In Kapila-Āsuri Saṃvāda in Mahābhārata, it is said that–
viriñco’bhimāninī aviveka īrṣyā kāmaḥ
krodho lobho mado darpo ma
makāraścaitānyahaṃkāraparyāyanāmāni bhavanti
evamāha–
ahaṃkartetyāhaṃkrtā sasṛje viśvamīśvaraḥ.
tritīyamenaṃ puruṣamabhimānaguṇaṃ viduḥ.

The significance of these śloka(s) uttered by Kapila lies in the notion that Brahmā, in the form of Viriñci is the tritīya tattva of prakṛti, one of whose attributes is ‘abhimāna’, and under the influence of that abhimāna, Brahmā thinks, “I have created this universe.” Synnonymous to this’ahaṃkāra or abhimāna are such words as ‘aviveka’, ‘īrṣā’, ‘kāma’, ‘krodha’, lobha, moha, darpa and ‘mamakāra’.

Whatever may be the prakṛti-pratyaya-oriented meaning of ‘ahaṃkāra’, they may be a confusion over the meaning because there are so many similar words like ‘karmakāra’, ‘kumbhakāra’, ‘carmakāra’ and so on. We understand kumbhakāra as the cause or agent of making the kumbha.Likewise, it may appear so in case of ahaṃkāra. But it is not so, rather, it is like the other scriptural terms like svāhākāra, oṃkāra, vaṣaṭkāra in which the nature of ‘oṃ’,’ svāhā’ is all the more prominent. In the same way, the ‘kāra’ in ‘ahaṃkāra’ actually reflects the selfhood or egotistic nature of ‘ahaṃ’. Abhimāna is the attribute of ahaṃkāra, so ‘kāra’ is applied here in its own sense of ego.

Surrorting this analysis of ahaṃkāra, Van Buitenen has written in his essay, ‘Studies in Samkhya’– “I am…I do…etc; of mamakāra, not as in Kumbhakāra etc, but as Omkara, Vasatkara, Svahakara etc, the cry , the uttering or ejaculation: ‘Aham'”

In the above-mentioned line of Mahābhārata, among the synonymous terms that are given for ahaṃkāra, terms other than krodha, darpa, īrṣā and darpa cannot be the fundamental causes of ahaṃkāra. So these are the suitable paryāya śavda(s) of ahaṃkāra. In one śloka of Bhagavadgītā, ahaṃkāra, vala, darpa, kāma and asūyā are placed in the same line, and in another śloka, along with this terms, ‘parigraha’ is added– it is to be rejected. But the way ahaṃkāra manifests itself, is also described in Bhagavadgītā. Men subject of kāma and krodha are ensnared by hundreds of desires, and engage themselves in the accumulation of money.and then they start thinking in the following way– today I have got this, tomorrow I’ll get that, I’ll get more wealth, I have killed this enemy, I’ll finish off the others, too, I am the enjoyer, I can do everything, I am happy, I am happy, I belong to the aristocracy, I’ll perform yajña(s), I’ll donate, I’ll be engrossed in bliss–” Those who get bound to these imaginations and illusions, out of such illusory egotistic ideas, are actually driven by ahaṃkāra or abhimāna- .

idamadya mayā lavdhamidaṃ prāpsye manorathaṃ
idamastīdamapi me bhaviṣyati punardhanam.
asau mayā hataḥ śatrurhaniṣye cāparānapi
iśvaro’hamahaṃ bhogī siddho’haṃ valavān sukhī

āḍhyobhijanavānasmi ko’nyosti sadṛśo mayā
yakṣye dāsyāmi modiṣya ityajñānavimohitāḥ.
anekacittavibhrāntā mohajñānasamāvṛtāḥ
prasaktāḥ kāmabhogeṣu patanti narake śucaḥ.

The ultimate and summative message of this ahaṃkāra-lakṣaṇa is also related in Bhagavadgītā, in the third chapter. Driven by Prakṛti, one has a sense of “I am doing” about whatever one performs, and in this sence of agency, lies the significance of ahaṃkāra–
ahaṃkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāhamiti manyate.

Embodied examples of this ahaṃkāra can be found in Daśagrīva Rāvaṇa and the other Rākṣasa leaders of Rāmāyaṇa, or Duryodhana and Karṇa in Mahābhārata,  or Hiraṇyakakaśipu or Veṇa in Purāṇa. We are not going into the details of ahaṃkāra-conception. But the notion of ahaṃkāra-expression or self-aggrandisement and the characteristics of ahaṃkāra have been taken to a philosophical level in Mahābhārata, and these can be found in several places in Mahābhārata. But in our general conception, ahaṃkāra may be a term synnonymous with pride and vanity, it is fundamentally a deep philosophical understanding, based on the premises of Sāṃkhya-Vedāntadarśana.

