how is Advaita not solipsistic??

[DanielR]

It makes perfect sense to an advaitist.

do you mean solipsism makes sense for an advaitist??

what I also don't quite get is, let's take Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj for an example, they are enlightened, they are in the state of brahman, I know we all are Brahman but I hope you get what I mean, they are liberated, but then I am still under Maya, if Brahman is only one how can that be, that Brahman is still entangled in Maya.

Ramana uses the pot, water, reflection theory to explain it, where he says that the reflection disappears not the sun(Brahman), but that doesn't quite satisfy me

 

[DanielR]

I go with Vimuktatman's theory of Eka Jiva vada right now, because imho it makes the most sense to me, it uses the Svapna (dream analogy).

 

[atanu]

do you mean solipsism makes sense for an advaitist??

what I also don't quite get is, let's take Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj for an example, they are enlightened, they are in the state of brahman, I know we all are Brahman but I hope you get what I mean, they are liberated, but then I am still under Maya, if Brahman is only one how can that be, that Brahman is still entangled in Maya.

Ramana uses the pot, water, reflection theory to explain it, where he says that the reflection disappears not the sun(Brahman), but that doesn't quite satisfy me

Excellent man. You should sooner or later get it.)(

 

[atanu]

The final understanding is the acceptance of what Is as the functioning of Totality or God. However, that acceptance is not in your hands. In the final understanding, there is no surrenderer, no accepter, no seeker and no finder. You know you have understood the teaching when questions answer themselves. You know you have understood the teaching when questions don't matter anymore and they dissolve. The stopping of all questioning is the most powerful understanding. Understanding means there is no need for understanding.

~ Ramesh Balsekar

 

[atanu]

--- but that doesn't quite satisfy me

Satisfaction is a demand of ego. Once that goes .......

 

[nazz]

The final understanding is the acceptance of what Is as the functioning of Totality or God. However, that acceptance is not in your hands. In the final understanding, there is no surrenderer, no accepter, no seeker and no finder. You know you have understood the teaching when questions answer themselves. You know you have understood the teaching when questions don't matter anymore and they dissolve. The stopping of all questioning is the most powerful understanding. Understanding means there is no need for understanding.

~ Ramesh Balsekar

That's almost Zen like

 

[DanielR]

Excellent man. You should sooner or later get it.)(

Hi atanu, where have you been?? I enjoyed reading your posts very much.

Am I heading in the right direction, (or am I slowly losing my mind) :flirt:

 

[apophenia]

Am I heading in the right direction, (or am I slowly losing my mind)

Both

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you mean solipsism makes sense for an advaitist??

what I also don't quite get .. Brahman is still entangled in Maya.

Ramana uses the pot, water, reflection theory to explain it, where he says that the reflection disappears not the sun(Brahman), but that doesn't quite satisfy me

Advaita is not solipsism. The advaitist understands the whole nature. Let me make a try. Unenlightened, we are in different boxes. The 'I' box, the 'you' box, and 'him/her' box. etc. Till we remain in the boxes, we see differences. When we come out of the boxes, we see unity. There is a 'this' box, and 'that' box as well. Do you find it difficult?

 

[Aupmanyav]

See, you get into problem when you take Brahman as a God. Are you a God or the God? Am I a God? Obviously, we are not. Take Brahman as the ultimate constituent of all things, human or animal, living or non-living, 'physical energy'. And you sail through. It does not contravene modern knowledge, science. That is what Brahman is. Space/mass/time are only its manifestations.

 

[Maya3]

Advaita is not solipsism. The advaitist understands the whole nature. Let me make a try. Unenlightened, we are in different boxes. The 'I' box, the 'you' box, and 'him/her' box. etc. Till we remain in the boxes, we see differences. When we come out of the boxes, we see unity. There is a 'this' box, and 'that' box as well. Do you find it difficult?

Good explanation!

See, you get into problem when you take Brahman as a God. Are you a God or the God? Am I a God? Obviously, we are not. Take Brahman as the ultimate constituent of all things, human or animal, living or non-living, 'physical energy'. And you sail through. It does not contravene modern knowledge, science. That is what Brahman is. Space/mass/time are only its manifestations.

I see no problem at all.

The problem only arises if people think that God is a separate being that sits on the clouds judging.

Maya

 

[DanielR]

Both

:flirt:

I've read somewhere that solipsism is a form of narcisissm, hope that doesn't apply to me lol

 

[DanielR]

Advaita is not solipsism. The advaitist understands the whole nature. Let me make a try. Unenlightened, we are in different boxes. The 'I' box, the 'you' box, and 'him/her' box. etc. Till we remain in the boxes, we see differences. When we come out of the boxes, we see unity. There is a 'this' box, and 'that' box as well. Do you find it difficult?

Thanks I think I understand now, so the 'Sun' 'multiple pots' 'reflection' applies here. When one pot breaks only the relative reflection is at an end.

For me the problem was that saying that other Jivas exist was speculative since the only thing I know is 'I am'.

Thanks for the explanation though

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Other jivas' are just as speculative as 'this jiva' is. As the Buddhists would ask: Do we have any atta? Any permanence. The answer is - no. That is why 'anatta' for all observed things. Illusions, maya. It is a momentary form/formation. In time, it will dissipate into other forms to continue the cycle.

 

[punkdbass]

This is an awesome thread, glad I found this! I will no doubt read this again after I learn more about Advaita Hinduism.

 

[DanielR]

I've contemplated on that matter a lot these past days, but I'm still not so convinced, ultimately when I realise, this whole universe disappears, vanishes, like it never existed, actually does it even exist??

Now, I don't think it really matters if other Jivas exist or not, of course this doesn't mean that we should do harm or hurt other people, I think this will have bad consequences for us.

Now I don't really know if when I realise if I will experience all life simultaneously before I enter the void so to speak, now this would mean of course that I was wrong. But what if I was in my previous life you, it still would be from my POV, there is only ME (Brahman).

Enough already Lol, no, I think it doesn't matter ultimately.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I really matters. If there were no intestinal bacteria, life would not have evolved till humans. - Part of you was in a flower, and part of you was in a stone.
If it does not matter than why make it into a POV?

 

[DanielR]

thanks for taking your time with me Aup, I appreciate it, need to contemplate on this more

 

[BSM1]

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.

Not trying to muddy the water, but if one dewdrop in the web (or one jewel in the net) didn't exist, wouldn't the others cease to exist as well? Or am I'm just misreading your point?

 

[DanielR]

Hello all,

I've been thinking about this for the past weeks now, I think Advaita is not solipsistic, that is what the scriptures say.

Could someone help me with the dream analogy, though?

Is Brahman (or Isvara) the dreamer, and me (Daniel) the ego? But is the dreamer (Brahman, Isvara) dreaming multiple dreams at the same time??

But if I am Brahman, why do I only see my point of view then?