Author Topic: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika  (Read 3853 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« on: June 28, 2010, 05:53:32 PM »
Dear I,

This is not new, it may have been posted before, but regarding the Mano Nasa, there is an entire chapter in ABD



1. In the previous chapter, having taught the realisation of
the non-dual Brahman, the master now treats of the extinction
of the mind as the sole means of realising Brahman.
M.: Wise son, leave off the mind which is the limiting
adjunct giving rise to individuality, thus causing the great malady
of repeated births and deaths, and realise Brahman.

2. D.: Master, how can the mind be extinguished? Is it not
very hard to do so? Is not the mind very powerful, restive and
ever vacillating? How can one relinquish the mind?
3-4. M.: To give up the mind is very easy, as easy as crushing
a delicate flower, or removing a hair from butter or winking
your eyes. Doubt it not. For a self-possessed resolute seeker not
bewitched by the senses, but by strong dispassion grown
indifferent to external objects, there cannot be the least difficulty
in giving up the mind.

D.: How is it so easy?
M.: The question of difficulty arises only if there is a mind
to leave off. Truly speaking, there is no mind. When told ‘There
is a ghost here’ an ignorant child is deluded into believing the
existence of the non-existent ghost, and is subject to fear, misery
and troubles, similarly in the untainted Brahman by fancying
things that are not, as this and that, a false entity known as the
mind arises seemingly real, functioning as this and that, and
proving uncontrollable and mighty to the unwary, whereas to
the self-possessed, discerning seeker who knows its nature, it is
easy to relinquish. Only a fool ignorant of its nature says it is
most difficult.
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2010, 05:56:15 PM »
5-10. D.: What is the nature of mind?
M.: To think this and that. In the absence of thought, there
can be no mind. On the thoughts being extinguished the mind
will remain only in name like the horn of a hare; it will vanish as
a non-entity like a barren woman’s son, or a hare’s horn, or a
flower in the sky. This is also mentioned in the Yoga Vasishta.

D.: How?
M.: Vasishta says: ‘Listen, O Rama, there is nothing to
speak of as mind. Just as the ether exists without form, so also
the mind exists as the blank insentience. It remains only in
name; it has no form. It is not outside, nor is it in the heart. Yet
like the ether, the mind though formless fills all’.

D.: How can this be?
M.: Wherever thought arises as this and that, there is the

D.: If there be mind wherever there is thought, are thought
and mind different?
M.: Thought is the index of the mind. When a thought
arises mind is inferred. In the absence of thought, there can be
no mind. Therefore mind is nothing but thought. Thought is
itself mind.

D.: What is ‘thought’?
M.: ‘Thought’ is imagination. The thought-free state is
Bliss Supreme (Sivasvarupa). Thoughts are of two kinds; the
recalling of things experienced and unexperienced.

11. D.: To begin with, please tell me what is ‘thought’.
M.: Sages say that it is nothing but to think of any external
object as this or that, is or is not, this-wise or that-wise, etc.

12-13. D.: How is this to be classified under the heads of
things experienced and unexperienced?
M.: Of objects of senses, such as sound, already experienced
as ‘I saw — I heard — I touched etc.’ to think of them as
having been seen, heard, touched is the recollection of things
already experienced. To call to mind unexperienced objects of
senses is the thought of unexperienced things.
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2010, 05:59:33 PM »
14. D.: That thoughts pertain to things already experienced
is understandable. But how to think of those not so experienced
unless they are reminiscences of things already experienced? One
can never think of things not experienced. How then can we say
— to think of things not already experienced is ‘thought’?
15. M.: Yes, it is quite possible. To think of things not
experienced is also thought. Objects unexperienced appear as
such only after thinking.

D.: How can the things not already experienced come
within the orbit of thought?
M.: By the process of positive and negative induction
(anvaya, vyatireka), all mental imagery must be said to be
thought-forms, whether already experienced or not.

