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

[smallpress]

 Thank you for your response, Subbu ji.It is correct then that sympathy, empathy, sorrow at the suffering of others (distinct from self-pity) all of that Is vritti of the mana and is part of the ahankara. If taken to the logical conclusion it is unreal, aspect of maya, it is the snake in the analogy.Would it be correct then to say that within Adavitic way of life, one should do nothing to alleviate suffering. I understand the karma yoga concept of gita, which seems to me more of a dualistic point of view.It will no longer be advaita, because the atma is the subject. Sorrow is the object.Please point out where i am mistaken.NamashivayaSoma
    On Thursday, August 6, 2020, 02:15:02 AM EDT, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 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.
regardssubbu .  

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