, forming an 'image', becomes 'manas': that, densifying, crystallising, becomes indriyas, sensor-and-motor-organs; these make up the body. Thus the jIva-soul, binding itself with bonds, like the silkworm imprisoning itself in a cocoon spun by itself, falls lower and lower into denser and denser matter. This one and the same Manas- Mind, according to its various functionings, is named now 'manas', now 'buddhi', now 'jnana ', again 'ichchhA', then 'kriya', now 'aham-kAra', now 'chitta', or prakrti, or maya, or malam, or karma, bandha, puri-ashtaka, or a-vidyA. All these are but various names of various functionings of one and the same ideating Manas-Mind'.

Still it is possible to distinguish three broad classes of functionings among these phenomena. This is explained in Tantra-loka ix., Prasna Upanishad IV.8, Sankhya Karika 23.24.37, Shabda Kalpa Druma, art. Antahkarana, Devi Bhagavatam VII.xxxii.. (For the actual verses, check pages 268-269 of the book).

So far there is no difficulty. There is a clear consensus in the above texts, that Buddhi is that faculty of the mind whose function is to ascertain facts, adhyavasaya, bodha, syati, nishchaya;

Aham-kara, to ego-ise, to connect all experiences with self, to reduce them to the sake of the selfishly-desiring self, abhimAna, sam-rambha, mati, garva;

Manas, to resolve upon which course to follow between doubtful alternatives, kalpana, mantavya, eshanA, ichchha, klrpti, samshaya or sankalpa-vikalpa;

Chitta, to memorise, to connect before and after, past and present and future, and also all the three, in itself, smarana, anu-sandhana.

Clearly the three first correspond to jnana, ichchha, kriya. But when we look for direct texts, we find some perplexing inconsistency in assigning the correspondence of gunas with the aspects. Tattva Sandoha, a Kashmira Shaiva work, for example, joins kriya and manas to tamas instead of rajas. Spanda Karika Vivrti (iv.20), however, assigns the correspondences correctly. Vatsyanana, Kama Sutra I.ii.44 uses abhimAna in the sense of desire, expressly, which Kautilya also repeats in Artha Shastra.

Perpetual Gyration of the Three

We may, on the whole, take the following to be the net result. Buddhi is the principle or faculty of cognition, knowing, understanding, intellection, reason, which ascertains and decides, 'this is so'; it corresponds to sattva; Samskrt names for its operations are, adhyavasAya, nishchaya, bodha, jnAna, upa-labdhi, etc.

Aham-kara is the principle or faculty of desiring (whereby the separateness of one-self is primarily accentuated), wishing (willing being, so to say, midway between wishing and acting), and of self-reference, individuation, personalisation, egoism, hence self-complacence, pride, etc.; it corresponds to tamas; Samskrt words for its functionings are ichchhA, abhi-mAna, sam-rambha, garva, eshanA (in the sense of vasana, craving, etc.).

Manas is the principle or faculty of action, volition, conation, determination (of what to do), resolve (after vacillation), attention (after distraction); it corresponds to rajas; Samskrt words for its activities are kriya, eshanA, (in the sense of seeking, anu-eshanA, going after), samshaya-vimarsha, sankalpa-vikalpa.

Chitta is the summation of the three, with the special feature or function of memory (and expectation), connecting before and after; Samskrt words here are chetayate, smaraNaam, anu-sandhAnam. The name Chitta, for individual mind or soul, is appropriately formed from the root-word Chit which means consciousness generally, ChetanA, Chitti. The Universal Consciouness or Chit, including all time, past, present, and future, is obviously the locus and the means of all memory. A portion, a slab, so to say, of this Universal Consciousness, gathered into a separate aggregate, with a definite reach backward and forward in time, becomes a Chitta; in this individual 'memory'--and an individual is but a 'memory,' a biography, a number of experiences in a certain order, so that individuality is lost and disappears, when, and to the extent that, memory is lost and disappears--the three other functions, of buddhi, etc,, are all incorporated.

The order of succession and rotation of the three classes of psychoses, cognitive, affective, conative, is indicated in the following:

'Out of knowledge arises desire; out of desire, krti (or prayatna), i.e., volition: out of that, effort; out of that, action.' -- Shandilya

'First comes knowledge (of a thing); then the wish to obtain it; then the purposeful effort, abhi-sandhi; then the action; then the fruit.' -- Mahabharata., Shanti Parva, ch.204

jnAnati, knows; then icchati, desires; then yatate, endeavours--this is one of the commonplaces of Nyaya. It is obvious that intention, purpose, will, volition, conation, innervation, exertion, muscular effort, are all intermediate states of transition from desire to action.

In Puranic mythical and anthropomorphic symbology, for purposes of concrete devotional worship, Vasudeva-Krshna (an incarnation of Vishnu-sattva, representing knowledge, wisdom); his brother Sankarshana-Balarama (of Rudra-tamas, representing the anger-half of desire); his son Pradyumna (of Kama-Eros, representing the love-half thereof); and his grandson A-niruddha (the 'unrestrained', representing action, rajas), stand, respectively, for chitta, buddhi or mahat, the two subdivisions (anger and love) of ahamkAra, and for manas respectively (Bhagavata, III, xxvi.)

