Miguel, teacups and solipsism

[Guest guest]

Hi Miguel,

 

To the questions. Pretty good ones!

 

Of the four (++), (+-), (-+), (--), I do like the last one the most. But

*none* of them is adequate, and they are just expedient, provisional

dialectical pointers. Why not more final? Because if it were truly said

that "X doesn't exist," this would have to be about an X. That's the rub!

The ironic conclusion arises that X has to exist for it not to exist!

 

Q1) If objects do not exist apart from consciousness, it follows that tea-cup

thoughts and tea-cup perceptions are not caused by tea-cups and are not

representations of tea-cups (because in fact there are no tea-cups). What is

then the origin of our tea-cup thoughts and perceptions?

 

Greg: Notice I didn't say "thoughts *of* teacups"? Because there can be no

separate teacups to serve as the object of thought... Also, there can't be

any causation of anything. Something has to "be" before it can be a cause.

Anything that can be described is just an object. This includes teacups,

thoughts, deep sleep, the waking state, all the koshas, this very mail

message, etc. They all arise equally without incumbrance from the subject,

consciousness, which is the unseen seer. If one demanded an origin or

origin-explanation, it would be all objects arising from consciousness. If

one required a somewhat staged explanation, then it could be said that

external objects arise from thoughts and perceptions, which arise from

consciousness. But this easily collapses into the previous explanation.

 

 

Q2) If our tea-cup thoughts are not originated by tea-cups, but are mere

ideas in our minds, how is it that we all have the same ideas about

tea-cups? Surely such coincidence points to a common origin, doesn't it?

Which?

 

Greg: It might seem that your question is about teacups. But not really!

One cannot omit to ask the same question about (i) other observers seeing

things, and (ii) origins, and (iii) mind and (vi) thoughts. These are

really the same question as the one about teacups. No difference. Even

the notion of other people or other points of view seeming to see the same

things -- even these are appearance. The notion of "thought in the mind"

is not even a thought in the mind. It is an appearances in the

consciousness of no one. No one owns the place from which all things

arise. Therefore, there is no plurality of observers to see things. And

no external things that are seen by anyone. This is not mere nihilism, but

a lack of independent existence of anything. In this, the poor teacup is

not special.

 

 

Q3) If, for lack of evidence, we cease to believe in the existence of an

outside world, the same argument applies against the existence of other

individuals apart from myself. Doesn't this lead us (or rather "me")

towards sollipsism? Really, I have absolutely no evidence of the existence

of anything or anybody but me. So, together with the bodies, one should

discard the other minds, and the other jivas. What proof is there that

there is more than only one jiva?

 

Greg: What proof is there that there is even ONE jiva? THIS, HERE, NOW, is

not jiva. Advaita is *very* different from solipsism. Solipsism is a

theory where there is only one person, or jiva, or mind, or locus of

awareness. That is, solipsism says there's just ONE of a kind of thing

(mind) that most people think there are MANY of. Between the average

person's outlook and the solipsist's the difference is not one of TYPE,

rather a difference in NUMBER. Advaita's teachings are not about a mind or

an individualized point of awareness at all. The "me" you said you have

evidence of.... Describe that. What exactly is your base of reference?

Are you taking the "me" to be Miguel, or Awareness? If it seems to have a

history or a location, then this is a Miguel-like thing. And Miguel, or

Greg, these are exactly the kind of things that there's *no* evidence for.

Why not? Because any characteristic, such as, "my memories indicate a

continuous history" is just another object-claim, like the teacup. The

memories and the remembered subject are just like the teacup.

 

Hope this doesn't confuse things!!

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

 

At 07:14 AM 6/15/01 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

>>>>

Very clear and interesting summary of the matter, Greg.

 

You seem to opt for logical possibility 4 : "Objects do not exist either in

the waking state, or in deep sleep. (- -)"

 

As the reason you give: "There has never been any evidence for the existence

of any object, at any time, in any state, apart from consciousness".

I concur with you on this.

 

However, this gives rise to some questions:

 

1) If objects do not exist apart from consciousness, it follows that tea-cup

thoughts and tea-cup perceptions are not caused by tea-cups and are not

representations of tea-cups (because in fact there are no tea-cups). What is

then the origin of our tea-cup thoughts and perceptions?

 

2) If our tea-cup thoughts are not originated by tea-cups, but are mere

ideas in our minds, how is it that we all have the same ideas about

tea-cups? Surely such coincidence points to a common origin, doesn't it?

Which?

 

In other words, if there is no fundamental difference between deep-sleep and

waking state (in relation to the existence of the outside world), then we

can very well say that we are dreaming all the time, and that the the world

is a dream. But how is it that we are all dreaming about the same world? If

the sun, the moon, etc are not really out there, but only exist in our

minds, how is it that all of us dream of the same world, with a sun, a moon,

etc?

 

3) If, for lack of evidence, we cease to believe in the existence of an

outside world, the same argument applies against the existence of other

individuals apart from myself. Doesn't this lead us (or rather "me") towards

sollipsism? Really, I have absolutely no evidence of the existence of

anything or anybody but me. So, together with the bodies, one should discard

the other minds, and the other jivas. What proof is there that there is more

than only one jiva?

 

I hope you'll take the trouble to answer these questions. Thanks.

 

Miguel-Angel