From the physical vibration to cosmic consciousness, Rohit guides you through the ancient wisdom of Om. Like waves in an ocean, each level of Om takes you deeper into your practice.
Rohit, I appreciate this essay very much. Did you derive it from commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad? I ask because your scholarship and study are inspiring. I'm curious about your process in writing this. I have a more important question, too. We learn from BKS Iyengar that citta is composed of manas, buddhi, and ahamkara. I always wonder where this idea comes from. Is it the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad? I note your description of "the four parts of the inner instrument (antaḥkaraṇa): mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), ego (ahaṅkāra), and memory (citta)." These ideas are all listed together but not with the first three comprising the fourth. I'm very curious where Guruji's notion of citta comes from. Perhaps you can shed some light?
The piece was written from the Advaita (Non-Dual) Vedānta point of view, mainly based on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā and Śaṅkara’s commentary) and the Vedāntasāra by Sadānanda.
Writing it was part of my own ongoing Vedantic sādhana. It felt meaningful to finally put some of it into words.
I love that you asked this question about citta—it’s a very acute observation.
The different darśanas (philosophical systems) overlap in places but often differ—sometimes subtly, sometimes significantly—in how they define the components of the mind and core concepts like puruṣa and prakṛti.
Sāṅkhya, the earliest of the darśanas, describes the evolution of the inner instrument as:
In this model, memory is considered a function of buddhi, which is the faculty of knowledge, discernment, and retention.
Here, citta = manas + buddhi + ahaṅkāra.
Yoga, as formalized by Patañjali, adopts the same model, and Vyāsa’s classical commentary confirms this. B.K.S. Iyengar follows this definition of citta.
In Advaita Vedānta, the model of mind is different. The antaḥkaraṇa is broken into four distinct functions, and citta is one of them—not a composite:
- Manas: the doubting or weighing mind – wavers between options (saṅkalpa–vikalpa)
- Buddhi: the deciding or discriminative faculty (niścaya)
- Ahaṅkāra: the ego or sense of “I” or doership
- Citta: the memory faculty (smaraṇa), the storehouse of saṃskāras
Vedāntasāra explicitly states this:
67: “Citta and ahaṅkāra are included within buddhi and manas respectively.”
68: “Memory (citta) is that modification of the inner organ which remembers. (This is included in buddhi or the intellect.)”
So in Advaita, citta has a narrower and more specific function, primarily related to memory and latent impressions—unlike the all-encompassing usage in Yoga.
Hope that helps clarify where Guruji’s interpretation fits.
Rohit I really enjoy this article! I read it twice and will most likely study it again😊. It was very informative and next time I chant Om it will be with more understanding and connection ! “ See “ you in the next Gulnaaz class !!
Rohit, I appreciate this essay very much. Did you derive it from commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad? I ask because your scholarship and study are inspiring. I'm curious about your process in writing this. I have a more important question, too. We learn from BKS Iyengar that citta is composed of manas, buddhi, and ahamkara. I always wonder where this idea comes from. Is it the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad? I note your description of "the four parts of the inner instrument (antaḥkaraṇa): mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), ego (ahaṅkāra), and memory (citta)." These ideas are all listed together but not with the first three comprising the fourth. I'm very curious where Guruji's notion of citta comes from. Perhaps you can shed some light?
Thanks, Ned.
The piece was written from the Advaita (Non-Dual) Vedānta point of view, mainly based on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā and Śaṅkara’s commentary) and the Vedāntasāra by Sadānanda.
Writing it was part of my own ongoing Vedantic sādhana. It felt meaningful to finally put some of it into words.
I love that you asked this question about citta—it’s a very acute observation.
The different darśanas (philosophical systems) overlap in places but often differ—sometimes subtly, sometimes significantly—in how they define the components of the mind and core concepts like puruṣa and prakṛti.
Sāṅkhya, the earliest of the darśanas, describes the evolution of the inner instrument as:
prakṛti → mahat (buddhi) → ahaṅkāra → manas → sense organs.
In this model, memory is considered a function of buddhi, which is the faculty of knowledge, discernment, and retention.
Here, citta = manas + buddhi + ahaṅkāra.
Yoga, as formalized by Patañjali, adopts the same model, and Vyāsa’s classical commentary confirms this. B.K.S. Iyengar follows this definition of citta.
In Advaita Vedānta, the model of mind is different. The antaḥkaraṇa is broken into four distinct functions, and citta is one of them—not a composite:
- Manas: the doubting or weighing mind – wavers between options (saṅkalpa–vikalpa)
- Buddhi: the deciding or discriminative faculty (niścaya)
- Ahaṅkāra: the ego or sense of “I” or doership
- Citta: the memory faculty (smaraṇa), the storehouse of saṃskāras
Vedāntasāra explicitly states this:
67: “Citta and ahaṅkāra are included within buddhi and manas respectively.”
68: “Memory (citta) is that modification of the inner organ which remembers. (This is included in buddhi or the intellect.)”
So in Advaita, citta has a narrower and more specific function, primarily related to memory and latent impressions—unlike the all-encompassing usage in Yoga.
Hope that helps clarify where Guruji’s interpretation fits.
Rohit I really enjoy this article! I read it twice and will most likely study it again😊. It was very informative and next time I chant Om it will be with more understanding and connection ! “ See “ you in the next Gulnaaz class !!
Cathy