Ekajivavada and Leo Gura

[rachMiel]

Is the view of Leo Gura (solipsism) similar to Advaita's ekajivavada? 

[Sandroew]

1. Only Leo can speak of Leo's view truthfully.

2. The subject of your question is consciousness, which will always be problematic to talk about. The logic what humans use to think and communicate is based on making distinctions. By saying that the apple is red, you imply its not blue or orange. You cannot apply logic to Infinity, because it has all the colors. Ultimately you will never be able to communicate Truth. Which does not mean that you cannot be skillful at pointing at it, or that all models of reality are equally accurate, but it will always be inherently flawed. This is just something you have to keep in mind.

3. Here is what ChatGPT said about eka-jiva-vada:

Quote

**Eka-jīva-vāda** is a philosophical concept in Advaita Vedanta, a non-dualistic school of Hindu philosophy. The term can be translated as "the doctrine of one soul" or "one living being theory." Here’s a summary:

1. **Core Idea**: Eka-jīva-vāda posits that there is only one true individual or jīva, which is the self. This singular jīva experiences the world as if it is external, but in reality, the world is a projection of this jīva’s consciousness. Essentially, the entire universe and all other beings are perceived by this one jīva within its own consciousness.

2. **Perception and Reality**: According to this doctrine, the world and other beings exist only as long as they are perceived by this jīva. Once the jīva attains liberation (moksha) and realizes its true nature as non-different from Brahman (the ultimate reality), the entire universe dissolves because it was only a projection.

3. **Relation to Advaita Vedanta**: Eka-jīva-vāda is an extreme interpretation within Advaita Vedanta, which generally teaches that all individual souls (jīvas) are ultimately one with Brahman, the non-dual reality. In Eka-jīva-vāda, this non-duality is taken to the extent that there is only one jīva in reality, with everything else being an illusion (Maya).

4. **Contrast with Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda**: Eka-jīva-vāda is often contrasted with another concept called Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda, which suggests that the world comes into existence at the moment it is perceived and dissolves when it is no longer perceived. While both stress the illusory nature of the world, Eka-jīva-vāda insists on the singularity of the perceiver.

5. **Philosophical Implications**: This doctrine challenges the conventional view of multiple individual selves and the independent existence of the universe. It emphasizes the power of consciousness and the idea that liberation is the realization that the self is the only reality, and everything else is a manifestation of its own consciousness.

Eka-jīva-vāda represents a radical understanding of non-duality, focusing on the subjective nature of reality and the central role of the individual self in creating the experience of the world.

At first glance the ideas are similar, but you could probably point out some differences in the communication of them, which will lead to meaningful differences of interpretation or not.

An easy mistake is taking things literally. Here is an example.
ChatGPT said: "Essentially, the entire universe and all other beings are perceived by this one jīva within its own consciousness."
Whereas Leo would say consciousness IS all there is. See the difference? Is it meaningful or just difference in communication ?

You can take something like the exceprt above and apply logic to it and you can dissect it infinitely and get lost doing it.

Thats where Leo would say to take 5-MeO and see for yourself.

4. Leo's approach to solipsism is based on direct experience. Basically it says that you cant experience any other coinscousness other than yours. Which would be compatible with the idea of nonduality.
But for me it seems like solipsism has more implications to it ? This is where my knowledge ends for now.

So the main take here is you cant "understand" consciousness  with logic. Logic is for pragmatic matters and communication.

 

Edited August 22 by Sandroew

[rachMiel]

Thanks for your response! 

> You can take something like the exceprt above and apply logic to it and you can dissect it infinitely and get lost doing it.

Buddhists have great word for this: prapanca, i.e. conceptual proliferation. I know it because a Buddhist friend accused me (rightly!) of doing it. 

> Thats where Leo would say to take 5-MeO and see for yourself 

I am way too sensitive to psychotropics to go that route. 1 mg of THC does me in for 5-6 hours! But good suggestion, thanks. 

Edited August 22 by rachMiel

[Sandroew]

Psychedelics are not for everyone and thats okay. Its definitely not the only way forward either.

Your Buddhist friend seems like a wise person.

Meditation is a whole other talk.

I find yoga fascinating too.

Thanks for mentioning prapanca, that was interesting to read!

