Ahamkara

[Martin]

I've been investigating ahamkara, which I've seen translated as "I-thought" and "ego".

A couple of questions:
1. Where exactly is it referred to in the scriptures? Possibly in Chapter 6 of the 'Gita, verses 6 and 8? Are there any references to it in the Upanishads, or elsewhere?
2. From what I can tell, the idea to "subdue" ahamkara. But what does that mean, practically speaking, and what methods are involved?

Thanks.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm not a scripture kind of guy so have no answers for that. The sublimation of ego, however, is essential through many eastern teachings. In the ethical scripture the Tirukkural, trhere isn't a single chapter devoted to humility, but there are verses here and there. Here's an example:

A person who kills the pride of ' I and mine ' ( ego )
Will be ranked higher than the saints. (346)

As for the practical suggestions, it seems to me that the more you can focus on other's needs over your own, the better. It's also not necessary to add your two bits to everything. In other words, listen more than you speak. One thing I do personally is decide not to speak (other than chit chat) when I'm at temple, or with people, for a period of time.

 

[stvdv]

I've been investigating ahamkara, which I've seen translated as "I-thought" and "ego".

A couple of questions:
1. Where exactly is it referred to in the scriptures? Possibly in Chapter 6 of the 'Gita, verses 6 and 8? Are there any references to it in the Upanishads, or elsewhere?
2. From what I can tell, the idea to "subdue" ahamkara. But what does that mean, practically speaking, and what methods are involved?

Thanks.

Below explains it a bit, for more details see this link, in which a few other Sanskrit terms are explained as well in a nice and concise way.

"Antarvaani" (inner voice) is another name for the buddhi. Man is guided by this inner voice in the conduct of his life. The name vijnana is also sometimes attributed to the buddhi. But it is not correct, because vijnana means the so-called scientific or mundane knowledge, which helps man to discover facts relating to the objective or phenomenal world, whereas buddhi is concerned with the subtle realm of the inner world. Hence, the role of the buddhi should be correctly understood.

Off and on, the buddhi tends to be covered by ahamkara (the ego sense). In this context, one should remember that the senses are subtler than the body, the mind is even more subtle than the senses, and the buddhi is far more subtle than the mind. The Atma, of course, is subtlest of all. In the light of this fact, when we say that ahamkara is able to envelop the buddhi, it means that ahamkara is subtler than the buddhi. Thus, ahamkara being extremely subtle, is all-pervasive and permeates all our actions. This is why man is unable to transcend ahamkara and experience the Atma (the Self).

 

[Martin]

Ahamkara appears in 'Gita 7.4 as one of the three subtle elements of Maya.
I'm looking for other references.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Ahamkara appears in 'Gita 7.4 as one of the three subtle elements of Maya.
I'm looking for other references.

Yes, that is right. Chapter 7 is kshetra-kshetrajnya yog => Field of knowledge and Knower of the Field.
where field = individual deha, generally, but can be at each and any micro and macro level -- the quantum field included.
pancha mahA bhUta , (5 elements - earth water fire air ether) , manas buddhi ahaMkAr (mind intellect ego)
& AtmA = kshetrajnya.


1. You can find another similar treasure trove in the Uddhav Geeta , which is really Canto 11 Chapter 5-20 of the BhAgvatam. Sant Eknath has commented specifically on these chapters as "Uddhav Geeta"
It is KRshNa speaking to Uddhav.

2. Other chapters of the Bhagvad Geeta like 13, 12, 15, 18, 2 (sAnkhya), 3 (karma), 5.....

3. Upanishads ! - Kena Katha Mandukya MunDak Shvetashwatara -- so many of them, dicephering this.

4. many other purANs ,
5. Shiv Geeta

also speak about the various tattvas (principles).

 

[Martin]

Ahamkara as the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality...

Ahamkara | Hindu philosophy

 

[ajay0]

I've been investigating ahamkara, which I've seen translated as "I-thought" and "ego".

A couple of questions:
1. Where exactly is it referred to in the scriptures? Possibly in Chapter 6 of the 'Gita, verses 6 and 8? Are there any references to it in the Upanishads, or elsewhere?
2. From what I can tell, the idea to "subdue" ahamkara. But what does that mean, practically speaking, and what methods are involved?

