Guest guest Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Namaste Nitish, > Ahamkara is not real, it is only a term, not a principle on the same > grounds as Manas, Chitta and Asmita! A term that is only a > representative state of existence, which has been separated from the > true state of existence. Your statement is strange because ahamkaara and asmitaa are THE SAME. Upanishads used the word " ahamkaara " , while Patanjali used the word " asmitaa " to describe the SAME entity. aham=I kaara=ness ahamkaara=I-ness asmi= am taa=ness asmitaa= " am " -ness, i.e. I-ness Both are different words for the same thing, i.e. I-ness or ego principle or self-identification or the sense that " I am so and so " . Neither refers just to the body, but to ANY notion of " I am this " . * * * Suppose someone writes something bad about " Narasimha " and suppose I am offended when I read it, thinking " I " am being criticized. Here I may have a mental object called " Narasimha " , whom I may see as being attacked when I read that mail, though nothing is being done to any physical body. My self-identification with this mental object (i.e. thinking that " I am " that mental object), is ahamkaara or asmitaa too. Self-identifying with that mental object and using it as an instrument of experiencing, I may sometimes experience happiness (e.g. when someone writes great things about " Narasimha " ) and sometimes experience sadness (e.g. when someone writes bad things about " Narasimha " ). As long as I do that, I am bound. The concept of ahamkaara or asmitaa or I-ness is not restricted to identification with a physical body at all. * * * Regarding your understanding of " asmitaa " , you wrote earlier: > identification of the seer with the instrument of > seeing i.e. Physical senses. You simply jumped to the conclusion that physical senses and physical body are the only instrument of seeing (or experiencing) and restricted asmitaa to the physical body. That is not correct. Mind is an instrument of seeing/experiencing too. For example, things seen or experienced in a dream or in meditation are not seen using the physical senses. They are seen by the mind. The yoga sutra of Patanjali that you referred to actually defined asmitaa (I-ness) as identification with ANY instrument that allows one to have experiences. This is certainly not limited to the physical body. BTW, Swami Satchidananda's commentary on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras explicitly mentions body and mind when translating this particular sutra. * * * Patanjali, upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Yoga vaasishtham etc - they are all fantastic sources of knowledge and they would never contradict each other. Unfortunately, people with a limited understanding of a limited amount of scriptures start arguing and make it sound like one scripture vs the other. Best regards, Narasimha Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org , " yeeahoo_99 " <nitish.arya wrote: > > || OM TAT SAT || > > Sundeep, > > I understand your time constraints and everybody who is replying. Neither do I have time for replying to so many people around. > > Patanjali Sutras, cited by me in first mail, have clearly stated what I am only trying to convey. Simply because it was impossible for me to directly attempt to understand this subtle difference, the writings of Sri Yukteswar helped bring the focus light on it. Only the Sage like Patanjali could have put the subtle classification in place, by the exact term. > > Chitta and not Ahamkara causes Yoga > Manas and not Ahamkara is involved with Vairagya > Asmita and not Ahamkara causes Jnana (Sasmita samadhi) > > > Upanishadic terms wherein Ahamkara is the centering principle! > > There is only one underlying centering principle, which creates an > apparent sense of self in the manas, in the body and everywhere > > else you mention. Or do you disagree that at the root, there isnt > > only one causative centering principle? > > Ahamkara is not real, it is only a term, not a principle on the same grounds as Manas, Chitta and Asmita! A term that is only a representative state of existence, which has been separated from the true state of existence. > > Upanishads have not used Ahamkara as a centering principle, but only as a representative of unnatural state of existence. It doesn't exist after the Self is realized because it is replaced by a constant focus on Souls' I-ness. > > If there were any reality to Ahamkara, it wouldn't cease to exist! > > However, these three centers (Causal-body ideas) exist even after self-realization, in the three bodies, till the Sage leaves all the three jars. Now, they are in the states of Yoga, Vairagya and Jnana respectively. Thus, even the Brahman realized beings take birth as Avataras, without Ahamkara, but with the essential required centering principles of Asmita, Manas and Chitta. > > While for an unenlightened person, these three states don't exist, and the same centers become afflicted with a non-entity called Ahamkara. > > What is so difficult in this that one cannot understand ? > Apart from the terminology, that caused the problem - the truth of