Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Matters the most is not the same as matters only. One may weigh other opinions as well.

Then he wont be able to tell between figments and real wishes. Hell go into an error mode and will need a reboot.

I guess it was Suhotra Swami who suggested how to distribute books to solipsists - Its your own idea to get this book, sir.

Trusting myself isnt solipsism. Solipsism is a conviction that the world out there is created in my mind. That only (solo) I (ipso) exist.

To advaitists (nasty enough ones 8) who brought up solipsism I suggested a simple test: Jump from a cliff.
If the solipsist doesnt jump, he doesnt believe in his solipsism.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Trusting myself isnt solipsism.[/quote]

What is it then? To me, it seems like a practical application of solipsism - "In the end, it is my own opinion that matters the most."[br]
Why wouldnt this be solipsism?

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]If the solipsist doesnt jump, he doesnt believe in his solipsism.[/quote]

Why not? As a solipsist, he thinks youre just a figment of his imagination whom he does not necessarily have to obey or take seriously. I dont see how one could make a declared solipsist prove that he actually isnt serious about his solipsism.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Matters the most is not the same as matters only. One may weigh other opinions as well.[/quote]

Sure. But so what? In the end, it is still up to "oneself", is it not?[br]

[br]Is there any scriptural reference that one ought to "trust oneself" (as opposed to "trusting others")?[br]
Or is this another potential false dilemma?[br]

[br][quote]Then he wont be able to tell between figments and real wishes. Hell go into an error mode and will need a reboot.[/quote]

Well, some of them may be finely trained yogis, and quite impervious to the effects of birth, aging, illness and death. And good hagglers at that, too.[br]

[br][quote]I guess it was Suhotra Swami who suggested how to distribute books to solipsists - Its your own idea to get this book, sir.[/quote]

Thanks for this! My first good laugh in a long time. 8)

> In the end, it is still up to "oneself", is it not?

Unless we decide to leave the decision upon others.

Manu speaks about atmanas tusnih, self-satisfaction, as one of pramanas. I mentioned it here before.
In SB 11.7 Krsna speak about jiva as his own guru and introduces the story of avadhuta brahmana who learned from various gurus, living and non living representations of guru tattva.

> Well, some of them may be finely trained yogis, and quite impervious to the effects of birth, aging, illness and death. And good hagglers at that, too.

Either they jump or not... 8)

The order of what to trust (pramanas) differ for each philosophical system in Vedic times. Trusting oneself is not a pramana in itself and is not to be "trusted". Baker is right. But you can trust your own perception, anumana and your own experience with sabda. In fact the last one is the best for theological purposes.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]This has come up in another thread:[br]

[br][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]Not really. But even if I did, why should I trust them more than I trust myself?[/quote]

[br]What is your practical, personal refutation of solipsism?[/quote]

As it was pointed out earlier, this is not solipsism. But even if it was, trusting yourself more than trusting others is often a step up from the mentality of constant doubt and internal insecurity. Eventually in life we develop a list of things and people we trust. If our name is not on it, we still have a long way to go in our personal development. -------------------- I may not always be right, but I trust my intentions, thought process, reason and logic. Sooner or later I will arrive at the right conclusion. -------- Even your desire to trust someone more than yourself is in fact trusting your own judgement. Still, what counts is the RESULTS. Are you better off trusting yourself rather than trusting someone else. In my case it is hands down YES.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Unless we decide to leave the decision upon others.[/quote]

But to leave it up to others is still OUR decision. In that sense, it is inescapable that we "trust ourselves", so it is actually redundant to say "I trust myself (as opposed to trusting others)".[br]

[br]Ideally, it seems to me the only issue is what the content of the decision is, the principles by which it was made (ie. it is a matter of intelligence); and the ascribing of ownership is just a shorthand for that - which can be confusing, though, and introduce issues of manipulation.[br]

[br][quote]Manu speaks about atmanas tusnih, self-satisfaction, as one of pramanas. I mentioned it here before.[/quote]

Yes, I remember.[br]

[br]Also, at the end of the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to do as he sees fit - which could be interpreted to mean "trust yourself". But this is only AFTER Arjuna is thoroughly instructed, by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, and has understood the matter. [br]
Whereas prior to that, Krishna only tells him several times what he should do, without noting it was up to him. Isnt this significant?[br]

[br][quote]In SB 11.7 Krsna speak about jiva as his own guru and introduces the story of avadhuta brahmana who learned from various gurus, living and non living representations of guru tattva.[/quote]

It is very interesting, thank you![br]

[br]SB 11.7.20 An intelligent person, expert in perceiving the world around him and in applying sound logic, can achieve real benefit through his own intelligence. Thus sometimes one acts as ones own instructing spiritual master.[br]

[br]SB 11.7.32: The bruc0u257 hmanu803 a said: My dear King, with my intelligence I have taken shelter of many spiritual masters. Having gained transcendental understanding from them, I now wander about the earth in a liberated condition. Please listen as I describe them to you.[br]

[br]SB 11.7.33-35: O King, I have taken shelter of twenty-four gurus, who are the following: the earth, air, sky, water, fire, moon, sun, pigeon and python; the sea, moth, honeybee, elephant and honey thief; the deer, the fish, the prostitute Piu324 galu257 , the kurara bird and the child; and the young girl, arrow maker, serpent, spider and wasp. My dear King, by studying their activities I have learned the science of the self.[br]

[br]SB 11.8.41: The intelligence of the living entity is stolen away by activities of sense gratification, and thus he falls into the dark well of material existence.[br]

[br]So it appears it all comes down to intelligence, which is something to be acquired (the king asks the brahmana - "How did you acquire this extraordinary intelligence?"), and something that can be lost.[br]

[br]But generally, when people (including some devotees) talk about their decisions, they sound as if they had some inherent, unchangeable quality within or about themselves that leads them to make the right decisions, whereby this quality is not subject to acquisition or diminishing, and they call it their "self" and "trusting myself". I have always found this very confusing. I never understood what "trust yourself" refers to.[br]

[br][quote]Either they jump or not... 8)[/quote]

The horseman knows nothing of the troubles of the footman, and the footman knows nothing of the troubles of the horseman ...

> they sound as if they had some inherent, unchangeable quality within or about themselves that leads them to make the right decisions, whereby this quality is not subject to acquisition or diminishing, and they call it their "self" and "trusting myself".

They refer to themselves as jiva-manas-buddhi-ahankara complex. This is the Western conditioning from Abrahamic traditions. However, I guess we could find also in the Bible some cases when people displeased the Lord and lost their buddhi.

Hare Krishna,

M looking for some clarity. Can some one plz help.

in many places Krishna says that the problem is duality and we should be equipoised in all situations. In 7:27 he says that due to the duality of desire and aversion all beings enter the cosmic manifestation. and then in 7:28he says that those who are free of duality serve him.

according to my understanding the non dualsits are to be shunned and if we take oursleves as seprate form Guru and Krishna then we must definitely be dualists. So what should one do as the achintya bheda abheda though mentioned does not make much meaning except to be inconceivable , or beyond anyones grasp. it i stoo vague and then we r stick with the problem...which to accept,,duality or non duality.

plz accept my humble dandavats and help clear this issue. Hari Bol Hari Bol.