Vedanta is solipsism. Ramana Maharishi was solipsist?

[Robed Mystic]

Oh God it's just you.  You are God.

[Robed Mystic]

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This might be tempting to think at first, but Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi aren't solipsism.  Teachings/dp/0140190627

If other is you then what does that equate to?  If self and other are one then what does this equate to?  You want to continue to create duality - but realize that ultimately if all is One that means that in a higher state of Consciousness you can realize that there is no difference between anything.   This is awakening.   And that is what all the ancient sages eluded to.  It is what Buddhism eluded to - and it is what Ramana Maharshi eluded to.  It is Absolute Oneness.   The notion of realty being a dream is actual - not concept.   

[Joseph Maynor]

43 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

If other is you then what does that equate to?  If self and other are one then what does this equate to?  You want to continue to create duality - but realize that ultimately if all is One that means that in a higher state of Consciousness you can realize that there is no difference between anything.   This is awakening.   And that is what all the ancient sages eluded to.  It is what Buddhism eluded to - and it is what Ramana Maharshi eluded to.  It is Absolute Oneness.   The notion of realty being a dream is actual - not concept.   

 

Have you actually read Ramana Maharshi?  You mentioned his name, so I assume the answer is yes.  I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm referencing the research I have done reading Shankara and Maharshi as to what they said Advaita Vedanta is as I understood their writings to say.  Of course, I am putting it through my interpretive filter to even summarize it to an extent.  Actually, my own personal views of spirituality are not synonymous with Advaita Vedanta.  I just so happen to have been studying it now for about 5 months pretty seriously.  I did what a lot of people don't want to do, I actually went back and read Shankara and Maharshi's works.  And what I found out is that a lot can be explained philosophically (or through knowledge or Jnana alone) that people might otherwise miss if they think they can figure this stuff out on their own or via psychedelics.  A lot of wisdom comes down through the ages in writings that in this case go back to the Upanishads.  I'll guarantee you most people who talk about this stuff have never bothered to seriously study the sources of these spiritual ideas and to me that's a trap knowing what I know now from having gone through it.  Something to consider.  That's why I'm sharing what I've learned.  Few know what Advaita Vedanta really is because you gotta be willing to slog through hundreds of pages of writings to gather all the nuances (especially with Shankara).  It's simple, but one small twist in the wrong direction takes you out of it.  It's a simple stark truth but you have to know what it means in all the way things can go wrong.  That's what makes it tricky.

Edited May 13 by Joseph Maynor

[Orb]

19 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Have you actually read Ramana Maharshi?  You mentioned his name, so I assume the answer is yes.  I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm referencing the research I have done reading Shankara and Maharshi as to what they said Advaita Vedanta is as I understood their writings to say.  Of course, I am putting it through my interpretive filter to even summarize it to an extent.  Actually, my own personal views of spirituality are not synonymous with Advaita Vedanta.  I just so happen to have been studying it now for about 5 months pretty seriously.  I did what a lot of people don't want to do, I actually went back and read Shankara and Maharshi's works.  And what I found out is that a lot can be explained philosophically (or through knowledge or Jnana alone) that people might otherwise miss if they think they can figure this stuff out on their own or via psychedelics.  A lot of wisdom comes down through the ages in writings that in this case go back to the Upanishads.  I'll guarantee you most people who talk about this stuff have never bothered to seriously study the sources of these spiritual ideas and to me that's a trap knowing what I know now from having gone through it.  Something to consider.  That's why I'm sharing what I've learned.  Few know what Advaita Vedanta really is because you gotta be willing to slog through hundreds of pages of writings to gather all the nuances (especially with Shankara).  It's simple, but one small twist in the wrong direction takes you out of it.  It's a simple stark truth but you have to know what it means in all the way things can go wrong.  That's what makes it tricky.

The source of the spiritual ideas (which are only pointers, I emphasize that they are pointers, and not actually true) is direct experience actually.

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, Orb said:

The source of the spiritual ideas (which are only pointers, I emphasize that they are pointers, and not actually true) is direct experience actually.

 

What if the pointer is so radical that it is missed?  What if no person could understand the pointer?  No person would want to understand the pointer either. 

Edited May 13 by Joseph Maynor

[Orb]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

 

What if they pointer is so radical that it is missed?

A pointer can't be missed, but what is being pointed to can be overlooked yes.

[Joseph Maynor]

12 minutes ago, Orb said:

A pointer can't be missed, but what is being pointed to can be overlooked yes.

 

A pointer can be missed if one doesn't understand the pointer.  It's both a simple and nuanced pointer.  It could be explained in one very well put together paragraph.

Edited May 13 by Joseph Maynor

[Orb]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

 

A pointer can be missed if one doesn't understand the pointer.  It's both a simple and nuanced pointer.