the matter is that - if a person doesn't want to understand something, nobody can make him understand. > > Regards, > Nitish > > > , " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent@> wrote: > > > > Nitish, > > > > I would have loved to read each one of your replies, but unfortunately work pressures rise, and I am unable to spend the necessary time. But let me say some things clearly, I think they may help you. It is probably true that you have had some significant spiritual experiences, which is why you speak with authority. I have no problem with that, and that is why I actually expect to find some wisdom in your words. But see, the problem with spiritual experience is terminology, terminology, terminology. Ordinary sensory experiences are easily communicated - it is easy to say the word " tree " and you know exactly what I mean - because trees are available everywhere in common sensory experience. But not so with spiritual experience, they are by definition outside common sensory experience! So if you want to communicate your ideas (if you dont that's fine too), you will have to invest some significant time in coming to common ground (with others) before ideas get exchanged for the benefit of all. > > > > I will take your current post as an example. I will try to explain my terminology as clearly as possible and you will then see that there is some common ground between you and everyone else here: The essential point in all our minds when we talk Ahamkara, ego etc is, in very loose essence, a " centering principle " , right? It is that centering principle which either is, or leads to, the formation of an individuality, no? At every level of existence, no? > > > > I think you will agree with the above. Now, from my understanding of what you write, when you say Ahamkara is the dominant I sense in the physical cosmos, Manas in astral cosmos and Chitta in the causal cosmos, you are simply in essence trying to convey the fact that at difference levels of existence the actual centers are different, which is probably true. It is common experience that for all of us in everyday experience, we are not aware of our deeper senses of self (I am not using any loaded terms here, simply the loosely defined term " self " ). Our senses of self are clearly body centered. > > > > So what you are trying to do, are at least what I get from your writings, is to call that body centered sense of self Ahamkara, right? Whereas everyone else on this forum is using the standard Upanishadic terms wherein Ahamkara is the centering principle! There is only one underlying centering principle, which creates an apparent sense of self in the manas, in the body and everywhere else you mention. Or do you disagree that at the root, there isnt only one causative centering principle? > > > > I could do the above for the rest of your writings and probably reach common ground, but it would take time which as I said I am suddenly at a shortage of. But it would be easier if you tried and understood the terms as everyone uses them here, so the exchange of ideas and understanding would be much quicker and without the conflict.. > > > > Regards > > > > Sundeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , " yeeahoo_99 " <nitish.arya@> wrote: > > > > > > || OM TAT SAT || > > > Dear Narasimha and Sundeep, > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback. I thought, I had written a quite clear and explicit mail, but your reply has proved that it needs to be put down in at least 10-fold simpler words. > > > > > > You read my mail, but picked up notions in an incorrect, incoherent manner, and are reading beyond what is written in my mail. > > > > > > To prove my point, I would ask Sundeep to read my previous mail on " Gyan Marg " followed by your reply and see if he also picks up the notions in the same manner as you did ? > > > > > > The only addition required is an example: > > > > > > Your hypothesis > > > Ahamkara is the only I-ness there is for all the beings in all the 3 cosmoses i.e. all the Physical, Astral and Causal-bodied beings. > > > > > > Proof by Contradiction > > > A person who lives as a farmer, should, after death, remain a farmer in the astral cosmos, and after subsequent astral death, should be reborn as the same farmer with the same name and same identity as in his previous earthly incarnation. > > > This is not the case, people don't even remember what they were in previous birth, and start their life afresh in a new earthly body > > > => Contradiction > > > => the original hypothesis is wrong > > > => Ahamkara is not the only sense of I-ness applicable to all beings in all the 3 cosmoses. > > > > > > Inference #1: > > > => Ahamkara is dominant sense of I-ness in Physical Cosmos. > > > => Manas is dominant sense of I-ness in Astral Cosmos. > > > => Chitta is dominant sense of I-ness in Causal Cosmos. > > > > > > Corollary #1: > > > A Devata as an Astral-being has I-ness due to his Manas, and doesn't have Ahamkara for the work done by him in all the various physical bodies. > > > > > > Inference #1 and Corollary #1 is what I had written in my previous mail on this topic. > > > > > > There