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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*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.
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.

The relationship between them is one of tAdAtmya.
>

It is true that in place of samavAya we accept tAdAtmya only.
But, throwing it to all kAraNa is not done by anyone.
Moreover, tAdAtmya is not a relation of kArya-upAdAnakAraNa only, but
avayava-avayavI, jAti-vyakti, etc.
So, just by observing tAdAtmya you can't confirm kArya-kAraNa-bhAva.


Illustration is substance and quality. Redness and  roseness in Red Rose.
> The explanation as per NyAya and Advaita(and Mimamsa) is along the above
> lines.
>

That's not how tAdAtmya is related to kArya-kAraNa-bhAva.
In these places we accept something similar to naiyAyika-s. Since,
qualities come and go in pot, etc. so they can not have the same origin as
it's samavAyi-kAraNa.

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. 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).

If you are able to  present quotes from authentic work and logically
support any of the above claims about samavAya, I'll request you to start a
new thread to deliberate upon samavAya and tAdAtmya, and ahaMkAra,
separately.
If not, then I'll stop here and suggest reading a few portions of
laghuchandrikA.