How do the Vedas refute solipsism?

Signal

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)

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

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:

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

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)

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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".

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.

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".)

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)."

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?

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

Oh, allright. The singularity of multitude ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“

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.

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

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

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)

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

lol

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.

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

neither would our adi-rasa

drama is also there in the spiritual world

Certainly

service permeates everything (everything conscious at least).

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: )

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 .........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!

I think I see.

Yes, like Cris here, for example.

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

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.

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.

I'll address this in the other thread.

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

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.

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.

Could you explain this please?

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

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.

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.