Monism and Vedanta
Philosophical way on humanity, for centuries philosophers have debated on a topic called Monism. Monists hold the principle that being is purely based upon one critic “category of being” this means that either the person is made up of only the body or only the mind (Morris). Because Animists, Hindus, and Buddhists believe that reality is one and that everything that exists is a functioning part of that whole which is spirit are for the most part monists. Western people for the most part may be called a monist also as they believe that God is dead and matter is the only substance to reality. As a consequence, monism is the claim that mind and matter essentially the same. The concept of transcendental reality (spiritual) in terms of Vedanta is the essential philosophy original to the Hindus. The major ideas of Vedanta are, first, the ultimate existence. A strong hold that all the things we see around us are ultimately reducible to one substance/one existence. But we claim it to be the essential philosophy of all religions, which makes it Non-Western Religious more than Non-Western Philosophy.
Monist claim that “all is one”, and it changes their outlook on what is moral or what is right. The claim is made that there is no non-physical mind, there’s only BRAIN! All that we do and experience, feel, think, is accounted for in physical terms. For an argument of robots and humans, a Monist would say, Robots are silicon based life and humans are carbon-oxide based life. That’s the only difference they monist would see compare to what a spiritual person would see. If humans and robots both act alike and speak of “feelings” “thoughts” “emotions” then humans will realize that the mind is just another nam...
... middle of paper ...
...a of Vedanta is the unity, the oneness, of God. God is the highest readying of the Absolute- as the absolute appears to the limited mind (Vedanta). It means that the normal/common idea is that either you are right or I am right, can all people be right at the same time? But Vedanta says no to this, they say all people can be right at the same time. An example for that would be everyday roles played by a man and woman. A man can also be a father, boss, president, husband, and a son, but when his daughter calls him ‘daddy’ only the father role comes in your mind. And same with a woman, all the roles are right but at a specific moment a specific role comes in mind. Similarly god has many aspects, Hindu god, Muslim god, Christian Jesus, but they’re all the same, but Hindus don’t understand the Muslim aspect, and the Muslims don’t understand the Christian aspect.
I am faced with the philosophical task of defending either dualism or materialism, depending on which one is most attractive to me. So either I support the theory of dualism, which is the belief that there is both a physical and a spiritual state, or I believe in materialism, which is the belief that everything that exists is material or physical. Although I believe materialism to be easier to prove, I find dualism more attractive to believe. Throughout the following, I will attempt to build a case for the theory of dualism giving insights both documented and personal. I will also shed light on the theory of materialism and the proofs that support this theory; showing that although materialism has a strong argument, essentially, it the less attractive of the two.
These people believe that the body is a physical matter. However the brain for them is composing of two different things: the physical matter where all the chemical reactions occurs and at the same time a mental process where all the mental states occur. Let take a closer look to this point of view. In my opinion,they are combining both of two other points of view into one. They are accepting the physical matter of the brain with their chemical reactions to food, pain, and love. Simultaneously, they are letting space for a mental process where all these reactions are process and felt.
The word Transcendentalism, as used at the present day, has two applications. One of which is popular and indefinite, the other, philosophical and precise. In the former sense it describes man, rather than opinions, since it is freely extended to those who hold opinions, not only diverse from each other, but directly opposed. (1)
Jon Mills says that monism and reductionism contradict the idea of free will and the self. The materialist view relies on the concept of simplicity which is: if something cannot be measured, it does not exist or is not real. If no physical system is free then humans being physical are not free therefore the property of free will is checked out. Materialism is an atheistic concept and also denies the existence of soul and the ontology of consciousness. (2002, Jon Mills) Mills explain the fallacies in materialist concepts. Materialism simplifies everything ultimately to matter or things that are empirically sound while things aside they are not real. Materialism is ambiguous as it rules out the possibility of free will and the mind leaving the human as physical object and nothing
The mind and body problem has been one of the hottest topics that keep receiving the attention of the Philosophers. It is one of the debates if whether which one is physical and which one is mental. One of the toughest questions for us to answer has always been if are we a mind or a body, or are we both the same entity? The group of people who kept arguing about which one is which are the Dualists and the Materialists. The Dualists believed that the mind is separated from the body while the Materialists only believed in physical matter.
The term of monism was introduced in the eighteenth century. Monism is the situation that the mind and body are not ontologically separate of sanctions. The theory contains that there is only one basic element as the source of reality. Dualism and monism are two lines of reasoning that challenge to find a solution for the mind and body problem. An incredible philosopher of the early modern period, George Berkeley, rejected material substance because he forbidden all presence outside the mind. He proudly defended the awareness of idealism, since it is a type of monism that takes concluded mind over matter. Berkeley’s argument for idealism fulfils that the only effects we can directly perceive our own experience and ideas. Idealism clarifies by means of maintaining that actual physical matters are in fact repeated patterns of sensory information. For example, one might dream that they got up in the night for a glass of water, but they remained in bed all night. This perception displayed consists in dreams that are vivid of actual objects that are in the real life. Idealism thus reject dualist theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind. When Berkeley explicates that only minds and mental contents exist, he concluded that dreams collaborate with
The first theme of the relationship of the body and soul as separate was almost universally accepted by every one except the Atheist. The Atheist representative neither agreed nor disagreed, simply stating that there is no proof either way. However, the idea that there is a distinctive difference between the soul and the body even if very much related was a common theme among all the other religions represented. This manifested itself in different ways, however, as some participants claimed that it is because of this connection that any physical harm to the body will have direct effects on the soul, while others claimed that this relationship is void after death with the soul moving on to another place. For example, the male Christian representative explained that because the soul moves to heaven or hell after death, it does not matter what is done to the body. This aligns with the Christian belief that the soul is separate from the body and a direct link to God. In contrast, the Hindu and Buddhist belief that the soul is connected to the body until after a proper crematory service means that whole body donation would negatively affect the soul in its journey to Enlightenment or the next life. The participants stated that this view is not agreed upon among all Hindus, but it is a major factor for why more Hindus do not donate. These results align with the proposed ideas of the soul as a distinct entity, separ...
