How do the Vedas refute solipsism?

[lightgigantic]

Signal

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
I suppose what I need the most is courage to apply myself.
”
enthusiasm, confidence and patience (upadesamrta)
”
"Confidence," "trust," "faith," "hope," "determination" - these and more along their lines are terms I don't really understand. Even though I have read and thought and discussed a lot about them. I have problems recognizing these things.
I supose I will just have to rely on the statement that "devotional service is so pure and perfect that once having begun, one is forcibly dragged to ultimate success". This "forcibly dragged" - this is something I feel though, and with great certainty, despite all my other lacks.

Basically the difference between jnana and vijnana is simply one of practice.

IOW terms like "confidence", "humility" etc require work in order to be understood (and for the most part, we remain works in progress in terms of their comprehension)

For example, entirely viscerally, there has been a change since I have become more strict about what I eat: I can easily digest foods like raw kale and plain-cooked wholegrain barley - two kinds of food generally known for being difficult to digest. But processed food or food served at restaurants (even though nominally vegetarian) and which many people thrive on, gives me a number of intestinal problems! I am kind of glad about this, because I now have an objective reason to prepare all my food myself, as I see fit.

Good to hear that you are confident about your dietary choices.

“
To get purified one has to have a notion of not only what is pure but what is an impurity

Isopanisad Mantra 11. Only one who can learn the process of nescience and that of transcendental knowledge side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality.

IOW for as long as one cannot distinguish between milk solids and fat one cannot make ghee much like for as long as one cannot perceive karma and jnana as impediments one cannot perform bhakti.
”
Just the other day I was listening to a talk where it was said that the most miserable living being is the fallen devotee - because while engaging in acts of selfish sense-gratification, he actually knows, with first-hand experience, that selfish sense-gratification leads to misery, and that his actual role is to be God's servant. Whereas the senses of the materialist are so numb that he doesn't notice that selfish sense-gratification makes him miserable.
I certainly have an acute experience that selfish sense-gratification (in terms of karma and jnana) leads to misery. I can't say that my attempts at devotional service have made me happy, but I do feel considerably less bad and less guilty if I at least try.

The essence of difficulty in spiritual life comes in at anartha nivritti.

IOW trying to expunge valueless things from one's consciousness while esteeming them as valuable.

Kind of like cooking with smoke.
:shrug:

“

“
But such an analysis can only take place using normative descriptions from a particular doctrine, can it not? Which already implies that that doctrine has been taken as relevant enough.
”
normative descriptions are an ideal.

For instance one could know that it is wrong to do X (via a normative description) but by introspection one can determine whether one is actually guilty of it or not.

For instance a lot of talk might be there about the eternal kingdom of god, but if one is underpinned by a host of issues that pertain to the body, a conflict of interest ensues.
”
I just saw that I had previously assumed that one can actually come from the position of having no position, that one can be neutral and objective.

such neutrality requires an absence of identity.
in a similarly nefarious vein, what we coin "objective" is god's subjectivity (IOW the difference between our subjectivity and gods, is that gods holds in all circumstances) ..... so impersonalism is only a hairs breadth away from issues of usurping transcendence

But I don't think this is actually possible, at least for all practical purposes, one always holds some position (or worldview or doctrine) as being the relevant one for onesself (even if one may not admit so).

sure
basically conditioned life is the expression of such a position through the modes of nature (hence the logic of destroying the identity as a means to destroying the problem arises amongst those with a poor fund of knowledge)

“

“

“
Of course a neophyte response is to try and eradicate the material outlets
”
Then I am not even a neophyte!
”
really?

"let's pretend to drop everything in the name of spiritual life" is quite common
”
I meant I haven't made much change material-wise in my life in the name of spirituality.
As long as I can remember, I have been against meat-eating, illicit sex, intoxication, gambling, and practiced this I think to a greater extent than "average people" - given that I have been the traget of sometimes severe criticism because of that.
Also, I have always been fond of austerity, frugality, discipline, simplicity. These were harder to practice, but my enthusiasm for them never really waned.
For some time in the past, I used to find some relief and happiness in art. But at some point, it struck me how impractical it is to rely on these things - because in order to enjoy them, I need to ensure I have a lot of appropriate space and time, money, that the state of the planet will be such to provide electricity, repairs for the stereo etc. Not to mention that there was no guarantee that my stress would be relieved by some nice piano sonata or some such. So I decided that I needed to find a more feasible and more reliable way to happiness, so I threw those books and cd's and such away. I didn't do that because I would read somewhere that I should do so or because someone told me so or because I would try to fit into some spiritual community.
It was out of need and practical concern, I didn't consider it particularly "spiritual".

