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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:11 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hari Om ji
> Thank you for that detailed explanation. I wanted a few clarifications to
> make sure I understand you correctly.
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug, 2020, 10:35 PM श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>>
>>
>>
>> A different understanding. It is a nyAya postulate that cause must precede
>> > effect. The relationship between them is one of samavaya.
>>
>>
>> Not always.
>> Only upAdAnakAraNa is accepted to have samavAyasambandha.
>> nimitta and asamavAyi kAraNa don't have samavAyasambandha with kArya.
>>
>> This  is not
>> > accepted in Advaita (and Mimamsa). According to Advaita (and Mimamsa)
>> >  cause and effect can and do originate simultaneously from the same
>> cause.
>> >
>>
>>
>> If A generates B and C simultaneously, then how are you claiming that B is
>> cause of C?
>> The definition of kAraNa has never been changed by vedAntin-s. It may have
>> accepted that asamavAyi kAraNa may be present at the birth of effect, but
>> it never denies essential presence before effect in any other cases.
>>
>> What you are claiming, is only accepted at places of
>> dharmvishiShTadarmyadhyAsa. At such a place since dharmyadhyAsa can't be
>> the cause of dhrmAdhyAsa, since the dharmi appeared as vishiShTa.
>>
> Can i take the example of a green snake being adhyasta on a rope? The
> snakeness (dharmyadhyAsa) is not the (samavAya) cause of the (dharmAdhyAsa)
> greenness?
>
No, since they are not dharma and dharmI.
At the same place, if you say that 'the snake is not samavAyI-kAraNa of
green color, then it will fit.

BTW, it does appear that you accept adhyAsa of *sarpatva* in  rope, but
somehow don't accept/know that snake is also superimposed. If so, just
correct that.
Both dharma(*sarpatva*, greenness) and dharmI(snake) are accepted as
superimposed.

> Using the same argument to say that all cause-effect relationships are
>> similar is wrong, since you see that cause appeared first and then the
>> effect occurred.
>> The idea is you can apply that idea to prAtibhAsika only, not in
>> vyAvahArika. And, in such place of prAtibhAsika, the kArya-kAraNa-bhAva is
>> not present and the vyavahAra is because of vAsanA of
>> vyAvahArika-kArya-kAraNa-bhAva.
>>
> Yes I understand that part.
>
>>
>> The relationship between them is one of tAdAtmya.
>> >
>>
> You mean the vyAvahArika entities (kaaryas) are all in tAdAtmya sambandha
> with their upAdAna kAraNam...
>

Yes.

Accordingly, the relationship between ahamkAra and mamakAra in Advaita is
>> > one of tAdAtmya and not cause and effect. They originate simultaneously
>> > from the same cause, avidyA.
>> >
>>
>> mamakAra is manovRtti, while ahaMkAra is not.
>> So, saying that they have tAdAtmya is baseless.
>> But, if you take only antaHkaraN portion of ahaMkAra and then say that the
>> mamAkAra-dhI has tAdAtmya with it, we can accept. Actually, if you say
>> that
>> all vRtti-s have tAdAtmya in this way, we will accept.
>> ahaMkAra is chijjaDagranthiH, specifically antaHkaraNa-cahitanya-adhyAsa
>> which ceases in suShupti, etc. and arises again in jAgrat, etc. The vRtti
>> in shape of 'aham' is not ahamartha/aahaMkAra, it's ahamAkArA-dhI.
>
>
> That aspect of ahaMkAra which is in tAdAtmya with the jAgrat-manovRttis is
> the ahaMkAra-dhI while the causal aspect which continues even in suShupti
> is the ahaMkAra in main sense of the word. Is that right?
>

No.
The adhyAsa with shtUla-antaHkaraNa arises from avidyA and stays only in
states different from suShupti.
This mixed thing is called ahaMkAra.
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.)
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).

Although
>> you can find the word used in many senses at different places in different
>> works. But, if you ponder upon those sentences, in most cases it will lead
>> you to the conclusion that it refers to antaHkaraNa-cahitanya-adhyAsa. The
>> word antaHkaraNa here refers to sthUla-ataHkaraNa(which is not avyakta in
>> suShupti/AGYAna).
>>
>
> 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
thought.
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.

And whatever vRtti-s you are referring to in suShupti, are not
antaHkaraNa-vRtti. They are avidyAvRtti-s. So, you must correct yourself
there. They don't make me add sthUla-padam above.