16-17. D.: How do you apply the positive and negative
induction here?
M.: Whether existent or non-existent, already experienced
or not so experienced, whatever and however something is
thought of, it is apprehended. The mere thought of it amounts
to apprehension. This is the positive induction.
Real or unreal, experienced or not, however it may be,
whatever is not thought of, is not apprehended. This is negative
induction. From this process also it follows that thought is

18. D.: How can mere thought of anything be its
apprehension also? Things are apprehended directly by the senses
or by recall of past experiences to the mind. On the other hand,
things unheard of or unseen cannot be apprehended by simple
thinking of them. Therefore the logical conclusion that mere
thought of anything is its apprehension, does not hold.
M.: You are not right. How can you say that things not
directly cognised by the senses are not apprehended? The
pleasures of heaven though not already enjoyed, are vividly
pictured in our minds. This is owing to our knowledge of the
shastras which depict them. Though not experienced they appear
to us as delights not experienced.
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2010, 06:04:01 PM »
19-21. D.: Things experienced can be thought of and
cognised. But things unexperienced cannot be cognised even if
thought of.

M.: Now listen. Experienced or unexperienced things can
be cognised. As things already experienced at a distant place are
thought of and cognised, so also things unexperienced can be
thought of and cognised, on hearing from others, such as the
Mount Meru of bright gold.
Though eyes and ears are closed, yet visions and sounds can
be thought of and cognised. Though in dark, one can still think
of an object and cognise it. Even without eyes and ears the blind
and the deaf cognise forms and sounds on thinking of them.
Therefore, already known or unknown, all that is thought of can
be apprehended. This is the affirmative proposition.

22. D.: What is negation?
M.: In the absence of mind, in swoons, deep sleep or
trance there is no thinking and consequently nothing is seen.
Not only in these states but also in waking, if one does not
think, there is no phenomenon.

23-25. D.: Even in waking it cannot be so. Objects of
direct cognition even if not thought of, are apprehended.
M.: No. What you say is not true. Everyday experience
teaches us otherwise.

D.: How?
M.: When a man is keenly attentive to something, he does
not answer when someone calls. Later he says ‘I was intent on
something else; I could not hear; I could not see; I was not
aware’ etc. It is therefore clear that without attention objects of
direct cognition cannot be apprehended.

26-28. D.: Cannot the objects of direct cognition be
apprehended, without attention?
M.: Though in direct contact with the senses, objects
cannot be cognised without attention to them. Though the
necklace is in contact with the body, because the wearer is
not attentive, its presence is not known; being unaware of
it, she even misses the ornament and searches for it. Though
in touch with the body of the wearer the necklace is missed
for want of attention.
Again a patient writhing with pain can be made to forget
it by drawing his attention to something else; similarly the grief
of bereavement is forgotten by attention being directed to other
matters of interest.
It is obvious that without attention, even the objects of
direct cognition cannot be recognised.
29-31. From this it follows that the cognition of anything
experienced or not, however it may be, can only be of the form
of thought. Therefore the perception of things has been signified
by various terms in Vedanta, such as cognition as this and that,
will, thought, mode of mind, intellect, latency, reflected
consciousness, the heart-knot, the seen, illusion, the individual,
the world, the all, God etc.

D.: Where has it been said that this knowledge is the all?
On the other hand it is said that maya became the all.
M.: Yes. Maya is the knowledge which is spoken of. Only
this objective knowledge goes under the different names, maya,
avidya, bondage, impurity, darkness, ignorance, the mind, the
cycles of repeated births and deaths etc.

D.: Be it so, what has this got to do with the extinction of
the mind?
M.: Listen. You must understand that the knowledge
signified by all these terms is only the mind.

D.: Who else says so?
M.: Vasishta has said to Rama: ‘Whatever objective
knowledge manifests as this and that, or not this and not that,
or in any other manner, it is only the mind. The mind is nothing
but this manifest knowledge’.

34. D.: Let it be so. How can the mind be extinguished?
M.: To forget everything is the ultimate means. But for
thought, the world does not arise. Do not think and it will not
arise. When nothing arises in the mind, the mind itself is lost.
Therefore do not think of anything, forget all. This is the best
way to kill the mind.