Sometimes I think that people who go through a greater change material-wise in their lives are better off, because they actually have some visible milestones in their process of renunciation - they have something to show for, and I don't.

Material entanglement can be kind of multi layered.

For instance the mod cons of life are simply a prop of the lifestyle or the material objects are simply a tool of the bodily concept of life. Typically the cycle of conditioned life is a pattern of swinging through periods of enjoyment and renunciation.
IOW the material objects are gathered only to be later dismissed, only to be later gathered, etc etc ... while the bodily concept of life remains a constant

“
at the end of the day we can only have one mind
”
How I wish to have that!

But we do!
For instance, if we are simultaneously happy and distressed will experience the singularity of confusion

“
the formulas facilitate an experience as opposed to support one.

IOW it can be socially agreed upon what an act means or how it should be interpreted, but despite acting in a formulaic way, a culmination in a relationship status is not necessarily reached (otherwise happiness would be as simple as getting an odd number of flowers or something)
”
But the media and society are telling us "If a socially accepted formula is enacted toward you, you are supposed to be happy." People in commercials smile all the time when they have clean laundry and such! But I suppose this is an example of prano-maya.

There is always an aspect of art (or advertising) that imitates life. Basically we have at the core of life a deep seated nostalgia (called adi rasa, or original mellow or flavour). In essence, this rasa is service, so you see that the nostalgia that surrounds service is made pliable through advertising etc. For instance, the perfect mum who has at her disposal, a particular brand of washing powder .... Or the man equipped for any scenario, driving a particular make of car, etc etc

“
then one is trying to act as a friend and the other is trying to act as an acquaintance
”
And if they are fighting over who is right about the nature of their relationship, this means that they are in it for one-up-manship to begin with and their relationship could never really flourish anyway ...

I guess if there is some confusion over the status of the relationship, it often works out that one is right and the other is wrong ..... although who is actually right is often a good plot detail that soap operas play upon repeatedly

“
so if no one ever went to school and had the opportunity to not do their homework, no one would ever have the opportunity to do anything bad?
”
I suppose something along these lines. I suspect some of my educators implicitly believed that the only way not to do any wrong is to do nothing at all - something like the Jains. Also, that happiness and morality are mutually exclusive.

If action equates with misery, the only way to retreat from it is to retreat from life
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Basically the difference between jnana and vijnana is simply one of practice.

IOW terms like "confidence", "humility" etc require work in order to be understood (and for the most part, we remain works in progress in terms of their comprehension)

What kind of work is required to understand "confidence", "humility" etc.?

Good to hear that you are confident about your dietary choices.

It doesn't feel all that confident, though. It is quite a stigma, I get accused of being "finnicky, choosy, just trying to be special".

I just saw that I had previously assumed that one can actually come from the position of having no position, that one can be neutral and objective.

such neutrality requires an absence of identity.

Yes. By fostering neutrality, the diminishing of identity is fostered as well. Trying to be neutral makes decision-making impossible. Yet at schools, we are taught precisely that: to be neutral, to be objective, and to make decisions accordingly.

in a similarly nefarious vein, what we coin "objective" is god's subjectivity (IOW the difference between our subjectivity and gods, is that gods holds in all circumstances)

Would it be correct to say that God is in effect in a solipsistic state?

But while humans are eventually ruined if they take to solipsism, God's solipsism doesn't suffer from this flaw?
(Although it's an ugly phrase - "God's solipsism".)

..... so impersonalism is only a hairs breadth away from issues of usurping transcendence

Yes ... But this is what humans, as part of their rebellion against God want, no? Trying to lord it over material nature via the means of the mind. "If I can't rule over nature with my hands and tools, I will rule over it with the way I explain what goes on in the Universe (whereby, for the purpose of credibility, I will take myself out of the picture and objectively focus on the mind)."

basically conditioned life is the expression of such a position through the modes of nature (hence the logic of destroying the identity as a means to destroying the problem arises amongst those with a poor fund of knowledge)

Can it be seen as an example of acknowledging that the mind is not the final authority to read from scriptures (in order to gain knowledge) that purport to be from the final authority?

Material entanglement can be kind of multi layered.

