[Advaita-l] Is empathy a function of ahamkara?
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sat Aug 8 04:37:55 EDT 2020
>>>> To reiterate the other ideas - The mixed thing called ahaMkAra
> (cijjada-granthi) exists only in jAgrat-svapna.
It exists in those two states, is correct.
But, it is not destroyed in suShupti, just stays as saMskAra. Otherwise,
after every nap there will be a new Raghava-ahaMkAra.
> The cause (which remains undestroyed in deep sleep) is avidyA (embedded
> or conditioned with antaHkaraNa-saMskAra). This causes adhyAsa of
> sthUla-antaHkaraNa experienced in waking and dream.
> The word ahaMkAra is sometimes used to refer to a particular manovRtti
> which is the 'preception of ahaMkAra'. You said - Better word for that
> would be ahaMkAra-dhI for such a vRtti.
Actually, ahaMkAra is sAxi-bhAsya.
sAxI is avidyA-vRtyupahita-chaitanya.
And since ahaMkAra never appears without qualities, and since those
qualities and their relation is revealed by mano-vRtti; so a mixture of
avidyAvRtti and mano-vRtti are needed.
We use the word 'ahaM' to say/express it.
>> The perception of ahaMkAra is ahamAkArA-dhI. (dhI is perception and
>> ahaMkAra is it's subject. Both are different.)
> You used the word 'subject' - I am assuming it to mean ahaMkAra is the
> object/viShaya of that particular dhI vRtti?
Not knowing English is a hurdle for me.
> Both, ahaMkAra and ahamAkAra-dhI are accepted in only jAgrat-svapna.
>> And in those two states, all mano-vRtti-s are generated and since
>> antaHkaraNa is upAdAna-kAraNa of all vRtti-s, all vRtti-s have tAdAtmya
>> with antaHkaraNa(which is a part of ahaMkAra).
> all vRttis have tAdAtmya with antaHkaraNam the latter being upAdana - is
> antaHkaraNam is a *part/aspect* of ahaMkAra.
> Does not the last sentence imply that an aspect/part of ahaMkAra enjoys
> tAdAtmya with all manovRttis?
Correct. That was said in a previous post clearly.
> Empirically too we experience that the "I-am" implicitly in all our
This is what I said as 'And since ahaMkAra never appears without qualities,
and since those qualities and their relation is revealed by mano-vRtti; so
a mixture of avidyAvRtti and mano-vRtti are needed.'
(I am knowing. I am doing etc.) What we experience empirically as this
> "i-am" which is implicit in all manovRttis is what is being called
> cijjaDagranthi from an analytical view?
Just know that garva(pride) and the idea of oneness with body are also
represented by ahaM.
But, when we talk about ahaMkAra, we are talking about chijjaDagranthI only.
Most people take those two ideas and continue to talk, while ahaMkAra is
defined as what I told.
> There are two words here which are related and I have a doubt.
> If the antaHkaraNam is only a part/aspect of ahaMkAra and both are there
> only in the waking/dream state, what else is understood by the word
> ahaMkAra (cijjaDagranthi) which is not captured by the word antaHkaraNam?
That thing is chaitanya, that's why we say the mixture chijjaDagranthiH.
> I can see that the two words are etymologically different but request some
> elaboration. Another way of asking is - what exactly is the connexion
> between ahaMkAra (cijjaDagranthi) and a 'part' of it - antaHkaraNam - is
> not clear?
They are not separate. But they are not one.
antaHkaraNa is pa~nchabhUtavikAra while chijjaDagranthiH is what we get
when that antaHkaraNa gets reflection of consciousness and appears sentient
and then continues to appear as kartA, bhoktA, etc.
In other words, ahaMkAra is jIva. And, antaHkaraNa is it's upAdhi.
> You used the word antaHkaraNa-caitanya-adhyAsa but could not get the
> context clear.
I hope the above helps.
>>>> you can find the word used in many senses at different places in
>>>> works. But, if you ponder upon those sentences, in most cases it will
>>>> you to the conclusion that it refers to antaHkaraNa-cahitanya-adhyAsa.
>>>> word antaHkaraNa here refers to sthUla-ataHkaraNa(which is not avyakta
>>> 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)?
>> sthUla-portion was needed. That's true. But, not because of what you
>> It was added because that type of antaHkaraNa doesn't contribute to
>> ahaMkArAdhyAsa.What continues in suShupti, is not antaHkaraNa but it's
>> saMskAra. That's why you hear some laxaNa of jIva where
>> antaHkaraNa-tatsaMskArAvachchinna-avidyA-prtibimbita-chaitanya is defined
>> as jIva.
> So we can say that in order for the avidyA vRttis to be there in suShupti,
> the "antaHkaraNa-saMskAra" has to be there in suShupti while
> sthUla-antaHkaraNa is of course evident in jAgrat.
If the same jIva arises from suShupti, then yes antaHkaraNa-saMskAra is
But, it doesn't mean that it is making avidyA-vRtti-s possible. avidyAvRtti
-s are present in jAgrat too, as in perception of ahaMkAra, sukha,duHkha,
> To get this clearer - can we say that if we had only avidyA then that's
> not sufficient to account for waking up at all.
>> We would not even wake up.
It may allow our awakening, but the person who slept will die and a new
person will awake.
So we have to say that avidyA is antaHkaraNa-saMskAra-avacchinna meaning
> that avidyA is conditioned by the saMskAra of antaHkaraNa. Therefore
> antaHkaraNa adhyAsa occurs and we can experience a 'waking state'.
You are free to deduce based on what I said. I'm leaving this.
> Here a small detour -
> For any vRtti there is upAdAna required, surely? In suShupti, I was
> saying that a latent/sUxma upAdAna (or Ashraya?) of some sort is presumed
> to exist.
sUxma means that it can't work.
If you mean avidyA by sUxma, then OK.
> Particularly since the avidyA *vRtti-s* plural form is used.
avidyA is upAdAna.
The answer to this should also square with the idea that the antaHkaraNa
> wakes up or arises in jAgrat inherently with the saMskAra of "I slept
> happily not knowing anything." So to account for this waking memory of
> those avidyA vRttis that exist in deep sleep (but are not experienced at
> that time),
avidyAvRtti is a type of perception, what we know as sAxi-pratyaxa.
This generates saMskAra.
And then we remember pleasure, ignorance, etc.
You don't remebmber those vRtti-s. You remember pleasure, etc.
The last portion hints lack of understanding where you say that "but are
not experienced at that time". Here it appears that you are talking about
lack of experience of avidyAvRtti-s and not pleasure, etc. That's wrong.
that very antaHkaraNa-saMskAra-avacchina-avidyA provides the upAdAna.
> (manovRttis have antaHkaraNa upAdAna ; similarly avidyA vRttis takes that
> avidyA itself as upAdAna)
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list