Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 Dear Chittaranjanji, Namaskar, Can you kindly explain the concept of solipsism? This sounds alien for me and i would like to know much about it. HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the Lord, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 Dear Sri Vinayaka-ji, advaitin, "vinayaka_ns" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > Can you kindly explain the concept of solipsism? This sounds > alien for me and i would like to know much about it. Solipsism is the philosophy that only I (often called 'ego' in Western Philosophy) exist in this world and that no other individual of being exists. It is the extreme limit of subjective idealism wherein everything that I see is held to be idea or imagination, and even the others that I see are considered merely to be imagined beings. The term 'solipsism' is a term that has come from Wetsren Philosophy, but it has its equivalent in India in the eka-jiva-vada of Advaita. You do not find this idea in the writings of Shankara, but it appeared later in the Vivarana school of Advaita. In Shankara Advaita, the jiva is differentiated from Brahman by its limitatation of knowledge, and the jivas are many though the self of each jiva divested of the limitations is Brahman Itself. The eka-jiva-vada is closely linked to drishti-shristi vada or the doctrine that this world exists because it is perceived. Again, you do not find this idea in Shankara, and it seems to be a later development of the Advaita school. According to Shankara, drishti-shristi is true for Ishvara alone who creates out of His omniscience because His omnipotence is not different than His omniscience. In other words, He creates merely through His Knowledge - thus He does not act when He creates. One may say that the seed idea of shristi-ddrishti is found in the Yoga Vashista Ramayana, but then one needs to keep in mind that the instructions of Yoga Vashista are directed to Ishvara Himself (Lord Rama), a fact that may seem trivial to many, but which I am inclined to consider as important. I am of the conviction that Vedantic instructions are commensurate with the adhikara of the student to whom they are imparted. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > Dear Sri Vinayaka-ji, > > advaitin, "vinayaka_ns" > <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > Can you kindly explain the concept of solipsism? > This sounds > > alien for me and i would like to know much about > it. > > From Sankarraman Why do you limit the philosophy of drishti-shrishti vada to Iswara alone? Is Iswara a different from the jiva? Is he not an unreal projection of a jiva? Ramana did not confine his truth to some Iswara, but made it available to all human beings. Solipsism has no place for a seperate Iswara. The tendency towards solipsism is there in some areas in the treatise Pancadasi. Sankara's upholding the position of Iswara is only by way of giving some religion to people, who believe in causality, and cannot digest the idea of the creation being merely a product of thought. Acceptance of Iswara in the absolute sense is only half Advaitha. A reading of Ramana's talks makes one come to the conclusion that his essential message is only eka-jiva vada. Sankarraman Start your day with - Make it your home page! http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2005 Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > > > --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> > wrote: > > > Dear Sri Vinayaka-ji, > > > > advaitin, "vinayaka_ns" > > <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > > > Can you kindly explain the concept of solipsism? > > This sounds > > > alien for me and i would like to know much about > > it. > > > > From > Sankarraman > > Why do you limit the philosophy of drishti-shrishti > vada to Iswara alone? Is Iswara a different from the > jiva? Is he not an unreal projection of a jiva? Ramana > did not confine his truth to some Iswara, but made it > available to all human beings. Solipsism has no place > for a seperate Iswara. The tendency towards solipsism > is there in some areas in the treatise Pancadasi. > Sankara's upholding the position of Iswara is only by > way of giving some religion to people, who believe in > causality, and cannot digest the idea of the creation > being merely a product of thought. Acceptance of > Iswara in the absolute sense is only half Advaitha. A > reading of Ramana's talks makes one come to the > conclusion that his essential message is only eka-jiva > vada. > Sankarraman Dear All, Namaste, According to advaita vedanta as far as my understading goes there is only one mind the cosmic mind in which all these dualities are felt. One may term it as eka jiva or eka Eshwara according to one's convenience. There is only an apparant difference between exhwara and jiva and between different jivas. I will give the description of the cosmic mind as given by Swami Saradanandaji in his work Sri Ramakrishna and his Divine Play. THE IMAGINARY WORLD EXISTS IN THE COSMIC MIND, SO ALL BEINGS HAVE THE SAME DELUSION. BUT THE COSMIC MIND IS NOT DELUDED BECAUSE