For instance the mod cons of life are simply a prop of the lifestyle or the material objects are simply a tool of the bodily concept of life. Typically the cycle of conditioned life is a pattern of swinging through periods of enjoyment and renunciation.
IOW the material objects are gathered only to be later dismissed, only to be later gathered, etc etc ... while the bodily concept of life remains a constant

Yes ... I could tell interesting stories about my meditation mat ... :bugeye:

But we do!
For instance, if we are simultaneously happy and distressed will experience the singularity of confusion

Oh, allright. The singularity of multitude ...

There is always an aspect of art (or advertising) that imitates life. Basically we have at the core of life a deep seated nostalgia (called adi rasa, or original mellow or flavour). In essence, this rasa is service, so you see that the nostalgia that surrounds service is made pliable through advertising etc. For instance, the perfect mum who has at her disposal, a particular brand of washing powder .... Or the man equipped for any scenario, driving a particular make of car, etc etc

Interesting point, I hadn't thought about this this way before.

I guess if there is some confusion over the status of the relationship, it often works out that one is right and the other is wrong ..... although who is actually right is often a good plot detail that soap operas play upon repeatedly

Soap operas wouldn't exist without confusion. And don't we all like soap operas, at least form time to time!

Come to think of it: Perhaps the popularity that soap operas enjoy in the West is connected to the impersonalism that is pervading our culture. Namely, soap operas usually operate from very personalist ideas (although the personages there tend to identify merely with their bodies, emotions and minds), and this appeals to people because it counterbalances the impersonalism they otherwise have to deal with.
Western science, philosophy, way of life and popular streams of spirituality/religiousness are imposing impersonalism on us; soap operas and the likes are the last refuge of personalism for many people.

There are many notions of service in soap operas too: Directly in the form of the usually well-wishing, concerned and able maidservants, servants and butlers. Also in the form of how the personages are concerned about each other all the time.
So this is a kind of nostalgia too, then.

If action equates with misery, the only way to retreat from it is to retreat from life

It's not like one can really do that, though.

 

[lightgigantic]

Signal

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Basically the difference between jnana and vijnana is simply one of practice.

IOW terms like "confidence", "humility" etc require work in order to be understood (and for the most part, we remain works in progress in terms of their comprehension)
”
What kind of work is required to understand "confidence", "humility" etc.?

One has to be prepared to act according to it.
Since we generally only have these things in meager supply, the spiritual path aims at providing the opportunity for these things to grow. For instance, a person who is not well endowed in the realm of charity is encouraged (through attraction to prestige) to do so through the agency of an institution.

IOW there are a framework of rules or regs that support a quality. There are issues of niyamagraha that surround such a framework however (more details in NOI).

For instance a good way to develop humility is to perform menial tasks (this is not a fail safe way of avoiding becoming proud of such humility however )

“
Good to hear that you are confident about your dietary choices.
”
It doesn't feel all that confident, though. It is quite a stigma, I get accused of being "finnicky, choosy, just trying to be special".

A less confident person would probably buckle in and eat a sausage roll or something




“

“
I just saw that I had previously assumed that one can actually come from the position of having no position, that one can be neutral and objective.
”
such neutrality requires an absence of identity.
”
Yes. By fostering neutrality, the diminishing of identity is fostered as well. Trying to be neutral makes decision-making impossible. Yet at schools, we are taught precisely that: to be neutral, to be objective, and to make decisions accordingly.

neutrality doesn't prompt decision making.

Anyone who argues that decisions should be made from the position of neutrality is more often than not hiding their ideological agenda.

“
in a similarly nefarious vein, what we coin "objective" is god's subjectivity (IOW the difference between our subjectivity and gods, is that gods holds in all circumstances)
”
Would it be correct to say that God is in effect in a solipsistic state?

But while humans are eventually ruined if they take to solipsism, God's solipsism doesn't suffer from this flaw?

Kind of yes and no.
Because god has so many contingent potencies (some that have scope for independent will) the solipsism is expanding. Our run in with solipsism simply tends to reduce things (I recall one greek philosopher, who really took to the spirit of solipsism, who was reduced to waggling his finger as a sole means of interacting with the world

(Although it's an ugly phrase - "God's solipsism".)

Its kind of a take on "omnipotent" or "omniscient" or "omnipresent"

“
..... so impersonalism is only a hairs breadth away from issues of usurping transcendence
”
Yes ... But this is what humans, as part of their rebellion against God want, no? Trying to lord it over material nature via the means of the mind. "If I can't rule over nature with my hands and tools, I will rule over it with the way I explain what goes on in the Universe (whereby, for the purpose of credibility, I will take myself out of the picture and objectively focus on the mind)."

that's why impersonalism is often criticized as a higher rung of nescience than plain old gross materialism (despite impersonalism having recourse to a host of practices that seem akin to theistic ways and means).

