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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

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?

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...

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.


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?

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)?

Om
Raghav

>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>