If someone understands the pointer then they miss what it's pointing to. 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Orb said:

If someone understands the pointer then they miss what it's pointing to. 

You can't dump the pointer if you never had it in the first place.  This pointer is Transcendental knowledge, it can't be picked up in the empirical world or even with use of psychedelics.  You can't figure this out without being given the Jnana or knowledge of the Self vs. the not-Self.  You need the pointer to get Advaita Vedanta.  Once you get the pointer then sure you can dump it, but you need to experience the pointer and let it work on you for a while.  Basically nothing exists but the Self, but you have to know what the not-Self is (which doesn't exist).  That's the pointer.  But it has to be unpacked in its details to really be "enlightening".  I'm working on a video titled "Traps that Fall Short of Advaita Vedanta."  It's actually a somewhat long list that I have so far.  I won't post that video here on AoB, I'll spare you guys lol.  Nobody would Witness that video but Me if that makes sense - and then only as a pointer (as you said) because there is no thinker.  That scaffolding of there being an understander is of the mind and must fall away.  It gets very deep.  You're right though the pointer is just a pointer.  Basically, everything except the Self is a total illusion as in totally unreal.  But with realization of the Self comes Truth, Consciousness (the Witness), and Bliss a.k.a  Sat, Chit, Ananda. 

It's a complete exit from Plato's cave.  It's so radical and only I can get it if that makes sense.  I would get it by exiting the cave.  And then everything in the cave would no longer exist including me.  Here's a good pointer -- the Self is not a results seeker.  It's not a detacher or renouncer either, that's another good pointer.  It's the mind/ego that detaches or renounces.  So it get tricky in this way.  There's nothing to renounce because it just doesn't exist.  So even detaching or renouncing is a very subtle trap.  And the Self doesn't control the ego or create anything in the world, that's another pointer because there is no ego or world.  There's no mind and no body, no inner world and no outer world.  All that is illusion, false, unreal.  And there's no mind to believe this pointer either.  It's like Buddhism but with a place for God.  It might be more stark than Buddhism actually, I'm not that familiar with Buddhism beyond the basics.  Finally, to add an even harder pointer, the Self transcends the real vs. unreal duality because It's nondual.  

"In reality, the Imperishable [the Self] whom the Veda-knowers speak of transcends the existent and non-existent, and He is Thyself and none else" - Adi Shankara, Commentary on The Bhagavad Gita, Sastry Translation Pg. 293

Edited May 13 by Joseph Maynor

[Enlightened Cat]

What doesn't exist couldn't describe anything. Mind your mental illusions. 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Enlightened Cat said:

What doesn't exist couldn't describe anything. Mind your mental illusions. 

This is as close as we're gonna get for a wiki page for the Self.  I've never seen this before.  There doesn't need to be so much voluminous talk when we have a good source.  This is what Advaita Vedanta is pointing to basically.  The Self.  It's not terribly complicated.  The point is this Witness is not the ego of Solipsism.  There's one error in the wiki article as it applies to Advaita Vedanta, Shakti (will/energy/motion) plays no role.  The Self (or Brahman) is only Sakshi - the nondual Witness.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshi_(witness)

Edited May 13 by Joseph Maynor

[Enlightened Cat]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is as close as we're gonna get for a wiki page for the Self.  I've never seen this before.  There doesn't need to be so much voluminous talk when we have a good source.  This is what Advaita Vedanta is pointing to basically.  The Self.  It's not terribly complicated.  The point is this Witness is not the ego of Solipsism.  There's one error in the wiki article as it applies to Advaita Vedanta, Shakti (will/energy/motion) plays no role.  The Self (or Brahman) is only Sakshi - the nondual Witness.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshi_(witness)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set
 

Quote

 

In mathematics, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero. Some axiomatic set theories ensure that the empty set exists by including an axiom of empty set, while in other theories, its existence can be deduced. Many possible properties of sets are vacuously true for the empty set.
 

Any set other than the empty set is called non-empty...

 

...While the empty set is a standard and widely accepted mathematical concept, it remains an ontological curiosity, whose meaning and usefulness are debated by philosophers and logicians.
 

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists. Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."

 

 

Edited May 13 by Enlightened Cat

[Enlightened Cat]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is as close as we're gonna get for a wiki page for the Self.  I've never seen this before.  There doesn't need to be so much voluminous talk when we have a good source.  This is what Advaita Vedanta is pointing to basically.  The Self.  It's not terribly complicated.  The point is this Witness is not the ego of Solipsism.  There's one error in the wiki article as it applies to Advaita Vedanta, Shakti (will/energy/motion) plays no role.  The Self (or Brahman) is only Sakshi - the nondual Witness.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshi_(witness)

To be fair, looking for the witness is probably more practical for a seeker. The quote from Swami summarizes well. The empty set does a great job of trying to explicitly define something undefinable though.