Nīlakaṇṭha, the commentator of Mahābhārata, in course of describing the great– the first manifestation (vyakta) of the unmanifested (avyakta) has said that, in the beginning of creation, the first ever manifestation is but a vague, unexpressed sense of selfhood. This self-consciousness is so subtle that it can be great in expanse, but atomic in nature. Its expression cognisable to indriya(s) is so small that it cannot be named. What has been called by Kumārila ‘vālamūkādisadṛśa sammugdha jñāna’, in the Pratyakṣasūtra of Ślokavārtika, gets the form of Mahattatva of Sāṃkhyadarśana. The second, cognisable form emerging from this, gets expressed, and this is called Ahaṃkāra.

This ahaṃkāra is not as subtle as its father ‘Mahat’, rather it is ‘sthūla’. The vyakta tatva(s) that later emerge from ahaṃkāra, are more ‘sthūla’ in nature.
According to Nīlakaṇṭha, when the sense of mere selfhood gets the confirmation of the definitive notions like “I am a Brāhmaṇa”, or “I am the son of a man”, it can be called ‘dvitīya buddhyatmak sṛṣṭi’. We are using the term ‘vudhyātmak’ according to the conception of Mahābhārata. Since the attributes of prākṛta vikāra ‘Mahat’ or ‘Vuddhi’ are transmitted into ahaṃkāra, so in one śloka of Mahābhārata, ahaṃkāra is called vudhyātmak dvitīya prākṛta sṛṣṭi.

In Yājñavalkya-Janaka Saṃvāda of Mahābhārata, it is said to describe this dvitīya sṛṣṭi–
mahataścāpyahaṃkāra utpanno hi narādhipa
dvitīyaṃ sargamityāhuretadvudhyātmakaṃ smṛtam.
Yājñavalkya said, ahaṃkāra emerges from Mahattatva, which this the first result of prakṛti. Scholars opine that this ahaṃkāra is dvitīya sṛṣṭi of prakṛti, and ahaṃkāra is the clearer manifestation of this ahaṃ-vuddhyātmak mahat, which is also called ‘vuddhi’.

It must be kept in mind that in understanding the essential nature of ahaṃkāra, which is one of the fundamental theoretical concept of Sāṃkhyadarśana, and regarding its definition, there is not much difference between Mahābhārata-Purāṇa and more ancient Upaniṣad . When the sense of ‘I am’ gets in touch with the notion of existence, or when the sense of personal existence becomes merged with the sense of a general being, it is called ahaṃkāra or abhimāna. In the commentary of Sāṃkhyakārikā, Vācaspati Miśra has written that– at first the object is accepted by the external organs, then comes the abhimāna, as expressed in ‘I am in this’, ‘I am capable in this’, ‘These things are for me,’, “Nobody else except myself are there’,’I am here for this’ and so on. This extraordinary thing called abhimāna is caused by ahaṃkāra.

The process of the creation of ahaṃkāra, which is described in Sāṃkhyakārikā– discussion of an object, its reception through external organs, thinking over it, and after that a sense of personal ownership of that object, or the attribution of selfhood upon it– cannot be found in ancient texts. But if we consider this process as a manifestation of vuddhyātmak mahat, then it can be said that there had been, for a long time, a conception of ‘mahat’ and ‘ahaṃkāra’ taking shape, even beyond the corpus of definitive Sāṃkhyadarśana.

Nīlakaṇṭha, the commentator, has explained ‘mahān’, the first result of of prakṛti, as a vague sense of selfhood. In his annotation on the śloka of Mahābhrata as well, to create a sense of defintion regarding ahaṃkāra, he placed ‘mahān’ and ‘ahaṃkāra’ side by side, and said–
tato uktaviśeṣāligito’smītipratyayaviṣayo’hankāraḥ.

In this śloka, from Nīlakaṇṭha’s explanation we can understand that the sense of ‘asmītimātra’ or ‘only I am’ is ‘mahattatva’. Since he is a man of post-Mahābhārata age, he has said this in conformity with Sāṃkhyadarśana. In Sāṃkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa, it is said– ‘abhimāno’haṃkāraḥ’– that is, ‘ahaṃkāra’ and ‘abhimāna’ bear a similar meaning, but ‘darpa’ or ‘garvabodha’, in common language, cannot be similar to this philosophical term. But the way the German word given by German philosopher Richard Garber has been translated into English, that is, ‘delusion’, cannot be a synnonym of Sāṃkhyīya ahaṃkāra. But Ballantyne has translated this as ‘conceit’– in this, the term ‘conceit’ bears an intellectually cognisable ahaṃ-vuddhi. Better than this, if we translate ‘vuddhyātmak mahat’ as self-consciousness. In fact, considering this kind of a translation, the scholar Satiscandra Bandyopadhyay has said a long time back, while explaining ‘ahaṃkāra’ in Sāṃkhyīya sense–
“The second evolute of Nature is Egotism. Consciousness is followed by self-consciousness. It is by means of this principle that personality comes to be attached to our cognitions. What was hitherto cognised simply as matter for knowledge is now cognised as matter for my knowlwedge; and thus I comes to be set over not I”.

