The Soul, the Mind

[Madhuri]

For the purposes of another debate I am having atm, I would like to know if there are any Hindus on this forum that believe that the mind (not the Consciousness) is attached or part of the soul. In other words, is the mind that thinks and processes information and interprets the world a part of our Self or does it die with the physical body?

It is my understanding that the mind is part of the material body and something that the Self must overcome or control in our spiritual quest. It is not permanent, it is not attributed to the soul.

So do any Hindus here disagree?

 

[K.Venugopal]

The brain, like all other organs, is physical. The mind is not physical. The soul is not a separate entity. In fact it is only a concept of the mind - where it means 'the essence'. Our mind is everything. Our mind is conscious and is consciousness, our mind thinks, our mind is creative, our mind dreams. The greatest product of the mind is language and language bridges all minds. Hence, mind is not an organ contained in and limited to our physical body. Mind is universal and survives the death of the body. When the mind has discovered itself it has verily discovered life, discovered God. No mind, no nothing! We are our mind.

 

[Madhuri]

The brain, like all other organs, is physical. The mind is not physical. The soul is not a separate entity. In fact it is only a concept of the mind - where it means 'the essence'. Our mind is everything. Our mind is conscious and is consciousness, our mind thinks, our mind is creative, our mind dreams. The greatest product of the mind is language and language bridges all minds. Hence, mind is not an organ contained in and limited to our physical body. Mind is universal and survives the death of the body. When the mind has discovered itself it has verily discovered life, discovered God. No mind, no nothing! We are our mind.

How do the scriptures validate this position?
How are mind and consciousness the one?
It is my understanding that the mind is part of the temporary body, a vehicle for self discover as the body is. Consciousness is spirit, but mind is different. Mind is part of maya.

 

[Madhuri]

Here are some quotes that I think support my position. These are all from the BG:

"For the mind is restless, turbulent, obstinate and very strong, O Kṛṣṇa, and to subdue it, I think, is more difficult than controlling the wind."

‎"Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy—all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone."

"From wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the self"

"Governing sense, mind and intellect, intent on liberation, free from desire, fear and anger, the sage is forever free"

‎"Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego— all together these eight constitute My separated material energies."

‎"The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence."

Who is the I/Self that is supposed to govern and control? These quotes make a distinction between the self and the mind. Don't you think?

 

[Madhuri]

Here is more from the SB:

"The elemental creation of sixteen principles of matter - namely the five gross elements (pancha-bhutas), the five objects of sense perception (tan-matras), the five knowledge acquiring senses (jnanendriyas) and the mind - is known as sarga."

"The material body made of earth is not the true self; nor are the senses, their presiding demigods or the air of life; nor is the external air, water or fire or one's mind. All these are simply matter. Similarly, neither one's intelligence, material consciousness nor ego, nor the elements of ether or earth, nor the objects of sense perception, nor even the primeval state of material equilibrium can be considered the actual identity of the soul."

 

[K.Venugopal]

How do the scriptures validate this position?
How are mind and consciousness the one?
It is my understanding that the mind is part of the temporary body, a vehicle for self discover as the body is. Consciousness is spirit, but mind is different. Mind is part of maya.

If I am not mistaken mind in Sanskrit is manas. He who thinks (mananam) is manushya. The capacity to think, that is what the mind is. That capacity is consciousness and thought is its product and language the basis of thought. We are that capacity. Mind is not the vehicle, it is the charioteer of the vehicle. Maya happens when the mind makes (we make) the mistake of imagining that we are the limited body instead of the unlimited Brahman.

 

[Madhuri]

If I am not mistaken mind in Sanskrit is manas. He who thinks (mananam) is manushya. The capacity to think, that is what the mind is. That capacity is consciousness and thought is its product and language the basis of thought. We are that capacity. Mind is not the vehicle, it is the charioteer of the vehicle. Maya happens when the mind makes (we make) the mistake of imagining that we are the limited body instead of the unlimited Brahman.

Do you think, after seeing the quotes I have provided, that there is a difference of definition or conception of mind as thought by Hindus and modern science? Here are some examples of standard definitions:

The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.

The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge: Follow your mind, not your heart.

Would you consider the Consciousness that is the Self to be the same as modern scientific understanding Mind or do you see a major distinction?
I personally see a major distinction. That which is defined in western of science culture as 'mind' is not what Hindus are speaking or thinking of when we use the same term. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Vinayaka]

For the purposes of another debate I am having atm, I would like to know if there are any Hindus on this forum that believe that the mind (not the Consciousness) is attached or part of the soul. In other words, is the mind that thinks and processes information and interprets the world a part of our Self or does it die with the physical body?

