Author Topic: David Godman Explains Death of mind  (Read 18274 times)

srkudai

  • Guest
David Godman Explains Death of mind
« on: July 13, 2010, 02:05:13 PM »
David Godman's interview explains what death of mind means. The following is the conversation:

Source URL : http://davidgodman.org/interviews/Five_interviews.pdf


Quote
Question: You have mentioned that final Self-realisation is when the mind actually
‘dies’ irreversibly in the Self. You have also mentioned how Papaji used to sometimes
give an account of his life based on memory of his earlier narration. The idea of
memories and a dead mind seem contradictory. Could you please clarify this?



David:
Many people are puzzled by this apparent conundrum. A dead mind is one in
which there is no thinker of thoughts, no perceiver of perceptions, no rememberer of
memories. The thoughts, the perceptions and the memories can still be there, but there
is no one who believes, ‘I am remembering this incident,’ and so on. These thoughts
and memories can exist quite happily in the Self, but what is completely absent is the
idea that there is a person who experiences or owns them.
Papaji once gave a nice analogy: ‘You are sitting by the side of the road and cars
are speeding past you in both directions. These are like the thoughts, memories and
desires in your head. They are nothing to do with you, but you insist on attaching
yourself to them. You grab the bumper of a passing car and get dragged along by it until
you are forced to let go. This in itself is a stupid thing to do, but you don’t even learn
from your mistake. You then proceed to grab hold of the bumper of the next car that
comes your way. This is how you all live your lives: attaching yourself to things that are
none of your business and suffering unnecessarily as a result. Don’t attach yourself to a
single thought, perception or idea and you will be happy.’
In a dead mind the ‘traffic’ of mental activity may still be there, usually at a more
subdued level, but there is no one who can grab hold of the bumper of an idea or a
perception. This is the difference between a quiet mind and no mind at all. When the
mind is still and quiet, the person who might attach himself or herself to the bumper of a
new idea is still there, but when there is no mind at all, when the mind is dead, the idea
that there is a person who might identify with an object of thought has been
permanently eradicated. That is why it is called ‘dead mind’ or ‘destroyed mind’ in the
Ramana literature. It is a state in which the possibility of identification with thoughts or
ideas has definitively ended.
[/color]
 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 02:08:21 PM by srkudai »

ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2010, 02:20:01 PM »
It is a state in which the possibility of identification with thoughts or
ideas has definitively ended.

Very well said udai garu.This is exactly what Sri Sundara Chaitanya Swami garu tells.

Quote
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.

If we want to know nature of pot there is no need to break the pot.

Mithya means which is neither true nor false and which is dependent on other thing.

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.

So solution is to know that we are not the mind and it mithya i.e dependent on our real naturre i.e sat-chit-ananda.

The mind is not to be killed.Mind or desire cannot be stopped, but to develop a desire to function for spiritual realization, the quality of engagement by the mind has to be changed. The mind is the pivot of the active sense organs, and as such if the quality of thinking,feeling and willing is changed, naturally the quality of actions by the instrumental senses will also change.   --  Srimad Bhagavatham, 2.1.17.

« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 02:24:01 PM by prasanth_ramana_maharshi »

ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2010, 02:22:39 PM »
In Bhagavad Gita Chapter 6 lord krishna gives advice how to control the mind.

Chapter 6, Verse 33.

Arjuna said: O Madhusudana, the system of yoga which You have summarized appears impractical and unendurable to me, for the mind is restless and unsteady.

Chapter 6, Verse 34.

For the mind is restless, turbulent, obstinate and very strong, O Krsna, and to subdue it is, it seems to me, more difficult than controlling the wind.

Chapter 6, Verse 35.

The Blessed Lord said: O mighty-armed son of Kunti, it is undoubtedly very difficult to curb the restless mind, but it is possible by constant practice and by detachment.


ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2010, 02:34:26 PM »
very well said udai garu.

I 100% agree with you.

ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2010, 02:54:55 PM »
Udai garu,

I think in the past you had some discussion in this forum stating that even Annamalai Swami has similar opinion that Death of Mind does not mean Thoughtlessness.

http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/forum/index.php?topic=4086.0

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2010, 03:27:39 PM »

Dear srkudai and prasanth,

Excellent posts, with nice analysis and examples.



Bhagavan says:  If the will and desire to remember Self are strong
enough, they will eventually overcome vasanas.  There must be a great
battle going on inwardly all the time, until the Self is realized.  The battle is symbolically spoken of in scriptural writings as the fight between God and Satan.  In our scriptures, it is the Mahabharata where asuras represent our bad thoughts and the devas the elevating ones.