Edited May 13 by Enlightened Cat

[Robed Mystic]

On 5/12/2024 at 9:33 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Have you actually read Ramana Maharshi?  You mentioned his name, so I assume the answer is yes.  I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm referencing the research I have done reading Shankara and Maharshi as to what they said Advaita Vedanta is as I understood their writings to say.  Of course, I am putting it through my interpretive filter to even summarize it to an extent.  Actually, my own personal views of spirituality are not synonymous with Advaita Vedanta.  I just so happen to have been studying it now for about 5 months pretty seriously.  I did what a lot of people don't want to do, I actually went back and read Shankara and Maharshi's works.  And what I found out is that a lot can be explained philosophically (or through knowledge or Jnana alone) that people might otherwise miss if they think they can figure this stuff out on their own or via psychedelics.  A lot of wisdom comes down through the ages in writings that in this case go back to the Upanishads.  I'll guarantee you most people who talk about this stuff have never bothered to seriously study the sources of these spiritual ideas and to me that's a trap knowing what I know now from having gone through it.  Something to consider.  That's why I'm sharing what I've learned.  Few know what Advaita Vedanta really is because you gotta be willing to slog through hundreds of pages of writings to gather all the nuances (especially with Shankara).  It's simple, but one small twist in the wrong direction takes you out of it.  It's a simple stark truth but you have to know what it means in all the way things can go wrong.  That's what makes it tricky.

So you plowed through hundreds of pages of ancient texts.   What did this bring you?  You went on and on about how you studied the ancient texts but you didn't say one thing about any conclusion that it brought you - about Reality.   And to answer your question - I didn't need to - because i had mystical experiences prior to this.- powerful enougb to where  I became a prophet.   And it seems my direct realizations align with these ancient teachings- which you have mentioned nothing about other than that you have read the scriptures.

Edited May 25 by Robed Mystic

[Joseph Maynor]

45 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

So you plowed through hundreds of pages of ancient texts.   What did this bring you?  You went on and on about how you studied the ancient texts but you didn't say one thing about any conclusion that it brought you - about Reality.   And to answer your question - I didn't need to - because i had mystical experiences prior to this.- powerful enougb to where  I became a prophet.   And it seems my direct realizations align with these ancient teachings- which you have mentioned nothing about other than that you have read the scriptures.

 

Reading Shankara and Maharshi gave me another perspective that only comes from slogging through their writings.  What did it bring me?  A crisp set of pointers.  

[Robed Mystic]

58 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Reading Shankara and Maharshi gave me another perspective that only comes from slogging through their writings.  What did it bring me?  A crisp set of pointers.  

You still fail to mention what it brought you. A crisp set of pointers to what?

[Jane]

As I understand the Nondual conceptual context;  the Self is solipsistic in the sense there is only (Self) one without a second.

Ultimately; there is no Self because there is no other than Self.

 

All apparent “others” are dream characters only, seen as objects within the all  seeing witness that never experiences itself as the objects seen because dream characters have no awareness; these characters are the “looked upon” inseparable from the witness. This knowledge is the duality that is ultimately Non-dual.

What does all this mean? it means knowledge serves only to point to the illusory nature of reality.

 

And yes, the illusion is real, apparently, in this conception.

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil]

@Jane

Simply beautiful. 

 

11 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

You still fail 

This is a belief being projected which could be introspected and dispelled. Step one is noticing the projection, and taking pause / not proceeding to project and therein reinforce the belief / identity.

 

The “one who failed to know better” is pure innocence. The weight can be let go in that suffering is of some, certain, thoughts. Blame is how some thoughts feel. Guilt as well. Shame is a concept, conceptual. Untwisted, powerlessness allowed is intelligence, guidance, love. 

 

Break from content reinforcing the belief to the contrary. (The reality of a separate self). 

 

PayPal offer still good. ♥️

[Robed Mystic]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

This is a belief being projected which could be introspected and dispelled. Step one is noticing the projection, and taking pause / not proceeding to project and therein reinforce the belief / identity.

 

The “one who failed to know better” is pure innocence. The weight can be let go in that suffering is of some, certain, thoughts. Blame is how some thoughts feel. Guilt as well. Shame is a concept, conceptual. Untwisted, powerlessness allowed is intelligence, guidance, love. 

 

Break from content reinforcing the belief to the contrary. (The reality of a separate self). 

 

PayPal offer still good. ♥️

This is over analyzing.  He said it brought him another perspective so i was asking what that was.  

[Phil]

13 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

This is over analyzing.  He said it brought him another perspective so i was asking what that was.  

Analyzing like thinking, are thoughts. Same projection as “you fail”.