It is my understanding that the mind is part of the material body and something that the Self must overcome or control in our spiritual quest. It is not permanent, it is not attributed to the soul.

So do any Hindus here disagree?

Madhuri, personally, I divide the mind into portions like: conscious, subconscious, superconscious, etc. So I agree and disagree at the same time. The individual ego (conscious and subconscious) die, but the intuitive mind lives on as it is connected to the sat-chit-ananda or universal mind.) So maybe both sides are right, but from different levels.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Dear Madhuriji, What is the original Sanskrit word used for mind in the translations? I've used the word mind akin to chit as in sat chit ananda.

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri, personally, I divide the mind into portions like: conscious, subconscious, superconscious, etc. So I agree and disagree at the same time. The individual ego (conscious and subconscious) die, but the intuitive mind lives on as it is connected to the sat-chit-ananda or universal mind.) So maybe both sides are right, but from different levels.

Is 'intuitive mind' a reference that can be found in scripture or is there a more accurate term and definition? Are you referring to some aspect of the consciousness or astral/spiritual mind that projects unto the material mind?

 

[Madhuri]

Manah is the translation in both the BG and SB quotes.

 

[Onkara]

Hi
I see the mind as material and for the sake of understanding would describe mind as seperate to the Highest Consciousness i.e. Self, Brahman etc, because the mind is subject to change whereas the Self is not.

As K.Venugopalji mentions, I think the issue will come down to sanskrit and language because modern science doesn't make the same discrimiation of terms.

Science sets out to measure and observe, where as Hinduism is not limited to the measurable alone. Hence Hinduism holds insight and intuitive wisdom in high esteem which debatably cannot be measured by science. For the scientist it is enough to stop at the measurable mind (chemical reactions, sense stimulation etc).

In Kashmir Shavism, the Highest Consciousness (Self, Brahman, Shiva, Krishna etc) is called samvit or parasamvit.

In Vedanta the most common term is cit or cittam.

As you have shown it is manah, which is mind in some scriptures.

It is useful to understand the terminology and when which is used in translation for this reason as "mind" and "consciousness" are used interchaneably by both those who know the difference and those who may not. (By the way "consciousness" is used slightly differently in Buddhism I have found) This is why we often encounter word for word translations of upansihads etc.

Ultimately it is my understanding that the Highest Consciousness (samvit) and mind (thoughts) cannot be seperated as such. Thoughts may still but mind may not exist without Consciousness. There is no duality. So to consider the two as seperate (duality) is useful as long as it leads us to a satisfactory answer. The most valuable answer is in knowing that "you are the Self/Consciousness (samvit)".

 

[Vinayaka]

Is 'intuitive mind' a reference that can be found in scripture or is there a more accurate term and definition? Are you referring to some aspect of the consciousness or astral/spiritual mind that projects unto the material mind?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it off the top of my head. Maybe I'll do some research here. .... editted to add: vijnanamaya kosha

 

[Madhuri]

In Vedanta the most common term is cit or cittam.

As you have shown it is manah, which is mind in some scriptures.

Great post, thank you

In relation to the above, I notice that the term 'self' in word for word translation is often 'atma/n'. For example:

"From wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the self"

yataḥ yataḥ — wherever; niścalati — becomes verily agitated; manaḥ — the mind; cañcalam — flickering; asthiram — unsteady; tataḥ tataḥ — from there; niyamya — regulating; etat — this; ātmani — in the self; eva — certainly; vaśam — control; nayet — must bring under.

 

[Onkara]

Good quote.

Great post, thank you

In relation to the above, I notice that the term 'self' in word for word translation is often 'atma/n'. For example:

"From wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the self"

yataḥ yataḥ — wherever; niścalati — becomes verily agitated; manaḥ — the mind; cañcalam — flickering; asthiram — unsteady; tataḥ tataḥ — from there; niyamya — regulating; etat — this; ātmani — in the self; eva — certainly; vaśam — control; nayet — must bring under.

Forgive a tangent... but perhaps it is useful to add a small point here. This Bhagavad Gita line caused me some trouble some time back as in Vedanta it is said that Brahman is Atman. Brahman can be known as SatCitAnanda (Beingness-Consciousness-Bliss). Vedanta also states that Brahman is actionless, which leads to the question, "how can the mind be brought under control by Atman/Self/Consciousness, if the Atman is actionless?"