35-37.D.: Has anyone else said so before?
M.: Vasishta said so to Rama thus: ‘Efface thoughts of all
kinds, of things enjoyed, not enjoyed, or otherwise. Like wood
or stone, remain free from thoughts.
Rama: Should I altogether forget everything?
Vasishta: Exactly; altogether forget everything and remain
like wood or stone.
Rama: The result will be dullness like that of stones or
Vasishta: Not so. All this is only illusion. Forgetting the
illusion, you are freed from it. Though seeming dull, you
will be the Bliss Itself. Your intellect will be altogether clear
and sharp. Without getting entangled in worldly life, but
appearing active to others remain as the very Bliss of Brahman
and be happy. Unlike the blue colour of the sky, let not the
illusion of the world revive in the pure Ether of Consciousness-
Self. To forget this illusion is the sole means to
kill the mind and remain as Bliss. Though Shiva, Vishnu, or
Brahman Himself should instruct you, realisation is not
possible without this one means. Without forgetting
everything, fixity as the Self is impossible. Therefore
altogether forget everything.’

38-39. D.: Is it not very difficult to do so?
M.: Though for the ignorant it is difficult, for the
discerning few it is very easy. Never think of anything but the
unbroken unique Brahman. By a long practice of this, you will
easily forget the non-self. It cannot be difficult to remain still
without thinking anything. Let not thoughts arise in the mind;
always think of Brahman. In this way all worldly thoughts will
vanish and thought of Brahman alone will remain. When this
becomes steady, forget even this, and without thinking ‘I am
Brahman’, be the very Brahman. This cannot be difficult to
40. Now my wise son, follow this advice; cease thinking
of anything but Brahman. By this practice your mind will be
extinct; you will forget all and remain as pure Brahman.
41. He who studies this chapter and follows the instructions
contained therein, will soon be Brahman Itself!

Salutations to Sri Ramana
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47923
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2010, 06:22:50 PM »

Dear Nagaraj,

Yes.  The mind can be said to be non existing.  But the real description, as ABD says "it is arupa", formless.  It gets a form
due to the thought only.  Bhagavan Ramana also describes the
mind as Jiva and Sukshuma sarira, in Who am I?  When Ajata
Vada accepts that there is no Jiva at all, and Jivas are only
reflections of Brahman, as in a pot, then one has to take the
mind as one which sprouts as thoughts, the I-thought being the
first one of all the thoughts. 

However, the poser still remains unsolved:  Why should Bhagavan
Ramana use the word mano-nasam and not as ahankara-nasam
or eNNa (thought) nasam?

Special thanks to you for bringing in ABD for some more clarity in
the matter.  Graham Boyd also has posted once saying that what
Bhagavan meant was only ahankaram.

Dear prasanth,

The anaesthesia keeps the mind, or the ahankaram only in suspended animation.  It does not kill the mind or the ahankaram.  Bhagavan Himself has said in Who am I?: In fainting, deep sleep,
and samadhi (savikalpa samadhi), mind or ahankaram is suspended for that period.   

Arunachala Siva.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2010, 06:31:53 PM »
Dear I,

I am of the opinion that Mano Naasam has to happen, in the sense I has to merge within Self. Mano Naasam is the extinction of this limited 'i'

Once it happens, there cannot be appearances. Those appearances are merely creations of the mind. upon extinction of mind, they cease to be. After Mano Naasam, there cannot be external appearances at all and I am unable to accept the idea or thought that external appearances will continue to exist and that they will cease to affect the consciousness. For this argument, there has to be two, which is not true. When consciousness alone is, what else can be?

Mind comes into existence upon the sprouting of 'I' thought. Manam is verily the Ahamkara. Mind is not different from I. That being the case, upon realisation how can it be said that appearances continue to be and it cannot touch me? it only indicates that Mano Naasam has not yet happened!

