Weekly Definition - 'ahaMkAra' or 'ego'

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The Sanskrit 'ahaMkAra' is a compound of two elements. One is 'aham'

meaning 'I'. And the other is 'kAra', which means 'doing' or

'acting' (from the root 'kR^i', meaning to 'do' or to 'act').

 

Thus 'ahaMkAra' signifies an 'acting I'. Here, an instrument of

action is identified as 'I'. And different instruments give rise to

differing identities, with many selves that each may get to be

called 'I'.

 

One of these selves may be identified as a body, acting towards

other objects in an outside world.

 

Another of these selves may be identified with the body's living

faculties, which express an inner mind in body's outward actions and

which take perceptions back through body's senses into mind.

 

The mind in turn may be identified as a more subtly acting self,

whose inner functioning conceives a world that is perceived and

thought about and intuitively felt.

 

The English word 'ego' signifies these acting selves, which are

identified with personal faculties of body, sense and mind. But, as

these selves act personally, a problem is inherently raised. What

knows these various selves, whose personal acts are liable to make

mistakes?

 

A more truly knowing self called 'I' is essentially implied, in

order to correct mistakes of any instrumental self which is involved

in bodily or sensual or mental action. In search of truer knowing, a

truer 'I' must be identified, beneath our personal identities and

their involved self-images as actors in a physical and mental world.

 

The idea of 'ahaMkAra' or 'ego' is thus used to point beyond all

changing action, to a disinterested 'I' that is completely detached

from all changes in the world seen through our partial

personalities.

 

In the Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.1, the ego and a truer 'I' are somehat

metaphorically described, as a pair of birds that perch upon the

tree of life. The passage is appended below, followed by a free

translation.

 

Ananda

 

 

dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA

samAnaM vR^ikShaM pariShasvajAte

tayor anyaH pippalaM svAdv atty

anashnann anyo abhicAkashIti

 

[On one same tree, two birds are perched,

associated as a pair.

Of these, one eats and tastes the fruit.

The other of the pair is that

which does not eat, but just looks on.]

[Guest guest]

Another exquisite presentation by our beloved Anandaji .... thank

you, sir! Crisp and cleat , short and sweet!

 

When you sit on the shore of the Ocean , how can you know the depth

of the Ocean ? Thank you , Dennisji for starting the series on

weekly definitions on frequently used terms in Advaita - it is truly

a blessing not only for beginners but for students of all levels !

 

Anandaji and others , may i please share a story with you on this

subject ?

 

A Puranic story of Sage Ribhu and his disciple Nidagha, is

particularly instructive. Although Ribhu taught his disciple the

supreme Truth of the One Brahman without a second, Nidagha, in spite

of his erudition and understanding, did not get sufficient conviction

to adopt and follow the path of Jnana (Wisdom), but settled down in

his native town to lead a life devoted to the observance of

ceremonial religion. But the Sage loved his disciple as deeply as the

latter venerated his Master. In spite of his age, Ribhu would himself

go to his disciple in the town, just to see how far the latter had

outgrown, his ritualism. At times the Sage went in disguise, so that

he might observe how Nidagha would act when he, did not know that he

was being observed by his Master.

 

On one such occasion Ribhu, who had put on the disguise of a village

rustic, found Nidagha intently watching a royal procession.

Unrecognized by the town-dweller Nidagha, the village rustic enquired

what the bustle was all about, and was told that the king was going

in procession.

 

"Oh! it is the king. He goes in procession! But where is he?" asked

the rustic. "There, on the elephant," said Nidagha. "You say the king

is on the elephant. Yes, I see the two," said the rustic, "but which

is the king and which is the elephant?What!" exclaimed

Nidagha. "You see the two, but do not know that the man above is the

king and the animal below is the elephant? What is the use of talking

to a man like you?Pray, be not impatient with an ignorant man like

me," begged the rustic. "But 'you said 'above' and 'below' -- what do

they mean?"

 

Nidagha could stand it no more. "You see the king and the elephant,

the one above and the other below. Yet ' you want to know what is

meant by 'above' and 'below''' burst out Nidagha. "If things seen and

words spoken can convey so little to you, action alone can teach you.

Bend forward, and ' you will know it all ' too well". The rustic did

as he was told. Nidagha got on his shoulders and said: "Know it now.

