[Advaita-l] ADMIN: New member introduction: Jurek

Bhadraiah Mallampalli vaidix at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 2 01:25:56 CST 2003

Sri Srikrishna,

>In Sanskrit 'aham' simply means 'I'. As we know there is only one 'I', 
>whoever says it.  The >nature/expression/vritti of mind is 'ahamkAra'. So, 
>this aham + kAra have to be
>separated by knowledge and understand that 'kara' or 'kartrutvam' does not 
>belong to 'aham' and >it belongs to the mind.

Do you suggest that aham doesn't do anything, and that doing belongs to mind 
(manas)? I suggest an alternative.

It appears that we may not be able to reduce the importance of the kAra 
suffix. kAra is to be translated as maker. going by this argument, aham-kAra 
is the entity that creates aham in the first place. So the word ahamkAra 
points to the cause of aham. As cause of more powerful than effect, ahamkAra 
is more powerful than aham.

The above conclusion has a double meaning. The straight meaning is 
simplistic egotism, wherein ahamkaara is the property of some one who thinks 
his aham is the doer.

The second meaning is that aham itself is the creation of a more powerful 
being called ahamkAra. Again, I don't suggest we should stop at that. We can 
keep questioning what is the cause of that ahamkAra, and its cause and so 

Br.U relates the words aham (neu., ego) and ahah (m., day). The reality 
check is that the cause of this creation can get down to any level to get 
its things done and it has all the freedom to do so. So it creates aham to 
get its things done.

Any comments please.

Best regards

Share holiday photos without swamping your Inbox.  Get MSN Extra Storage 
now!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list