Bhagavan has said somewhere, I am unable to recollect in tamil, which goes something like: "Adu Udiyaada nilai... - meaning where there is no arising.. that...

Mano Naasam is the complete annihilation of 'i'

In Arunachala Ashtakam 2, penned by Bhagavan Himself says:

Enquiring within "Who is the seer?" I saw the seer disappearing
and That alone which stands for ever. No thought
arose to say "I saw". How then could the thought arise to
say "I did not see?" Who has the power to explain all this
in words, when even You (as Dakshinamurti) conveyed this
of yore in silence only? And in order to reveal by silence,
Your state transcendent, now You stand here, a Hill
resplendent soaring to the sky.

Until there is the I thought there can be no other thought.
When other thoughts arise, ask "To whom? To me? Where
does this 'I' arise?" Thus diving inwards, if one traces the
source of the mind and reaches the Heart, one becomes
the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. There is no more
dreaming of such as in and out, right and wrong, birth and
death, pleasure and pain, light and darkness, O boundless
ocean of Grace and Light, Arunachala dancing the dance
of stillness in the dancing Hall of the Heart.

In Upadesa Saaram 18. he says:

Thoughts alone make up the mind;
And of all thoughts the ‘I’ thought is the root
What is called mind is but the notion ‘I’.

Ulladu Naarpadu 26

When the ego rises all things rise with it. When the ego is
not, there is nothing else. Since the ego thus is everything,
to question ‘What is this thing?’ is the extinction of all things.

Therefore Mind is verily the ego, when the ego is not there are no appearances.

.....Just to quote a few...

Salutations to Sri Ramana
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 06:50:12 PM by Nagaraj »
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47923
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2010, 09:02:09 AM »

Dear Nagaraj,

I was also thinking for a long time about this mano-nasam concept,
in the night.  Upadesa Undiyar covers this aspect from Verse 15 to
18.  In Verse 15, Bhagavan Ramana says:  "Mind extinct, the mighty
seer returns to his own natural being.  And has not action to perform."  He further says in Verse 16:  "It is true wisdom for the
mind to turn away from outer objects and behold its own effulgent

Thus the Verse 16 implies that there is a mind but when rid of thoughts about outer objects, it will behold its own effulgent form!
So the mind only becomes the Self, upon ceasing of objective consciousness.

Verse 17 further says:  "When unceasingly the mind SCANS ITS OWN FORM, there is nothing of the kind. For everyone this path
direct is open."

[Tr. Prof. K. Swaminathan)

So, I surmise that mind is there to begin with it.  But upon ceasing of the objective consciousness, it ceases to exist.  This is done
by mind scanning its own form.  I think, this stage is mano nasam.  Bhagavan also says the same idea in Sri Arunachala Ashtakam,
Verse 5. 

Arunachala Siva.     


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: Mano Nasa - Advaita Bodha Deepika
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2010, 12:34:33 PM »
well said subramanian garu.

Once bhagavan said

If the outlook changes, the troubles of the world will not worry us. Are the waves different from the ocean? Why do the waves occur at all? If asked, what reply can we give? The troubles in the world also are like that. Waves come and go. If it is found out that they are not different from Atma this worry will not exist.”

Source: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam

Sri Sundara Chaitanya Swami garu also says the same thing


Sri Sundara Chaitanya Swami says there is no need to stop waves to understand about ocean.

Similarly there is no need to supress/kill the mind but only required to understand the nature of mind.

Non-identification with waves in the first example and non-identification with mind is required.

Waves are not independent of ocean but are only part of ocean.

But we cannot declare that ocean is nothing but waves.

So here mithya can be compared to Waves and Truth can be compared to Ocean.

As there is no need to stop the waves similarly there is no need to kill the mind to know our nature i.e sat-chit-ananda.

Problem is though we are satyam(truth) i.e ocean in the above example we think we are mithya(waves) and start thinking of all the problems of waves as we compare ourselves with waves and then we start trying to solve our problems related to waves.

Here waves relate to mind and our nature is ocean on which everything(mind,indriyas..) is dependent.