We have referred to the clearer manifestation of mahatva as ‘asmitā’, it is not a definitation created by us. Even the learned commentator of Mahābhārata has called this ahaṃkāra asmi+itimātra, which also derives from another source, that is not Sāṃkhyadarśana, however– it i is in Yogadarśana , a scripture equal in status with Sāṃkhyadarśana, where Patañjali has used the term ‘asmitā’, and probably that is why Nīlakaṇṭha has written that ‘asmītimātra’ itself is ahaṃkāra.   In Vyasa’s commentary on Yogadarśana, and in the explanation of learned and wise people, the term asmitā is suitable from both sides. But before that we need to understand the prakṛti-pratyaya oriented meaning of ‘asmitā’. ‘Asmi’ is the first person, singular form of ‘as’ dhātu, which means ‘I am’, or I exist. ‘Ahaṃ asmi’ means ‘I am’ or ‘I exist’. If we use the term ‘asmi’ without ‘ahaṃ’, still there is a sense of selfhood. Rather it can be said that the sense of ‘entity’ is inherent in the term ‘asmi’, along with the sense of the self. So the vedic scholars say, in light of the self-identification with Brahman– ‘ahaṃ brahmāsmi.’

It is to be noted that according to the Sāṃkhya scholars, what they call ‘ahaṃkāra’, or what is called asmitā in Yogadarśana, or in in view of the non-dualist Vedic scholars, ahaṃkāra has two forms. In fact, thoughts are concerned with the essential nature of ahaṃ. The ahaṃ which gets added to karaṇa or viṣaya, and express self-consciousness and body-consciousness, or when it occurs to the sense– “I am able to see or hear” “or I am rich, prosperous”– is a kind of vikāra. Jñānendriya, karmendriya, prāṇa or citta is one or the other type or vikāra of that abhimāna.

On the other hand, to the Vaidāntika, if the vaikārika form of this ahaṃ, or dehātmavuddhi (bodily self-consciousness) is transcended, if the essential nature of ahaṃ gets reflected in Brahman, then the knowledge of Paramārtha is complete, just as to the Sāṃkhya-yogī, there is a specific form of ahaṃ. In the Vyāsa-commentary of Viśokā or Jyotiṣmatī sūtra of Pātañjala Yogadarśana, it is said that–
tathā asmitāyāṃ samāpannaṃ cittaṃ
nistarangamahodadhikalpaṃ śāntaṃ
anantam asmitāmātramiti.
In the process of Sāṃkhya and Yogadarśana, this theory can be further clarified. If in the above-mentioned Vyāsabhāṣya, asmitā means ahaṃkāra, then by asmitā-mātra, ‘mahat’ or ‘vuddhi’ has been meant, because the mahattatva of Sāṃkhya is the essential asmitāmātra in in Yogadarśana, the most subtle form of asmitā or ahaṃkāra is defined here as asmitāmātra. the Mahattatva of Sāṃkhya is also called ‘sattā’ in Yogadarśana. ‘Sattā’ is the sense of ‘I am’. From this initial ‘I am’, the coarser vikāra(s) like ‘I am creator’, “i am knower’, become possible. This vikāra is ahaṃkāra, abhimāna, asmitā.

The theoretical conception of Ahaṃkāra, as stated in Sāṃkhyadarśana of Bhāratavarṣa, as well as in Mahābhārata, had already been found in Vṛhadāraṇyak Upaniṣad. The sage of Vṛhadāraṇyak Upaniṣad has said–
ātmaivedamagra āsīt puruṣavidhaḥ;
so’nuvīkṣyanānyadātmano’paśyat;
so’smītyagre vyāharat,
tato’haṃnāmābhavat…
In this fourth Brāhmaṇa of Vṛhadāraṇyak Upaniṣad, it is said that Prajāpati, the first person born out the ‘aṇda’, who is elsewhere referred to as ‘mahat’– that first Puruṣa is at the basis of all the actions related to creation, preservation and destruction– after being created himself, does not see anything separate from himself, rather sees himself only,

and as per the saṃskāra of previous birth, initially refers to himself as ‘ahaṃ’. Then he uttered– ‘I am the ātman’ in all beings.

This abhimāna of Prajāpati, about his own existence, as stated in Vṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, is ahaṃkāra. In fact, it never happens in the Upaniṣad(s) that some Brahman-worshipping sage is saying that this is a distinctive theory of Sāṃkhyadarśana. We would like to simply show that the Sāṃkhya theory has its seedlike origin in the Upaniṣad(s). But these seeds are not very clear, so vaguely we have to get the idea of these philosophical thoughts.

In Vṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, a divine form of ahaṃkāra has been conceptualised through the conception of Brahmā or Prajāpati, and it is also clear in Mahābhārata. But there is also a glimpse of Vaidāntika idea behind this conception, which is all the more evident in Mahābhārata and Purāṇa(s). What Nīlakaṇṭha has viewed as a definitive theory, that selfhood is divided into two forms in Vaśiṣṭha-Janaka-Karāla Saṃvāda. In Mahābhārata, while describing the theories of Sāṃkhya philosophy in front of janaka, Vaśiṣṭha says–
evamupyanumānena hyaliṅgamupalabhyate
pañcaviṃśatimastāta liṅgeṣu niyatātmakaḥ
anādinidhano’ntaḥ sarvadarśī nirāmayaḥ
kevalaṃ tvabhimānitvādguṇeṣu guṇa ucyate.