Intermediate Stages

'Smrti, memory, has the past for object; mati, expectation, opinion, the future, the coming; buddhi, perception, the present, that which is immediately before it; pra-jnA, the higher mentation, thinking, ranges over and covers, simultaneously, all three divisions of time'. -- Nyaya

'Wish to hear i.e., to learn, scientific curiosity', attentive listening i.e. absorption of knowledge, apprehension, retention, inferential reasoning and acceptance of a fact, (similar) rejection or refutation (of an alleged fact), understanding of purport and purpose, knowledge or grasp of the essential truth (of a subject)--these are the eight functions of dhih, intelligence'; (from dha, to place, to do, to deposit; dhiyante pad-arthAh asyAm iti dhih, that in which all meanings of words, i.e., notions of things meant by words, are deposited; dhi is a synonym for buddhi).'

'Sensation, perception, concrete or factual knowledge, abstract thought or conceptual knowledge or generalisation, retentive intelligence, view (or outlook, doctrine), resolute fortitude (or determination), opinion, independence of mind, propensity, memory or recollection, imaginative ideation, volition, asu or prANa or innervation (of a motor organ or muscle, with nerve-energy, by volitional effort for action), kAma-desire, vasha-capability or will-power all these are only different names (of different aspects or functions) of pra-jnAna-consciousness'. -- Aitareya, III.2

Mind is Brahma, is All

'By manas-mind, man resolves, 'may I study mantras', and studies; 'may I do (such-and-such) acts', and does; 'may I desire children and domestic animals, and (the joys and riches of) this world and also the next', and desires; manas is the soul, the Self, is all this world (i.e. all these worlds, all this, all objects); it is Brahma; manas should be meditated on, propitiated, worshipped, given devotion to (i.e. should be purified, elevated, strengthened)'; 'Chitta remembers'. -- Chhandogya, vii.3 and vii.5

The same three functions, jnana-ichchhA-kriyA, cognition-desire-action, with the fourth all-connecting all-including memory-expectation-consciousness, are clearly indicated in these sentences of the Chhandogya. Incidentally, it may be noted that Plato, in 'Republic, Bk. iv', (Jowett's translation), distinguishes "three principles of the Soul, Reason, Desire, and Passion or Spirit or Anger"; which is very feeble; in view of what Indian tradition says, from Upanishats downwards; "passion or spirit or anger" is only one part of 'desire', and "reason" only one part of 'cognition', and 'volition-action' is not discerned and counted at all by Plato.

Mahabharata, Shanti-parva, chs: 238, 254, 258, (also 203, 268, 281, and others) says:

'Mabat-Manas manifested first, fast-rushing, far-travelling, ever-going, desiring-and-doubting (affirming-and-denying, imagining-and-effacing).' ... 'Beyond Manas is buddhi; beyond buddhi is Atma' ... 'When buddhi undergoes emotion or any definite functioning with reference to a specific object, it becomes manas.' ... 'Buddhi determines, resolves, ascertains, makes sure; manas expounds, specifies.'

May this Mind be Holy

There is a grand hymn to Manas, of six mantras (verses), in Yajur-Veda, which emphasises the all-enmeshing quality and speed of the mind:

'This Mind of mine, which wanders far when (I am) awake, and comes back (to me) when (I am) asleep; which is the one Light of lights; which is known as pra-jnAna and chetas and dhrti, (knowledge, desire-memory, and will-volition-action), Immortal Inner Light of all living beings, without which nothing can be done, which encompasses all past, present, and future worlds, in which are interwoven all the minds of all beings may that Mind of mine ever ideate holy thoughts, ever function auspiciously, beneficently'.

Chitta has been said in some of the above texts, to connect all three divisions of time. As memory, it is cognition of an object with the additional cognition of 'past-ness', in the sequence of its experience; as expectation, of future-ness; as direct perception, of presentness; (see The Mahatma
Letters, p. 194, re Time). Other texts assign the same power to prajnA; others to buddhi; they ascribe reasoning also to the two: it is obvious that reasoning, inference, proceeds from past experience to future similar experience, connects memory and expectation. The incessant flow and flux, the kaleidoscopic assumptions of ever new forms and figures by the very same few pieces of differently coloured glass, which goes on perpetually in these subtle regions of the mind, has been referred to before; each function passes into another, imperceptibly as it were.

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~
namaste atanu (et.al).
-----
If the mind is Universal Mind ( and I am all for it), why then would each rishi, each guru, swami, each realized being, and exponent of Reality not have the same concepts and philosophy of Brahman, of Siva? of Mother Divine? of Shakti? If accessing the same mind? the same database.
Could it be lesh avidya? for those that are new to this term, it is the remnants of ignorance that are left. Say one has a butter-ball in their hands. They put this ball down, yet remain on their hands is this film, the remains of holding the ball. Like that, when Moksha dawns, there is a residue of ignorance that remains - this keeps the tattvas intact, so one is not completely absorbed into Brahman. This is how my teacher has explained it.

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

First case. Laya Samadhi, like sleep, does not uproot the ego sense, which is called a granthi. In that case, absorption into Brahman is not complete and the diversified universe will sprout as diverse and not as One Brahman.

Second case. Following the teaching of Mandukya that 'The advaita atma must be known', we may safely conclude that knowing advaita atman is being advaita atman (devoid of individual ego). This is also spoken of in Gita as immortality. And this was the main difference that Shankara had with VA proponents of his time.

But for a teacher, who is jivan mukta who has uprooted the individual ego, the recourse to language will definitely create some diversity though the intent and content is One. Vak is One at OM level only.

I do not see any problem.


Om

[Eastern Mind]

There is a story of Subramuniyaswami's guru, Yogaswami of Sri Lanka, while on pilgrimage to South India, meeting with the beloved Ramana Maharshi. The story goes that they just sat in 'summu iru' together for a few hours, neither saying anything. When asked later, one or both said to the devotee, "nothing to say" . Aum Namasivaya