Thanks.

Ahankara is often put in contrast with the Self ( awareness ) or Atman.

In the Upanishads , an analogy of two birds is used to compare the Ahankara and the Self.

Tree of Jiva and Atman - Wikipedia

A Story of Two Birds - Quote from Mandukya Upanishad - ReSanskrit

The teachings of Ramana Maharshi are also quite comprehensive and insightful in this regard.

 

[stvdv]

Ahankara is often put in contrast with the Self ( awareness ) or Atman.

In the Upanishads , an analogy of two birds is used to compare the Ahankara and the Self.

Tree of Jiva and Atman - Wikipedia

Thanks @ajay0 these are nice verses in below quote, from the Vedas about the fruit of Wisdom. The spiritual journey in a nutshell

* The first verse reminds me of the Bible Genesis fruit story ... eat the fruits ... don't eat the fruit. Can't be coincidence
* The second verse reminds me of the Koran 5:51, the importance to "know" the Lord Be our real protector

I love it when the scriptures come together

Rig Veda samhita says:
1.164.20 Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on.
1.164.21 Where the smooth-gliding rays, cognizant, distil the perpetual portion of water; there has the Lord and steadfast protector all beings accepted me, though immature in wisdom.
1.164.22 In the tree into which the smooth-gliding rays feeders on the sweet, enters, and again bring forth light over all, they have called the fruit sweet, but he partakes not of it who knows not the protector of the universe.

@stvdvRF

 

[ajay0]

Nice verses from the Vedas. The spiritual journey in a nutshell

The first verse reminds me of the Genesis story ... eat the fruits ... don't eat the fruit. Can't be coincidence

I love it when the scriptures come together

Yeah, the metaphors are very similar.

Forbidden fruit - Wikipedia

In genesis, the forbidden fruit probably is a metaphor for knowledge that swells the mind/ego at the expense of Self-awareness.

There are neither good nor bad qualities in the Self. The Self is free from all qualities. Qualities pertain to the mind only. ~ Ramana Maharshi

That is the ego which rises and sinks periodically. But you exist always. That which lies beyond the ego is consciousness - the Self.~ Ramana Maharshi


There is nothing wrong with knowledge as such, as long as it is used in Self-awareness or present moment awareness to take care of our needs. But the problem arises when greed for much more arises ( apart from needs ).

As long as there are intense desires in the form of cravings and aversions manifesting as greed, lust, hatred, these are all the expresssions of the ego at the expense of presence or Self-awareness.

Thought alone, when it is no longer connected with the much vaster realm of consciousness, quickly becomes barren, insane, destructive. ~ Eckhart Tolle

When scientific or rational thinking is grounded in presence it has a completely different outcome. It can never be monstrous. ~ Jean Klein

 

[stvdv]

Yeah, the metaphors are very similar.

Forbidden fruit - Wikipedia
In genesis, the forbidden fruit probably is a metaphor for knowledge that swells the mind/ego at the expense of Self-awareness.

There are neither good nor bad qualities in the Self. The Self is free from all qualities. Qualities pertain to the mind only. ~ Ramana Maharshi

That is the ego which rises and sinks periodically. But you exist always. That which lies beyond the ego is consciousness - the Self.~ Ramana Maharshi

I like that

Some other important lessons these verses teach me, are:
1) The importance to listen to "the voice of God inside, our conscience".
1) The forbidden fruit stands for "not listening to our inner voice, God's voice, our conscience"

2) Duality is introduced here, where in reality there is only Consciousness
2) The "knowledge of Good and Evil" stands for duality, being judgmental
@stvdvRF

 

[Martin]

Ahankara is often put in contrast with the Self ( awareness ) or Atman.

In the Upanishads , an analogy of two birds is used to compare the Ahankara and the Self.

Tree of Jiva and Atman - Wikipedia

A Story of Two Birds - Quote from Mandukya Upanishad - ReSanskrit

The teachings of Ramana Maharshi are also quite comprehensive and insightful in this regard.

