how is Advaita not solipsistic??

[Poeticus]

I do not think so.

Then, what's the point?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not think so. It is our senses and mind (of course, all things are constituted of Brahman), our blood, flesh and bones.

Then, what's the point?

The point is very important and interesting, if one gets it. Some entity, Brahman, physical energy, turns into mass (Higgs Boson or whatever causes it), constitutes our blood, flesh and bones, gives us mind and the senses, and the mind starts to record what inputs we get from our senses, and thus creates the 'samsara'. This is caused just by the existence of that entity, Brahman, physical energy. Brahman does not do anything. The expansion of the Brahman by our minds is what is known as 'maya'.

That is why Brahman is formless, never changing, and uninvolved, though all observed things are none other than Brahman. 'Sarve khalu idam Brahma' (all things here are Brahman), so said our books. 'Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (what exists is one, there is no second), 'Tat twam asi' (you are that), 'Soham' (I too am that), 'Ayamatma Brahma' (this self is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman). Thus are proved all 'Mahavakyas'.

 

[Poeticus]

The point is very important and interesting, if one gets it. Some entity, Brahman, physical energy, turns into mass (Higgs Boson or whatever causes it), constitutes our blood, flesh and bones, gives us mind and the senses, and the mind starts to record what inputs we get from our senses, and thus creates the 'samsara'. This is caused by just the existence of that entity, Brahman, physical energy. Brahman does not do anything. The expansion of the Brahman by our minds is what is known as 'maya'.

That is why Brahman is formless, never changing, and uninvolved, though all observed things are none other than Brahman. 'Sarva khalu idam Brahma' (all things here are Brahman), so said our books. 'Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (what exists is one, there is no second), 'Tat twam asi' (you are that), 'Soham' (I too am that), 'Ayamatma Brahma' (this self is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman). Thus are proved all 'Mahavakyas'.

So, there's no point in praying to BrahmAn, right? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes because your mind and brain gets involved with what The Self sees through the eyes of the body etc. You forget who you really are and assume that it's you who is the doer. It is very hard to let go of it and not be attached.

I can do it. I'm already Self Realized hrmmn well..

Yes, if you can do it without reservation, if you do not hanker after form or self, you are self-realized. There is no birth or death for you. You are eternal and it is a continuum. That is what Lord Krishna meant when he said in SrimadBhagawadGita:

"Na tu eva aham jātu nāsam, na tvam na ime janādhipah;
na cha eva na bhavishyāmi, sarve vayam atah param."

(Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, there's no point in praying to BrahmAn, right? Am I understanding you correctly?

Would you find any meaning in worshiping oneself? Does Brahman care for your praying? Do it if it satisfies you in any way, I am not against it.

I think one of the Upanishads said something like: "In darkness are those who worship the manifest, in greater darkness are those who worship the unmanifest".

 

[Poeticus]

Would you find any meaning in worshiping oneself?

I don't know; you tell me. I don't pray to BrahmAn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It depends on one's belief. It is not necessary that needs and understanding of all of us be the same. Hinduism understands that and gives us the freedom of belief. That is why, IMHO, Hinduism is the best. At least, I love it for this reason, it does not mind my being an atheist.

 

[apophenia]

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?

All beings, including the appearances labelled 'me' (or 'you') are objects in the consciousness which is Brahman.

Do other people have minds like I do??

But 'you' don't 'have' a mind. The experience of 'you' is mind.

Who is it that you think 'has a mind' ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Who is it that you think 'has a mind' ?

The body.

 

[nazz]

Hello all,

I think I'm slowly drifting off into solipsism, please don't hate me for it, I know it's a kind of arrogant selfish position.

Now recently I learned about the doctrine of Eka Jiva Vada, which basically says that there is only one Jiva (and that's me maybe, how absurd I know).

It can't be you because it's me

 

[DanielR]

It can't be you because it's me

haha, it doesn't quite make sense, does it!

 

[nazz]

haha, it doesn't quite make sense, does it!