OF THIS. You ask how all people are under same delusion. The scriptures say in reply: The universe has arisen by way of ideation in the limitless,infinite cosmic mind. We all experience the same mental images because the individual minds of yours,mine and all people are parts of and included in cosmic mind. That is why we cannot see an animal in any way we like, nor can we perceive it to be other than an animal. Similarly, one among us may attaine true knowledge and become free from all delusion, while others remain under its spell. Although the world arises in the cosmic mind of the divine being by ideation, he is not affected by the bond of ignorence as we are. Because he is omniscient, he sees that non dual brahman thoroghly pervades this world, which originated from ignorence because we are incapble of this perception, our case is different. The Sri Ramakrishna used to say "There is poison in the fangs of the snake. The snake eats its food daily with thoose fangs and is not at all affected. But a person bitten by a snake dies instantly." HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the Lord, Br. Vinayaka. > > > > > Start your day with - Make it your home page! > http://www./r/hs > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2005 Report Share Posted November 6, 2005 --- > Regarding Vinayakjis's word > Dear All, > > "Namaste, > > According to advaita vedanta as far as my > understading goes there is > only one mind the cosmic mind in which all these > dualities are felt.", all I have to say is that Saradnandaji has made the explanation about the Cosmic Mind in his monumental work, "The Great Master", only as a stepping stone to make one understand the nature of the mind; this is not the highest philosophical position of no-mind taught by Totapuri to Ramakrishna. The concept of the cosmic mind arises only after the arising of the I thought which is not multiple, there being no several 'I's, the multiplicity being in relation only to the limiting adjuncts. The defense of the cosmic mind on accont of the uniform ideas being lodged in all minds, is only qualified dualism.The writer is averse even to make this type of distinction. Further , this defense is only empirical, which we very well know. Bhaghavan Ramana has clearly stated that as long as the perception of the,'Drishya', is there, the, 'Drik', cannot be known. Bhaghavan has clearly demonstrated, which appeals to the commonsense, that all characters that we confront in life are only the fictional imaginations of the I, itself being an illusion. Philosophical concepts will enable us only to write books and discuss intellectually the various schools, in the process the essential goal being lost sight of. sankarraman > Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2005 Report Share Posted November 6, 2005 --- Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote: > > > --- > > Regarding Vinayakjis's word > > Dear All, > > > > "Namaste, > > > > According to advaita vedanta as far as my > > understading goes there is > > only one mind the cosmic mind in which all these > > dualities are felt.", all I have to say is that > Saradnandaji has made the explanation about the > Cosmic > Mind in his monumental work, "The Great Master", > only > as a stepping stone to make one understand the > nature > of the mind; this is not the highest philosophical > position of no-mind taught by Totapuri to > Ramakrishna. > The concept of the cosmic mind arises only after the > arising of the I thought which is not multiple, > there > being no several 'I's, the multiplicity being in > relation only to the limiting adjuncts. The defense > of > the cosmic mind on accont of the uniform ideas being > lodged in all minds, is only qualified dualism.The > writer is averse even to make this type of > distinction. Further , this defense is only > empirical, > which we very well know. Bhaghavan Ramana has > clearly > stated that as long as the perception of > the,'Drishya', is there, the, 'Drik', cannot be > known. > Bhaghavan has clearly demonstrated, which appeals > to > the commonsense, that all characters that we > confront > in life are only the fictional imaginations of the > I, > itself being an illusion. Philosophical concepts > will > enable us only to write books and discuss > intellectually the various schools, in the process > the > essential goal being lost sight of. > sankarraman Dear Shankarramanji, Namaste, Sharadanandaji never says that this is the ultimatum in the spriritual realm. He has very clearly stated elsewhere in the same book that he fully agree with the advaitist especially shankaracharya's view of no world. Sri Ramakrishna encouraged all the systems of philosophy as it was required by different aspiratnts with varying capacity. So he said that dvaita, vishishtadwaita and advaita are not contradictory to each other but the latter is the fullfillment of the former one respectively. These levels are absolutely required for the aspirants at different states of spiritual development. As per your following point Bhaghavan has clearly demonstrated, which appeals > to > the commonsense, that all characters that we > confront > in life are only the fictional imaginations of the > I, > itself being an illusion. Philosophical concepts > will > enable us only to write books and discuss > intellectually the various schools, in the process > the > essential goal being lost sight of. It is true that every thing is an illusion and fictional imagination there is no dobut about that. But Sri ramakrishna used to say one example. One can say that thorn is an illusion and feet is also an illusion but when the thorn pricks and feet is hurt one cries in pain isnt it? When great souls like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi said that i am not body they mean it seriously. But we as aspirants of mediocore capacity would like to discuss these issues for the intellectual understanding which i feel that is required in the initial stages. If you feel that these are not necessary for you need not to participate in this abc of religious discussions. As Maharshi said you can go on making analysis of who am i instead of wasting your valueable time with novices like us. HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka. __________________ > Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > > > --- > > Regarding Vinayakjis's word > > Dear All, > > > > "Namaste, > > > > According to advaita vedanta as far as my > > understading goes there is > > only one mind the cosmic mind in which all these > > dualities are felt.", all I have to say is that > Saradnandaji has made the explanation about the Cosmic > Mind in his monumental work, "The Great Master", only > as a stepping stone to make one understand the nature > of the mind; this is not the highest philosophical > position of no-mind taught by Totapuri to Ramakrishna. Dear Shankarramanji, Namaste, I would like to draw your attention regarding the above mentioned point. About the heighest philosophical position Sharadanandaji writes thus in the same book AN ASPIRANT PROGRESSESS SPIRITUALLY,DUALISM,QUALIFIED NON DUALISM AND NON DUALISM APPEAR ONE AFTER ANOTHER. He Answers: Then sri ramakrishna was not a true non dualist? The master saw both the nirguna and saguna aspects of the divine mother, and he maintained that she encompassed these differences within herself. It therefore seems that he did not accept Shankara's nondualism, inwhich the existence of the world is denied. No, it is not like that. The master accepted all the 3 philosophical systems. Non dualism, qualified nondualism and dualism. But he said that those three beliefs appear one after another, according to the evolutionary progress of the human mind. When at a certain stage the dualistic mood prevails, one feels that the other two philosophical beliefs are wrong. After one ascends to a higher state of spiritual progress and reaches the state of qualified non dualism, one realizes tht the eternal attributeless brahman has in play become manifest with attributes. Then not only does dualism become unreal, but one also does not believe nondualism to be true either. And when one reaches the culmination of spiritual progresss through sadhana, one experiences only the nirguna aspect of the divine mother and dwells in the non dualistic state. Then everything becomes one I and you, jiva and the world, devotion and liberation, virtue and vice, merit and demerit. HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the Lord, Br. Vinayaka. > > Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 --- "Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns wrote: > advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman > <shnkaran> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- > > > Regarding Vinayakjis's word > > > Dear All, > > > > > > "Namaste, > > > > > > According to advaita vedanta as far as my > > > understading goes there is > > > only one mind the cosmic mind in which all these > > > dualities are felt.", all I have to say is that > > Saradnandaji has made the explanation about the > Cosmic > > Mind in his monumental work, "The Great Master", > only > > as a stepping stone to make one understand the > nature > > of the mind; this is not the highest philosophical > > position of no-mind taught by Totapuri to > Ramakrishna. > > Dear Vinayakji > > Namaste, > > Very kind of you for your clarification. But I seem to be more at home with the worldview of Bhaghavan Ramana, which is a pointer towards the basic I. I respect all the world views, Osho and U.G. Krishnamurthy included. Different minds need different approches, but ultimately there is only the unknown and the unknowable. We want to choose in life, but this does not seem to work psychologically. As J.K says, all existence is choice; only in Aloneness there is no choice. Saint Augustine calls this a flight from the,'Alone to the Alone'. I respect Sri Ramakrishna as a great Master. In fact I have seen a senior monk of the order of Ramakrishna by name Bhajanananda. Since you seem to be a great devotee of Ramakrishna, you can read his articles written long back in the, "Prabuddha Bharatha". His writings on Vedanta are very penetrating. With warm regards Sankarraman Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.