Yes, and I think neti-neti is relevant here, since it's effectively saying "I'm not body and mind", challenging the usual assumption that I am those things, or that those things are "me" and "mine".
The Two birds in the tree metaphor might be relevant here, though it's comparing jiva (living being) and Atman, rather than ahamkara (I thought) and Atman. Possibly the relevant distinctiin here is that between "I am jiva" and "I am Atman".

 

[Martin]

I read recently in a commentary on Atma Bodha that anandamaya (bliss sheath) is composed of ego. I'm not sure what that's based on though.

 

[ajay0]

Yes, and I think neti-neti is relevant here, since it's effectively saying "I'm not body and mind", challenging the usual assumption that I am those things, or that those things are "me" and "mine".
The Two birds in the tree metaphor might be relevant here, though it's comparing jiva (living being) and Atman, rather than ahamkara (I thought) and Atman. Possibly the relevant distinctiin here is that between "I am jiva" and "I am Atman".

Jiva and the Ahankar usually go together. As per Advaita, jivas are cloaked by maya-avidya or ignorance—a state in which they are not able to realize their oneness with Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

2. From what I can tell, the idea to "subdue" ahamkara. But what does that mean, practically speaking, and what methods are involved?

It is quite simple. Say "Tat twam asi" (You are That) and "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman), and 'Ahamkara' goes away. If one says "Aham Brahmasmi" only, then it is 'Ahamkara'.

 

[Martin]

It is quite simple. Say "Tat twam asi" (You are That) and "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman), and 'Ahamkara' goes away. If one says "Aham Brahmasmi" only, then it is 'Ahamkara'.

Could you explain your reasoning here? Why does ahamkara go away if you say "You are that" and "Everything is Brahman"?
And why does ahamkara stay if you say "I am Brahman"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you accept that oneself is nothing special than the others, and if someone says that not just the living but even the non-living are Brahman, then where is the question of considering oneself to be special. Where will 'ahamkara' hide in this scheme of things? A log of wood (I can go much lower than that) and myself, both are none other than Brahman.

 

[Martin]

If you accept that oneself is nothing special than the others, and if someone says that not just the living but even the non-living are Brahman, then where is the question of considering oneself to be special. Where will 'ahamkara' hide in this scheme of things? A log of wood (I can go much lower than that) and myself, both are none other than Brahman.

Ahamkara as feeling special is an interesting take.
From what I can tell, ahamkara is basically that sense of being something, or identifying with something, or defining oneself in a particular way. "I am this", or "I am that".
It could be "I am the body", or "I am the soul", or "I am Brahman", or even "I am nothing special".

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is quite simple. Say "Tat twam asi" (You are That) and "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman), and 'Ahamkara' goes away. If one says "Aham Brahmasmi" only, then it is 'Ahamkara'.

If you accept that oneself is nothing special than the others, and if someone says that not just the living but even the non-living are Brahman, then where is the question of considering oneself to be special. Where will 'ahamkara' hide in this scheme of things? A log of wood (I can go much lower than that) and myself, both are none other than Brahman.

Then I think you are, unfortunately, misunderstanding the meaning of अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि (Aham Brahmasmi).

अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि is not stating that I am something special and it does not create any sort of dichotomy between me an others. It is an acknowledgement of vidya; that I am that which underlies the appearance of "others," and that "others," in their true nature, are me. The statement is a transcendence of Ahamkara, or more accurately, that I am beyond Ahamkara.

As far as "'Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman)," from an Advaita perspective, all things here are an appearance in Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि is not stating that I am something special and it does not create any sort of dichotomy between me an others. It is an acknowledgement of vidya; that I am that which underlies the appearance of "others," and that "others," in their true nature, are me.

I understand that very well, Salix, I know that you too understand it very well. Whenever I say 'Aham Brahmasmi', I supplement it with 'Tat twam asi', lest there be any misunderstanding. Similarly when I mention 'energy', I always mention that it is 'physical energy', lest someone confuse it with any 'divine energy' (Shakti). I did not have your label in mind, but so many people or their promoters say and want others to believe that they alone are Brahman. I resent that. For me, as I have written many times, even Caliph Ibrahim or the dog in my street also is none other than Brahman.