Monists, by comparison, argue that there is one nature to things, although they disagree about whether it is primarily mental or primarily physical. Subjective idealism (or "mentalism," as it is often called), argues that there is only the mental world, and that the reality of the physical world is suspect. George Berkeley, for example, provided numerous arguments as to why the essence of existence is to be perceived; when not in direct perception the physical world cannot support the claim of its existence. (Berkeley, by the way, apparently hated walks in the forest, for fear of all those falling trees that he may or may not have heard.) In contrast, materialistic monism takes the position that there is only physical "stuff" to the world, such that ideas, thoughts, and images are actually physical events in the body. Many modern biological scientists would agree with this form of monism, arguing that the brain is primary while the "mind" is either illusory or epiphenomenal.
Although Hinduism can be said to have emerged from Vedic religion, most of the sophisticated theological thought which characterized it was yet to develop. This proposition is generally valid, substantiated by the ideas of Brahma and karma, which are interconnected as the single life force is within everything and are hinted at in the Vedic religion and further developed after it. However Hinduism’s term of dharma was not insinuated in the Vedic religion. By and large, Hinduism is a unique not only religion, but also social order; its intellection behind its unique beliefs are mostly emerged from the Vedic period, and explicated further if not primarily developed after it.
In terms of the biblical views on human nature, monism is a widely held belief, as it is accepted that the body and soul are unified. The Bible describes humans as being whole beings. However, in the views of the Pre-Socratics, dualism is accepted since they saw the body and soul as ...
This is the idea that our souls are not directly connected to the body and that they are made up of nonmaterial things, like thoughts and feelings. These thoughts, feelings and other things that make up the Immaterial Soul continue to survive outside of our body for eternity. Personally, I do believe that our mind and body are two separate identities. I believe our body is the physical being and our mind is all of our feelings, senses, and thoughts. For a person to believe in the Immaterial Soul, they must also believe that it can survive without a neurobiological foundation. I personally believe that the Immaterial Soul can survive outside of our
The philosophies of many cultures are presented and theories discussed are arranged according to distinct traditions that represent specific religions. Themes In Religion and Human Nature, Ward presents the reader with six major religious backgrounds that center as major themes in this novel. Ideals presented are: Advaita Vedanta there is no supreme self, Vaishnava there is an infinite number of souls, Buddhist there is no eternal self, and Abrahamic persons are embodied souls. Subsequent to these philosophies are Indian ideas of rebirth, Semitic belief, and the impact of scientific theories of biological evolution. Next, Ward presents the Christian Doctrine of original sin where he emphasizes the concept of materiality.
Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta means the end or completion of knowledge and also means “the end of Veda.” It originated from the Upanishads (sitting near the teacher) and is the Hindu Philosophy of the non- dualistic school. Shankara explains Vedanta in greater details in the Crest- Jewel of Discrimination, which are timeless teachings on nonduality. Vedanta’s main goal is to sustain that human life is to recognize Brahman which is the crucial reality and to be combined with the mystical ground of the universe. Shankara believes that Brahman is the one true reality and everything else is just delusion. Atman which is the personal self is but Brahman simply. In this paper I will argue with Shankara’s idea that something can only be real if it doesn’t change or never stops existing is incorrect, because temporary things are still real. After all nothing in this world ever lasts forever. Also if this world is not considered to be real then there is not a reason to live.
Eastern enlightenment religions have been gaining popularity throughout the western world for the past few decades, with many people attracted to a "different" way of experiencing religion. As with many other enlightenment religions, Buddhism requires disciples to understand concepts that are not readily explainable: one such concept is that of no-self. In this essay I shall discuss the no-self from a number of modern perspectives; however, as no-self is difficult to describe I shall focus on both the self and no-self. Beginning with psychological aspects, and neurophysiological research on transcendental meditation, I shall discuss the impact of modern brain science on our understanding of the self and transcendence. Next I will outline the relationship between quantum physics and non-locality, as this gives a western scientific explanation for no-self. Returning to the original source of Buddhism, I will briefly outline the discussion between Siddhartha and Vaccha regarding atman, then discuss the mind and no-self and their relationship to liberation. Finally I will summarize a few issues that the western mindset may face approaching this topic.
This paper will address the Mind/Body Dualism by comparing and contrasting Cartesian rationalism and empiricism and the responses to the Mind/Body Problem by comparing contrasting Kantian Idealism and Phenomenology. It will explain how each attempt to respond/resolve the mind/body problem confronted by both empiricists and rationalists and my own philosophical response to this epistemological problem by sharing my own views are similar to the theories.