I am above as the king, you are below as the elephant. Is that clear

enough?No, not yet," was the rustic's quiet reply. "You say you

are above like the king, and I am below like the elephant.

The 'king', the 'elephant', 'above' and 'below' -- so far it is

clear. But pray, tell me what you mean by 'I' and 'you'?"

 

When Nidagha was thus confronted all of a sudden with. the mighty

problem of defining a 'you' apart from an 'I', light dawned on his

mind. At once he jumped down and fell at his Master's feet

saying: "Who else but . my venerable Master, .Ribhu, could have thus

drawn my mind from the superficialities of physical existence to the

true Being of the Self? Oh! benign Master, I crave thy blessings".

 

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~krsna/Who_am_I.htm

 

This story was often narrated by Sri Bhagwan Ramana maharishi

himdelf .

 

Yes! i have always wondered why the letter 'I' as personal pronoun

is capitalized ? Does it have something to do with the EGO ? no ,

not at all , my friends !

 

here is Why according to an internet source ....

 

 

"Ego has nothing to do with the capitalization of the pronoun I.

Printing and handwriting have everything to do with it. In Middle

English the first person was ich--with a lower-case i. When this was

shortened to i, manuscript writers and printers found it often got

lost or attached to a neighboring word. So the reason for the

capital I is simply to avoid confusion and error."

 

http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#80

 

This makes perfect sensse also ?

 

Can you imagine writing

 

' i am that i am'

 

instaed of

 

'I an that I AM '

 

SMILE ! HERE THE 'I' rEPRESENTS THE OMPNIPOTENT , OMNISCIENT AND

OMPRSENET I'; - ISHWARA!

 

ADVAITINS ! Saints like Sri Ranakrishna retained the small 'ego '

only for the sake of loga sangraham and to be in the company of

bhaktas .

 

Paramahans was fond of quoting this verse all the time ... ( it is

in the gospel of Ramakrishna)

 

Sri Rama asked Hanuman: "Hanuman, what

attitude do you cherish towards Me?"

 

Hanuman answered :

 

"Dehadrshtyaa tu daasoham

Jivadrshtyaa tvadanshakah

vastutastu tvamevaaham

iti me nischitaa matih"

 

"O Rama! When I think I am the body, You are the Master and I am

Your servant, when I think I am the jivatman (embodied individual

soul), You are the whole and I am a part ; but when I have the

Knowledge of > Reality, I see that you are I and I am You."

 

Adi Shankara bhagvadapada, our Advaita Acharya , says in Shatpadi

stotram , verse 3

 

Sathyapi bhedhapagame nadha thwaham na mamakeenasthwam,

Saamudhro hi tharanga kwachana samudhro na tharanga

 

 

Oh! Protector! Even with the difference (between You and me) passing

off, I become Yours but You do not become mine. Indeed (though there

is no difference between the waves and the ocean) the wave belongs

to the ocean but nowhere (never) does the ocean belong to the wave.

(3)

 

Yes! Dear all ! sometimes one needs to retain the small 'ego' to woo

the big 'I' !

 

On another note , 'ahamkara' also means 'arrogance ' or false

pride . Thus the head is symbolic of this quality in a man/woman .

We always say 'O that guy has a swollen head' meaning he has a big

ego or he is arrogant . Ravana's ten heads reprsented all the five

jnandritas and the five karmendriyas ... his head also was symbolic

of his bloated 'ego - every time one head was destroyed by Ssri

Rama's pwerful arrow , another head would spring up in its place !

Yes, of all the baser qualities of man, the ego is the hardest to

conquer ! The ego can be small like a mustard seed ( like in the

case of bhaktas) or horrendously BIG like the mighty himalayas IN

THE CASE OF MEGALOMANICS !

 

BUT, the head can also be used AS a storehouse for memory ,

discriminating intellect , wisdom and knowledge just like the

elephant's head on Sri ganesha's icon ! smile!

 

ps : professorji, i am reading your posts on who is the doer and the

experiencer and enjoying it ...

 

i am reminded of the following lines from Adi Shankara

bhagvadapada's Nirvana shatakam

 

aham bhOjanam naiva bhOjyam na bhOktA. cidAnandarupa: ShivOham

ShivOham!

 

i am neither the experiencer * subject( , nor the experienced (

object)and the experiencing ... i am auspiciousness , auspiciousness

alone !

 

OM Tat Sat ! !