[Conscious Immortality]

Muruganar says in GVK Verse 400:  When a forest is one fire, the
creatures living in it, unable to beat the heat, come running out in
a vain attempt to save their lives.  Similarly, unable to bear the growing intensity of the thought of the Self, all the vasanas, will
rise from the Heart, and die completely.

So, the question seems to boil down to only vasanas and thoughts
free from vasanas are admissible.

However Bhagavan Ramana says in Talks No. 30:

.....All thoughts are inconsistent with realization.  The correct state
is to exclude all thoughts of ourselves and all other thoughts.  Thought is one thing and realization is quite another.

Again Muruganar quotes from Swarupa Saram, [after his verse No.1110 in GVK]:

Some may utter praises and worship, or evil and cruel ones may
utter words of slander and insult, but the Jnani's mind will not associate with them.  He will remain without thoughts, like the sky that remains the same whether the sun rises or a vast collection
of clouds appears.  [V.90 of Swarupa Saram]

Bhagavan says in Maharshi's Gospel:  To him who is one with that reality, there is neither the mind, nor its three states, and therefore, neither introversion nor extroversion.

Muruganar also says in GVK Verse 676: 

Like the thorn that is useful for removing a troublesome irritating and sharp thorn, that has painfully and deeply penetrated the sole fo the foot, the extremely pure thoughts, after digging out the impure thoughts from the Heart, also become reduntant.

Bhagavan also says the same thing in Talk No. 341 also.

How to reconcile these?

I feel that it should only mean ego and vasanas and  all the thoughts that produce vasanas and are egotistic.



Arunachala Siva.

ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 03:34:15 PM »
I feel that it should only mean ego and vasanas and  all the thoughts that produce vasanas and are egotistic.

very well said Subramanian garu.

As Bhagavan says,

Small desires such as the desire to eat, drink and sleep and attend to calls of nature, though these may also be classed among desires, you can safely satisfy. They will not implant vasanas in your mind, necessitating further birth. Those activities are just necessary to carry on life and are not likely to develop or leave behind vasanas or tendencies. As a general rule, therefore, there is no harm in satisfying a desire where the satisfaction will not lead to further desires by creating vasanas in the mind. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12th April, 1946)


Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 04:02:43 PM »
Dear srkudai, prasanth,

In Padamalai Verses, Muruganar says:

Verses 1259, 1260 and 1261:

When the mind, through quality of extreme purity, merges in
the Heart, it will attain perfection as peace.

If the mind that has become one-pointed, like the tip of a darba
grass, merges with the Heart, the experience of pure being,
seemingly impossible to attain, will be very easily discovered.

Taking a thick fat crowbar [as a needle], it is not possible to stitch
together extremely delicate silk cloth using very fine thread.

Question 11 of Vichara Sanghraham asks:  If Self experience
possible for the mind whose nature is constant change?  One
part of Bhagavan's answer states:

...." It is only by the mind that is impure and is under the influence
of rajas and tamas that reality, which is very subtle and unchanging, cannot be experienced; just as a piece of fine silk
cloth cannot be stitched with a heavy crowbar, or as the details
of subtle objects cannot be distinguished by the light of a lamp
flame that flickers in the wind....."

So, when David Godman says that one can have thoughts even
after self realization, it only means, pure sattvic thoughts, totally
egoless and vasana free, and not the thoughts that most of
us would understand to mean.

Muruganar says that for a Jnani since there is nothing other than
Swarupam, even thoughts are also part of the Self.

Muruganar's Comments to Verse 890 of GVK:

Here it is stressed that all the multifarious phenomena that are
associated with maya are in truth non-existent, when divorced
from the Self, which is the non dual fullness.  All the manifestations of the triputis resolve themselves and end as the creations of the mind.  There is neither mind nor thoughts distinct from Swarupam.  This illustrates the subtle truth of the world's
reality.  If seen as Brahman, the world is real.  Otherwise, it
must be declared to be entirely false.    

Bhagavan Ramana explains in Sri Ramana Gita, 5.10 about
Nirvikalpa Samadhi:

"Nirvikalpa" literally means 'no differences'.  Bhagavan is saying here that true nirvikalpa samadhi is not a state, in which, oblivious to the world and one's body, one fails to recognize the sense impressions at all, but the state in which the mental movements
which rise to differences do not appear in the Heart.  When
the vasanas have been annihilated, these distinguishing thoughts
no longer arise.  