There are times I can make sense about there being only one being experiencing everything but then when I think I have the proper understanding it evaporates. What I get stuck on is what you already brought up: why does this one being not experience everything? All minds at once?

Then I think, well, each mind is a separate little bubble at the center of which is an "I" and this "I" is indistinguishable from every other "I" out there so it must be all the same. It is consciousness that allows the "I" to see its own reflection. So it's not like there are these little bubbles of consciousness that are connected all together with one central "I" experiencing them. They are all cut off and separated from one another.

But then it is hard to understand how this "I" came to be separated from itself and fractured into so many different components. How does the isolation come about? And if that is the case functionally speaking you might as well regard every sentient being as a separate being. It starts hurting my head to think about it too much.

But I think there is something very positive about at least recognizing there is some kind of connection between us all--our Self. We are all one and all separate at the same time. Both realities are equally true.

 

[DanielR]

yes, I know what you mean, if I am a part of Brahman and I become enlightened, how can this be, I don't think that Brahman can be divided into parts, imho it is only ONE.

To me Eka Jiva does make sense, I think even Ramana Maharshi was saying it is true, but then everything is just a dream by that one jiva which is for example me, that means that you and everything else is just an object in a dream, I mean it does make sense, but also from your position you can say the same thing about me, so who is right??

For example Ramana said this:

Let the heroic one who possesses a powerful intuition accept that the jiva is only one, and thus become firmly established in the Heart. In order to satisfy those persons in whom this intuition has not blossomed [jnanis appear to] agree with their view that jivas are many.

who is the Jiva now, I say it's ME, but from your position you would say it's you, who's right? lol

 

[nazz]

yes, I know what you mean, if I am a part of Brahman and I become enlightened, how can this be, I don't think that Brahman can be divided into parts, imho it is only ONE.

To me Eka Jiva does make sense, I think even Ramana Maharshi was saying it is true, but then everything is just a dream by that one jiva which is for example me, that means that you and everything else is just an object in a dream, I mean it does make sense, but also from your position you can say the same thing about me, so who is right??

For example Ramana said this:



who is the Jiva now, I say it's ME, but from your position you would say it's you, who's right? lol

I guess we both are

 

[Maya3]

I think we already are enlightened, there is no separateness, we just think that there is.
So it is not really that we will BECOME something else and see.
It is already the way it is, we just don't see all of it.

Maya

 

[nazz]

I think we already are enlightened, there is no separateness, we just think that there is.
So it is not really that we will BECOME something else and see.
It is already the way it is, we just don't see all of it.

Maya

But surely there is a separation between my mind and yours, no? I can't directly access the contents of your consciousness.

 

[Maya3]

But surely there is a separation between my mind and yours, no? I can't directly access the contents of your consciousness.

No our minds are not the same. They are products of our brains. The Self that we share is beyond the mind, it is the energy that pervades everything in the universe.

Maya

 

[nazz]

No our minds are not the same. They are products of our brains. The Self that we share is beyond the mind, it is the energy that pervades everything in the universe.

Maya

But is the observer of the mind, no? So the question remains why it does not observe all minds simultaneously.

 

[Maya3]

But is the observer of the mind, no? So the question remains why it does not observe all minds simultaneously.

I think of it more as automatic somehow, it's like us, we don't think about how our toes function or how the kidneys work. But they do, and they are part of us.
I think energy sits there and it manifests into all this matter, once we can move beyond all this mindstuff and see all of it as a whole, then we are beyond even observing our minds.

Maya

 

[Aupmanyav]

haha, it doesn't quite make sense, does it!

It makes perfect sense to an advaitist.

And if that is the case functionally speaking you might as well regard every sentient being as a separate being. It starts hurting my head to think about it too much.

You are very correct. Maya puts us in different 'I' boxes. There is nothing to be confused about.

But is the observer of the mind, no? So the question remains why it does not observe all minds simultaneously.

There is no observer of the mind. They are independent units, though constituted with the same entity.