[Advaita-l] Is empathy a function of ahamkara?
Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 7 13:40:50 EDT 2020
Hari Om ji
Thank you for that detailed explanation. I wanted a few clarifications to
make sure I understand you correctly.
On Fri, 7 Aug, 2020, 10:35 PM श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> A different understanding. It is a nyAya postulate that cause must precede
> > effect. The relationship between them is one of samavaya.
> Not always.
> Only upAdAnakAraNa is accepted to have samavAyasambandha.
> nimitta and asamavAyi kAraNa don't have samavAyasambandha with kArya.
> This is not
> > accepted in Advaita (and Mimamsa). According to Advaita (and Mimamsa)
> > cause and effect can and do originate simultaneously from the same
> If A generates B and C simultaneously, then how are you claiming that B is
> cause of C?
> The definition of kAraNa has never been changed by vedAntin-s. It may have
> accepted that asamavAyi kAraNa may be present at the birth of effect, but
> it never denies essential presence before effect in any other cases.
> What you are claiming, is only accepted at places of
> dharmvishiShTadarmyadhyAsa. At such a place since dharmyadhyAsa can't be
> the cause of dhrmAdhyAsa, since the dharmi appeared as vishiShTa.
Can i take the example of a green snake being adhyasta on a rope? The
snakeness (dharmyadhyAsa) is not the (samavAya) cause of the (dharmAdhyAsa)
Using the same argument to say that all cause-effect relationships are
> similar is wrong, since you see that cause appeared first and then the
> effect occurred.
> The idea is you can apply that idea to prAtibhAsika only, not in
> vyAvahArika. And, in such place of prAtibhAsika, the kArya-kAraNa-bhAva is
> not present and the vyavahAra is because of vAsanA of
Yes I understand that part.
> The relationship between them is one of tAdAtmya.
You mean the vyAvahArika entities (kaaryas) are all in tAdAtmya sambandha
with their upAdAna kAraNam...
It is true that in place of samavAya we accept tAdAtmya only.
> But, throwing it to all kAraNa is not done by anyone.
> Moreover, tAdAtmya is not a relation of kArya-upAdAnakAraNa only, but
> avayava-avayavI, jAti-vyakti, etc.
> So, just by observing tAdAtmya you can't confirm kArya-kAraNa-bhAva.
> Illustration is substance and quality. Redness and roseness in Red Rose.
> > The explanation as per NyAya and Advaita(and Mimamsa) is along the above
> > lines.
> That's not how tAdAtmya is related to kArya-kAraNa-bhAva.
> In these places we accept something similar to naiyAyika-s. Since,
> qualities come and go in pot, etc. so they can not have the same origin as
> it's samavAyi-kAraNa.
> Accordingly, the relationship between ahamkAra and mamakAra in Advaita is
> > one of tAdAtmya and not cause and effect. They originate simultaneously
> > from the same cause, avidyA.
> mamakAra is manovRtti, while ahaMkAra is not.
> So, saying that they have tAdAtmya is baseless.
> But, if you take only antaHkaraN portion of ahaMkAra and then say that the
> mamAkAra-dhI has tAdAtmya with it, we can accept. Actually, if you say that
> all vRtti-s have tAdAtmya in this way, we will accept.
> ahaMkAra is chijjaDagranthiH, specifically antaHkaraNa-cahitanya-adhyAsa
> which ceases in suShupti, etc. and arises again in jAgrat, etc. The vRtti
> in shape of 'aham' is not ahamartha/aahaMkAra, it's ahamAkArA-dhI.
That aspect of ahaMkAra which is in tAdAtmya with the jAgrat-manovRttis is
the ahaMkAra-dhI while the causal aspect which continues even in suShupti
is the ahaMkAra in main sense of the word. Is that right?
> you can find the word used in many senses at different places in different
> works. But, if you ponder upon those sentences, in most cases it will lead
> you to the conclusion that it refers to antaHkaraNa-cahitanya-adhyAsa. The
> word antaHkaraNa here refers to sthUla-ataHkaraNa(which is not avyakta in
Have you mentioned the idea of 'sthUla'-antaHkaraNa as a clause (upAdhi)
because someone can say that even in suShupti, there is a certain sUxma
vRtti implying some anuvRtti of antaHkaraNa is still there (in fact
vRtti-trayaM is there in suShupti I think it is said)?
> If you are able to present quotes from authentic work and logically
> support any of the above claims about samavAya, I'll request you to start a
> new thread to deliberate upon samavAya and tAdAtmya, and ahaMkAra,
> If not, then I'll stop here and suggest reading a few portions of
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list