[David adds here:  'True nirvikalpa samadhi' referred to by
Bhagavan is only Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one functions in the world in a  normal way, without having any
ideas about distinctions or differences in the Heart.]

Arunachala Siva.  

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 04:35:02 PM »

Dear srkudai,

Bhagavan Ramana has said on one occasion that Jnani's form
is like a burnt rope, there is a form but it is of no use [for him,
for normal sensual pleasures].
*

As you know, Bhagavan Ramana has always given answers
as "contextual answers" and not as absolute truth.  For someone
like Dilip Kumar Roy, He has said that pure devotion with heart
melting songs on God alone would confer him liberation.  When
Devaraja Mudaliar [who is always fond of asking questions, he
is an advocate] asked Bhagavan Ramana:  "Then, can I chant
Tiruppugazh songs [which he really loved] instead of self enquriy?"
Bhagavan Ramana replied:  "No it is not for you!"

*

Another example:

Bhagavan Ramana says that there are not even  Jnanis,
but only Jnanam.  However Annamalai Swami said:  There
are differences in Jnanis.  Some are like small lamps. But
others like Bhagavan Ramana is like a conflagration, a forest
fire.  He will burn up all impurities by a mere look and no
teaching is necessary.

*

David Godman has also written a book NO MIND, I AM THE SELF.
I have not bought the book.  But it seems to indicate that
there is no mind but only the Self for realized persons.

*

Arunachala Siva.

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2010, 07:04:10 PM »
I have a question to ask,

Suppose, we accept that a Jnani has thoughts and mind and that the movements of thoughts continue to be and just that a Jnani is not affected by them, in such a case, where from are these thoughts originating? are they originating by some unknown force or something? that a jnani is aware of those thoughts and through his wisdom he is unaffected by them?

To my humble understanding, Jnani does not have thoughts or mind, or rather Jnani himself is mind or thoughts. He is not a cogniser of thoughts or mind that they don't trouble him at all.

There cannot be duality. There cannot be a Jnani and mind (that it may not affect Him) There is only Jnani or there is not even Jnani but only Jnanam - as said by Bhagavan

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

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2010, 10:10:42 AM »

Dear Nagaraj,

The ideas about mind, thoughts and ego have been explained
by Bhagavan Ramana in Verses 15 to 26 of Upadesa Undiyar.
I am of the view, this is His final view on the matter.

Arunachala Siva.

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2010, 10:31:29 AM »
Dear I

Dear Nagaraj,

The ideas about mind, thoughts and ego have been explained
by Bhagavan Ramana in Verses 15 to 26 of Upadesa Undiyar.
I am of the view, this is His final view on the matter.

Arunachala Siva.

My entire arguement over several other posts regarding this matter is only to show light about the fact that  one cannot know the state of a jnani. Be it, if they are words of Bhagavan, David Godman or Annamalai Swami. because the one who 'knows' is only the lesser 'I'

Even though, we may for the sake of knowledge, we may use the words of Bhagavan, Annamalai Swami, David Godman, Muruganar, etc.. or even for that matter any reference from Upanishads, still it they are only words in the end and it is the mind that uses the words of a jnani and itself.

For that matter, verses from Ramana Hridayam, Ulladuy Naarpadu specially in verses 30 - 35, Bhagavan speaks other wise.

My entire contention is about our mind, each one concluding the state of Brahma Jnani to be fixed by our own knowledge or understading - it is only this that I have been trying to bring light.

Most times, whenever we try to concluded the state of a Jnani, I bring in a counter arguement or posting to illustrate that it is still not this, not this - neti neti.

Still I would say, I don't know the state of a Jnani nor I am able to accept the state of realisation as quoted from any verses. It is irrelevant to the scope of our sadhana.

Let the world decide about the states of a jnani, I only focussed only on holding on the substratum of the 'I' that is concluding all these.

only a jnani can know a jnani's state.

I am not yet a jnani to conclude or affirm the truth relating to a jnani even though they are from the verses of Bhagavan. The mind that evaluates the state of a jnani is but just ego. that needs to be enquired upon

I remain, with my ignorance. I shall not say or affirm the truth of the words of a jnani. I am not one. I do not profess to know the truth, my effort of counter question in my various postings to different members was only to illustrate neti neti.... it is still the false 'I'.

To me, within me, even if I accept the verses from Upadesa undiyar, verses 15 - 26  to be final. Who am I to affirm it, ?? who is this I? I stick to this fundamental source of it.

