how is Advaita not solipsistic??

[atanu]

Thanks Me Myself and atanu,
so I take it other minds do exist !! I'm gonna contemplate on your posts

In our phenomenal self-jivatman level, we cannot say "solipsism is true" or we cannot say "solipsism is wrong". There is no way to prove or disprove whether there is another objective knower apart from me or not. We infer different minds from different experiences of dream etc..

advaita Self-Atman, however, is transcendental, wherein "the Self alone Is", is the truth beyond doubt (if we believe in scripture or if we go by the sayings of the realised Gurus).

For record sake, I C&P the following fron Wiki that I feel adequately explains this:

Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.[17]

Advaita is also thought to strongly diverge from solipsism in that, the former is a system of exploration of one's mind in order to finally understand the nature of the self and attain complete knowledge. The unity of existence is said to be directly experienced and understood at the end as a part of complete knowledge. On the other hand solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.

 

[DanielR]

oopsie, I've posted the same paragraph in my first post, but only now I understand what it means, especially this:

The unity of existence is said to be directly experienced and understood at the end as a part of complete knowledge. On the other hand solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.

It makes sense now to me, I think i understood it. Thank you again

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

but if I was Brahman shouldn't I experience all life forms consciousness simultaneously?

May be this will help. Just as electricity gives off light differently depending on the type of light bulb it travels though. So consciousness looks different depending on the central nervous system processed it is through.

Also a follower of Advaita Vedanta would say that is ignorance that stops the direct experience of consciousness without our minds placing mental conceptions over the top of it.

 

[DanielR]

thanks, that was a good example

 

[Maya3]

May be this will help. Just as electricity gives off light differently depending on the type of light bulb it travels though. So consciousness looks different depending on the central nervous system processed it is through.

Also a follower of Advaita Vedanta would say that is ignorance that stops the direct experience of consciousness without our minds placing mental conceptions over the top of it.

It's a great example!

The trick is to not identify with the lamp, computer, tv or even the bulbs that are inside these things but with electricity itself.

Maya

 

[Valjean]

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

True, but the goal is to wake from these dream levels to more expanded levels of awareness.

 

[Kalidas]

May be this will help. Just as electricity gives off light differently depending on the type of light bulb it travels though. So consciousness looks different depending on the central nervous system processed it is through.

Also a follower of Advaita Vedanta would say that is ignorance that stops the direct experience of consciousness without our minds placing mental conceptions over the top of it.

Great example. I used the example of the humans body and human consciousness in my post "an odd way to view god."

 

[VajraYosid]

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.

Have you read the Avatamsaka? Buddhist emptiness actually disavows interconnectedness at its 'ultimate' (lol) statement.

 

[nevermore]

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.

Yes it does, because all matter in the universe is the way it is at any given moment because of all the other matter in the universe, including that of the other dewdrop. If one atom vanished into non-existence, anywhere in the universe, everything else would be affected. Even electrons are "entangled" with other particles they've interacted with that can be light years away, so everything is one big chain reaction, or one big process. This kind of interconnectedness implies interdependence, which in turn implies that our sense of there being distinct "things" with their own essential identity is an illusion because the way we define the boundary lines between the "things" - including our between a person/mind and their environment/body - is arbitrary. It seems to me that the difference between Buddhism and Advaita on this point is just one of semantics. An absence of non-arbitrary distinctions between things in the universe surely implies that the universe is a singular process. The only thing is the whole, in other words, but then what is the use of calling it a thing, or one, if there's no other thing to contrast or add it to? So there is this disagreement over whether everything is "one" or whether emptiness even applies to the whole. That's just a matter of how you think words like "thing" or "one" should be or are being used. Conceptually, I suspect there's no real difference between the what people are thinking of, the only difference is in how certain verbal attempts to convey the concept are interpreted or misinterpreted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but if I was Brahman shouldn't I experience all life forms consciousness simultaneously?

When one is Brahman, then there is no 'I'. Who will experience?

 

[Maya3]

When one is Brahman, then there is no 'I'. Who will experience?

Brahman.

Maya

 

[DanielR]

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). But I think it's impossible to refute this position, I don't feel superior to others btw.

What I'm contemplating all the time is this, when I die the whole world disappears, I know it probably just disappears just for me but how can I know of others, would this be resolved some how after death?

Having said all that I don't treat other people like they are mere hallucinations, I'm a very empathetic person even though I'm a bit on solipsistic side at the moment

regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman.

Does Brahman has a mind? Eyes, ears, tongue, nose, hands? How does it experience? You are anthromorphizing Brahman. 'Neti, neti'.

Having said all that I don't treat other people like they are mere hallucinations, ..

Maya is strong. Even sages cannot overcome it, what to talk of us simple people.

 

[Poeticus]

Does Brahman has a mind? Eyes, ears, tongue, nose, hands? How does it experience? You are anthromorphizing Brahman. 'Neti, neti'.Maya is strong. Even sages cannot overcome it, what to talk of us simple people.

Is it "BrahmAn" that helps the ones that experience strife?

 

[Valjean]

No need to be apologetic about your solipsism, Daniel. Ultimately, there's only a single, undifferentiated reality, and that thou art.

 

[DanielR]

No need to be apologetic about your solipsism, Daniel. Ultimately, there's only a single, undifferentiated reality, and that thou art.

Thanks Seyorni, , it was like a revelation to me that happened a few days ago actually when I finally realized what this means, I'm not enlightened though plus I don't really want to get into details because it might offend people, I don't know, I noticed that it's not easy to talk to others about that so I'll better be quiet or people might think I'm crazy.

I have to say though I do dissociate quite often and I have been suffering quite a lot this year, I think this all contributed to it. I'm really not crazy though Hm I don't know, reality is spooky somehow.

BTW, I've ordered the Yoga Vashishta recently, can't wait for my copy to arrive.

 

[Maya3]

Does Brahman has a mind? Eyes, ears, tongue, nose, hands? How does it experience? You are anthromorphizing Brahman. 'Neti, neti'.Maya is strong. Even sages cannot overcome it, what to talk of us simple people.

No I´m not. But the ONE who IS experiencing IS Brahman THROUGH your ears, nose, mouth nerves...

Neti neti.

It is The Self who is looking out through your eyes.

Daniel,

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). But I think it's impossible to refute this position, I don't feel superior to others btw.

What I'm contemplating all the time is this, when I die the whole world disappears, I know it probably just disappears just for me but how can I know of others, would this be resolved some how after death?

Having said all that I don't treat other people like they are mere hallucinations, I'm a very empathetic person even though I'm a bit on solipsistic side at the moment

regards

No.. noone gets upset or would call you selfish. You should go with what you feel. I'm glad you found something you like.

Maya

 

[DanielR]

No I´m not. But the ONE who IS experiencing IS Brahman THROUGH your ears, nose, mouth nerves...

Neti neti.

It is The Self who is looking out through your eyes.

Daniel,



No.. noone gets upset or would call you selfish. You should go with what you feel. I'm glad you found something you like.

Maya

Thanks Maya, I still subscribe to Advaita just following the Eka-Jiva-Vada doctrine, which is not exactly like Western idea of Solipsism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it "BrahmAn" that helps the ones that experience strife?

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

No I´m not. But the ONE who IS experiencing IS Brahman THROUGH your ears, nose, mouth nerves ..

Brahman is the observer, Brahman is the observed. Brahman is the eater, Brahman is the eaten. There is no second. (But your thought is yours, your experience is your own, your mind is under the control of maya)

 

[Maya3]

Brahman is the observer, Brahman is the observed. Brahman is the eater, Brahman is the eaten. There is no second. (But your thought is yours, your experience is your own, your mind is under the control of maya)

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..

Maya