are many other ways to prove the contradiction on this hypothesis (e.g. Powers of beings in physical cosmos < those in astral cosmos < those in causal cosmos). > > > > > > Your made two additional points that are also invalid. My comments on that is: > > > > > > 1. I-ness derived from Ahamkara,Manas and Chitta has no innate power to Control any other idea of the 35 Causal-ideas. > > > Reason: > > > Soul is the only Truth and controller, everything else has an unreal and derived existence. Thus, all the 35 ideas co-ordinate with each other, and not control each other. > > > > > > 2. A new-born child or a person in Hypnotic-Trance, is able to use his sense-consciousness coherently due to the astral-bodys' sense of I-ness derived from Manas, that coordinates the senses. > > > He has no Buddhi or discriminating faculty to interact with manas (sensory-motor mind) and tell it what to do - as you have proposed. Thus, Manas co-ordinates the senses due to its own sense of I-ness, not due to Buddhi. > > > > > > I hope this clarifies. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Nitish > > > > > > > > > , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > Out of the 19 or 35 attributes of individualized consciousness, which one gives the idea " I am this " or " I am that " ? Of course, it is ahamkaraka or I-ness or egosense or ego principle! > > > > > > > > Is one's idea of " I am this " limited to a physical body? Of course not! If someone says " so and so person is a terrible person " , one may feel offended or if someone says " so and so person is a great person " , one may feel elated. One's ahamkara or I-ness is identifying with the criticism or praise, even though nothing is being done to the physical body and only a name is being used. When somebody calls one by name from distance (as opposed to patting on the physical body and calling), one's consciousness may still think " I am being called " and one may turn towards the caller. As in these examples, one's I-ness does of course bind itself to more than a body. > > > > > > > > Suppose one gets a dream while sleeping. One may have forgotten totally about the physical body in the dream! One may think of something else as " I " . In dreams, one may see oneself as a different body or may not even " see " onself, but still one may have the sense that so and so thing is happening to " me " . So, even when the mind is drawn away from the physical body, there is still a notion of " I am this " (I-ness) in a dream. That is ahamkara or I-ness or ego principle. > > > > > > > > Your idea that ahamkara is limited to physical body is absolutely unacceptable. Ahamkara or I-ness extends beyond the physical body. > > > > > > > > Also, your idea that deities like Agni do not have ahamkara (I-ness) because they do not have physical bodies is incorrect. Of course, Agni does have an I-ness and thinks " I am Agni and this is what I do " . If he did not have that I-ness, he would not do everything he does. > > > > > > > > Moreover, the 19 or 35 ideas of individualized consciousness do interact with each other, whether we use the word " control " for some of those interactions or not. For example, buddhi (intellectual/discriminating mind) judges various past experiences, interacts with manas (sensory-motor mind) and tells it what to do. Then manas interacts with karmendriyas (organs of action) and makes them do various things. My buddhi determined what to write and my manas told my hands to type this and I ended up typing. > > > > > > > > Your point about " what exists as a part cannot be the whole " is totally out of place. The sense of I-ness, the memories and conditioning, the logical mind, the sensory-motor mind, karmendriyas etc are all different parts of individualized consciousness and they play different roles while interacting with each other in different ways. Some of those interactions may be deemed to be controls. > > > > > > > > > Am not mixing up the terminologies, though my mail didn't > > > > > go in details. Your understanding is flawed. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Where did you read this up ? > > > > > > > > One does not " read up " these things in a single place. There are different abstractions and breakdowns of what happens in individualized consciousness. There are several sources that speak of different aspects of this knowledge in slightly different terms. One will assimilate this knowledge better if one reads as many sources as possible and contemplates. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Narasimha > > > > > > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam > > > > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana > > > > Spirituality: > > > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net > > > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > > > Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings > > > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- yeeahoo_99 <nitish.arya@> wrote: > > > > > || OM TAT SAT || > > > > > Dear Narasimha, > > > > > Please Ignore my previous-mail, it was not completed - i will try to delete it. > > > > > > > > > > Am not mixing up the terminologies, though my mail didn't go in details. Your understanding is flawed. > > > > > > > > > > 1. All ideas including the idea of Ahamkara naturally belong to the ideational or causal body, but Ahamkara must be overcome only in the physical body (See point 5.). Astral or Causal-bodied beings (those without a physical/astral body) don't have to fight with the idea of Ahamkara like we do. > > > > > > > > > > > Ahamkaara/ego controls manas and buddhi also. When manas (sensory- > > > > > > ...they are all guided by the sense of I-ness. That sense of I-ness > > > > > > permeates through all layers of one's individualized consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Where did you read this up ? > > > > > > > > > > There is a fine line between the sense of I-ness attributed to the Individual Soul and the sense of I-ness derived through the idea of Ahamkara. Even after a Soul is freed of the three bodies, the individuality of the Soul Atom is not destroyed (Resurrection implies that), while it has already given up the idea of Ahamkara including all other ideas. > > > > > > > > > > Individuality of a causal-bodied being is not due to the idea of Ahamkara because " What exists as a part cannot be the whole " . Thus, the idea of Ahamkara, being one of the 35 ideas of the Causal-body, doesn't account for neither controls the rest of the 34 ideas. Each idea is independent of another, without requiring another idea to act upon it - otherwise your buddhi would always interfere with the functioning of Mind or Ahamkara or the 5 functions of life-forces and so on. > > > > > > > > > > Essentially, the 35 ideas of causal body are the basic causal forces and are not related as cause-effect to each other. Thus, each is independent of the application of the sense of I-ness derived from Ahamkara. Manas and Buddhi being two of the Causal-ideas, their functioning as well as existence is not " controlled " nor " derived " in any way by the idea of Ahamkara. It is very clear when we see those with sharpest Buddhi or Sharpest Mind still carrying Heaviest Ahamkara, because they didn't work upon that particular idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But ego/ahamkaara/I-ness is the very basis of the entire > > > > > > individualized consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Well, as most Physical-bodied beings cannot see through the Astral/causal cosmoses, it doesn't apply in the same way to the finer Astral and Causal-bodied beings who can always pierce the veil of Maya and see the human activities. Thus, what is " the very basis " of the entire individualized consciousness for a physical-bodied (unenlightened) being is not the same as for an astral/causal bodied being. > > > > > An Astral-bodied being thinks of Manas/sense-consciousness as the very basis of the entire individualized consciousness. > > > > > A Causal-bodied being thinks of Chitta/perceptive-consciousness as the very basis of the entire individualized consciousness. > > > > > However, that individuality is of the Soul not derived from any idea, which is why it is not lost when the Astral being loses astral consciousness and reincarnates in the Physical body. > > > > > > > > > > As an example, Devatas, with their finer bodies, are able to work through all the beings in all their physical-bodies simultaneously (like Ganesh resides in the Mooladhara, Agni digests the food, and so on..), never getting controlled by Ahamkara that would require them to say that this particular body is " my body " or that one is mine - unless they incarnate in Physical bodies themselves. Devatas are, however, Astral/Causal-bodied beings, so they would attempt to influence the Manas (Spirit-Possession) of the sense-bound worshipper. Pretas on the other hand, would attempt to possess ones' physical body as well as act out their Ahamkara. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of the four antahkaranas, chitta (remembering or conditioned > > > > > > mind) and ahamkaara (ego or I-ness) are parts of the kaarana > > > > > > sareera (causal body) and remain till the end. > > > > > > > > > > 4. As per the resurrected Soul of Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi - > > > > > > > > > > Causal body is a matrix of 35 ideas, that include 19 ideas comprising Astral body (Chitta, Manas, Buddhi, Ahamkara, 5 functions of knowledge, 5 functions of Action, 5 functions of life-force) and 16 ideas comprising Physical body (16 chemical elements). > > > > > > > > > > Now, as we all know that Physical body expires as a whole, not just one or two of the 16 elements comprising it go away at a time, Astral and Causal bodies are also cast off as a whole in the corresponding cosmic consciousness - instead of different constituent ideas slipping out of it at different times. Chitta being the staging idea for all other modifications, can be termed as the last to go, when the causal body is finally dropped - hence I wrote as rising above Chitta. