[Advaita-l] Is empathy a function of ahamkara?

[V Subrahmanian]

We can say in general that the identification with the entire set of pancha
koshas is 'chidachid granthi'.  The Atman is chit and the pancha koshas
constitute the achit. The identification with the five koshas, effectively
the body-mind-organs complex, is AtmAnAtma adhyasa.  The Adhyasa bhashya,
at the very beginning says this: vishayi (chitadmakam) and vishaya the
object, anAtma, can never really combine. If a combination is
seen/experienced, then it is clearly a case of adhyasa.

The Bh.Gita 13th chapter too clearly says: Purushah prakritistho hi bhunkte
prakriti-jaan GuNaan. kaaraNam guNasango'sya sadasad yoni janmasu.  The
adhyasa of Purusha-prakriti is the case of samsara. The destruction of this
adhyasa thru Atma jnanam is what is termed as 'bhidyate hridaya granthih'
in the Upanishad.

The Br.Up. says: kaamah sankalpa vichikitsaa.  ityetat sarvam mana eva.   A
host of mental modifications, emotions, doubt, fear, shame, faith, lack of
it, etc. are  termed 'manas.'  And we have the division of antahkaranam as
manas, buddhi, chit and ahankara.  So, the ahankara-manas connection is
clear.  All emotions, compassion, etc. is expressed by the ahankara in
association with the manovritt-s.

regards
subbu .


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Of course drig drishya viveka is a text of advaita. What we are looking for
> is the svarUpa lakshaNa of ahamkAra (what it is, as opposed to how it
> arises / what it does). If such a definition occurs there, well and good.
>
> In the advaita siddhi, for example, the svarUpa lakshaNa of ahamkAra as
> chidachit granthi is provided in sentences such as अहंकारो हि
> अनुभवामीत्यात्मानुबन्ध्यनुभवस्याहं कर्तेत्यचिदनुबन्धिकर्तृत्वादेश्चाश्रयः
> चिदचित्संवलनात्मकत्वात् and later as अहंकारस्तु चिदचिद्ग्रन्थिरूपतया
> द्व्यंशः.
>
> The reason this is relevant is because unless what ahamkAra is identified
> clearly, we cannot answer the question whether something else is related to
> it or not.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, 04:54 smallpress, <smallpress at ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mr.Venkatraghavan,
> > Namaste.
> > Thank for understanding my question and explaining completely and also
> > filling my gap on the adavaitic term. Truly appreciate your effort.
> > May i ask what you mean by “ I think what was meant in the original
> > answer was that ahamkAra in advaita is defined as chidachit granthi:, or
> > the intimate admixture of consciousness with the inert mind, which leads
> to
> > the notion "I" - अहमिति तावत् प्रथमोऽध्यासःl
> > What i mean is what texts comprise advaita and what do not? Does Drk
> > Drishya Viveka part of those texts or is it not? Because it defines
> > ahamkara very clearly as a result of 2 kinds of errors of perception or
> > understanding notion of “aham”
> > What text would i find the chidachit granti explained?
> > Namashivaya
> > Soma
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 03:54:54 PM EDT, Venkatraghavan S <
> > agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Namaste,
> > I think what was meant in the original answer was that ahamkAra in
> advaita
> > is defined as chidachit granthi:, or the intimate admixture of
> > consciousness with the inert mind, which leads to the notion "I" - अहमिति
> > तावत् प्रथमोऽध्यासः.
> >
> > The question is interesting and deserves enquiry - is the emphasis of the
> > query - is "suffering" a function of ahamkAra? Or that suffering is
> > considered to be "one's own"*,* a function of ahamkAra?
> >
> > Given the rest of the email, where one's own suffering is contrasted with
> > others', it appears the intent of the questioner is the latter.
> >
> > Also, what is meant by the term "function of"?
> >
> > It cannot mean a "result of", in the sense that the notion that something
> > is "one's own" is not a result of the ego. The notion of "मम" is not a
> > product of "अहं". As AchArya says in the adhyAsa bhAShya, both are a
> result
> > of the anyonya adhyAsa of Atma and anAtma "अहमिदं ममेदमिति नैसर्गिकोऽयं
> > लोकव्यवहारः".
> >
> > Thus, from that perspective, ahamkAra is not a cause of mamakAra.
> >
> > However, we can accept that ahamkAra presupposes mamakAra. As said in the
> > panchapAdika by padmapAdAchArya - अहमिति तावत् प्रथमोऽध्यासः.
> >
> > The notion that "something belongs to me" is presupposed by an entity
> > called "I", with which the thing in question is assumed to have a
> > connection, leading to the notion - "This is mine".
> >
> > The second part of the email, then extended the original question to say,
> > and I am paraphrasing as I understood it, if that was not the intent,
> > please correct - "one's own suffering is a function of ahamkAra, what
> about
> > the sadness on seeing others suffer? If one dismisses them as products of
> > maya, does that leave no room in advaita for karuna? Can one act to help
> > others knowing that all suffering is unreal"?
> >
> > Advaita is not saying that one should not feel karuNa towards others -
> All
> > that it is saying is that suffering - whether one's own or others' -  is
> > mithyA. If you can do something to assuage it, do so. If you cannot, rest
> > in the knowledge that it is ephemeral and it will end.
> >
> > Both actions to address the issue and forebearance are mithyA.
> >
> > Thus, advaita does not advocate the cessation of action - rather, it asks
> > one to see the truth - that one is not an actor. Actions may continue for
> > the mind and the body - or not, as the case may be -  but in reality, the
> > self is not acting - even when the mind feels the greatest compassion and
> > the body acts in accordance to assuage others' suffering.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 18:40 smallpress via Advaita-l, <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > One’s own suffering can be seen as a function of ahamkara, caused by
> > errors of avarna and vikshepa. What about the sadness on seeing others
> > suffer, such as the recent killings of Black Americans, even children,
> > innocent victims.I suppose you can call it karuna. How do we accomodate
> > this feeling of empathy, sadness, karuna for the sufferings of others?
> And
> > how do we act in providing comfort if we see their suffering also as
> maya.
> >
> > Thank you.Soma
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>