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

Srikrishna Ghadiyaram srikrishna_ghadiyaram at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 8 11:59:22 CST 2003

hariH Om !!

--- Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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 is my understanding that 'aham' is not the 'agent'.
But as Isvara, the agency can be thought of, as that
'aham' works with its own sakti. But, when one is
'completely' as 'aham' there is no 'creation either.
> It appears that we may not be able to reduce the
> importance of the kAra 
> suffix. kAra is to be translated as maker.

In the case of a 'ghatakAra' etc. there is a
'conscious' entity and a non-conscious' entity
'ghata'. In such a situation you may translate 'kAra'
as 'maker'. Not in the case of 'ahamkAra'. What we are
calling/naming as 'ahamkAra' is inert mental-vritti.
So, it can not be the cause of 'aham'. Otherwise you
may drive to the conclusiion that 'consciousness' came
out of non-conscious' material.

The cause of 'ahamkAra' can only be the will of
'aham'. If we truly wipe out the possibility of a
separate 'Individual Self' or rather say that it is
only a 'mithya'. That mithyatva itself should be
willed by the principle Consciousness. 

We also explain that 'prakriti' or 'gunas' themselves
or 'mind' appears from consciousness and disappears
into consciousness, just like in deep sleep.

So, without the 'ahamkAra' being an out come of 'aham'
we can not explain liberation and origin of the

Om Namo Narayanaya !!


> 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 
> on.
> 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
> Bhadraiah
> Share holiday photos without swamping your Inbox. 
> Get MSN Extra Storage 
> now!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list