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, the idea of Ahamkara is bound with Gross Physical vibrations, > > > > > Manas with Subtle Astral vibrations and > > > > > Chitta with infinitely Subtle Causal Vibrations. > > > > > > > > > > Buddhi being another variable, can be developed or undeveloped irrespective of the other 34. Even illiterate Moodha, through surrender to their Guru, attain freedom from Ahamkara and so on... > > > > > > > > > > BTW, Chitta is not the Conditioned Mind. Chitta does store the residual impressions of all the past incarnations. However, being constituted of Satwa Guna, it doesn't have any inherent ability to act upon (Rajas) those impressions, just like a container containing an inflammable liquid doesn't automatically burn it down. Sadhana is required for That. > > > > > The Samskaras stored by Chitta, including those of Nidra, Smriti, Vikalpa, Viparyaya, Pramana, correspond to the Tamo Guna, while the Chitta itself is Satva Guna - hence the " Satvic - Tamas " represents the SuperEther tattwa (refer my previous mail). The all-perceiving Satvic Chitta doesn't get conditioned by the Tamo-guni Samskaras it stores. > > > > > Once the Chitta calms down, cleared of all residual impressions, only Satva Guna remains, the intuition becomes coherent and the Soul reflects on itself as distinct from Satva Guna of Prakriti (Chitta), thus realizing its own nature as Brahman. > > > > > > > > > > 5. > > > > > In Patanjali Yoga Sutras: > > > > > drigadarshanaktyorekatmataivasmita -6 > > > > > Egoism is the identification of the seer with the instrument of seeing. Patanjali has used Asmita instead of Ahamkara. > > > > > Since astral-bodied beings can use any of the senses like eyes to see, hear, smell, taste and so on (refer Autobiography of a Yogi)... the sense of egoism does not take roots in the astral-body and hence doesn't create Astral Karma. Similarly, Causal bodied beings can use thought to sense everything. > > > > > > > > > > Hence, Egotism has to be rooted out while the consciousness is associated with the Physical Body sensory activities or has Physical Karma. > > > > > > > > > > 6. The idea of Manas, as the controller of sense-consciousness, must be overcome in Astral body, through Vairagya. Read autobiography of a Yogi (chapter 43) where Sri Yukteswar illustrates that only those beings who cannot be tempted to go back to the pleasing to the eye Astral cosmos are permitted to stay permanently in the Causal cosmos. Pleasing to the eye implies Sense-consciousness which is associated with Manas. > > > > > > > > > > In Patanjali Yoga Sutras also it is mentioned in the same manner : > > > > > > > > > > dristanushravika vishaya vitrishnasya vashikara samjnavairagyam -15- > > > > > > > > > > That effect which comes to these who have given up their thirst after objects, either seen or heard, and which wills to control the objects, is non-attachment. Vivekananda has commented that Vairagya is the only way to freedom. > > > > > > > > > > This is to be accomplished by transferring the consciousness to Astral-Body and working out the Astral Karma or otherwise as an astral-bodied being. > > > > > > > > > > 7. Patanjali Yoga Sutras: > > > > > yogashchittavrittinirodhah -2- > > > > > Thus, extinguishing all the movements of Chitta is called " Yoga " . > > > > > > > > > > This is to be accomplished by transferring the consciousness to Causal-Body and working out the Causal Karma or otherwise as a causal-bodied being. > > > > > > > > > > I hope this clarifies. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Nitish > > > > > > > > > > , Narasimha PVR Rao <pvr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Nitish, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid you are mixing up terminologies. For example, ego or ahamkaara (sense of I-ness) is not limited to the physical body, but extends to subtle body and causal body as well. In fact, ego resides in the causal body and affects other bodies. Out of the four antahkaranas, chitta (remembering or conditioned mind) and ahamkaara (ego or I-ness) are parts of the kaarana sareera (causal body) and remain till the end. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahamkaara/ego controls manas and buddhi also. When manas (sensory-motor mind) observes sensory inputs or buddhi (intellectual or thinking mind) analyzes current and past observations of mind or chitta (remembering or conditioned mind) stores various observations or retrieves previously stored observations, they are all guided by the sense of I-ness. That sense of I-ness permeates through all layers of one's individualized consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Upanishads and various scriptures have broken down the individualized consciousness into various groups by functionality, like five koshas, three sareeras, five praanas, five jnaanendriyas, five karmendriyas, four antahkaranas, six/seven chakras etc. But ego/ahamkaara/I-ness is the very basis of the entire individualized consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Though the word jnaana means different things to different people, a jnaana yogi pursues Self by the path of contemplation and discrimination. When a jnaana yogi reaches the final target, all bodies and koshas are merged in cosmos. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.