IOW one tries to lord it over nature and gets frustrated and then one tries to directly lord it over the cause of nature ("we are all one and merge" etc etc)

“
basically conditioned life is the expression of such a position through the modes of nature (hence the logic of destroying the identity as a means to destroying the problem arises amongst those with a poor fund of knowledge)
”
Can it be seen as an example of acknowledging that the mind is not the final authority to read from scriptures (in order to gain knowledge) that purport to be from the final authority?

it all helps but the real mettle of one's intention arises from action, or applied knowledge

“
Material entanglement can be kind of multi layered.

For instance the mod cons of life are simply a prop of the lifestyle or the material objects are simply a tool of the bodily concept of life. Typically the cycle of conditioned life is a pattern of swinging through periods of enjoyment and renunciation.
IOW the material objects are gathered only to be later dismissed, only to be later gathered, etc etc ... while the bodily concept of life remains a constant
”
Yes ... I could tell interesting stories about my meditation mat ...

lol

“
But we do!
For instance, if we are simultaneously happy and distressed will experience the singularity of confusion
”
Oh, allright. The singularity of multitude ...

sometimes the mind is described as cancala
good purport on this at 10.1.42

Kind of like one monkey can damage ten fruit trees, but not ten simultaneously.

“
There is always an aspect of art (or advertising) that imitates life. Basically we have at the core of life a deep seated nostalgia (called adi rasa, or original mellow or flavour). In essence, this rasa is service, so you see that the nostalgia that surrounds service is made pliable through advertising etc. For instance, the perfect mum who has at her disposal, a particular brand of washing powder .... Or the man equipped for any scenario, driving a particular make of car, etc etc
”
Interesting point, I hadn't thought about this this way before.

Even the lifestyle of a person decked out with all of the 5 material opulences becomes completely dysfunctional (even materially speaking) unless there is some avenue of service.

For instance, what is the point of owning a dozen cars unless there is someone somewhere to show them off to?

this scenario of impending madness is often presented in sci fi where you have a sole survivor on a planet wreaked by catastrophe

“
I guess if there is some confusion over the status of the relationship, it often works out that one is right and the other is wrong ..... although who is actually right is often a good plot detail that soap operas play upon repeatedly
”
Soap operas wouldn't exist without confusion.

neither would our adi-rasa

And don't we all like soap operas, at least form time to time!

drama is also there in the spiritual world

Come to think of it: Perhaps the popularity that soap operas enjoy in the West is connected to the impersonalism that is pervading our culture. Namely, soap operas usually operate from very personalist ideas (although the personages there tend to identify merely with their bodies, emotions and minds), and this appeals to people because it counterbalances the impersonalism they otherwise have to deal with.

Certainly

Western science, philosophy, way of life and popular streams of spirituality/religiousness are imposing impersonalism on us; soap operas and the likes are the last refuge of personalism for many people.

There are many notions of service in soap operas too: Directly in the form of the usually well-wishing, concerned and able maidservants, servants and butlers. Also in the form of how the personages are concerned about each other all the time.

service permeates everything (everything conscious at least).

So this is a kind of nostalgia too, then.

Science commonly takes the view that this "nostalgia" is some result of the need for dna to replicate itself or something. This view has gradually come to the fore from a world view that is impersonal. IOW the idea that service finds its ultimate niche in the divine now has come to be interpreted as an issue of chemicals. (so reincarnation is simply a side issue of carbon cycles, so your desire or the desire of others is inherently meaningless :shrug: )

“
If action equates with misery, the only way to retreat from it is to retreat from life
”
It's not like one can really do that, though.

there are a host of means to retreat from life
the standard one is alcohol

Needless to say, the suggested means for retreating from misery are quite different .........

 

[wynn]

For instance a good way to develop humility is to perform menial tasks (this is not a fail safe way of avoiding becoming proud of such humility however )

Oh, I know this one! In an attempt to become more humble, I once had an episode of imitating a Burmese peasant. I had seen a documentary on Burmese farmers and I thought how hard-working and humble and yet somehow calm and composed those people were. I thought it would be good if I could be like that too, I was really impressed by them. I was actually very serious about it, had the demeanor and everything - except for the clothes, being Burmese, living in Burma and being a peasant. Of course it didn't work, duh!

