The solipsist, on the analogy of our dream-experience, imagines a higher mode of selfhood or spirit to whom the world is like a dream; his own self is a lower or deluded mode of this selfhood and to it the world appears as real. Thus objectivity appearing to the lower self is illusory and contingent, not ultimate. This analogical argument for a higher self, as against an alien God, has this counter-argument. In dreams I have unpleasant experiences because of certain (...) external causes, such as physiological and psychological. But what compels my higher self to have the unpleasant dreams that are my waking experiences of life? In other words, why cannot my higher self have nothing but rosy dreams when there cannot be anything else than itself to force on it bad ones? The answer to this is that in our dreams and fantasies we do not have unpleasant experiences due to external causes only, but also due to our inherent love of experience for its own sake. Our dreams are our wish-fulfilments too. We love to have all sorts of experiences, to taste all kinds and shades of emotion. Thirst for passions, curiosity after the unknown, and adventure for the strange and the new mark our empirical self. So it is not absurd to conceive the higher self fashioning its dreams, our waking experiences, as a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant elements rich in variety and complexity. And just as my empirical self is said to enjoy the experiences of my dreams, so this higher self may be said to enjoy his dreams, my waking experiences. (shrink)

Let us now examine one of these radical positions, say, the sceptical one first. According to this, since error is a fact, we may as well treat every perception as erroneous, only undetected so far and so accepted as true. But if we accept error as a fact we must also accept truth as such, for an error cannot be known as one unless we know something as true. When one says one mistook a rope for a snake one must (...) know the rope truly, otherwise there can be no mistake. One may think erroneously, "I am apparently seeing a rope but it may be that I am only imagining it, just as I imagined the snake; I may be mistaking something else for a rope." But then one must also see that as the rope is thus doubted, the unreality of the snake must also be doubted, for it is against the rope as real that the snake becomes unreal. And now one would have to say, "Perhaps I am imagining this rope which might really be the snake I thought I imagine." But in this state of oscillation one cannot pronounce any judgment at all, and so cannot assert anything about the truth and falsity of any perception. The original perception proving false leads one, through analogy, to doubt the latter perception. But if there is a doubt regarding the falsity of the original perception, there cannot be a legitimate doubt regarding the validity of the later one. More generally we may say that if one doubts one's perceptions of certain objects on the ground that some perceptions regarding these had proved false in the past, this doubt logically involves the possibility of those perceptions, rejected as false being true. So that though one may psychologically take up the attitude of doubt with respect to every perception, this attitude has no rational backing. If, however, one doubts certain objects of perception because some other perceptions e.g., snakes) proved false, one has only a weak analogy and is, moreover, forced to doubt all perceptions, including those which proved certain perceptions false, thereby starting the original doubt. But then the reasoning given above which will dispel this doubt will have to be applied. So that this doubt cannot be rationally justified. The argument that since certain perceptions have proved false therefore every one of them may prove so is, after all, a very weak one. A perception is false only when it is falsified by a true one, and we cannot doubt a perception unless it is so falsified. (shrink)

In this article, I suggest that moksha (liberation or enlightenment) in Advaita Vedanta is best understood psychologically. A psychological understanding is not only consistent with the Advaita Vedanta articulated by Shankara and Gaudapada, but avoids what will be called the problem of jivan mukti. This article will consist of three main parts. First, I will briefly discuss the metaphysics and ontology of Advaita Vedanta. Next, I will present the problem of jivan mukti, and the Advaitin response to the (...) problem. The problem of jivan mukti will lead to the third portion of the article, which is a presentation of what moksha is. At no point in the article will I be arguing the truth of the Advaitin position. Instead, I will be meeting Advaita on its own terms in order to come to some understanding of moksha. (shrink)

This Work Analyses Some Basic Concepts Of Indian Ethics. It Shows That A Varnadharma Cannot Be Both Natural And Obligatory, The Prescription Of Acting Desirelessly Makes Any Desireless Action Justified, The Jivan-Mukti Concept Is Inapplicable, Etc.

This review addresses issues regarding the very shaping of Hinduism and the resistance that such shaping faces from non-Hindus. Non-Hindu polemic is challenged using Western methods.