The Mindless Sage: what is meant by destroyed mind?

David Godman

Vira Chandra: There is is an important nuance that David Godman’s explanation seems to overlook or simplify.

(from https://www.davidgodman.org/an-introduction-to-sri-ramanas-life-and-teachings/4/):

Question: You say that in realization the mind is dead. People who are enlightened seem to think, remember, and so on, in just the same way that ordinary people do. They must have a mind to do this. Perhaps they are not attached to it, but it must still be there otherwise they couldn’t function in the world. Someone who had a dead mind would be a zombie.

David Godman: This is a misconception that many people have because they can’t imagine how anyone can function, take decisions, speak, and so on without a mind. You do all these things with your mind, or at least you think you do, so when you see a sage behaving normally in the world, you automatically assume that he too is coordinating all his activities through an entity called ‘mind’. You think you are a person inhabiting a body, so when you look at a sage you automatically assume that he too is a person functioning through a body. 

The sage doesn’t see himself that way at all. He knows that the Self alone exists, that a body appears in that Self, and performs certain actions. He knows that all the actions and words that arise in this body come from the Self alone. He doesn’t make the mistake of attributing them to an imaginary intermediary entity called ‘mind’. In this mindless state, no one is organizing mental information, no one is deciding what to do next. The Self merely prompts the body to do or say whatever needs to be done or said in that moment.

When the mind has gone, leaving only the Self, the one who decides future courses of actions has gone, the performer of actions has gone, the thinker of thoughts has gone, the perceiver of perceptions has gone. Self alone remains, and that Self takes care of all the things that the body needs to say or do. Someone who is in that state always does the most appropriate thing, always says the most appropriate thing, because all the words and all the actions come directly from the Self.

Bhagavan once compared himself to a radio. A voice is coming out of it, saying sensible things that seem to be a product of rational, considered thought, but if you open the radio, there is no one in there thinking and deciding. When you listen to a sage such as Bhagavan, you are not listening to words that come from a mind, you are listening to words that come directly from the Self.

In his written works Bhagavan uses the term 'manonasa' to describe the state of liberation. It means, quite unequivocally, ‘destroyed mind’. The mind, according to Bhagavan, is just a wrong idea, a mistaken belief. It comes into existence when the ‘I’-thought, the sense of individuality, claims ownership of all the thoughts and perceptions that the brain processes. When this happens, you end up with a mind that says, ‘I am happy’ or ‘I have a problem’ or ‘I see that tree over there’. When, through self-inquiry, the mind is dissolved in its source there is an understanding that the mind never really existed, that it was just an erroneous idea that was believed in simply because its true nature and origin were never properly investigated.

Bhagavan sometimes compared the mind to a gatecrasher at a wedding who causes trouble and gets away with it because the bride’s party thinks he is with the bridegroom and vice versa. The mind doesn’t belong to either the Self or the body. It’s just an interloper that causes trouble because we never take the trouble to find out where it has come from. When we make that investigation, mind, like the troublesome wedding guest, just melts away and disappears.

=========

Vira Chandra: Okay, now let's provide the words of Bhagavan Himself (from "Sat-Darshana Bhashya and Talks with Maharshi"):

Devotee: This seems to contradict the statements that the Self is beyond the mind, that the mind cannot know Brahman, and that it is beyond thought and speech.

Maharshi: That is why they say that the mind is two-fold: there is the higher, pure mind as well as the lower, impure mind. The impure mind cannot know, but the pure mind can.

It does not mean that the pure mind measures the immeasurable Self, the Brahman. It means that the Self makes itself felt in the pure mind, so that even when you are in the midst of thoughts, you feel the Presence. You realize the truth that you are one with the deeper Self, and though thought-waves may arise, they remain only on the surface.

Devotee: That means the manonasa (destruction of the mind) or ahamkara nasa (destruction of the ego) you speak of is not an absolute destruction?

Maharshi: Yes. The mind gets clear of impurities and becomes pure enough to reflect the truth, the real Self. This is impossible when the ego is active and assertive.

===========

Vira Chandra: Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi himself clarifies that manonasa (destruction of the mind) is not an absolute annihilation but rather a transformation where the mind becomes pure and reflects the Self without distortion.

David ji’s analogy of the mind as a “wedding gatecrasher” suggests that the mind is an entirely false entity that must be eliminated completely. 

Firstly, though he says that "Bhagavan sometimes compared", I don't know any direct instance where Bhagavan himself used this analogy in recorded conversations or texts: looks that this is the case of blending his own interpretation with Bhagavan’s words. 

Secondly, Bhagavan makes a clear distinction between the impure mind (which is bound by ego and duality) and the pure mind (which is transparent to the Self and no longer claims ownership). This distinction aligns more with traditional Advaita and also with Kashmiri Shaiva perspectives, where the purified mind (shuddha manas) becomes an instrument of illumination rather than a hindrance.

In practical experience, even jnanis like Bhagavan spoke, responded to questions, engaged in practical decisions, and had preferences about food or daily routines—none of which would be possible if the mind were totally absent in an absolute sense. The key is that their mind no longer had personal volition (ahamkara), and all actions arose spontaneously from the Self.

David ji's words are useful for dismantling the misconception that enlightenment involves a mind-driven decision-making process, but they can also create a misleading impression that an enlightened being is some kind of blank slate, like a radio broadcasting without awareness. 

Regarding radio analogy, In Talk 146 of "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi", Bhagavan indeed does compare his speech and actions to a radio, saying:

“The radio sings and speaks, but if you open it, you will find no one inside. Similarly, my existence is like space; though this body speaks like the radio, there is no one inside as a doer.”

This statement does not mean that there is no intelligence, awareness, or consciousness behind the speech. Bhagavan is simply stating that there is no individual ego or personal volition behind his words—everything flows spontaneously from the Self.

David Godman, however, expands on this analogy in a way that subtly alters its meaning: “When you listen to a sage such as Bhagavan, you are not listening to words that come from a mind; you are listening to words that come directly from the Self.”

This makes it sound as though there is absolutely no functioning mind at all, which contradicts Bhagavan’s own clarification in Sad Darshana Bhashya (where he explains the distinction between the pure mind and the impure mind).

Bhagavan’s analogy of the radio does not suggest mindlessness or mechanical speech, but rather the absence of egoic identification with thoughts and actions. The pure mind, free from personal volition, acts as an instrument of the Self, much like how a radio transmits sound but does not generate it.

Thus to summarize: Bhagavan’s clarification helps resolve this - manonasa is the dissolution of the egoic mind, not the total obliteration of all thought or mental activity. The mind, when purified, remains as a servant of the Self rather than a master creating bondage.

This aligns with the deeper experience of many realized beings: they use the mind but are not used by it.