Edited August 22 by Sandroew

[Sandroew]

Wiki says: "conceptualization of the world through language and concepts which can then be a cause for suffering to arise." Thats genius.

[rachMiel]

This from my LLM friends: 

There are similarities between Gura's view and Ekajivavada. Both emphasize the idea that individual experiences and perceptions are manifestations of a larger, singular consciousness, challenging the illusion of separateness and individuality. This viewpoint reflects a nondual understanding of reality, where all apparent distinctions are seen as ultimately unified within a single, overarching consciousness. 

There are also differences: Gura's solipsism posits that One mind exists, identified as the individual self, while the external world and other minds are illusory. Ekajivavada posits that the individual self is ultimately identical with the ultimate reality (Brahman), which is the source of everything, i.e. that the world and other minds are real but dependent on Brahman.      

[Sandroew]

Im going to be honest and say that this whole thing is beyond me.

Its true that I never experienced any other consiousness other than mine.

But there are supposed to be people who see others auras ? Can work with others consciousness ? Etc this type of stuff. Now that i think about it that would not necessarily be contradictory either....(?)
And of course Leo would come and say: "You never experienced other people. Other people exist only in your mind"

And also i feel like this is outside the realm of logic so without a direct experience we are like ants trying to solve calculus.

Still makes interesting conversation though, even with how clueless i am.

[rachMiel]

In my opinion logic only goes so far! Ultimately, perhaps, it's just a way for us to deal with the fear and confusion of living in a giant Mystery. :-) 

[Leo Gura]

 

 

Edited August 24 by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura I saw your blog post. Is Ekajivavada a different version from your absolute solipsism? I asked Chatgpt4o and there is a fundamental difference in between these. Is Chatgpt4 wrong or are you overlooking something:

 

"1. Ekajivavada in Advaita: Ekajivavada literally means the "doctrine of one Jiva" (individual consciousness). It posits that, from the perspective of one Jiva (an individual consciousness), the entire world, including all other Jivas, is merely a projection of this one Jiva.Illusion of Multiplicity: From the perspective of Ekajivavada, there is only one dreamer, and the world along with all other individuals are parts of the dream of this one Jiva. As long as this Jiva does not attain realization, it appears as if there are many consciousnesses. The many Jivas and the multiplicity of the world are illusions (Maya) that appear in the one consciousness.Realization of Unity: The goal in Ekajivavada is to attain the realization that one’s own individual consciousness (Jiva) is not truly separate from the universal consciousness (Brahman). Once this realization is achieved, the illusion of multiplicity is overcome, and the true oneness of all existence is recognized.

2. Difference from Absolute Solipsism: Absolute solipsism claims that only one's own individual consciousness exists, and everything else – including the world and other people – is merely a concept or illusion created by one's own mind. There is no greater reality or unity beyond one’s own individual consciousness.

Ekajivavada: While Ekajivavada may initially appear solipsistic because it views the world as a projection of a single Jiva, it is not solipsistic in essence. It acknowledges that behind the illusion of multiplicity, there is a deeper reality – the universal consciousness (Brahman). The diversity of individual consciousnesses is only a play of the one consciousness, which obscures its own nature and manifests as many.

 

3. Summary:Ekajivavada does not describe the absolute separation and isolation of an individual consciousness but instead emphasizes the illusion of multiplicity and the ultimate unity with the universal consciousness. It aims to explain non-duality (Advaita) by showing that all apparent multiplicity is ultimately one.Absolute Solipsism, on the other hand, remains focused on the idea of a singular individual consciousness and does not acknowledge a greater or deeper unity behind it.Thus, Ekajivavada is a specific teaching within Advaita Vedanta that describes the illusion of individual existences to lead to the realization of non-duality, whereas absolute solipsism remains confined to a radical form of individuality and isolation."

Edited August 24 by OBEler

[rachMiel]

Swami Sarvapriyananda is a treasure. 

[Sandroew]

On 2024. 08. 24. at 3:18 PM, rachMiel said:

Swami Sarvapriyananda is a treasure. 

Another Genius. You can tell from the way he is speaking he does not only have intellectual knowledge, but a deep understanding.

Makes me wonder how many of these guys are around.