 

[Gaura Priya]

Traditionally, I have been taught that there are two bodies that the jivatma, the spiritual spark of the living being, possesses: the gross body and the subtle body. The gross body consists of the elements of fire, air, earth, water, and ether, and the subtle body made up of three elements: mind (manas), intelligence (buddhi), and false ego (ahamkara).

Mind (manas) is seen as the faculty of thought. It creates thoughts, some spiritual, some material. The very fact that thoughts can possess a variety of information and context leads me to feel that manas is part of the subtle body of the living being. After all, thinking, willing, and feeling are part of consciousness (jivatma) and thus a product of its animating effect. It is buddhi that either accepts (sankalpa) or rejects (vikalpa) its decisions or choices from the arising thoughts.

I feel that there are even more subtleties with regards to manas, such as impressions left upon the person if one takes reincarnation rather literally, or whether manas also dies along with the body. In any case, thoughts can be pure or degraded; they can uplift, or depress. Because they are subject to changeability and vascillations, I can not but see that there is some truth to seeing manas and thoughts as temporal, rather than eternal.

 

[Madhuri]

Good quote.



Forgive a tangent... but perhaps it is useful to add a small point here. This Bhagavad Gita line caused me some trouble some time back as in Vedanta it is said that Brahman is Atman. Brahman can be known as SatCitAnanda (Beingness-Consciousness-Bliss). Vedanta also states that Brahman is actionless, which leads to the question, "how can the mind be brought under control by Atman/Self/Consciousness, if the Atman is actionless?"

Hmmm, this may be beyond my capacity to speak about. I am less familiar with this idea of atma being actionless, perhaps because I don't see atma as Brahman specifically (as i see Brahman as an impersonal aspect of God, whereas atma is a personal aspect of a personal aspect).

But how can Brahman be considered actionless if the material universe is all action from creation to destruction?

 

[Onkara]

Hmmm, this may be beyond my capacity to speak about. I am less familiar with this idea of atma being actionless, perhaps because I don't see atma as Brahman specifically (as i see Brahman as an impersonal aspect of God, whereas atma is a personal aspect of a personal aspect).

But how can Brahman be considered actionless if the material universe is all action from creation to destruction?

Bascially it comes down to interpretation of the Vedas (Upanishads). This is the issue Adi Shankara and the other Acharyas had to explain. For Adi Shankara (Advaita) the world is explained as Maya; only apparently real. As we know, Sri Krishna explains maya in the Bhagavad Gita.

For Achintya Bheda Abheda, Brahman is some sort of aspect of Krishna, so it is really all Krishna for the Vaishnavs ( I am happy for someone to educate me further). Perhaps closer to the older Samkhya philosophy, which Krishna explains in the Gita.

I also looked into Shaivism (not limited to Vedanta), in which creation is explained as Shakti. Shiva and Shakti are not two but seen as two when Shiva willed Himself to be many and Shakti came forth. Creation then is as real as God/Brahman (Shiva-Shakti).

 

[Gaura Priya]

Here's an interesting quote from Jaiva-Dharma that may or may not be of application:

"These last three material elements [manas, buddhi, ahamkara] are special. The aspect of knowledge [manas] that is visible in them is material and not spiritual. The mind creates a false world by basing its knowledge of sensual objects on the images and influences that it absorbs from gross subjects in the mundane realm. This process has its roots in mundane matter, not in spirit. The faculty that relies on that knowledge to discriminate between real and unreal is called buddhi, which also has its root in mundane matter. The ego [ahamkara], or sense of 'I-ness' that is produced by embracing the above knowledge is also material, and not spiritual.

These three faculties together manifest the jiva's second form, which acts in connection between the jiva and matter, and is called the 'subtle body' (linga-sharira)."

-- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, "Jaiva Dharma", Chapter 15: Prameya: Jiva-Tattva

 

[K.Venugopal]

There may be a confusion about the word 'mind' as there was about the word 'self'. Now the higher 'self' is capitalized "Self' to distinguish it from the egoistic self. Maybe we ought to capitalize mind so that we get the thing within which everything is contained, as the universal Mind. The Mind then is something more than merely cerebral.

Though precision is vital while handling words, we must also ensure that we do not paint ourselves into a corner with words.