A less confident person would probably buckle in and eat a sausage roll or something

I think I see.

neutrality doesn't prompt decision making.

Anyone who argues that decisions should be made from the position of neutrality is more often than not hiding their ideological agenda.

Yes, like Cris here, for example.

(Although it's an ugly phrase - "God's solipsism".)

Its kind of a take on "omnipotent" or "omniscient" or "omnipresent"

Yes. Solipsism does imply such things - and this is how when it comes to humans, it is so misplaced.

that's why impersonalism is often criticized as a higher rung of nescience than plain old gross materialism (despite impersonalism having recourse to a host of practices that seem akin to theistic ways and means).

As I have seen from personal experience, even gross materialistic personalism seems to be far better than impersonalism. Someone may be grossly into material pursuits, but at least they have a sense of worth and urgency about their lives and are not plagued by constant indecision. A consequent impersonalist has no sense of worth, no sense of urgency, no feeling that there are things that need to be done, he is just zoning out in a feeling of grandeur while being in the gutter. It is truly horrible.

IOW one tries to lord it over nature and gets frustrated and then one tries to directly lord it over the cause of nature ("we are all one and merge" etc etc)

For some reason, as far as I can recall, I have never come to this point, despite my very strong impersonalist tendencies. Explicit monism of this kind you mention above always struck me as wrong somehow. While I was fiercely rooting for objectivity, neutrality, logic and such, to conclude with "we are all one, we are all god" somehow seemed too repugnant.

it all helps but the real mettle of one's intention arises from action, or applied knowledge

I'll address this in the other thread.

sometimes the mind is described as cancala
good purport on this at 10.1.42

Kind of like one monkey can damage ten fruit trees, but not ten simultaneously.

I have heard of the flickering mind before. I think I also know all too well what such a mind is like.

There is always an aspect of art (or advertising) that imitates life. Basically we have at the core of life a deep seated nostalgia (called adi rasa, or original mellow or flavour). In essence, this rasa is service, so you see that the nostalgia that surrounds service is made pliable through advertising etc. For instance, the perfect mum who has at her disposal, a particular brand of washing powder .... Or the man equipped for any scenario, driving a particular make of car, etc etc

That this nostalgia exists - does this suggest that people actually like to serve, that they enjoy serving? The word "serve" certainly has quite a bad reputation in the West. But interestingly, it has also become popular and palatable in the English-speaking countries, especially the form "service", although mostly in the field of economics.

Even the lifestyle of a person decked out with all of the 5 material opulences becomes completely dysfunctional (even materially speaking) unless there is some avenue of service.

For instance, what is the point of owning a dozen cars unless there is someone somewhere to show them off to?

this scenario of impending madness is often presented in sci fi where you have a sole survivor on a planet wreaked by catastrophe

Yes, the idea of of "why do anything if nobody's seeing you do it."
Even the most narcissist artist or art critic still relies that there will be an audience for him/her.

Soap operas wouldn't exist without confusion.

neither would our adi-rasa

Could you explain this please?

drama is also there in the spiritual world

But there is always has a happy end there, isn't it?

Science commonly takes the view that this "nostalgia" is some result of the need for dna to replicate itself or something. This view has gradually come to the fore from a world view that is impersonal. IOW the idea that service finds its ultimate niche in the divine now has come to be interpreted as an issue of chemicals. (so reincarnation is simply a side issue of carbon cycles, so your desire or the desire of others is inherently meaningless )

I googled "how to overcome impersonalism" and found an interesting book by Borden P. Bowne from 1908, titled Personalism, with a section tellingly called "The failure of impersonalism."
Bowne was a Methodist and a Westerner, basing his criticism on Western thought and Christianity. He saw there were significant problems with impersonalism. His criticism, although one hundred years old, struck me as rather modern and applicable to the science of nowadays.

I'm finding it somewhat useful as it helps to elucidate some practical examples of popular impersonalism, which, I have to admit, I have been practicing and have been quite ignorant of.

there are a host of means to retreat from life
the standard one is alcohol
Needless to say, the suggested means for retreating from misery are quite different .........

People often use various intoxicants in the hope to retreat from misery.
I suppose for many people, "retreat from life" and "retreat from misery" are one and the same thing.
By saying that it is impossible to retreat from life, I meant that no matter how intoxicated and isolated one becomes, one is still stuck with being alive, having a body, and everything that comes with it.