how is Advaita not solipsistic??

[DanielR]

Hey all,

I'm having difficulties with this. It is said that I am Brahman, but doesn't that imply that all other people are only objects in my consciousness? Do other people have minds like I do??

I found this on wiki on Solipsism, but I don't understand it to be honest.

the concept of the Self in the philosophy of Advaita, could be interpreted as solipsism. However, the transhuman, theological implications of the Self in Advaita protect it from true solipsism as is found in the west. Similarly, the Vedantic text Yogavasistha, escapes charge of solipsism because the real "I" is thought to be nothing but the absolute whole looked at through a particular unique point of interest.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#cite_note-17

It is said everything is like a dream, in my dreams the people I dream of are not real (from the Absolute point of view), now the same thing can be applied to waking state, it's like a dream, that 'I' am dreaming, when I wake up, I'll realize that everything was not real, this sounds solipsistic to me! I guess the dreamer would be Brahman or Ishvara. Now does Brahman dream multiple dreams (the many lifes) simultaneously (to stay with this dream metaphor) ?

 

[Jainarayan]

This might help Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[crossfire]

Here's Alan Watt's interpretation of Indra's net. He uses Buddhist terminology, but I suspect he's really Advaitan.

"Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image." –Alan Watts[1]
​

I don't agree that this is an actual depiction of Buddhism's emptiness/interconnectedness.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't agree that this is an actual depiction of Buddhism's emptiness/interconnectedness.

I agree with your disagreement. I think he's conflating interdependence with interconnectedness. A dewdrop doesn't depend on another dewdrop for its existence, but a dewdrop depends on the air, which holds the moisture the dewdrop depends on, and on the spiderweb to cling to. Neither dewdrop is self-originating, but neither does one depend on the other for its existence.

 

[DanielR]

Here's Alan Watt's interpretation of Indra's net. He uses Buddhist terminology, but I suspect he's really Advaitan.

"Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image." –Alan Watts[1]
​

I don't agree that this is an actual depiction of Buddhism's emptiness/interconnectedness.

thanks, Is this like the example of the ponds (jivas) and the reflection of the sun in these ponds, brahman being the sun? Hm but how do we know there are many ponds, what if there is only one, stupid question, but if I was Brahman shouldn't I experience all life forms consciousness simultaneously?

 

[DanielR]

This might help Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my post I quoted parts of that article , I don't get the part about Advaita, though.

 

[Jainarayan]

D'oh! Now I see you did. I can be as dense as a neutron star at times. Sorry I couldn't be more help. But consider that Advaita is a tough nut to crack and is said to take years under the guidance of a guru to "get it". Personally, now that I'm re-examining my belief system, I find Advaita illogical. If everything is Brahman, then maya and ignorance is Brahman? That's untenable. It could also be my ignorance of the subject.

 

[Maya3]

This is how I see it.

We are really one, one big energy manifesting into different forms.
These forms are not unreal, but each contain the same essence as everything else.
When you see another human, he/she is very real. His/her brain is different from yours, you are not dreaming that you see this person. Or your dog, your parakeet or your trees. They are really there. But inside, the very make up of everything is the same as you.
When you meditate and eventually reach Moksha you will feel this essence and recognize that you are part of it. Then maybe you will feel the whole creation, notice every experience from all parts of yourself that are manifested into different forms.

Maya

 

[atanu]

Hey all,

I'm having difficulties with this. It is said that I am Brahman, but doesn't that imply that all other people are only objects in my consciousness? Do other people have minds like I do??
----

"I" in "I am Brahman" is not the "i" that sees the 'others'. So, there is no question of solipsism. "i" that sees the others as not Brahman, is not the "I" that is Brahman.

 

[atanu]

I will welcome further questions if the above is not clear. It is important to clear away this doubt.

 

[DanielR]

I will welcome further questions if the above is not clear. It is important to clear away this doubt.

Thanks maya, and Jain, and atanu!

Atanu, so can we say Brahman dreams all of this, to stay with the dream analogy?

Is it a multidimensional dream, which means Brahman dreams it is multiple living beings at the same time?? Like Brahman dreams it is my mother, it is me, and it is you and all else at the same time??

Thanks alot

 

[atanu]

Thanks maya, and Jain, and atanu!

Atanu, so can we say Brahman dreams all of this, to stay with the dream analogy?

Is it a multidimensional dream, which means Brahman dreams it is multiple living beings at the same time?? Like Brahman dreams it is my mother, it is me, and it is you and all else at the same time??

Thanks alot

Daniel Thanks for the question. Is the doubt about solipsism clear?

 

[Me Myself]

When I say "I am brahaman" its like when I say "I am *my name*" . You dont say my mouth lied, but you dont think on my mouth as the whole me. I said my name through my mouth.

So I'd say I am brahaman's solipsistic experience. I can also say that " I am the solipsistic experience"

The way I see it with advaita, is that everything is one experience, unseparated. Even the separatedness of stuff is ultimately one with e truth of their unity. So yes, there is only experience, there is only brahaman, it is all solipsism.

(Thats my interpretation at least)

 

[atanu]

When I say "I am brahaman" its like when I say "I am *my name*" . You dont say my mouth lied, but you dont think on my mouth as the whole me. I said my name through my mouth.

So I'd say I am brahaman's solipsistic experience. I can also say that " I am the solipsistic experience"

The way I see it with advaita, is that everything is one experience, unseparated. Even the separatedness of stuff is ultimately one with e truth of their unity. So yes, there is only experience, there is only brahaman, it is all solipsism.

(Thats my interpretation at least)

Solipsism is:

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

First what is the self? If the self is know then only anything about the reality can be said. As the self is not known, "I am Brahman" is not different from "I am atanu", which is true at one level.

Advaita in fact says, that the self is not the imaginary self that one imagines the self to be. No one knows the knower that is the Self.

Further, in words of Bradley:
“I cannot transcend experience, and experience is my experience. From this it follows that nothing beyond myself exists; for what is experience is its [the self ’s] states.”

Advaita, OTOH, states that the advaita is beyond experience. Advaita and solipsism are very far apart. But surely, solipsism is a step towards understanding that the sensual knowledge is subjective and never objective. There is no objective proof of an independent verifier of any fact.

 

[Me Myself]

Solipsism is:

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

First what is the self? If the self is know then only anything about the reality can be said. As the self is not known, "I am Brahman" is not different from "I am atanu", which is true at one level.

Advaita in fact says, that the self is not the imaginary self that one imagines the self to be. No one knows the knower that is the Self.

Further, in words of Bradley:
“I cannot transcend experience, and experience is my experience. From this it follows that nothing beyond myself exists; for what is experience is its [the self ’s] states.”

Advaita, OTOH, states that the advaita is beyond experience. Advaita and solipsism are very far apart.

Where does advaita says that advaita is beynd experience? As I understood advaita meant nondual.

 

[atanu]

Where does advaita says that advaita is beynd experience? As I understood advaita meant nondual.

Yes. The non-dual Turiya is not experienced as part of any of the three experience states of sleep, dream, and waking.

 

[atanu]

Yes. The non-dual Turiya is not experienced as part of any of the three experience states of sleep, dream, and waking.

-
Turiya, the Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

"That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya Up.).

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html

 

[DanielR]

Thanks Me Myself and atanu,

so I take it other minds do exist !! I'm gonna contemplate on your posts

 

[SageTree]

Thanks Me Myself and atanu,

I had to read that twice to make sure you weren't talking to yourself! LOL!!!

 

[DanielR]

Lol