'I' am nobody to affirm the sayings of a jnani. I do not know. I continue my enquiry.

Salutations to Sri Ramana
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 10:33:10 AM by Nagaraj »
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2010, 10:37:35 AM »

Dear Nagaraj,

I entirely agree with you.  Only a Jnani can know the true state
of another Jnani.  Ajnanis can never understand a Jnani.  Books
are only auxillary. But Jnani's standpoint is wonderful.  Bhagavan Ramana once said:  "I do not find anyone of you as Ajnani.  You are all 'acting' because of the veiling of the mind, that is all."

Arunachala Siva.

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2010, 01:54:17 PM »
Quote
have a question to ask,
Suppose, we accept that a Jnani has thoughts and mind and that the movements of thoughts continue to be and just that a Jnani is not affected by them, in such a case, where from are these thoughts originating? are they originating by some unknown force or something? that a jnani is aware of those thoughts and through his wisdom he is unaffected by them?
That is a wrong question. The thoughts being mithya, have no true existence. Their origin is mithya too!
Quote


How can anything orginate from what is Mithya? Mithya being illusion? It is originating from the ego which is still there

Quote

To my humble understanding, Jnani does not have thoughts or mind, or rather Jnani himself is mind or thoughts. He is not a cogniser of thoughts or mind that they don't trouble him at all.
how can Jnani be thought? Thought is changing. Mitha. Jnani is Consciousness SAT. Consciousness is space in which thoughts appear and disappear.

Who is the 'I' that is saying that a Jnani is Consciousness SAT? Who is the 'I' that is saying that Consciousness is space in which thoughts appear and disappear?

First lets find out its source then we can discuss about the Space or Consciousness... at that (stage)

Quote
Still I would say, I don't know the state of a Jnani nor I am able to accept the state of realisation as quoted from any verses. It is irrelevant to the scope of our sadhana.
How can that be the case? if you are thinking that all thoughts have to be stopped to be a jnani... thats a different ball game.
however to remain unaffected by thoughts is different.
the sadhana in both the cases varies a lot!

I am more concerned about the 'I' that comes to various conclusions about whether thoughts have to be stopped or it need not be stopped, etc... Who is the 'I' that says, it can remain unaffectd by thoughts.

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

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: David Godman Explains Death of mind
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PM »
Dear I,

:) you are here attacking the expression. The problem is with expressing that Truth. you are asking "who is expressing"
do you get this?
you are not, here, talking about the truth value of the statement. you are just attacking by saying that the one who is expressing is mithya.
coz all expressions are of mind, its true that is mithya.
Ramana is mithya too , but Ramana releases.

There lies the whole point ... When the expresser is still present, how can we talk about the Truth? when the expresser is still to merge itself? Truth is beyond expressions, beyond words, what ever we try to say about it is only reducing it and there is only possibility of misleading 'others'.

Thats why they say, no one has authority to change the Vedas or Shastras. Similarly, one "expresser" cannot give the essence or meaning to the state of consciousness Consciousness shines all by 'it'self like the Sun, it does not need another light to reflect its glory.

Even to clear doubts and questions amongst ourselves, there has to be some boundary, beyond which we should stop ourselves from venturing in to it. We should rather stick to our enquiry for since we ourselves are still making the journey and when we try to explain to others about the Consciousness or the state of a (Jnani), it will be as good as showing a torch light pointing towards the moon, which itself derives its light from the Sun.

Bhagavan's words themselves carry its salvation, whatever light we may try and show upon His Holy words, we are only misinterpreting them and misguiding 'others' as well.

Which is why, in this context, Bhagavan has said -

“My” implies the “I”, which owns the senses. You take your existence for granted; at the same time ask others to prove it to you. Similarly you admit the certainty of your senses, which see others, whilst denying all certainty. You see how you contradict yourself. The fact is that there are no others: there is no such a person as “you”. Each man, although addressed as “you”, styles himself as “I”. Even the confirmation you demand from others comes only from the “I”. “You” and “they” occur only to the “I”, without which they are meaningless.

So, also, when we try and communicate, thinking we are communicating or rather explaining to others the meanings of the teachings of Bhagavan and the (state) of Jnani, we are actrually only talking to ourselves, and by way of expression, we are only misguiding 'others' while actually, we are still only grinding the essence within ourselves.

Only a lamp can light another lamp. Before we light other lamps, our lamps need to be lit first.

Salutations to Sri Ramana
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 04:06:51 PM by Nagaraj »
॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta