Kuba Powiertowski

@Lilia Works of Georg Cantor - Set Theory, Continuum Hypothesis; most of the works of Bernhard Riemann; work of Alan Turing - Turing Machine; works of Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorems; works of John Von Neumann. Briefly - several works by these outstanding mathematicians and logicians not only allowed us to learn about infinity from a mathematical (not only) perspective but, most importantly, pointed to the indelible limits of our knowledge. The topic is a river, but damn interesting.

@Razard86 Have You noticed that the ego of a spiritual kind is one of the most attached to its truth? A true mastery of welding.

@Inliytened1 You are trying to explain something that may not be explainable at all. But you have this need, and your explanation has this narrative. Some ephemeral mind, some structure. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Or maybe you're a little right and a little wrong, like everyone else? What if this dream of reality, this illusion, is nobody's illusion? There is no primary self. No "I", no "You"? No mind or other conceptual entity that does anything. So hard to accept? Everything is just as it is. You wrote it yourself, can't that be enough for us? Does it make you happy to be right? Or that you can have it? If so, okay. Just remember that the history of human reason shows its constant changeability. And just as there will never be a theory of everything, you will never fully know God / Tao / Consciousness / Mind - call it whatever you want. You will never know what has no limits. I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept. "Notas Mihi Fecisti Vias Vitae - I was shown the Ways of Life," I recommend contemplation of Nature. Silences the noise of the world.

All these stories have brought me to the point when there is no need for them. When I'm completely relaxed in the present moment reality simply is. But sometimes it's nice to play with them

@LastThursday not neccessary false. Incomplete. And any storyteller will never avoid this incompletness.

I will also attempt to deconstruct the validity of the solipsistic view using what we all have in abundance here - simple logic and direct experience. I want to see how it goes. It's a mind game done for fun. On the other hand, when you reach the final border beyond which there are no boundaries, only great beyond, naturally, there is excitement but also fear at this stage. And exciting things are happening. I guess we can talk about them with an open mind.

What is interesting is not only the moment when you introduce the concept of "YOU" - "YOU who create infinite complexity". Examining all your rhetoric, or if you prefer, your mind games that are - let's face it - a product of your ego, which leads to the final conclusion that SOMEONE is creating something at all. It's inconvenient to say it's me or THE "I", so let it be YOU. Our conversation makes no sense in that neither of us will convince the other, but maybe it will allow others to look more critically at both views and thus establish their own.

I'm deeply interested in the causal roots of the solipsistic viewpoint. I will write my observations and conclusions soon. "A very nice blog post here by David Godman — longtime student of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi — which goes far in articulating how Bhagavan’s teachings are distinct from what western philosophy refers to as “solipsism” and “idealism.” Also interesting to me were some deep resonances with Buddhism. For instance in this exchange — Question: In the Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya, the principle of the creation of the world has been accepted for the sake of beginners, but for the advanced, the principle of non-creation is put forward. What is your view in this matter? Bhagavan: Na nirodho na chotpattir Nabaddho na cha sadhakaha Na mumukshur na vai mukta Ityesha paramarthata. This verse appears in the second chapter [v. 32, vaithathya prakarana] of Gaudapada’s Karika [a commentary on the Mandukyopanishad]. It means really that there is no creation and no dissolution. There is no bondage, no one doing spiritual practices, no one seeking spiritual liberation, and no one who is liberated. One who is established in the Self sees this by his knowledge of reality. (The Power of the Presence, part one, p. 240) — I hear the Heart Sutra, big-time! But, getting back to the solipsism issue …. Mr. Godman distinguishes three forms of solipsism: Solipsism is the philosophical position that nothing exists other than one’s own mind and its perceptions. The logical extension of this is that ‘other’ minds do not exist. Various strands or subdivisions of solipsism have been identified and pursued in western philosophy: Metaphysical Solipsism Metaphysical solipsism maintains that the individual self constitutes the sole reality. The external world and the people in it are part of the perceiving individual self and have no independent existence apart from it. Epistemological Solipsism Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how it is validly or invalidly acquired. Epistemological solipsism states that only the accessible contents of the mind can be known. It does not, though, accept that this is the only possible knowledge. Though it concedes that there is a possibility that an external world exists, it states that such a thesis is impossible to prove or disprove. Methodological Solipsism Methodological solipsism is a philosophical principle that the individual self and its states are the sole and proper starting point for philosophical speculation. Its basic premise is that all philosophical statements and conclusions must derive from the irrefutable and directly experienced fact of personal consciousness. And then, in a nutshell, Mr. Godman lets us know why Bhagavan cannot be considered to be a solipsist: All of these positions can find parallels in things that Bhagavan periodically said, but the major reason why Bhagavan could not be considered to be a solipsist is that solipsism does not accept the reality of anything that is prior to or beyond the mind. It has no transcendental aspect. And once again, expanding a bit on the same point: Solipsism only accepts the reality of those things that can be ascertained by the mind. Bhagavan, on the other hand, does not claim that the mind is everything. He says that there is an underlying state that has nothing to do with the mind, a state that can be discovered and directly experienced by eliminating the individual ‘I’ that superimposes itself on this substratum. Though Bhagavan did not accept the solipsist position that only mental data are valid, he did occasionally adopt solipsisitic arguments in an attempt to demonstrate there is no real external world, independent of the observer of it. And here, distinguishing Bhagavan’s teachings from both subjective idealism and solipsism: However, there are key differences between idealism and Bhagavan’s teachings. Bhagavan taught that when the seer and the seen (the individual self and the world) are absent, the Self remains, consciously known by the jnani, but unknown to those who mediate their knowledge and perceptions through a knower and a perceiver. It is this extra dimension of a permanent substratum, knowable through direct experience, rather than mediated by the senses, that distinguishes both idealism and solipsism from advaita. A solipsist and a subjective idealist will only accept as real those things that their senses and their mind consciously register. Bhagavan teaches that the mind, far from registering what is true and real, actually hides reality. There is a world of difference between these two positions. Perhaps most challenging to distinguish from solipsism is the eka-jiva (one-jiva) position. The term “jiva” refers to the light of the Self reflected within a particular bodymind, which then mistakes itself for that bodymind. Bhagavan: Jiva is called so because he sees the world. A dreamer sees many jivas in a dream, but all of them are not real. The dreamer alone exists and he sees all. So it is with the individual and the world. There is the creed of only one Self, which is also called the creed of only one jiva. It says that the jiva is the only one who sees the whole world and the jivas therein. And also: Multiplicity of individuals is a moot point with most persons. A jiva is only the light reflected on the ego. The person identifies himself with the ego and argues that there must be more like him. He is not easily convinced of the absurdity of his position. Does a man who sees many individuals in his dream persist in believing them to be real and enquire after them when he wakes up? I’m currently letting myself be reorganized by the possibility of eka-jiva ….. looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds, in coming days, weeks, months ….. The second half of the post includes excerpts from the Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad (The Supreme Science as Taught by Sri Ramana) — a Sanskrit work composed by Lakshmana Sarma in the 1950s — which explore the relationship between mind, world and Self. Great stuff! I found the combination of the verses with the short commentaries to be both challenging and wonderfully accessible. Here’s just a sampling, to whet your appetite … Excerpts from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad A direct challenge to empiricism: 114 Everyone sees both his own body and the world through the eye, which is a part of that very body. How can this seeing be admissible as evidence in this enquiry about the reality of the world? Since the body is a part of the world, its reality is also in question. It cannot be assumed without proof. But it is so assumed when the eye is appealed to as a witness to the truth of the world. The question of the reality of forms is now further pursued. *** A charmingly tongue-in-cheek challenge to the tenets of valid cognition: 151 The intellect, the sense organs, and the mind are servants of the primary ignorance. Hence, the worldly methods of seeking knowledge do not at all favour success in this enquiry. The worldly means of knowledge, called proofs, are direct perception, inference, analogy, tradition, and so on. These are understood and practised by logicians and philosophers. In vedantic reasoning these are not to be relied upon for the reason stated, namely that they are naturally the servants of ignorance, having been created in order to protect and confirm that ignorance. *** A version of the Parable of the Tenth Man … Now a doubt is raised and is set at rest in the following verses: 162 ‘If even the mind is unreal, then it will follow that what remains is only a void, since in deep sleep there is nothing at all.’ Those who raise this contention are committing the mistake of forgetting themselves! 163 How can this void be known at all if there is no one to witness it? This void is certainly not without a witness. Hence, this void is not the final reality. *** A little love-letter to Rene Descartes: Thus it is made clear that the Self is self-revealed. This means that knowledge of the Self is by direct experience and not by inference. But many philosophers seem to be unaware of this. 166 The existence of their own Self is inferred by some from mental functioning, by the reasoning, ‘I think, therefore I am’. These men are like those dull-witted ones who ignore the elephant when it goes past, and become convinced afterwards by looking at the footprints! *** Reminiscent of the Buddhist Three Natures of Existence — with “utterly unreal” (hare’s horn) equivalent to the Imaginary Nature, and the rope-snake equivalent to the Dependent Nature. In Bhagavan’s teaching, these represent two levels of “unreality” — with only the Self being the equivalent of the Perfectly-Existent Nature (which puts him more-or-less in alignment with the Buddhist Shentong school): 194 The whole universe appears as a superimposition on the real Self, the substratum, which is the reality, and hence it is not like a man’s horn. But it is taught that it is not real in its own right. This distinction is important. There are two kinds of unreality. The utterly unreal, which is never conceivable as real, is one which has no substratum, like a man’s or hare’s horn. The other kind is that which can and does appear as real, like the rope-snake. The world’s unreality is of the latter kind. It is not real in its own right, since it owes its appearance of reality to its substratum. Ulladu Narpadu, verse 3: ‘The world is real.’ ‘No, it is a mere illusory appearance.’ ‘The world is conscious.’ ‘No.’ ‘The world is happiness-‘ ‘ No.’ What use is it to argue thus? That State is agreeable to all, wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one’s Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego. —- Bhagavan specifically recommends not to waste our time on understanding what this world is, because only if there is a world then we would have to understand it, only what this “I” is. Solipsistic explanations were given only to appease the mind of those who are trapped in the explanation of others as independent or even semi-independent realities, the real is that which is self-shining always and constantly encompassing time and space, where is there a time and space for others other than in that which is constantly ever shining? Leaving the world alone and focusing on the ego must be the real focus. Once you understand your real nature by diving deep within you can start seeing the reality of others and what “these others” really are. In the meantime, while that doesn’t happen you cannot say that solipsism is true because the one who says it’s this or that is not true. It’s simply the ego and it itself is not real, therefore nothing it states as true is true, the only trueism that can come from the ego is his own observation, meaning looking back within into itself, then it will not longer be a question of “psolism or not psolism” but the Ego will have to go back within the isolation it never came out of and see itself as unreal, any other statement that comes after that is not an intellectual reflection but and inescapable repercussion. What is this ego? The one who wrote this article is the Ego, the one who read this article is the Ego, the one who wrote this comment is the Ego. When the Ego rises the world rises and with it everything along with it. From the smallest thing to the most complex relationship with others, all of this is the Ego, the person I take myself to be is as much a projection of the Ego as the whole world, the stars and every galaxy, so the ego itself is everything, investigating what this ego is is really giving up everything. The ultimate goal as prescribed by Bhagavan is not an intellectual understanding, because even the purest and most refined intellectual understanding has to be anchored to an “I”, who holds this intellectual understanding? The ego, now who is ego? Who am I? A deep observation will reveal the ever present, ever shining, always constant ineffable and infinite reality, the Heart." *

@Inliytened1 it has nothing to do with the materialist paradigm. You are mixing different views. What does EXPERIENCE have to do with the AWARENESS of having brains or bodies in n-number of dream entities, giving them the free will to make choices in mutual interaction in n-number of scenarios - except that only you - exist? At the same time, you limit what you consider infinite to your perspective of the world and your experiences, completely negating the possibility of the simultaneous existence of, say, other dreams or states that are unknowable directly by you. This is so lacking in basic logic and contrary to direct experience that I don't know what mechanism the ego uses to defend such a ridiculous view as a fortress. and the second question - why are you doing this at all?

@Razard86 so according to You, ego can improve itself or be improved - I’m glad we agree on that. So maybe it’s not such perfect reflection of God, because it has generally much to improve what makes sense - dream is interesting therefore. Overcoming whatever including fears means evolution. There are ofcourse highly evolved beings among us that remind us that we need to be careful with any generalization - I bet You know some: some aunts, uncles, granpas and - mas etc., or You have heard about them - very loving, humble, not judging and brave. Because, for example they experienced horrors of war, got a medal of honor for their selfless bravery or they show what does it mean to be Love in normal, sometimes very challenging day to day life. Yet they talk about it only when You ask. Some of them have transcended the fear of death, belive me. They are sheer inspiration to me, making me belive that we all can do and be better

That is the way the ego evolved. I don't know why exactly it went this way.. Because it could? Maybe that is the answer. Maybe everything in existence has its degrees of freedom of choice? Ego was always a part of smaller or larger collective and has evolved as such, with quite nasty result as we all experience today... I believe that it is possible to reprogram it so that while maintaining meaning, a sense of individuality of ourselves, we can contribute creatively for the benefit of others. I guess that's the point of this game we all play, where the main driving force behind is love. Even if this game is only a dream.

Mathematics is a numerical and conceptual tool used to create maps of reality. Is very related to quantitative logic, although breakthrough discoveries in this field are strongly characterized by qualitative logic lying on the side of intuition. However, no map will reflect the quality of the terrain. The mountain on the map will not tell you about directly experiencing it - whether by looking at it or actively playing together - through skiing, hiking or climbing. I have the impression that it is a more precise tool than, for example, language, but it also operates in different areas. The most important thing for me is how beautifully it captures what we are - infinity. From anxiety to self-delight😉

@An young being 🤝😁

...nice planet🙂🙃

The only thing that is widely missed here, that if "you" communicate that everything is fantasy - "you" have realized that all is a dream in infinite god's mind. All. That means that all of you and me (personas / egos) are fantasies as well. Then that is a fair statement. The trick of ego is a claim that only you exist. And this is a very cheap trick and old as a thought. There is no need to do that, nothing to be afraid of. Some of you have gone too far too soon. Chill out. Earth is a really nice plant if you learn how to live simply😉

To know movement - stillness must exist. To know stillness - movement must exist. Movement does not dream stillness nor vice versa as black does not dream white. Non dual state can only be known in contrast to dual state. None of these states is superior to other. You say that direct experience is the key yet you deny diversity of existence and reduce it to personal imagination. Because if you say that you personally, and that is the meaning of your deduction, imagine your parents and other people you can say as well that you imagine that you breathe. Is direct experience still a king in this case, or there is again something very mystery that I don't get here? Tell you guys something. Existence is logical to the core. Nothing could exist or even be dreamed without basic logic which you try to deny in your elite solipsist circle of mutual adoration. That is rather endarkment than enlightement.

@AerisVahnEphelia really? What is water?

All guardians of their sacred truth are in fact guardians of their own prison.

@Inliytened1 …but there are no others, right? Or there is someting I don’t get here?

I don’t want to generalize here but I’ve met few solipsists personally. They all seemed to me quite neurotic if not traumatized. I can understand this. Being God, yet still dreaming such amount of unwanted shit must be very frustrating for someone omnipotent and omniscient…

Word "God" is very associated with darker side of our subconscious mind. It is very closely related to concepts like: "to control, to rule, to have power". That is why our ego aparatus clings there so willingly. That's an very old trick of ego: I don't exist, only God exists😁. Be aware of that. And that is nature of ego: to make "the concept of you" feel good as possible but according to it's conditioning / programming. But you can reprogram it. By letting go of its attachments this tool becomes more and more attuned with our true nature. It's long but very exciting and refreshing process 😉

@Inliytened1 God is a very enigmatic and misty word. Try to use "joy, freedom, relax, smile, love", etc. It will help release all this unnecessary seriousness and dogma of spiritual stuff. Imagine all people suddenly become "God(s)", and then imagine all people become joyful, relaxed, loving, smiling and caring.

It like escaping samsara, escaping wheel of life - is there something wrong with this world, with life you want to escape. Is something wrong with an ego, with being human? Pain, bills to pay, not enough of something / someone? Or it's just your conditioned mind making such statements? Are you happy, here and now? If not, no solipsistic realization may change that...

@Razard86 my friend, I don't need to know every single detail of a picture to know what this picture presents and especially to enjoy it. I know what you mean. I feel what you mean. Yet, this need to evaluate things disappeared in me with many other needs. I feel much lighter which is very enjoying. Good day or night💗

Here we can start a very long regression by questioning meaning of every sentece or even word: what do you mean by illusion? What do you mean by existence? Etc. If something exists, even it's just a product, a dream, an illusion, a subset of something larger - it exists, according to its nature. Existence of an illusion is a kind of an oxymoron yet it's a nature of a dream. Do you think that God has any preferences towards non-dual states? Do I even think that I prefer my body as a whole than my right or left hand? This is kind of ridiculous divisions and definitions that human mind tries to put upon Never Known One Reality. You don't need to do that. Nature of Being is to become. To experience. There is nothing wrong with ego or any illusion. It can only be wrong by your judgement.